[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 78 (Thursday, May 27, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6160-S6274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S6160]]
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1059, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1059) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2000 military activities of the Department of Defense, 
     for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for 
     such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Lott amendment No. 394, to improve the monitoring of the 
     export of advanced satellite technology, to require annual 
     reports with respect to Taiwan, and to improve the provisions 
     relating to safeguards, security, and counterintelligence at 
     Department of Energy facilities.
       Allard/Harkin amendment No. 396, to express the sense of 
     Congress that no major change to the governance structure of 
     the Civil Air Patrol should be mandated by Congress until a 
     review of potential improvements in the management and 
     oversight of Civil Air Patrol operations is conducted.


                Amendments Nos. 411 Through 441, En Bloc

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is the intention of the manager to try 
to do the cleared amendments. I want to make certain that the 
distinguished ranking member is in concurrence.
  That is indicated, so I think I will proceed.
  On behalf of myself and the ranking member, the Senator from 
Michigan, I send 31 amendments to the desk. I would say before the 
clerk reports that this package of amendments is for Senators on both 
sides of the aisle and has been cleared by the minority.
  I send the amendments to the desk at this time and ask that they be 
considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself and Mr. 
     Levin, and on behalf of other Senators, proposes amendments 
     en bloc numbered 411 through 441.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments be agreed to en bloc and that the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table. I further ask that any statements relating to 
these amendments be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 411 through 441) agreed to en bloc are as 
follows:


                           amendment no. 411

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to incorporate into the 
   Pentagon Renovation Program the construction of certain security 
                             enhancements)

       On page 428, after line 19, insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC.  . ENHANCEMENT OF PENTAGON RENOVATION ACTIVITIES.

       The Secretary of Defense in conjunction with the Pentagon 
     Renovation Program is authorized to design and construct 
     secure secretarial office and support facilities and 
     security-related changes to the METRO entrance at the 
     Pentagon Reservation. The Secretary shall, not later than 
     January 15, 2000, submit to the congressional defense 
     committees the estimated cost for the planning, design, 
     construction, and installation of equipment for these 
     enhancements, together with the revised estimate for the 
     total cost of the renovation of the Pentagon.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 412

(Purpose: To authorize the appropriation for the increased pay and pay 
  reform for members of the uniformed services contained in the 1999 
               Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act)

       On page 98, line 15, strike ``$71,693,093,000.'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof the following: ``$71,693,093,000, and in 
     addition funds in the total amount of $1,838,426,000 are 
     authorized to be appropriated as emergency appropriations to 
     the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000 for military 
     personnel, as appropriated in section 2012 of the 1999 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-
     31).''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 413

(Purpose: To authorize dental benefits for retirees that are comparable 
 to those provided for dependents of members of the uniformed services)

       In title VII, at the end of subtitle B, add the following:

     SEC. 717. ENHANCEMENT OF DENTAL BENEFITS FOR RETIREES.

       Subsection (d) of section 1076c of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       `'(d) Benefits Available Under the Plan.--The dental 
     insurance plan established under subsection (a) shall provide 
     benefits for dental care and treatment which may be 
     comparable to the benefits authorized under section 1076a of 
     this title for plans established under that section and shall 
     include diagnostic services, preventative services, 
     endodontics and other basic restorative services, surgical 
     services, and emergency services.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 413

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this Amendment will give the Department of 
Defense the ability to significantly strengthen the dental benefits for 
over 270,000 of our nation's military retirees and their family 
members.
  The TRICARE retiree dental program began on February 1, 1998 and is 
an affordable plan paid for exclusively by retiree premiums. According 
to the Department, the enrollment in the program has exceeded all 
projections. While current law covers the most basic dental procedures, 
the Department of Defense does not have the flexibility to expand their 
benefits without a legislative change. Our nation's military retirees 
have expressed a desire to both the Department and the contractors for 
more services, and are willing to pay a reasonable price for these 
extra benefits.
  Currently, the retiree dental program is limited to an annual 
cleaning, filings, root canals, oral surgeries and the like. This 
amendment would change the law to allow, but not mandate, the 
Department the opportunity to offer an expanded list of benefits such 
as dentures, bridges and crowns, which are needs characteristic of our 
nation's retired military members. If the Department decided to offer 
these service, they would continue to be paid for by member premiums.
  In conclusion, I would ask the support of all my colleagues for this 
important amendment to allow the Department to give the needed dental 
services to our valued military retires. Thank you for the time.


                           amendment no. 414

 (Purpose: To provide $6,000,000 (in PE 604604F) for the Air Force for 
 the 3-D advanced track acquisition and imaging system, and to provide 
                               an offset)

       On page 29, line 12, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 29, line 14, decrease the amount by $6,000,000.
                                  ____



           3-d advanced track acquisition and imaging system

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today in support of additional funds 
to be made available for Air Force Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation in the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Defense Authorization 
measure to be used to complete development of a state-of-the-art 3 
dimensional optical imaging and tracking instrumentation data system.
  The 3 Data System is a laser radar system that provides high fidelity 
time, space, positioning information (TSPI) on test articles during 
flight. The instrumentation can be applied to air, ground, and sea 
targets. Additionally, it will provide the potential capability for 
over-the-horizon tracking from an airborne platform or pedestal mounted 
ground platform. It includes a multi-object tracking capability that 
will allow simultaneous tracking of up to 20 targets throughout their 
profile. The system will enable testing of advanced smart weapon 
systems; force-on-force exercises where multiple aircraft and ground 
vehicle tracking is involved; over water scoring of large footprint 
autonomous guided and unguided munitions; and enable an improvement to 
existing aging radar presently in service. It is mobile and can support 
testing at other major ranges and locations in support of other 
Service's requirements.
  The Air Force has identified the 3-Data System as having high 
military value as it will enable the effective evaluation of the 
performance of advanced weapon systems to be utilized in future 
conflicts. The Air Force has informed me that precision engagement is 
one of the emerging operational concepts in Joint Vision 2010. The 3-
Data system would provide a capability to effectively evaluate the 
performance of advanced precision guided munitions and smart weapons 
prior to their use in a wartime environment. It would also directly 
support ongoing activities abroad through Quick Reaction Tasking that 
may require a multiple object tracking device to evaluate engagement 
profiles. This requirement is documented through 46th Test Wing 
strategic planning initiatives, developmental program test plans, and 
munitions strategic planning roadmaps.

[[Page S6161]]

  The Air Force is presently attempting to meet this requirement 
through existing radar systems and optical tracking systems which 
cannot track multiple objects to the fidelity levels required and which 
require extensive post-mission data reduction times. This system will 
provide the capability to effectively track multiple targets 
simultaneously.
  Mr. President, I thank the Committee for their willingness to support 
this amendment. The 3-Data System will play a important role in 
enabling the Air Force to evaluate the capabilities and limitations of 
multiple smart weapons and their delivery systems during their 
develpoment.


                           amendment no. 415

    (Purpose: To amend a per purchase dollar limitation of funding 
assistance for procurement of equipment for the National Guard for drug 
interdiction and counter-drug activities so as to apply the limitation 
                  to each item of equipment procured)

       In title III, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. 349. MODIFICATION OF LIMITATION ON FUNDING ASSISTANCE 
                   FOR PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT FOR THE NATIONAL 
                   GUARD FOR DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER--DRUG 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       Section 112(a)(3) of title 32, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``per purchase order'' in the second 
     sentence and inserting ``per item''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 416

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Army to review the incidence 
  of violations of State and local motor vehicle laws and to submit a 
                   report on the review to Congress)

       On page 357, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 1032. REVIEW OF INCIDENCE OF STATE MOTOR VEHICLE 
                   VIOLATIONS BY ARMY PERSONNEL.

       (a) Review and Report Required.--The Secretary of the Army 
     shall review the incidence of violations of State and local 
     motor vehicle laws applicable to the operation and parking of 
     Army motor vehicles by Army personnel during fiscal year 
     1999, and, not later than March 31, 2000, submit a report on 
     the results of the review to Congress.
       (b) Content of Report.--The report under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following:
       (1) A quantitative description of the extent of the 
     violations described in subsection (a).
       (2) An estimate of the total amount of the fines that are 
     associated with citations issued for the violations.
       (3) Any recommendations that the Inspector General 
     considers appropriate to curtail the incidence of the 
     violations.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 417

 (Purpose: To substitute for section 654 a repeal of the reduction in 
 military retired pay for civilian employees of the Federal Government)

       Strike section 654, and insert the following:

     SEC. 654. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN RETIRED PAY FOR CIVILIAN 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Repeal.--(1) Section 5532 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (2) The chapter analysis at the beginning of chapter 55 of 
     such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 5532.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the first day of the first month that 
     begins after the date of the enactment of this Act.


                  repeal dual compensation limitations

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, my amendment is co-sponsored by the Senate 
Majority Leader, Senator Lott. On February 23, 1999, the Senate voted 
87 to 11 in favor of this same amendment during consideration of S. 4.
  My amendment will repeal the current statute that reduces retirement 
pay for regular officers of a uniformed service who chose to work for 
the federal government.
  The uniformed services include the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine 
Corps, Coast Guard, Public Health Service and the National 
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency.
  If a retired officer from the uniform services comes to work for the 
Senate, his or her retirement pay is reduced by about 50 percent, after 
the first $8,000, to offset for payments from the Senate.
  The retired officer can request a waiver but the executive, 
legislative and judicial branches of government handle the waiver 
process differently on a case by case basis.
  The current dual compensation limitation is also discriminatory in 
that regular officers are covered but reservists or enlisted personnel 
are not covered by the limitation.
  The Congressional Budget Office has recently looked at the current 
dual compensation limitation and it is estimated that around 6,000 
military retirees lose an average of $800 per month because of this 
prohibition.
  I have been unable to find one good reason to explain why we should 
want our law to discourage retired members of the uniformed services 
from seeking full time employment with the Federal Government.
  Our laws should not reduce a benefit military retirees have earned 
because they chose to work for the federal government.
  My amendment would fix this inequity, it would give retired officers 
equal pay for equal work from the federal government and it would give 
the federal government access to a workforce that currently avoids 
employment with the Federal Government.
  I am pleased the managers of the bill have agreed to accept my 
amendment and I thank them for their support for this important 
amendment.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 418

(Purpose: To establish as a policy of the United States that the United 
States will seek to establish a multinational economic embargo against 
 any foreign country with which the United States is engaged in armed 
                   conflict, and for other purposes)

       In title X, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. 1061. MULTINATIONAL ECONOMIC EMBARGOES AGAINST 
                   GOVERNMENTS IN ARMED CONFLICT WITH THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       (a) Policy on the Establishment of Embargoes.--
       (1) In general.--It is the policy of the United States, 
     that upon the use of the Armed Forces of the United States to 
     engage in hostilities against any foreign country, the 
     President shall as appropriate--
       (A) seek the establishment of a multinational economic 
     embargo against such country; and
       (B) seek the seizure of its foreign financial assets.
       (b) Reports.--Not later than 20 days, or earlier than 14 
     days, after the first day of the engagement of the United 
     States in any armed conflict described in subsection (a), the 
     President shall, if the armed conflict continues, submit a 
     report to Congress setting forth--
       (1) the specific steps the United States has taken and will 
     continue to take to institute the embargo and financial asset 
     seizures pursuant to subsection (a); and
       (2) any foreign sources of trade of revenue that directly 
     or indirectly support the ability of the adversarial 
     government to sustain a military conflict against the Armed 
     Forces of the United States.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 419

  (Purpose: To require a report on the Air Force distributed mission 
                               training)

       On page 54, after line 24, insert the following:

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters

     SEC. 251. REPORT ON AIR FORCE DISTRIBUTED MISSION TRAINING.

       (a) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall 
     submit to Congress, not later than January 31, 2000, a report 
     on the Air Force Distributed Mission Training program.
       (b) Content of Report.--The report shall include a 
     discussion of the following:
       (1) The progress that the Air Force has made to demonstrate 
     and prove the Air Force Distributed Mission Training concept 
     of linking geographically separated, high-fidelity simulators 
     to provide a mission rehearsal capability for Air Force 
     units, and any units of any of the other Armed Forces as may 
     be necessary, to train together from their home stations.
       (2) The actions that have been taken or are planned to be 
     taken within the Department of the Air Force to ensure that--
       (A) an independent study of all requirements, technologies, 
     and acquisition strategies essential to the formulation of a 
     sound Distributed Mission Training program is under way; and
       (B) all Air Force laboratories and other Air Force 
     facilities necessary to the research, development, testing, 
     and evaluation of the Distributed Mission Training program 
     have been assessed regarding the availability of the 
     necessary resources to demonstrate and prove the Air Force 
     Distributed Mission Training concept.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 420

(Purpose: To add test and evaluation laboratories to the pilot program 
  for revitalizing Department of Defense laboratories; and to add an 
    authority for directors of laboratories under the pilot program)

       On page 48, line 5, after ``laboratory'', insert the 
     following: ``, and the director of one test and evaluation 
     laboratory,''.
       On page 48, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       (B) To develop or expand innovative methods of operation 
     that provide more defense research for each dollar of cost, 
     including to carry out such initiatives as focusing on the 
     performance of core functions and adopting more business-like 
     practices.
       On page 48, line 12, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       On page 48, beginning on line 14, strike ``subparagraph 
     (A)'' and insert ``subparagraphs (A) and (B)''.

[[Page S6162]]

     
                                  ____
                           AMENDMENT NO. 421

(Purpose: To authorize land conveyances with respect to the Twin Cities 
                   Army Ammunition Plant, Minnesota)

       On page 453, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 2832. LAND CONVEYANCES, TWIN CITIES ARMY AMMUNITION 
                   PLANT, MINNESOTA.

       (a) Conveyance to City Authorized.--The Secretary of the 
     Army may convey to the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota (in 
     this section referred to as the ``City''), all right, title, 
     and interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real 
     property, including improvements thereon, consisting of 
     approximately 4 acres at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition 
     Plant, for the purpose of permitting the City to construct a 
     city hall complex on the parcel.
       (b) Conveyance to County Authorized.--The Secretary of the 
     Army may convey to Ramsey County, Minnesota (in this section 
     referred to as the ``County''), all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real 
     property, including improvements thereon, consisting of 
     approximately 35 acres at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition 
     Plant, for the purpose of permitting the County to construct 
     a maintenance facility on the parcel.
       (c) Consideration.--As a consideration for the conveyances 
     under this section, the City shall make the city hall complex 
     available for use by the Minnesota National Guard for public 
     meetings, and the County shall make the maintenance facility 
     available for use by the Minnesota National Guard, as 
     detailed in agreements entered into between the City, County, 
     and the Commanding General of the Minnesota National Guard. 
     Use of the city hall complex and maintenance facility by the 
     Minnesota National Guard shall be without cost to the 
     Minnesota National Guard.
       (d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under this 
     section shall be determined by surveys satisfactory to the 
     Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the 
     recipient of the real property.
       (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyances under this section as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 422

(Purpose: To require a land conveyance, Naval Training Center, Orlando, 
                                Florida)

       On page 459, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

     SEC. 2844. LAND CONVEYANCE, NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, ORLANDO, 
                   FLORIDA.

       (a) Conveyance Required.--The Secretary of the Navy shall 
     convey all right, title, and interest of the United States in 
     and to the land comprising the main base portion of the Naval 
     Training Center and the McCoy Annex Areas, Orlando, Florida, 
     to the City of Orlando, Florida, in accordance with the terms 
     and conditions set forth in the Memorandum of Agreement by 
     and between the United States of America and the City of 
     Orlando for the Economic Development Conveyance of Property 
     on the Main Base and McCoy Annex Areas of the Naval Training 
     Center, Orlando, executed by the Parties on December 9, 1997, 
     as amended.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 423

 (Purpose: To modify the conditions for issuing obsolete or condemned 
        rifles of the Army and blank ammunition without charge)

       In title X, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. 1061. CONDITIONS FOR LENDING OBSOLETE OR CONDEMNED 
                   RIFLES FOR FUNERAL CEREMONIES.

       Section 4683(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) issue and deliver those rifles, together with blank 
     ammunition, to those units without charge if the rifles and 
     ammunition are to be used for ceremonies and funerals in 
     honor of veterans at national or other cemeteries.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 424

   (Purpose: To authorize use of Navy procurement funds for advance 
       procurement for the Arleigh Burke class destroyer program)

       On page 25, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       (c) Other Funds for Advance Procurement.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this Act, of the funds authorized to 
     be appropriated under section 102(a) for procurement 
     programs, projects, and activities of the Navy, up to 
     $190,000,000 may be made available, as the Secretary of the 
     Navy may direct, for advance procurement for the Arleigh 
     Burke class destroyer program. Authority to make transfers 
     under this subsection is in addition to the transfer 
     authority provided in section 1001.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 425

  (Purpose: To set aside funds for the procurementof the MLRS rocket 
                       inventory and reuse model)

       In title I, at the end of subtitle B, add the following:

     SEC. 114. MULTIPLE LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM.

       Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under section 
     101(2), $500,000 may be made available to complete the 
     development of reuse and demilitarization tools and 
     technologies for use in the disposition of Army MLRS 
     inventory.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 426

(Purpose: To expand the entities eligible to participate in alternative 
     authority for acquisition and improvement of military housing)

       On page 440, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 2807. EXPANSION OF ENTITIES ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN 
                   ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ACQUISITION AND 
                   IMPROVEMENT OF MILITARY HOUSING.

       (a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--Section 2871 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (7) as 
     paragraphs (6) through (8) respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraph (5):
       ``(5) The term `eligible entity' means any individual, 
     corporation, firm, partnership, company, State or local 
     government, or housing authority of a State or local 
     government.''.
       (b) General Authority.--Section 2872 of such title is 
     amended by striking ``private persons'' and inserting 
     ``eligible entities''.
       (c) Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees.--Section 2873 of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``persons in private sector'' and inserting 
     ``an eligible entity''; and
       (B) by striking ``such persons'' and inserting ``the 
     eligible entity''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``any person in the private sector'' and 
     inserting ``an eligible entity''; and
       (B) by striking ``the person'' and inserting ``the eligible 
     entity''.
       (d) Investments.--Section 2875 of such title is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``nongovernmental 
     entities'' and inserting ``an eligible entity'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``a nongovernmental entity'' both places it 
     appears and inserting ``an eligible entity''; and
       (B) by striking ``the entity'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``the eligible entity'';
       (3) in subsection (d), by striking ``nongovernmental'' and 
     inserting ``eligible''; and
       (4) in subsection (e), by striking ``a nongovernmental 
     entity'' and inserting ``an eligible entity''.
       (e) Rental Guarantees.--Section 2876 of such title is 
     amended by striking ``private persons'' and inserting 
     ``eligible entities''.
       (f) Differential Lease Payments.--Section 2877 of such 
     title is amended by striking ``private''.
       (g) Conveyance or Lease of Existing Property and 
     Facilities.--Section 2878(a) of such title is amended by 
     striking ``private persons'' and inserting ``eligible 
     entities''.
       (h) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of section 2875 
     of such title is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2875. Investments''.

       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter IV 
     of chapter 169 of such title is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 2875 and inserting the following new 
     item:

``2875. Investments.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 427

 (Purpose: To authorize medical and dental care for certain members of 
     the Armed Forces incurring injuries on inactive-duty training)

       On page 272, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 717. MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS 
                   INCURRING INJURIES ON INACTIVE-DUTY TRAINING.

       (a) Order to Active Duty Authorized.--(1) Chapter 1209 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 12322. Active duty for health care

       ``A member of a uniformed service described in paragraph 
     (1)(B) or (2)(B) of section 1074a(a) of this title may be 
     ordered to active duty, and a member of a uniformed service 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) or (2)(A) of such section may 
     be continued on active duty, for a period of more than 30 
     days while the member is being treated for (or recovering 
     from) an injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated 
     in the line of duty as described in such paragraph.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

``12322. Active duty for health care.''.
       (b) Medical and Dental Care for Members.--Subsection (e) of 
     section 1074a of such title is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e)(1) A member of a uniformed service on active duty for 
     health care or recuperation reasons, as described in 
     paragraph (2), is entitled to medical and dental care on the 
     same basis and to the same extent as members covered by 
     section 1074(a) of this title while the member remains on 
     active duty.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a member described in 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) who, while being 
     treated for (or recovering from) an injury, illness, or 
     disease incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, is 
     continued on active duty pursuant to a modification or 
     extension of orders, or is ordered to active duty, so as to 
     result in active duty for a period of more than 30 days.''.
       (c) Medical and Dental Care for Dependents.--Subparagraph 
     (D) of section 1076(a)(2) of such title is amended to read as 
     follows:

[[Page S6163]]

       ``(D) A member on active duty who is entitled to benefits 
     under subsection (e) of section 1074a of this title by reason 
     of paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a) of such 
     section.''.

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment to 
S. 1059, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, 
which seeks to protect the men and women of our reserve military 
components. The 1998 National Defense Authorization Act provided health 
care coverage for Reservists and Guardsmen incurring injury, illness or 
disease while performing duty in an active-duty status. However, it 
overlooked those servicemen and women performing duty in ``inactive 
duty'' status, which is the status they are in while performing their 
monthly ``drill weekends.''
  This problem was dramatically illustrated recently when an Air Force 
Reserve C-130 crashed in Honduras, killing three crewmembers. One of 
the survivors was unable to work for over a year due to the serious 
nature of his injuries. While he was reimbursed for lost earnings, this 
serviceman was only eligible for military medical care related to 
injuries sustained in the crash. His family lost their civilian health 
insurance and was ineligible to receive medical from the military. Had 
he been on military orders of more than 30 days, both he and his family 
would have been eligible for full military medical benefits for the 
duration of his recovery.
  My dear colleagues, this is unacceptable. We must plug this loophole 
so that these tragic circumstances are not repeated.
  Why is it so important that we look out for our Guardsmen and 
Reservists? It is because our military services have been reduced by 
one-third, while worldwide commitments have increased fourfold, leading 
to a dramatic increase in the dependence on our reserve components to 
meet our worldwide commitments. Like their active duty counterparts, 
they are dealing with the demands of a high operations tempo; yet they 
must meet the additional challenge of balancing their military duty 
with their civilian employment.
  Members of the Guard and Reserve have been participating at record 
levels. Nearly 270,000 Reservists and Guardsmen were mobilized during 
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Over 17,000 Reservists and 
Guardsmen have answered the Nation's call to bring peace to Bosnia. 
And, recently, over 4,000 Reservists and Guardsmen have been called up 
to support current operations in Kosovo. The days of the ``weekend 
warrior'' are long gone.
  In addition to significant contributions to military operations, 
members of the reserve components have delivered millions of pounds of 
humanitarian cargo to all corners of the globe. Closer to home, they 
have responded to numerous state emergencies, such as the devastating 
floods that struck in America's heartland last year. The men and women 
of the Reserve Components are on duty all over the world, every day of 
the year.
  Considering everything our citizen soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
marines have done for us, we must not turn our backs on them and their 
families in their times of need. Please join me in supporting this 
amendment providing for those who provide for us.


                           amendment no. 428

    (Purpose: To refine and extend Federal acquisition streamlining)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:

     SEC. 807. STREAMLINED APPLICABILITY OF COST ACCOUNTING 
                   STANDARDS.

       (a) Applicability.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(f) of the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     422(f)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) The cost accounting standards shall not apply to a 
     contractor or subcontractor for a fiscal year (or other one-
     year period used for cost accounting by the contractor or 
     subcontractor) if the total value of all of the contracts and 
     subcontracts covered by the cost accounting standards that 
     were entered into by the contractor or subcontractor, 
     respectively, in the previous or current fiscal year (or 
     other one-year cost accounting period) was less than 
     $50,000,000.
       ``(C) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the following 
     contracts or subcontracts for the purpose of determining 
     whether the contractor or subcontractor is subject to the 
     cost accounting standards:
       ``(i) Contracts or subcontracts for the acquisition of 
     commercial items.
       ``(ii) Contracts or subcontracts where the price negotiated 
     is based on prices set by law or regulation.
       ``(iii) Firm, fixed-price contracts or subcontracts awarded 
     on the basis of adequate price competition without submission 
     of certified cost or pricing data.
       ``(iv) Contracts or subcontracts with a value that is less 
     than $5,000,000.''.
       (b) Waiver.--Such section is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(5)(A) The head of an executive agency may waive the 
     applicability of cost accounting standards for a contract or 
     subcontract with a value less than $10,000,000 if that 
     official determines in writing that--
       ``(i) the contractor or subcontractor is primarily engaged 
     in the sale of commercial items; and
       ``(ii) the contractor or subcontractor would not otherwise 
     be subject to the cost accounting standards.
       ``(B) The head of an executive agency may also waive the 
     applicability of cost accounting standards for a contract or 
     subcontract under extraordinary circumstances when necessary 
     to meet the needs of the agency. A determination to waive the 
     applicability of cost accounting standards under this 
     subparagraph shall be set forth in writing and shall include 
     a statement of the circumstances justifying the waiver.
       ``(C) The head of an executive agency may not delegate the 
     authority under subparagraph (A) or (B) to any official in 
     the executive agency below the senior policymaking level in 
     the executive agency.
       ``(D) The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall include the 
     following:
       ``(i) Criteria for selecting an official to be delegated 
     authority to grant waivers under subparagraph (A) or (B).
       ``(ii) The specific circumstances under which such a waiver 
     may be granted.
       ``(E) The head of each executive agency shall report the 
     waivers granted under subparagraphs (A) and (B) for that 
     agency to the Board on an annual basis.''.
       (c) Construction Regarding Certain Not-For-Profit 
     Entities.--The amendments made by this section shall not be 
     construed as modifying or superseding, nor as intended to 
     impair or restrict, the applicability of the cost accounting 
     standards to--
       (1) any educational institution or federally funded 
     research and development center that is associated with an 
     educational institution in accordance with Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-21, as in effect on January 
     1, 1999; or
       (2) any contract with a nonprofit entity that provides 
     research and development and related products or services to 
     the Department of Defense.

     SEC. 808. GUIDANCE ON USE OF TASK ORDER AND DELIVERY ORDER 
                   CONTRACTS.

       (a) Guidance in the Federal Acquisition Regulation.--Not 
     later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulation issued in accordance 
     with sections 6 and 25 of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act shall be revised to provide guidance to agencies 
     on the appropriate use of task order and delivery order 
     contracts in accordance with sections 2304a through 2304d of 
     title 10, United States Code, and sections 303H through 303K 
     of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
     1949 (41 U.S.C. 253h through 253k).
       (b) Content of Guidance.--The regulations issued pursuant 
     to subsection (a) shall, at a minimum, provide the following:
       (1) Specific guidance on the appropriate use of government-
     wide and other multiagency contracts entered in accordance 
     with the provisions of law referred to in that subsection.
       (2) Specific guidance on steps that agencies should take in 
     entering and administering multiple award task order and 
     delivery order contracts to ensure compliance with--
       (A) the requirement in section 5122 of the Clinger-Cohen 
     Act (40 U.S.C. 1422) for capital planning and investment 
     control in purchases of information technology products and 
     services;
       (B) the requirement in section 2304c(b) of title 10, United 
     States Code, and section 303J(b) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253j(b)) to 
     ensure that all contractors are afforded a fair opportunity 
     to be considered for the award of task orders and delivery 
     orders; and
       (C) the requirement in section 2304c(c) of title 10, United 
     States Code, and section 303J(c) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253j(c)) for a 
     statement of work in each task order or delivery order issued 
     that clearly specifies all tasks to be performed or property 
     to be delivery under the order.
       (c) GSA Federal Supply Schedules Program.--The 
     Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy shall consult 
     with the Administrator of General Services to assess the 
     effectiveness of the multiple awards schedule program of the 
     General Services Administration referred to in section 
     309(b)(3) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services 
     Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 259(b)(3)) that is administered as the 
     Federal Supply Schedules program. The assessment shall 
     include examination of the following:
       (1) The administration of the program by the Administrator 
     of General Services.
       (2) The ordering and program practices followed by Federal 
     customer agencies in using schedules established under the 
     program.
       (d) GAO Report.--Not later than one year after the date on 
     which the regulations required by subsection (a) are 
     published in the

[[Page S6164]]

     Federal Register, the Comptroller General shall submit to 
     Congress an evaluation of executive agency compliance with 
     the regulations, together with any recommendations that the 
     Comptroller General considers appropriate.

     SEC. 809. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS 
                   WITH RESPECT TO ASSOCIATED SERVICES.

       Section 4(12) (E) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(E)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(E) Installation services, maintenance services, repair 
     services, training services, and other services if--
       ``(i) the services are procured for support of an item 
     referred to in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D), regardless 
     of whether such services are provided by the same source or 
     at the same time as the item; and
       ``(ii) the source of the services provides similar services 
     contemporaneously to the general public under terms and 
     conditions similar to those offered to the Federal 
     Government.''.

     SEC. 810. USE OF SPECIAL SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES FOR PURCHASES 
                   OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS IN EXCESS OF THE SIMPLIFIED 
                   ACQUISITION THRESHOLD.

       (a) Extension of Authority.--Section 4202(e) of the 
     Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (divisions D and E of Public Law 
     104-106; 110 Stat. 654; 10 U.S.C. 2304 note) is amended by 
     striking ``three years after the date on which such 
     amendments take effect pursuant to section 4401(b)'' and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2002''.
       (b) GAO Report.--Not later than March 1, 2001, the 
     Comptroller General shall submit to Congress an evaluation of 
     the test program authorized by section 4204 of the Clinger-
     Cohen Act of 1996, together with any recommendations that the 
     Comptroller General considers appropriate regarding the test 
     program or the use of special simplified procedures for 
     purchases of commercial items in excess of the simplified 
     acquisition threshold.

     SEC. 811. EXTENSION OF INTERIM REPORTING RULE FOR CERTAIN 
                   PROCUREMENTS LESS THAN $100,000.

       Section 31(e) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 427(e)) is amended by striking ``October 1, 
     1999'' and inserting ``October 1, 2004''.

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and Senator 
Lieberman, the Committee's ranking minority member, and Senators Warner 
and Levin, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Armed 
Services Committee. Senator Lieberman and I thank the Armed Services 
chairman and ranking member for their cooperation and assistance in 
preparing this amendment which will benefit not only the procurement 
process within the Department of Defense, but other agencies across the 
Federal government as well.
  The amendment which we offer today began as a request from the 
Administration and others to include additional procurement-related 
reforms to those enacted over the past several years and those already 
included in S. 1059. Our amendment includes five provisions, as 
follows: (1) Streamlined Applicability of Cost Accounting Standards; 
(2) Task Order and Delivery Order Contracts; (3) Clarification to the 
Definition of Commercial Items; (4) Two-year Extension of Commercial 
Items Test Program; and (5) Extension of Interim Reporting Rule on 
Contracts with Small Business. I ask unanimous consent that a joint 
statement of sponsors explaining the amendment be placed in the Record 
immediately following my statement. This statement represents the 
consensus view of the sponsors as to the meaning and intent of the 
amendment.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Joint Statement of Sponsors


       1. Streamlined Applicability of Cost Accounting Standards

       In recent years, Congress has enacted two major acquisition 
     reform statutes--the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 
     1994 (FASA) and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. These statutes 
     changed the trend in government contracting toward 
     simplifying the government's acquisition process and 
     eliminating many government-unique requirements. The goal of 
     these changes in the government's purchasing processes has 
     been to modify or eliminate unnecessary and burdensome 
     legislative mandates, increase the use of commercial items to 
     meet government needs, and give more discretion to 
     contracting agencies in making their procurement decisions.
       Since the early 1900's, the Federal government has required 
     certain unique accounting standards or criteria designed to 
     protect it from the risk of overpaying for goods and services 
     by directing the manner or degree to which Federal 
     contractors apportion costs to their contracts with the 
     government. The Cost Accounting Standards (CAS standards) are 
     a set of 19 accounting principles developed and maintained by 
     the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Board, a body created by 
     Congress to develop uniform and consistent standards. The CAS 
     standards require government contractors to account for their 
     costs on a consistent basis and prohibit any shifting of 
     overhead or other costs from commercial contacts to 
     government contracts, or from fixed-priced contracts to cost-
     type contracts.
       FASA and the Clinger-Cohen Act took significant steps to 
     exempt commercial items from the applicability of the CAS 
     standards. Nonetheless, the Department of Defense and others 
     in the public and private sectors continue to identify the 
     CAS standards as a continuing barrier to the integration of 
     commercial items into the government marketplace. Advocates 
     of relaxing the CAS standards argue that they require 
     companies to create unique accounting systems to do business 
     with the government in cost-type contracts. They believe that 
     the added cost of developing the required accounting systems 
     has discouraged some commercial companies from doing business 
     with the government and led others to set up separate 
     assembly lines for government products, substantially 
     increasing costs to the government.
       This provision carefully balances the government's need for 
     greater access to commercial items, particularly those of 
     nontraditional suppliers, with the need for a strong set of 
     CAS standards to protect the taxpayers from overpayments to 
     contractors. The provision would modify the CAS standards 
     to streamline their applicability, while maintaining the 
     applicability of the standards to the vast majority of 
     contract dollars that are currently covered. In 
     particular, the provision would raise the threshold for 
     coverage under the CAS standards from $25 million to $50 
     million; exempt contractors from coverage if they do not 
     have a contract in excess of $5 million; and exclude 
     coverage based on firm, fixed price contracts awarded on 
     the basis of adequate price competition without the 
     submission of certified cost or pricing data.
       The provision also would provide for waivers of the CAS 
     standards by Federal agencies in limited circumstances. This 
     would allow contracting agencies to handle this contract 
     administration function, in limited circumstances, as part of 
     their traditional role in administering contracts. The 
     sponsors note that waivers would be available for contracts 
     in excess of $10 million only in ``exceptional 
     circumstances.'' The ``exceptional circumstances'' waiver may 
     be used only when a waiver is necessary to meet the needs of 
     an agency, and i.e., the agency determines that it would not 
     be able to obtain the products or services in the absence of 
     a waiver.


               2. task order and delivery order contracts

       FASA authorized Federal agencies to enter into multiple 
     award task and delivery order contracts for the procurement 
     of goods and services. Multiple award contracts occur when 
     two or more contracts are awarded from one solicitation. 
     Multiple award contracting allows the government to procure 
     products and services more quickly using streamlined 
     acquisition procedures while taking advantage of competition 
     to obtain optimum prices and quality on individual task 
     orders or delivery orders. FASA requires orders under 
     multiple-award contracts to contain a clear description of 
     the services or supplies ordered and--except under specified 
     circumstances--requires that each of the multiple vendors be 
     provided a fair opportunity to be considered for specific 
     orders.
       Concerns have been raised that the simplicity of these 
     multiple-award contracts has brought with it the potential 
     for abuse. The General Accounting Office and the Department 
     of Defense Inspector General have reported that agencies have 
     routinely failed to comply with the basic requirements of 
     FASA, including the requirement to provide vendors a fair 
     opportunity to be considered for specific orders. While 
     performance guidance was established by the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy (OFPP) in 1996, the regulations 
     implementing FASA do not establish any specific procedures 
     for awarding orders or any specific safeguards to ensure 
     compliance with competition requirements.
       This provision would require that the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation provide the necessary guidance on the appropriate 
     use of task and delivery order contracts as authorized by 
     FASA. It also would require that the Administrator of OFPP 
     work with the Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration (GSA) to review the ordering procedures and 
     practices of the Federal Supply Schedule program administered 
     by GSA. This review should include an assessment as to 
     whether the GSA program should be modified to provide 
     consistency with the regulations for task order and delivery 
     order contracts required by this provision.


         3. clarification to the definition of commercial items

       FASA included a broad new definition of ``commercial 
     items,'' designed to give the Federal government greater 
     access to previously unavailable advanced commercial products 
     and technologies. However, the FASA definition of commercial 
     items included only a limited definition of commercial 
     services. Under FASA, commercial items include services 
     purchased to support a commercial product as a commercial 
     service. This language has been interpreted by some to mean 
     that these ancillary services must be procured at the same 
     time or from

[[Page S6165]]

     the same vendor as the commercial item the service is 
     intended to support.
       This provision would clarify that services ancillary to a 
     commercial item, such as installation, maintenance, repair, 
     training, and other support services, would be considered a 
     commercial service regardless of whether the service is 
     provided by the same vendor or at the same time as the item 
     if the service is provided contemporaneously to the general 
     public under similar terms and conditions.


         4. two-year extension of commercial items test program

       Section 4202 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 provided the 
     authority for Federal agencies to use special simplified 
     procedures to purchases for amounts greater than $100,000 but 
     not greater than $5 million if the agency reasonably expects 
     that the offers will include only commercial items. The 
     purpose of this test program was to give agencies additional 
     procedural discretion and flexibility so that purchases of 
     commercial items in this dollar range could be solicited, 
     offered, evaluated, and awarded in a simplified manner that 
     maximizes efficiency and economy and minimizes paperwork 
     burden and administration costs for both government and 
     industry. Authority to use this test program expires on 
     January 1, 2000.
       The Administration has reported that, due to delays in 
     implementing the test program, the data available from the 
     test program is insufficient to assess the effectiveness of 
     the test, and additional data is required to determine 
     whether this authority should be made permanent. This 
     provision would extend the authority to January 1, 2002.
       The provision also requires the Comptroller General 
     to report to Congress on the impact of the provision. The 
     sponsors note that the shortened notice period authorized 
     under the test program may have a different impact on 
     competition, depending on the complexity of the commercial 
     items to be procured. For this reason, the sponsors expect 
     the Comptroller General's report to address the extent to 
     which the test authority has been used, the types of 
     commercial items procured under the test program, and the 
     impact of the test program on competition for agency 
     contracts and on the small business share of such 
     contracts. The Comptroller General's report also should 
     assess the extent to which the test program has 
     streamlined the procurement process.


5. extension of interim reporting rule on contracts with small business

       Section 31(f) of the OFPP Act, as amended by FASA, requires 
     detailed reporting of contract activity between $25,000 and 
     $100,000 in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). This 
     requirement gives the government the ability to track the 
     impact of acquisition reform on the share of contracts in 
     this dollar range that are awarded to small businesses, small 
     disadvantaged businesses and woman-owned small businesses. It 
     also enables the government to track progress and compliance 
     on a variety of Federal procurement programs, such as Small 
     Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program, the Small 
     Disadvantaged Business Reform Program, the HUDBZone Small 
     Business Program, and the IRS Offset Program.
       Under FASA, this provision is scheduled to expire on 
     October 1, 1999, so that after that date agencies would only 
     be required to report summary data for procurements below 
     $100,000. Because the implementation of acquisition reform 
     measures is ongoing and information on the impact of those 
     measures on small business is important both to Congress and 
     the executive branch, this provision would extend the current 
     reporting requirement until October 1, 2004, as requested by 
     the Administration.


                           amendment no. 429

    (Purpose: To authorize an additional $21,700,000 for research, 
development, test, and evaluation for the Army for the Force XXI Battle 
  Command, Brigade and Below (FBCB2) (PE0203759A), and to offset the 
 additional amount by decreasing by $21,700,000 the authorization for 
  other procurement for the Army for the Maneuver Control System (MCS)

       On page 17, line 1, strike ``$3,669,070,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,647,370,000''.
       On page 29, line 10, strike, $4,671,194,000'' and insert 
     ``$4,692,894,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 430

  (Purpose: To improve financial management and accountability in the 
                         Department of Defense)

       On page 321, line 18, strike out ``and''.
       On page 321, after line 24, insert the following:
       (iv) obligations and expenditures are recorded 
     contemporaneously with each transaction;
       (v) organizational and functional duties are performed 
     separately at each step in the cycles of transactions 
     (including, in the case of a contract, the specification of 
     requirements, the formation of the contract, the 
     certification of contract performance, receiving and 
     warehousing, accounting, and disbursing); and
       (vi) use of progress payment allocation systems results in 
     posting of payments to appropriation accounts consistent with 
     section 1301 of title 31, United States Code.
       On page 322, line 4, insert before the semicolon the 
     following: ``that, at a minimum, uses double-entry 
     bookkeeping and complies with the United States Government 
     Standard General Ledger at the transaction level as required 
     under section 803(a) of the Federal Financial Management 
     Improvement Act of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 3512 note)''.
       On page 322, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       (5) An internal controls checklist which, consistent with 
     the authority in sections 3511 and 3512 of title 31, United 
     States Code, the Comptroller General shall prescribe as the 
     standards for use throughout the Department of Defense, 
     together with a statement of the Department of Defense policy 
     on use of the checklist throughout the department.
       On page 323, line 14, before the period insert ``or the 
     certified date of receipt of the items''.
       On page 324, between the matter following line 20 and the 
     matter on line 21, insert the following:
       (c) Study and Report on Department of Defense Electronic 
     Fund Transfers.--(1) Subject to paragraph (3), the Secretary 
     of Defense shall conduct a feasibility study to determine--
       (A) whether all electronic payments issued by the 
     Department of Defense should be routed through the Regional 
     Finance Centers of the Department of the Treasury for 
     verification and reconciliation;
       (B) whether all electronic payments made by the Department 
     of Defense should be subjected to the same level of 
     reconciliation as United States Treasury checks, including 
     matching each payment issued with each corresponding deposit 
     at financial institutions;
       (C) whether the appropriate computer security controls are 
     in place in order to ensure the integrity of electronic 
     payments;
       (D) the estimated costs of implementing the processes and 
     controls described in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C); and
       (E) the period that would be required to implement the 
     processes and controls.
       (2) Not later than March 1, 2000, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit a report to Congress containing the results of 
     the study required by paragraph (1).
       (3) In this subsection, the term ``electronic payment'' 
     means any transfer of funds, other than a transaction 
     originated by check, draft, or similar paper instrument, 
     which is initiated through an electronic terminal, telephonic 
     instrument, or computer or magnetic tape so as to order, 
     instruct, or authorize a debit or credit to a financial 
     account.
       On page 329, after line 25, insert the following:

     SEC. 1009. RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FINANCIAL 
                   MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).--(1) Section 
     135 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d)(1) The Under Secretary is responsible for ensuring 
     that the financial statements of the Department of Defense 
     are in a condition to receive an unqualified audit opinion 
     and that such an opinion is obtained for the statements.
       ``(2) If the Under Secretary delegates the authority to 
     perform a duty, including any duty relating to disbursement 
     or accounting, to another officer, employee, or entity of the 
     United States, the Under Secretary continues after the 
     delegation to be responsible and accountable for the 
     activity, operation, or performance of a system covered by 
     the delegated authority.''.
       (2) Subsection (c)(1) of such section is amended by 
     inserting ``and to ensure accountability to the citizens of 
     the United States, Congress, the President, and managers 
     within the Department of Defense'' before the semicolon at 
     the end.
       (b) Management of Credit Cards.--(1) The Under Secretary of 
     Defense (Comptroller) shall prescribe regulations governing 
     the use and control of all credit cards and convenience 
     checks that are issued to Department of Defense personnel for 
     official use. The regulations shall be consistent with 
     regulations that apply government-wide regarding use of 
     credit cards by Federal Government personnel for official 
     purposes.
       (2) The regulations shall include safeguards and internal 
     controls to ensure the following:
       (A) There is a record of all credited card holders that is 
     annotated with the limitations on amounts that are applicable 
     to the use of each card by each credit card holder.
       (B) The credit card holders and authorizing officials are 
     responsible for reconciling the charges appearing on each 
     statement of account with receipts and other supporting 
     documentation and for forwarding reconciled statements to the 
     designated disbursing office in a timely manner.
       (C) Disputes and discrepancies are resolved in the manner 
     prescribed in the applicable Governmentwide credit card 
     contracts entered into by the Administrator of General 
     Services.
       (D) Credit card payments are made promptly within 
     prescribed deadlines to avoid interest penalties.
       (E) Rebates and refunds based on prompt payment on credit 
     card accounts are properly recorded in the books of account.
       (F) Records of a credit card transaction (including records 
     on associated contracts, reports, accounts, and invoices) are 
     retained in accordance with standard Federal Government 
     policies on the disposition of records.
       (c) Remittance Addresses.--The Under Secretary of Defense 
     (Comptroller) shall prescribe regulations setting forth 
     controls on alteration of remittance addresses. The 
     regulations shall ensure that--

[[Page S6166]]

       (1) a remittance address for a disbursement that is 
     provided by an officer or employee of the Department of 
     Defense authorizing or requesting the disbursement is not 
     altered by any officer or employee of the department 
     authorized to prepare the disbursement; and
       (2) a remittance address for a disbursement is altered only 
     if the alteration is--
       (A) requested by the person to whom the disbursement is 
     authorized to be remitted; and
       (B) made by an officer or employee authorized to do so who 
     is not an officer or employee referred to in paragraph (1).

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly on the 
Grassley-Domenici amendment on financial management reforms at the 
Department of Defense.
  The bill before us today provides the first major increase in defense 
spending since 1985.
  The increase in defense spending authorized in this bill was 
initially approved by the Budget Committee back in March.
  As a Member of the Budget Committee, I voted for the extra 8 billion 
dollars for national defense.
  That may come as a surprise to some of my colleagues.
  In the past, I have opposed increases in the defense budget. Now, I 
don't. My colleagues must be wondering why.
  I would like to explain my position.
  I support this year's increase in defense spending for one reason and 
one reason only.
  The Budget Committee--and now the Armed Services Committee--are 
calling for financial management reforms at DOD.
  The Committees are telling DOD to bring its accounting practices up 
to accepted standards, so it can produce ``auditable'' financial 
statements--as required by the Chief Financial Officers Act.
  This is music to my ears.
  We should not pump up the DOD budget without a solid commitment to 
financial management reform.
  The Committees are telling DOD to do what DOD is already required to 
do--under the law.
  The Budget Committee's report on the Concurrent Resolution for FY 
2000 contained strong language on the need for financial management 
reform at the Pentagon.
  While the Budget Committee's language is not binding, it sends a 
clear, unambiguous message to the Pentagon: clean up your books--now!
  The Armed Services Committee reached the same conclusions--
independently.
  The Armed Services Committee has cranked up the pressure a notch. The 
Committee has taken the next logical step.
  The bill before us today contains much more than a strong message.
  It mandates financial management reform.
  If adopted in conference, the language in this bill would become the 
law of the land.
  And with it, I hope we are able to generate more pressure for 
financial reform at the Pentagon.
  The legislative language on financial management reform is reflected 
in several provisions in Title X [ten] of the bill.
  Mr. President, if financial reforms were not in the bill, I would be 
standing here with a different kind of amendment in my hand.
  I would be asking my colleagues to support an amendment to cut the 
DOD budget.
  Fortunately, that's not necessary.
  It's not necessary because the Armed Services Committee has seen the 
light and seized the initiative.
  The Armed Services Committee is demanding financial management 
reforms at the Pentagon.
  First, I would like to thank my friend from Virginia, Senator 
Warner--the Committee Chairman--for recognizing and accepting the need 
for financial management reform at the Pentagon.
  I would also like to thank my friend from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe--
Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee--for putting some horsepower 
behind DOD financial management reform.
  His hearing on DOD Financial Management on April 14th helped to 
highlight the need for reform and set the stage for the corrective 
measures in the bill.
  But above all, I would like to thank the entire Armed Services 
Committee for taking time to listen to my concerns and for addressing 
them in the bill in a meaningful way.
  I hope the Committee's efforts to strengthen internal controls--when 
combined with mine--will improve DOD's ability to detect and prevent 
fraud and better protect the peoples' money.
  Mr. President, this bill does not contain all the new financial 
management controls that I wanted. There had to be give-and-take along 
the way.
  I remain especially concerned about the need for restrictions on the 
use of credit cards for making large payments on R&D and procurement 
contracts.
  The Committee has assured me that there will be a good faith effort 
to examine this issue before the conference on this bill is concluded.
  Based on information to be provided by the Department and the General 
Accounting Office and Inspector General, the final version of the bill 
may include: (1) a dollar ceiling on credit card transactions; and (2) 
strict limits on using credit cards to make large contract payments.
  I hope that is possible.
  There will be no improvement in the dismal DOD financial management 
picture without reform--and some pressure from this Committee and the 
other committees of Congress.
  We need to lean on the Pentagon bureaucrats to make it happen.
  Without reform, the vast effort dedicated to auditing the annual 
financial statements will be a wasted effort.
  The bill before us will hopefully establish a solid foundation--and 
create a new environment--where financial management reform can begin 
to happen.
  In doing what we are doing, I hope we are providing the Pentagon with 
the wherewithal to get the job done.
  The reforms in the bill are not new or dramatic.
  In my mind, it's basic accounting 101 stuff: DOD needs to record 
financial transactions in the books of account as they occur. Now, 
that's not complicated or difficult, but it's the essential first step. 
And it's not being done today.
  The Committee is telling DOD to get on the stick and do what it's 
already supposed to be doing--under the law. And it calls for some 
accountability to help get the job done.
  The language in this bill--I hope--will get DOD moving toward a 
``clean'' audit opinion.
  I hope that's where we are headed.
  And there is another important reason why DOD financial reform is 
needed today.
  As I stated right up front, we are looking at the first big increase 
in defense spending since 1985.
  I think this Committee needs to be on the record, telling the 
Pentagon to get its financial house in order.
  If the Pentagon wants all this extra money, then the Pentagon needs 
to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility to the taxpayers of this 
country.
  First, it needs to regain control of the taxpayers' money it's 
spending right now.
  And second, it needs to be able to provide a full and accurate 
accounting of how all the money gets spent.
  DOD must be able to present an accurate and complete accounting of 
all financial transactions--including all receipts and expenditures. It 
needs to be able to do this once a year--accurately and completely.
  The GAO and IG auditors should be able to examine the department's 
books and its financial statements and render a ``clean'' audit 
opinion.
  That's the goal.
  I want to see us reach that goal reached in my lifetime.
  Mr. President, I would like to extend a special word of thanks to the 
entire Armed Service Committee for helping me with my DOD financial 
management reform initiative.
  I would like to thank the committee for helping to push the Pentagon 
in the right direction--toward sound financial management practices.
  I would like to thank the Committee Chairman, Senator Warner, and his 
Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Inhofe, for throwing their weight behind 
the effort.
  I would like to thank them for working with me and helping me craft 
an acceptable piece of legislation.
  Mr. President, in my mind, DOD financial management reform is 
mandatory as we move to larger DOD budgets.
  Higher defense budgets need to be hooked up to financial reforms--
just

[[Page S6167]]

like a horse and buggy--one behind the other. They need to move 
together.


                           amendment no. 431

(Purpose: To authorize $4,500,000 for research, development, test, and 
    evaluation, Defense-wide, relating to a hot gas decontamination 
    facility, and to reduce by $4,500,000 the amount authorized for 
  chemical demilitarization activities to take into account inflation 
              savings in the account for such activities)

       On page 18, line 13, strike ``$1,169,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,164,500,000''.
       On page 29, line 14, strike ``$9,400,081,000'' and insert 
     ``$9,404,581,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 432

  (Purpose: To provide $3,500,000 (in PE 62633N) for Navy research in 
      computational engineering design, and to provide an offset)

       On page 29, line 11, increase the amount by $3,500,000.
       On page 29, line 14, decrease the amount by $3,500,000.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 433

 (Purpose: To extend certain temporary authorities to provide benefits 
    for Department of Defense employees in connection with defense 
                workforce reductions and restructuring)

       At the end of title XI, add the following:

     SEC. 1107. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN TEMPORARY AUTHORITIES TO 
                   PROVIDE BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES IN CONNECTION 
                   WITH DEFENSE WORKFORCE REDUCTIONS AND 
                   RESTRUCTURING.

       (a) Lump-Sum Payment of Severance Pay.--Section 5595(i)(4) 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``the 
     date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1996 and before October 1, 1999'' and 
     inserting ``February 10, 1996, and before October 1, 2003''.
       (b) Voluntary Separation Incentive.--Section 5597(e) of 
     such title is amended by striking ``September 30, 2001'' and 
     inserting ``September 30, 2003''.
       (c) Continuation of FEHBP Eligibility.--Section 
     8905a(d)(4)(B) of such title is amended by striking clauses 
     (i) and (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) October 1, 2003; or
       ``(ii) February 1, 2004, if specific notice of such 
     separation was given to such individual before October 1, 
     2003.''.


                              exit survey

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank our chairman, Senator Warner, 
and the ranking member, Senator Levin, for agreeing to this very 
important amendment. As a new member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I was a little taken aback by the way the Committee launched 
into major legislation at the very start of this session. I am glad 
that we did. From the very start of the year, it was clear that we had 
a very real problem in retention that threatened to reach crisis 
proportions. Furthermore, this crisis was looming just when our country 
most needed every talented soldier, sailor, and airman that we could 
keep in the service.
  The structural reasons behind the retention shortfalls have already 
been well documented on the floor; a booming economy, long deployment, 
and a lack of predictability for family life have all taken their toll. 
However, what I have found very frustrating is that we have no sense of 
priority behind these problems. Are soldiers leaving because the pay is 
too low, or because the retirement package is insufficient? Do we need 
to address operations tempo first, or health care? The evidence is all 
anecdotal. We have a strong sense of the universe of problems, but no 
qualitfiable data on their relative importance.
  As it stands, each service is responsible for exit surveys which are 
conducted on a voluntary basis when a person separates from the 
military. These surveys are not standardized, do not seek the same 
information, nor are they scientifcally tested. In short, they are not 
much better than the anecdotal evidence that we collect by word of 
mouth. The dimensions of our difficulties in retention demand that we 
have much better information. For that reason, I have introduced this 
amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, which will give us the 
data that we need to assess the steps Congress needs take in coming 
years to stem this tide.
  The amendment instructs the Secretary of Defense to develop and 
implement a survey of all military personnel leaving the service 
starting in January 2000 and ending six months later. The survey will 
provide uniformity of data, and be scientifically tested so as to give 
as some real feedback as to why our men and women are leaving the 
service. Additionally, there are specific issues of content that the 
survey must address, namely: the reasons for leaving military service, 
plans for activities after the separation, affiliation with a Reserve 
component, attitude toward pay and benefits, and the extent of job 
satisfaction during their tenure.
  I believe that the answers to these questions are vital to the 
Senate's role in addressing retention and other readiness concerns. The 
future of our all-volunteer force depends on our ability to continue to 
recruit and retain the manpower necessary to support our national 
security priorities. To do so, we need forward thinking policy which 
makes the most of our scarce resources and protects the quality of life 
of our armed services. This amendment will give us the data and 
intellectual framework to begin such policy. Again, I thank Senators 
Warner and Levin for accepting it.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 434

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to carry out an exit 
 survey on military service for members of the Armed Forces separating 
                         from the Armed Forces)

       In title V, at the end of subtitle F, add the following:

     SEC. 582. EXIT SURVEY FOR SEPARATING MEMBERS.

       (a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop 
     and carry out a survey on attitudes toward military service 
     to be completed by members of the Armed Forces who 
     voluntarily separate from the Armed Forces or transfer from a 
     regular component to a reserve component during the period 
     beginning on January 1, 2000, and ending on June 30, 2000, or 
     such later date as the Secretary determines necessary in 
     order to obtain enough survey responses to provide a 
     sufficient basis for meaningful analysis of survey results. 
     Completion of the survey shall be required of such personnel 
     as part of outprocessing activities. The Secretary of each 
     military department shall suspend exit surveys and interviews 
     of that department during the period described in the first 
     sentence.
       (b) Survey Content.--The survey shall, at a minimum, cover 
     the following subjects:
       (1) Reasons for leaving military service.
       (2) Plans for activities after separation (such as 
     enrollment in school, use of Montgomery GI Bill benefits, and 
     work).
       (3) Affiliation with a Reserve component, together with the 
     reasons for affiliating or not affiliating, as the case may 
     be.
       (4) Attitude toward pay and benefits for service in the 
     Armed Forces.
       (5) Extent of job satisfaction during service as a member 
     of the Armed Forces.
       (6) Such other matters as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate to the survey concerning reasons for choosing to 
     separate from the Armed Forces.
       (c) Report.--Not later than February 1, 2001, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of 
     the surveys. The report shall include an analysis of the 
     reasons why military personnel voluntarily separate from the 
     Armed Forces and the post-separation plans of those 
     personnel. The Secretary shall utilize the report's findings 
     in crafting future responses to declining retention and 
     recruitment.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 435

(Purpose: To authorize the use of amounts for award fees for Department 
 of Energy closure projects for purposes of funding additional cleanup 
                   projects at closure project sites)

       On page 574, strike lines 1 through 24 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3175. USE OF AMOUNTS FOR AWARD FEES FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
                   ENERGY CLOSURE PROJECTS FOR ADDITIONAL CLEANUP 
                   PROJECTS AT CLOSURE PROJECT SITES.

       (a) Authority To Use Amounts.--The Secretary of Energy may 
     use an amount authorized to be appropriated for the payment 
     of award fees for a Department of Energy closure project for 
     purposes of conducting additional cleanup activities at the 
     closure project site if the Secretary--
       (1) anticipates that such amount will not be obligated for 
     payment of award fees in the fiscal year in which such amount 
     is authorized to be appropriated; and
       (2) determines the use will not result in a deferral of the 
     payment of the award fees for more than 12 months.
       (b) Report on Use of Authority.--Not later than 30 days 
     after each exercise of the authority in subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report the exercise of the authority.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 436

  (Purpose: To authorize the awarding of the Medal of Honor to Alfred 
             Rascon for valor during the Vietnam conflict)

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

     SEC.   . AUTHORITY FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO ALFRED 
                   RASCON FOR VALOR DURING THE VIETNAM CONFLICT.

       (a) Waiver of Time Limitations.--Notwithstanding the time 
     limitations specified in section 3744 of total 10, United 
     States Code, or any other time limitation with respect to the 
     awarding of certain medals to persons who served in the Army, 
     the President may award the Medal of Honor under

[[Page S6168]]

     section 3741 of that title to Alfred Rascon, of Laurel, 
     Maryland, for the acts of valor described in subsection (b).
       (b) Action Described.--The acts of valor referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the actions of Alfred Rascon on March 16, 
     1966, as an Army medic, serving in the grade of Specialist 
     Four in the Republic of Vietnam with the Reconnaissance 
     Platoon, Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 
     173rd Airborne Brigade (Separate), during a combat operation 
     known as Silver City.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer this amendment to 
authorize the awarding of the Medal of Honor to Alfred Rascon, Mr. 
Rascon, a Mexican-born immigrant, represents the finest tradition of 
service to this country. This award, after these many years, will 
correct an oversight and provide Mr. Rascon with the recognition he has 
earned. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of Representative 
Lane Evans, who I am working with on this issue and who has worked to 
help correct the oversight that prevented the awarding of the Medal of 
Honor to Mr. Rascon.
  To best understand the courage exhibited by Mr. Rascon, I would like 
to quote an excerpt from the study ``The Military Contributions of 
Immigrants'' published by Empower America, the American Immigration Law 
Foundation, the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, Heroes and 
Heritage, the Japanese American Veterans Association, and Veterans of 
Foreign Wars of the U.S. The study describes in detail Mr. Rascon's 
actions on March 16, 1966:

       Alfred Rascon was born in Chihuahau, Mexico and immigrated 
     to the United States with his parents in the 1950s. He served 
     two tours in Vietnam, one as a medic, and was known as 
     ``Doc.'' When Rascon volunteered for the service he was not a 
     citizen but still a lawful permanent resident. He was 17 
     years old but tricked his mother into signing his papers so 
     he could enlist.
       On March 16, 1966, bullets flew and grenades exploded, and 
     Rascon's platoon found itself in a maelstrom of North 
     Vietnamese firepower. When an American machine gunner went 
     down and someone called for a medic, Rascon, 20 at the time, 
     ignored his orders to remain under cover and rushed down the 
     trail amid a hail of enemy gunfire and grenades. To better 
     protect the wounded soldier, Rascon placed his body between 
     the enemy machine gun fire and the soldier. Rascon turned. He 
     was shot in the hip. Although wounded, he managed to drag the 
     soldier off the trail. Rascon soon discovered the man he was 
     dragging was dead.
       Specialist 4th Class Larry Gibson crawled forward looking 
     for ammunition. The other machine gunner was already dead and 
     Gibson had no ammunition with which to defend the platoon. 
     Rascon grabbed the dead soldier's ammo and gave it to Gibson. 
     Then, amid relentless enemy fire and grenades, Rascon hobbled 
     back up the trail, snared the dead soldier's machine gun and, 
     most importantly, 400 rounds of additional ammunition.
       The pace quickened and the grenades dropped. One ripped 
     open Rascon's face. It didn't stop him. He saw another 
     grenade drop five feet from a wounded Neil Haffy. He tackled 
     Haffy and absorbed the grenade blast himself, saving Haffy's 
     life.
       Though severely wounded, Rascon crawled back among the 
     other wounded and gave them aid. A few minutes later, Rascon 
     saw Sergeant Ray Compton being hit by gunfire. As Rascon 
     moved toward him, another hand grenade dropped. Instead of 
     seeking cover Rascon dove on top of the wounded sergeant and 
     again absorbed the blow. That time the explosion smashed 
     through Rascon's helmet and ripped into his scalp. He saved 
     Compton's life.
       When the firefight ended, Rascon refused aid for himself 
     until the other wounded were evacuated. So bloodied by the 
     conflict was Rascon that when soldiers placed him on the 
     evacuation helicopter, a chaplain saw his condition and gave 
     him last rites. But Alfred Rascon survived.
       Today, Rascon, now 50, lives in Howard County, Maryland. 
     The soldiers who witnessed Rascon's deeds that day 
     recommended him in writing for a Medal of Honor. Years later, 
     these soldiers were shocked to discover that he had not 
     received one. The men continue to this day to seek full 
     recognition and the awarding of the Medal of Honor for 
     Alfred Rascon.
       Perhaps the best description of Alfred Rascon's actions 
     came 30 years later from fellow platoon member Larry Gibson: 
     I was a 19-year-old gunner with a recon section. We were 
     under intense and accurate enemy fire that had pinned down 
     the point squad, making it almost impossible to move without 
     being killed. Unhesitatingly, Doc [as he was called] went 
     forward to aid the wounded and dying. I was one of the 
     wounded. Doc took the brunt of several enemy grenades, 
     shielding the wounded with his body . . . In these few words 
     I cannot fully describe the events of that day. The acts of 
     unselfish heroism Doc performed while saving the many 
     wounded, though severely wounded himself, speak for 
     themselves. This country needs genuine heroes. Doc Rascon is 
     one of those.''
       Rascon was once asked why he acted with such courage on the 
     battlefield even though he was an immigrant and not yet a 
     citizen. Rascon replied, ``I was always an American in my 
     heart.''

  Mr. President, the approach of Memorial Day is a proper occasion for 
us to reflect on what it means to live in a nation that can attract 
young men and women who were not even born here to volunteer and, if 
necessary, die for their adopted country. It is an occasion to reflect 
on what it means to live in a nation where to this day the children of 
immigrants volunteer and serve.
  Today, over 60,000 active military personnel are immigrants to his 
country. This desire to serve is consistent with our history. More than 
20 percent of the recipients of our highest military award, the 
Congressional Medal of Honor, have been immigrants. Indeed America 
remains free because in no small part she has been blessed with many 
American heroes willing to give their lives in her defense.
  During his last year in office, Ronald Reagan traveled out to a high 
school in Suitland, MD. Surrounded by students he was asked about 
America and what it means to be an American. President Reagan looked 
out at the young people and responded:

       I got a letter from a man the other day, and I'll share it 
     with you. The man said you can go to live in Japan, but you 
     cannot become Japanese--or Germany, or France--and he named 
     all the others. But he said anyone from any corner of the 
     world can come to America and become an American.

  We owe a debt to all those people, wherever they or their parents 
were born, who have kept our Nation free and safe in a dangerous world. 
And we owe a continuing debt of gratitude to those today who serve, 
guarding our country, our homes and our freedom. Like all good things, 
freedom must be won again and again. I hope all of us will remember 
those, immigrants and native born, who have won freedom for us in the 
past, and stand ready to win freedom for us again, if they must. May we 
never forget our debt to the brave who have fallen and the brave who 
stand ready to fight.
  I believe the awarding of the Medal of Honor to Alfred Rascon is 
richly deserved. This award will demonstrate America's appreciation of 
Alfred Rascon's valor in combat and recognize his extraordinary service 
to this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           amendment no. 437

   (Purpose: To prohibit the return of veterans memorial objects to 
         foreign nations without specific authorization in law)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section and renumber the remaining sections accordingly:

     ``SEC.   . PROHIBITION ON THE RETURN OF VETERANS MEMORIAL 
                   OBJECTS TO FOREIGN NATIONS WITHOUT SPECIFIC 
                   AUTHORIZATION IN LAW.

       (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding section 2572 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or any other provision of law, the 
     President may not transfer a veterans memorial object to a 
     foreign country or entity controlled by a foreign government, 
     or otherwise transfer or convey such object to any person or 
     entity for purposes of the ultimate transfer or conveyance of 
     such object to a foreign country or entity controlled by a 
     foreign government, unless specifically authorized by law.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Entity controlled by a foreign government.--The term 
     ``entity controlled by a foreign government'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 2536(c)(1) of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Veterans memorial object.--The term ``veterans memorial 
     object'' means any object, including a physical structure or 
     portion thereof, that--
       (A) is located at a cemetery of the National Cemetery 
     System, war memorial, or military installation in the United 
     States;
       (B) is dedicated to, or otherwise memorializes, the death 
     in combat or combat-related duties of members of the United 
     States Armed Forces; and
       (C) was brought to the United States from abroad as a 
     memorial of combat abroad.''

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, amendment No. 437 to S. 1059, the Defense 
Authorization bill, prohibits the return to a foreign country of any 
portion of a memorial to American veterans without the express 
authorization of Congress.
  I would not have thought that an amendment like this was necessary, 
Mr. President. It would never have occurred to me that an 
administration would even briefly consider dismantling part of a 
memorial to American soldiers who died in the line of duty in order to 
send a piece of that memorial to a foreign country; but a real 
possibility of just that happening exists in my state of Wyoming 
involving what are known as the ``Bells of Balangiga.''
  In 1898, the Treaty of Paris brought to a close the Spanish-American 
War.

[[Page S6169]]

As part of the treaty, Spain ceded possession of the Philippines to the 
United States. At about the same time, the Filipino people began an 
insurrection in their country. In August 1901, as part of the American 
efforts to stem the insurrection, a company of 74 officers and men from 
the 9th Infantry, Company G, occupied the town of Balangiga on the 
island of Samar. These men came from Ft. Russel in Cheyenne, WY--
today's F.E. Warren Air Force Base.
  On September 28 of that year, taking advantage of the preoccupation 
of the American troops with a church service for the just-assassinated 
President McKinley, a group of Filipino insurgents infiltrated the 
town. Only three American sentries were on duty that day. As described 
in an article in the November 19, 1997 edition of the Wall Street 
Journal:

       Officers slept in, and enlisted men didn't bother to carry 
     their rifles as they ambled out of their quarters for 
     breakfast. Balangiga had been a boringly peaceful site since 
     the infantry company arrived a month earlier, according to 
     military accounts and soldiers' statements. The quiet ended 
     abruptly when a 23 year old U.S. sentry named Adolph Gamlin 
     walked past the local police chief. In one swift move, the 
     Filipino grabbed the slightly built Iowan's rifle and smashed 
     the butt across [Gamlin's] head. As PFC Gamlin crumpled, the 
     bells of Balangiga began to peal.
       With the signal, hundreds of Filipino fighters swarmed out 
     of the surrounding forest, armed with clubs, picks and 
     machete-like bolo knives. Others poured out of the church; 
     they had arrived the night before, disguised as women 
     mourners and carrying coffins filled with bolos. A sergeant 
     was beheaded in the mess tent and dumped into a vat of 
     steaming wash water. A young bugler was cut down in a nearby 
     stream. The company commander was hacked to death after 
     jumping out a window. Besieged infantrymen defended 
     themselves with kitchen forks, mess kits and baseball bats. 
     Others threw rocks and cans of beans.
       Though he was also slashed across the back, PFC . . . 
     Gamlin came to and found a rifle. By the time he and the 
     other survivors fought their way to the beach, 38 US soldiers 
     were dead and all but six of the remaining men had been 
     wounded.

  The remaining soldiers escaped in five dug-out canoes. Only three 
boats made it to safety on Leyte. Seven men died of exposure at sea, 
and other 8 died of their wounds; only 20 of the company's 74 members 
survived.
  A detachment of 54 volunteers from 9th infantry units stationed at 
Leyte returned to Balangiga and recaptured the village. They were 
reinforced a few days later from Companies K and L of the 11th Infantry 
Regiment. When the 11th Infantry was relieved on October 18 by Marines, 
the 9th Infantry took two of the church bells and an old canon with 
them back to Wyoming as memorials to the fallen soldiers.
  The bells and canon have been displayed in front of the base flagpole 
on the central parade grounds since that time. The canon was restored 
by local volunteers and placed under a glass display case in 1985 to 
protect it from the elements. The bells were placed in openings in a 
large specially constructed masonry wall with a plaque dedicating the 
memorial to the memory of the fallen soldiers.
  Off and on since 1981, there have been some discussions in various 
circles in Cheyenne, Washington, and Manila about the future of the 
bells, including the possibility of returning them to the Philippines. 
Most recently, the Philippine government--having run into broad 
opposition to their request to have both bells returned to them--has 
proposed making a copy of both bells, and having both sides keep one 
copy and one original. Opposition to the proposal from local and 
national civic and veterans groups has been very strong.
  Last year, developments indicated to me that the White House was 
seriously contemplating returning one or both of the bells to the 
Philippines. 1998 marked the 100th anniversary of the Treaty of Paris, 
and a state visit by then-President Fidel Ramos--his last as 
President--to the United States. The disposition of the bells was high 
on President Ramos' agenda; he has spoken personally to President 
Clinton and several members of Congress about it over the last three 
years, and made it one of only three agenda items the Filipino 
delegation brought to the table. Since January 1998, the Filipino press 
has included almost weekly articles on the bells' supposed return, 
including several in the Manila Times in April and May which reported 
that a new tower to house the bells was being constructed in Borongon, 
Samar, to receive them in May. In addition, there have been a variety 
of reports vilifying me and the veterans in Wyoming for our position on 
the issue, and others threatening economic boycotts of US products or 
other unspecified acts of retaliation to force capitulation on the 
issue.
  Moreover, inquiries to me from various agencies of the administration 
soliciting the opinion of the Wyoming congressional delegation on the 
issue increased in frequency in the first 4 months of 1998. I also 
learned that the Defense Department, perhaps in conjunction with the 
Justice Department, prepared a legal memorandum outlining its opinion 
of who actually controls the disposition of the bells.
  In response, the Wyoming congressional delegation wrote a letter to 
President Clinton on January 9, 1998, to make clear our opposition to 
removing the bells. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of that letter be inserted at this point in the Record. In 
response to that letter, on May 26, I received a letter from Sandy 
Berger of the National Security Council which I think is perhaps one of 
the best indicators of the direction the White House was headed on this 
issue.
  To head off any move by the administration to dispose of the bells, I 
and Senator Enzi introduced S. 1903 on April 1, 1998. The bill had 18 
cosponsors, including the distinguished Chairmen of the Committees on 
Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Finance, Energy and Natural 
Resources, Rules, Ethics, and Banking; the Chairmen of five 
Subcommittees of the Foreign Relations Committee; and five members of 
the Armed Services Committee.
  While time has passed since this issue came to a head last April, Mr. 
President, my deep concern that the administration might still dispose 
of the bells has not. The administration has not disavowed its earlier 
intent to seek to return the bells--an intent derailed by the 
introduction of S. 1903 last year. In addition, despite article IV, 
section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states that the 
``Congress shall have the power to dispose of . . . Property belonging 
to the United States,'' the Justice Department has issued an informal 
memorandum stating that the bells could possibly be disposed of by the 
President pursuant to the provisions of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2572.
  I continue to be amazed, even in these days of political correctness 
and revisionist history, that a U.S. President--our Commander in 
Chief--would appear to be ready to ignore the wishes of our veterans 
and tear down a memorial to U.S. soldiers who died in the line of duty 
in order to send part of it back to the country in which they were 
killed. Amazed, that is, until I recall this President's fondness for 
sweeping apologies and what some might view as flashy P.R. gestures. 
Consequently, Senator Enzi and I decided to pursue the issue again in 
the 106th Congress.
  Mr. President, to the veterans of Wyoming, and the United States as a 
whole, the bells represent a lasting memorial to those 54 American 
soldiers killed as a result of an unprovoked insurgent attack in 
Balangiga on September 28, 1901, In their view, which I share, any 
attempt to remove either or both of the bells--and in doing so actually 
physically dismantling a war memorial--is a desecration of that memory.
  This amendment will protect the bells and similar veterans memorials 
from such an ignoble fate. The bill is quite simple; it prohibits the 
transfer of a veterans memorial or any portion thereof to a foreign 
country or government unless specifically authorized by law. I would 
like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Committee [Senator 
Warner] for his assistance, and that of his staff, in moving this 
amendment forward.


                           amendment no. 438

(Purpose: To authorize emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
                               year 1999)

       In title X, at the end of subtitle A, add the following:

     SEC. 1009. AUTHORIZATION OF EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
                   APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999.

       Amounts authorized to be appropriated to the Department of 
     Defense for fiscal year 1999 in the Strom Thurmond National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 
     105-261) are hereby adjusted with respect to any such 
     authorized amount, by the amount by which appropriations 
     pursuant to such authorization were increased

[[Page S6170]]

     (by a supplemental appropriation) or decreased (by a 
     rescission), or both, in the 1999 Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 439

  (Purpose: To clarify the scope of the requirements of section 1049, 
 relating to the prevention of interference with Department of Defense 
                     use of the frequency spectrum)

       On page 371, at the end of line 13, add the following: 
     ``The preceding sentence does not apply to the operation, by 
     a non-Department of Defense entity, of a communication 
     system, device, or apparatus on any portion of the frequency 
     spectrum that is reserved for exclusively non-government 
     use.''.
       On page 372, line 3, insert ``fielded'' after 
     ``apparatus''.
       (d) This section does not apply to any upgrades, 
     modifications, or system redesign to a Department of Defense 
     communication system made after the date of enactment of this 
     Act where that modification, upgrade or redesign would result 
     in interference with or receiving interference from a non-
     Department of Defense system.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 440

  (Purpose: To ensure continued participation by small businesses in 
               providing services of a commercial nature)

       On page 281, line 13, after ``Government.'' insert the 
     following: ``These items shall not be considered commercial 
     items for purposes of Section 4202(e) of the Clinger-Cohen 
     Act (10 U.S.C. 2304 note).''.
       On page 282, line 19, after ``concerns,'' insert the 
     following: ``HUBZone small business concerns.''.
       On page 283, line 19, strike ``(A)'' and insert ``(1)''.
       On page 283, line 23, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 284, line 3, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 284, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       (4) The term ``HUBZone small business concern'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 3(p)(3) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(3)).
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 441

 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance 
            to civil authorities in responding to terrorism)

       In title X, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. 1061. MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES FOR 
                   RESPONDING TO TERRORISM.

       (a) Authority.--During fiscal year 2000, the Secretary of 
     Defense, upon the request of the Attorney General, may 
     provide assistance to civil authorities in responding to an 
     act or threat of an act of terrorism, including an act of 
     terrorism or threat of an act of terrorism that involves a 
     weapon of mass destruction, within the United States if the 
     Secretary of Defense determines that--
       (1) special capabilities and expertise of the Department of 
     Defense are necessary and critical to respond to the act or 
     threat; and
       (2) the provision of such assistance will not adversely 
     affect the military preparedness of the armed forces.
       (b) Nature of Assistance.--Assistance provided under 
     subsection (a) may include the deployment of Department of 
     Defense personnel and the use of any Department of Defense 
     resources to the extent and for such period as the Secretary 
     of Defense determines necessary to prepare for, prevent, or 
     respond to an act or threat described in that subsection. 
     Actions taken to provide the assistance may include the 
     prepositioning of Department of Defense personnel, equipment, 
     and supplies.
       (c) Reimbursement.--(1) Assistance provided under this 
     section shall normally be provided on a reimbursable basis. 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the amounts of 
     reimbursement shall be limited to the amounts of the 
     incremental costs of providing the assistance. In 
     extraordinary circumstances, the Secretary of Defense may 
     waive reimbursement upon determining that a waiver of the 
     reimbursement is in the national security interests of the 
     United States and submitting to Congress a notification of 
     the determination.
       (2) If funds are appropriated for the Department of Justice 
     to cover the costs of responding to an act or threat for 
     which assistance is provided under subsection (a), the 
     Department of Defense shall be reimbursed out of such funds 
     for the costs incurred by the department in providing the 
     assistance without regard to whether the assistance was 
     provided on a nonreimbursable basis.
       (d) Limitation on Funding.--Not more than $10,000,000 may 
     be obligated to provide assistance pursuant to subsection (a) 
     in a fiscal year.
       (e) Personnel Restrictions.--In carrying out this section, 
     a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may 
     not, unless authorized by another provision of law--
       (1) directly participate in a search, seizure, arrest, or 
     other similar activity; or
       (2) collect intelligence for law enforcement purposes.
       (f) Nondelegability of Authority.--(1) The Secretary of 
     Defense may not delegate to any other official authority to 
     make determinations and to authorize assistance under this 
     section.
       (2) The Attorney General may not delegate to any other 
     official authority to make a request for assistance under 
     subsection (a).
       (h) Relationship to Other Authority.--(1) The authority 
     provided in this section is in addition to any other 
     authority available to the Secretary of Defense.
       (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict 
     any authority regarding use of members of the armed forces or 
     equipment of the Department of Defense that was in effect 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (i) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``threat of an act of terrorism'' includes any 
     circumstance providing a basis for reasonably anticipating an 
     act of terrorism, as determined by the Secretary of Defense 
     in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary 
     of the Treasury.
       (2) The term ``weapon of mass destruction'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 1403 of the Defense Against Weapons 
     of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 2302(1)).

  Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, momentarily we will proceed to the 
amendment by Mr. Allard. If the Senators are ready, I will yield the 
floor.


                           Amendment No. 396

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30 
minutes remaining for debate on the Allard amendment numbered 396, with 
20 minutes under the control of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and 
10 minutes equally divided between the Senator from Colorado, Mr. 
Allard, and the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner.
  Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. If I might just briefly before I yield the floor for 
Senator Harkin, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Enzi as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand I have 20 minutes. Is that 
right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Chair please advise the Senator when he has used 
15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that.
  Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to speak about the 
Civil Air Patrol, a unique group of volunteer civilian airmen and 
others, who support this nation in a variety of ways.
  CAP members represent a cross-section of America and include pilots, 
emergency medical technicians, and teachers who use their professional 
skills to provide emergency services, youth programs, and aerospace 
education. Its more than 60,000 senior and cadet members are located in 
small towns and large cities across this country. Day in and day out, 
its aircrews fly search and rescue, disaster relief, counter-drug and 
Air Force operational support missions while teachers and others run a 
youth program for thousands of cadets and support aerospace education 
programs in hundreds of schools.
  CAP began its service to the nation under very unusual circumstances. 
As World War II approached, civilian pilots began to look for ways to 
help with the expected war effort. They organized together as an air 
arm of the Office of Civil Defense and, in the first months of the war, 
they were quick to respond as ships were torpedoed within sight of 
land. During a period when we lacked the Army and Navy aircraft needed 
to patrol thousands of square miles off our coasts looking for German 
submarines, the CAP was there.
  Flying their own aircraft, sometimes using automobile inner tubes for 
life preservers, CAP pilots did what the military could not, find enemy 
submarines in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. They spotted so many 
submarines, in fact, that they finally convinced the military that they 
should be armed. At first they simply carried the bombs on their laps 
and dropped them out the door of the aircraft, later they improvised 
homemade bomb aiming sights and put bomb racks under their Beech, 
Fairchild, Sikorsky, and Stinson aircraft. It was over a year and a 
half before the military could accomplish this mission without CAP's 
help.
  By July of 1943, CAP pilots had flown over 24 million miles on anti-
submarine combat missions and had spotted and reported the location of 
173 submarines to the military. CAP itself attacked 57 of those 
submarines and sank or damaged two. Hundreds of survivors from sunk 
ships and military

[[Page S6171]]

aircraft crashes (at sea) were rescued as part of CAP's anti-submarine 
patrol efforts. Twenty-six CAP volunteer lives and 90 aircraft were 
lost on these civilian-flown combat missions.
  CAP's World War II service also set the foundation for its modern day 
service to America. During the war, CAP became a part of the Army Air 
Force and flew hundreds of thousands of hours nationwide on border 
patrol, search and rescue, forest fire watch, target-towing, courier 
flights, and military training exercises. It began its cadet program to 
help the military recruit young Americans and to teach them about 
aviation. These were invaluable missions that contributed greatly to 
the war effort. Many of the same missions and the tradition of service 
established then, continues today.
  Today, CAP again flies support missions off the coast of America in 
support of another kind of war, the war against drugs. Since 1985, CAP 
has flown hundreds of thousands of hours in support of the U.S. 
Customs, U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, and other federal and local law 
enforcement agencies. CAP aircrews fly reconnaissance, communications 
relay, and transport missions which take place over water along the 12-
mile territorial limit, along the nation's borders, and in most of the 
50 states.
  The cost to the taxpayer is very little as CAP aircraft are flown by 
volunteer aircrews for about $55 a hour. Aircrew members donate their 
time, often using their own personal leave from work to fly these 
missions. They provide essential support to the government, which would 
cost the taxpayer, even if the government had the pilots and aircraft 
to use, up to $2,000 an hour. In 1998 alone, Civil Air Patrol flew 
41,721 hours in support of counter-drug efforts.
  CAP also flies and conducts more traditional missions. While it is 
the official auxiliary of the Air Force, it also performs numerous 
emergency services missions, youth programs and aerospace education 
programs in support of states and local communities across this nation. 
It's pilots routinely fly about 85 percent of all the search and rescue 
hours flown in the United States. Whether searching for a lost child in 
a state park or looking for downed military aviator, Civil Air Patrol 
is there. In 1998, Civil Air Patrol conducted 3,155 search and rescue 
missions and saved 116 lives. CAP also supports local communities and 
states during time of disaster. In 1998, during a period lasting weeks, 
hundreds of CAP members in drought-stricken Florida and Texas flew 
emergency fire watch while others maintained airborne communications 
relay stations, around the clock, supporting fire fighters on the 
ground. As recently as three weeks ago, when the Oklahoma tornadoes 
killed 45, CAP aerial and ground units quickly joined with community 
and state disaster relief efforts. Other emergency and humanitarian 
missions include flood surveillance, tornado and hurricane 
reconnaissance, blood collection and distribution flights, and the 
emergency airlift of medical material.
  Over 26,000 young people participate in CAP's growing cadet program 
where they not only have opportunities to fly, but they too learn 
discipline, leadership and public service skills. Not only are many of 
these cadets model citizens but they help their communities and states 
during times of emergency. Indeed, during CAP's emergency operations 
cadets operate many of its radios and make up the bulk of its ground 
rescue units. The cadet program also includes local unit activities, 
physical fitness, leadership laboratories, aerospace education, and 
moral leadership. A wide range of annual special cadet activities 
include nationwide flight encampments where cadets each summer, working 
with adult flight instructors, learn how to fly powered aircraft and 
gliders. In 1998, 180 young men and women learned how to fly at these 
encampments. CAP also conducts nearly 200 aerospace education workshops 
that reach over 5,000 educators annually and routinely provides Air 
Force ROTC and CAP cadets in a series of orientation flights--over 
17,500 in 1998--to introduce them to modern aviation.
  It is impossible to adequately capture the essence of the Civil Air 
Patrol in just a few short words, however, I hope it is clear that the 
CAP is a unique organization that touches Americans at all levels. 
While it is the official auxiliary of the Air Force, it is also a 
benevolent, civilian non-profit corporation chartered by Congress to 
support emergency service and educational organizations such as the 
American Red Cross, all fifty states, the District of Columbia and the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as well as thousands of local communities 
across the nation. Its more than 50,000 members, 1,700 squadrons, 535 
light aircraft and thousands of communications stations stand ready to 
support not only the Air Force and other Federal agencies but all the 
citizens of the United States, no matter where they live. Civil Air 
Patrol does this valuable humanitarian and public service mission 24 
hours a day, 365 days a year with little or no fan fare. Its volunteers 
deserve our thanks and appreciation.


                           Air Force Proposal

  I rise in support of the Allard amendment to ensure civilian 
leadership of the Civil Air Patrol and to require studies of proposals 
to improve its operations.
  The Air Force has proposed a take-over the governance of CAP. The 
Defense Authorization bill includes this proposal. It is not warranted, 
nor will it necessarily address alleged problem with CAP.
  I am joining with Senator Allard  and a long, bipartisan list of 
cosponsors to offer an alternative that has Congress make a more 
considered decision.
  The Air Force has proposed some huge and abrupt changes to the 
operations and governance of the Civil Air Patrol. The Air Force wants 
to place themselves in control of the CAP Board and operations. The 
proposal would put an Air Force Reserve Major General in charge of 
Headquarters, place an oversight Board--appointed by the Air Force--in 
control of CAP and replace a lot of the civilian staff with Air Force 
uniformed staff. This represents a major change to the CAP. It 
represents a higher financial cost to the taxpayer. It also represents 
placing a civilian volunteer nonprofit organization under the control 
of the Air Force.
  Strangely, the Armed Services Committee has adopted the Air Force 
proposal. I say strangely, because the Committee adopted the language 
with very little review or discussion. There has been no hearings on 
the Air Force proposal.
  The Air Force is citing allegations of financial mismanagement and 
safety lapses as the reasons for the change. While the Air Force has 
told the press there are series problems with CAP, they have yet to 
make clear the evidence to support the allegations. There has been no 
report by the Air Force Inspector General, no report by the DOD IG, nor 
by the GAO. The Air Force did write a report a year ago arguing for an 
adoption of a new financial management process--the adoption of an OMB 
circular--but CAP is waiting for the OMB to review the plan.
  The Civil Air Patrol leadership has rejected the allegations. We 
don't need to rush to a hasty decision. In fact, I have talked to 
both Acting Secretary Peters of the Air Force and CAP leadership. Both 
want to get together upon my behest to discuss any differences and 
think through any proposals. I would like to invite other Senators to 
attend if they so desire.

  The Senator from Oklahoma described many allegations of CAP missteps. 
All I heard were allegations. In fact, many were made by unnamed former 
members. Where is the evidence? Where is the formal review? Where are 
the hearings? Are we going to base legislation on unchecked 
allegations?
  Let me address just one allegation made by the Air Force and repeated 
by the Senator from Oklahoma--the infamous CAP cruise, which has been 
purported as the worst of CAP's missteps.
  I have looked into the matter and here is what I have found. It is 
true that, in 1998 the southeast region had a meeting aboard a ship 
instead of at a hotel. CAP regions have meetings regularly with the 
region wings deciding on the location. Let's look at a few more facts.
  First, no CAP member used federal dollars to pay for the cruise. 
None. That's right, the volunteer members of CAP all pay their own way 
out of their own pockets. It is true that some CAP headquarters staff 
attended that meeting and were reimbursed for the cost.

[[Page S6172]]

This has long been the normal practice for staff--who are paid federal 
employees, not members--to get reimbursed. This is the normal federal 
practice as far as travel expenses relating to work. The Air Force had 
no criticism of the staff attendance, but said that staff members 
received unauthorized reimbursement.
  But here is the key point: the reimbursement was approved by the Air 
Force before the event. The Air Force has about thirty Air Force staff 
overseeing operations and financial matters at headquarters, at the CAP 
headquarters in Alabama. Before the event, these Air Force staff, at 
the headquarters, approved the event for reimbursement.
  In other words, the Air Force already had authority to oversee CAP 
financial matters, exercised the authority and approved the 
reimbursement. Where is the lack of Air Force control?
  The Air Force has also pointed to safety concerns. Although we only 
have allegations, I talked to the CAP Commander, Jay Bobich about them. 
I asked if there is a need for a safety officer. His response was 
fairly open. He doesn't know about the incident cited--again, they are 
from letters from unknown sources--but would welcome an Air Force 
safety officer. The Air Force can place one at the headquarters without 
this legislation and always could, but perhaps the Air Force did not 
think it was a serious concern.
  Let me also turn to an important down-side to the Air Force proposal: 
cost. The Air Force proposes to use many more uniformed military 
personnel to run CAP headquarters, replacing the civilian employees. I 
don't have to point out the financial implication to my colleagues. 
Uniformed Air Force personnel simply cost more. In fact, the Air Force 
is even talking about placing a 2-star general instead of the current 
civilian director. This alone is a $60,000 difference that the 
taxpayers would have to bear.
  Rather than simply take the Air Force proposal, we should require the 
DOD Inspector General to do a study of the allegations. I have already 
started the GAO on a study. We should also require an Inspector General 
study. This way, we in Congress, can make an informed decision that 
considers all possible alternatives.
  I must pose a question to my colleagues. Why would anyone make a 
lasting decision to make major changes to an important organization 
using unilateral input--in this case from the Air Force? Right or 
wrong, would it not be better to have an unbiased and factual 
determination, and then make a judgment based on the facts?
  Our amendment simply requires that we take some time to look at the 
Air Force proposal on CAP, examine other potentially better proposals, 
and have the IG and GAO make recommendations. Let's not rush to a hasty 
judgment without the facts.
  Mr. President, I want to give my disclaimer and talk about my own 
involvement in the Civil Air Patrol. I have been involved in the Civil 
Air Patrol for about the last 15 years. I am at present the commander 
of the Congressional Civil Air Patrol Squadron. I go out and fly 
missions. I fly with the Civil Air Patrol quite regularly. So I just 
wanted to lay it out that I am very much involved with the Civil Air 
Patrol and have been involved most of the time I have been in the 
Senate.
  It is a proud and good organization. I am just going to give a little 
bit of the background: More than 60,000 senior and cadet members, all 
across America, in small towns, large cities, flying every day in 
search and rescue missions. Almost 85 percent of all the search and 
rescue missions in America are done by the Civil Air Patrol. We have 
youth programs for thousands of cadets around America.
  This organization started in World War II when German submarines were 
sinking our ships off the coast, sometimes within sight of land. We 
didn't have the Army and Navy aircraft to patrol, so, flying their own 
small aircraft, sometimes using automobile inner tubes as their life 
preservers, the CAP pilots did what the military could not--they found 
the enemy submarines in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. They spotted 
so many submarines. In fact, they finally convinced the military they 
should be armed. At first they actually carried bombs on their laps in 
the plane. They would see a submarine, and they would throw them out 
the window on top of the submarine, on top of the German U-boat. By 
July of 1943, CAP pilots had flown over 24 million miles on 
antisubmarine combat missions. They had spotted and reported the 
location of 173 submarines to the military and the CAP itself attacked 
57 of those submarines and sank or damaged two of them. I wanted to lay 
that out as a kind of proud history of the Civil Air Patrol.

  Since that time, under civilian control, the Patrol has had a great 
cadet program to recruit young people into its program. Many of the 
pilots we have had in the Air Force, the Navy, came out of the Civil 
Air Patrol. It is just an invaluable youth program. One time I came 
over here to talk to a youth group from the Cleveland, OH, Civil Air 
Patrol squadron, all young African Americans, male and female, taken 
out of the inner city. They had uniforms. They were given discipline. 
They had summer programs. It was just a wonderful thing to see, this 
cadet program instilling good American values in these young people.
  Again, I point that out as a way of saying that this is a very proud, 
very good organization, one that has done a lot of good. As I said, 85 
percent of all search and rescue is done by the Civil Air Patrol. In 
1998, we conducted 3,155 search and rescue missions and saved 116 
lives.
  We also support communities and States in times of disaster. In 1998, 
during a period lasting weeks, when we saw all the fires in Florida and 
Texas, hundreds of CAP members flew emergency fire watch, while others 
maintained airborne communication relay stations.
  Three weeks ago during the terrible Oklahoma tornadoes that killed 45 
people, CAP was there with aerial and ground units and quickly joined 
with community and State disaster relief efforts. I can tell you that 
in 1993, during the terrible floods we had in the Midwest, in Iowa, the 
Civil Air Patrol was there day after day after day helping with 
logistics, helping with communication, helping fly aircraft over rivers 
to warn of propane tanks floating downstream.
  All of these things are done by volunteers. The people flying these 
planes don't get paid a dime.
  One other thing that most people don't know about is the drug 
interdiction efforts by the Civil Air Patrol. This was something that I 
had a proud involvement with back in the 1980s. We changed the law to 
give the Civil Air Patrol the authority to join with the DEA and others 
to fly drug interdiction, both off our coasts and looking for drugs 
within the continental United States.
  At that time, if I am not mistaken, much of what was being done in 
that regard was done by the National Guard. They were charging over 
$1,100 an hour for that. The Civil Air Patrol did it for about $80 an 
hour. Why? Because it was all volunteers. In fact, many of the flying 
volunteers took their own cameras with them, paid for their own film, 
paid for developing, which pictures they then turned over to the DEA.
  Again, I point that out because I am very proud of the Civil Air 
Patrol, very proud of their history, proud of what they have been doing 
recently, proud of what they are doing yet today to help our States, 
our local communities, and the great cadet programs they have 
to instill good values and discipline among so many young people in 
America.

  Now what do we have? In front of us we have this provision that was 
put into the bill. I understand it was voice voted in committee. We 
have had no hearings on it, not one hearing. Yet, this provision would 
basically allow the Air Force to completely take over the Civil Air 
Patrol.
  The Air Force has always had a relationship with the Civil Air 
Patrol--quite frankly, a pretty decent relationship. But because of 
some unfounded allegations, all of a sudden we have this provision in 
the bill that basically would allow the Air Force to take it over.
  Well, what the Allard and Harkin amendment--joined by so many 
others--says is, what we have are allegations. When you have 
allegations, the best thing to do is to have the GAO investigate and do 
a study, have the inspector general's office investigate

[[Page S6173]]

these allegations. Let's find out where the truth lies. That is what 
our amendment says.
  The world is not going to end in the next year if we do not make this 
massive change to let the Air Force take over the Civil Air Patrol. 
What we need to do is to approach it in a logical manner. That is what 
the Allard-Harkin amendment does.
  It simply says, GAO, IG, do an investigation, report back by February 
15 of the year 2000, next year, in time for the next cycle. I am also 
going to ask the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee if they would have hearings on this, bring in the Air Force, 
bring in the Civil Air Patrol. Let's find out if there are any bases to 
these allegations.
  I called the present commanding officer of the Civil Air Patrol, Jay 
Bobick, last night. I talked to him about some of the allegations that 
were made on the record by my friend from Oklahoma. Quite frankly, I 
got a completely different story.
  There have been allegations of financial mismanagement and safety 
lapses, but there is no evidence to support it. There has been no 
report by the Air Force inspector general, no report by DOD, nor by 
GAO. The Civil Air Patrol leadership rejects these allegations.
  We don't need to rush to a hasty decision. I talked personally to 
both the Acting Secretary of the Air Force and to the CAP leadership. I 
asked them if we could get them both together in the same room, across 
the table from each other, and talk to one another. I said I would be 
there. Senator Allard would be there. Anybody else is invited to come, 
too. Let's get these two entities together, and let's talk it out, just 
see what is the basis of this problem. I think that is the proper way 
to proceed.
  The Senator from Oklahoma described many of the allegations of CAP 
missteps. Some were made, as I understand, in the record by unnamed 
former members. Again I ask, where is the evidence? Where is the formal 
review? Where are the hearings? Are we going to base this legislation 
on unchecked allegations by unnamed former members?
  I must say at the outset, I know of some former members of the Civil 
Air Patrol who are still upset because they were run out because they 
were mismanaging things. Now they are coming back, writing letters, and 
doing things like that. Well, OK, if they want to do that, that is 
fine. But let's check into it.
  We heard last night about the infamous CAP cruise, I say to my friend 
from Oklahoma, a CAP cruise to wherever it was, the Bahamas or Nassau, 
some place like that, purported as one of the worse CAP missteps, I 
looked into the matter, and here is what I found.

  It is true that in 1998 the southeast region--that is basically 
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee; I may have missed a 
couple States--had a meeting. They had it aboard a ship instead of at a 
hotel.
  I point out the Civil Air Patrol regions have meetings regularly 
within the region and all the wings come together and they decide on 
the location. They decided on having it on a ship.
  Let's look at the facts. First, no Civil Air Patrol member used 
Federal dollars to pay for that cruise, not one. They paid for it out 
of their own pockets, volunteer members. It is true that some of the 
Civil Air Patrol headquarters staff at Maxwell Air Force Base attended 
the meeting. They were reimbursed for the cost. But this has long been 
the normal practice. They are paid Federal employees. They are not 
volunteer members. When they go to meetings like this, they get 
reimbursed.
  Now, we were told they were reimbursed. They got the meals free on 
the ship, but they then got reimbursed for that.
  This, I was told, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, is not so. What 
they got reimbursed for was breakfast and lunch on the way to the ship, 
and they got reimbursed for breakfast and lunch or lunch and dinner on 
the way back, which is normal, accepted Federal practice. They were not 
reimbursed for any of the meals while they were on the ship. Anyway, 
that is what I have been told.
  I point this out, also, to my friend from Oklahoma: The Air Force had 
no criticism of this. In fact, another key point: The Air Force has 
about 30 staff overseeing operations and financial matters at 
headquarters at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama.
  Before this cruise took place, the southeast region sent it up to the 
Air Force for approval. Guess what. The Air Force approved the cruise 
before it ever took place. That is true. The reimbursement and the 
cruise were approved by the Air Force before it ever took place. In 
other words, the Air Force already had the authority to oversee Civil 
Air Patrol financial matters. They exercised that authority and they 
approved it.
  So I ask, where is the lack of Air Force control? They had it. And 
now we have allegations that they took this cruise, but the Air Force 
approved it in the first place.
  Well, now I hear there are some safety concerns. Again, we only have 
allegations. I talked to Mr. Bobick about them. I asked if there is a 
need for a safety officer, an Air Force safety officer. I say to my 
friend from Oklahoma that his response was fairly open. He didn't know 
about the incident cited. Again, these are letters from unknown 
sources, unsubstantiated. But he said they would welcome an Air Force 
safety officer. He pointed this out, I say to my friend from Oklahoma. 
The Air Force can place a safety officer at the headquarters without 
this legislation. They always could. They could tomorrow. Why haven't 
they? Perhaps the Air Force didn't think it was a very serious matter.
  Yes, I want to point out that the Air Force could--today, if they 
want--place a safety officer at headquarters in Alabama. They have 
never done so. I am not saying they should not, but I am saying let's 
get some studies down here and have some hearings on this before we run 
off and do something without even knowing what the facts are.
  I want to make just one other observation. Prior to 1995, we had some 
170-plus--I will leave myself a little room--Air Force personnel at 
Maxwell running the Civil Air Patrol. The Air Force, as I have stated, 
didn't want to do any more. We replaced them with civilians over a 
period of time. We replaced 170-some Air Force personnel--they drew 
them down--with I think about 104 civilians. They pay less and we are 
actually saving the taxpayers money.
  Now, I understand the Air Force is talking about placing a two-star 
general as the executive director of the Civil Air Patrol instead of 
the civilian we have there now. I asked for a cost estimate on that. It 
would cost about $60,000 more per year to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 15 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.
  I ask, where is the sense in doing this? Again, I am not going to say 
we should not make some changes in the Civil Air Patrol. I believe some 
changes are warranted. I have been involved in this a long time. I am 
not going to say I have all the knowledge on exactly how to do it, but 
I believe we ought to bring the Air Force and Civil Air Patrol together 
and hammer this thing out. We need hearings, a GAO investigation, an IG 
investigation, and then let's do it in a logical manner, in a manner 
which really is going to keep the civilian nature of the Civil Air 
Patrol and even make it better than it is today. I believe that can be 
done.
  That is why I am so strongly supportive of the Allard amendment. I 
think it takes that kind of a commonsense, logical approach to improve 
and make the Civil Air Patrol even better in the next century.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado and the Senator from 
Virginia are the only ones who have time.
  Mr. INHOFE. I am controlling time for the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I will yield myself a couple of minutes and I will 
reserve the remainder of my time.
  First of all, I don't disagree with many of the things the Senator 
from Iowa is saying. The only thing I disagree with is, we have much 
better

[[Page S6174]]

proof than he is implying in terms of mismanagement.
  I find something very interesting, and that is a letter that went out 
last night over the web site from one of the prominent members, named 
Cameron Warner, to all his fellow members. In this letter he makes it 
very specific that we at CAP have problems--problems at the top--and 
they are going to have to be addressed. He goes on to say that if we 
don't do something about it, those things that we said yesterday on the 
floor of the Senate as to ``60 Minutes'' coming in and looking at all 
these abuses could actually be a reality. So here is a request from 
members of the CAP saying they want to clean up this act.
  I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                            A Sad Commentary

                         (By Cameron F. Warner)

       Dear CAP Membership: Folks, today as I watched the debate 
     about CAP v. USAF take place on the Senate floor. I couldn't 
     help but think how sad all of this truly is. Just listen to 
     the subject matter. All this dirty laundry about CAP being 
     aired out on the Senate Floor in front of the American 
     public. Today, the image of CAP took a giant step in the 
     wrong direction relative to public perception. How 
     embarrassing to say the least! Years of good work and 
     wonderful acts by members being tarnished by the actions of a 
     few. Indeed, this is a dark day in the history of CAP.
       It is a personal heartbreak to see just where the 
     leadership of Bobick and Albano have taken CAP. Here is CAP, 
     center stage on the United States Senate floor for all to 
     see, but not for all it's good deeds or accomplishments. 
     Quite the contrary! Rather, we have United States Senators on 
     the Senate floor talking about all the wrong doings of 
     leadership and the bad management of CAP. Sen. Inhofe talks 
     about FBI investigations of CAP. Ask yourself, how bad does 
     that sound to the American public? How does that really sound 
     to you?
       The Allard amendment was not resolved as earlier thought, 
     so the debate will continue early tomorrow morning with a 
     vote to follow. For those of you who are interested, live 
     Senate coverage will air on CSPAN2 first thing in the 
     morning. No matter what the outcome, it will only get worse 
     for CAP and CAP will end up the big loser. Tomorrow is but 
     one battle, not the entire war. The longer this goes on and 
     the more public this becomes, the worse CAP will look in the 
     public eye no matter how you cut it. Don't be surprised if 
     Sen. Warner's concerns about the 60 Minutes bad press 
     possibility becomes a reality. CAP will not be portrayed in a 
     positive light at all.
       How sad that this is right where Bobick, Albano, the NEC 
     and NB have lead CAP at the end of this century! Today is 
     tomorrow's history. Good work, guys!

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the other thing I want to mention is that 
we all love the CAP. There isn't a person in the 100 Members here who 
has worked closer with them than I have. I was a flight instructor, and 
I have been involved with these people. We love them. We don't want 
something to happen where all of a sudden we find out bad things are 
going on and the Air Force says we can't be responsible for it, dump 
the program. We all want to save the CAP.
  Third, I don't buy the argument when they say we are using our own 
money. It is 95 percent paid for by public funds. But it is always easy 
to say these funds were the ones that were the 5 percent. I am not 
criticizing anybody for saying that, because I hear that all the time 
on the floor of the Senate.
  I have no problem with accepting this amendment. I think we can 
probably do it by voice vote. I would like to address these things 
together. The Senator from Iowa and I have talked, and certainly the 
Senator from Colorado also shares the concern that there could be 
mismanagement that has to be stopped, and this is actually the request 
of the members of the CAP.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, first of all, I want to reiterate how 
important the Civil Air Patrol is to States such as Colorado, 
particularly in the mountainous regions. They have played such a vital 
role when we have had downed aircraft in the Mountain States. They have 
been a nonprofit civilian organization ever since 1946, and they have 
been designated since 2 years after that as an auxiliary. After all, it 
is the Civil Air Patrol, not the Defense Air Patrol or the Air Force 
Air Patrol. This is the Civil Air Patrol, and it is volunteers. That 
has been its focus. That is the strength of the organization. I think 
any effort at this point to put it under the control of the Air Force 
is premature.
  I am glad to hear that my colleague from Oklahoma has recognized the 
fact that we can do a GAO study to look at the budget aspects of some 
of the discrepancies that supposedly come out; and then if we can get 
the inspector general to go in and look at how the management side of 
it is handled and get concrete recommendations back to the Senate, then 
we can go ahead and have some hearings next year. That makes good sense 
to me. I hope we can accept that plan and move forward.
  So if they want to go with a voice vote, that is acceptable to me, 
with the idea that we have a GAO study and we have an inspector general 
study, and then we have some hearings and get the facts laid out.
  I think Senator Harkin, my colleague from Iowa, has made a good 
suggestion, that we need to get both of them in the same room to talk 
about these differences. I think there is all sorts of room to correct 
some misunderstandings between the Air Force and Civil Air Patrol. I 
think we can do it in an honest manner.
  So I think the Allard amendment is reasonable. I think it has a 
reasonable approach, and I urge my colleagues on the Armed Services 
Committee to work with us on the Allard amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to add another cosponsor to the amendment, 
Senator Rod Grams of Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, do I have 4 or 5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes remain.
  Mr. HARKIN. I think maybe we are going to reach a good resolution on 
this and accept the amendment. I have no problems with a voice vote. 
That is fine. I know the Senator from Oklahoma is sincere. We have 
talked about this. He has been involved in the Civil Air Patrol for a 
long time. I believe we can work this out. Again, I hope we can do it 
in a logical approach.
  I have to chide my friend from Oklahoma a little bit here on reading 
a letter on the web. I say to my friend that I know there are probably 
disgruntled people in the CAP, like in the Air Force or anywhere 
else. We are going to get those kinds of letters.

  Again, I just repeat for the sake of emphasis that the best way to do 
that is to get the IG to look into the darned thing and see what type 
of basis there is on that. I just want to add in my little time 
remaining that I really want to examine, perhaps, this oversight board.
  The Air Force wanted to have a military oversight board. I personally 
don't think that is the way to go. For the Civil Air Patrol, I agree, 
the present structure of the board is not right. I want to say that 
publicly to my friend from Oklahoma. That is not right. But I hope to 
work with him in thinking about an oversight board that would be more 
akin to the civilian oversight board of the academies or something like 
that, or maybe Congress would appoint some and the President would 
appoint some where we would have a blend of civilians with the 
background that would give them the kind of knowledge they need to have 
an oversight of the Civil Air Patrol.
  I hope that might be a better way of proceeding on an oversight board 
to keep it in civilian hands, but to do it in the way that is not the 
present structure of how the board is set up, which I, quite frankly, 
think invites a lot of problems, the way the board is set up with the 
commander. I am willing to work on that. I think we can work that out, 
but to have some kind of a civilian oversight board.
  Again, I appreciate the debate we have had. I think we all are very 
justly proud of the Civil Air Patrol and what they have done in the 
past. I really believe that in the future, with drug interdiction, with 
national disasters, the Civil Air Patrol will continue to play a vital 
role in our society. Plus, I also want to work with my friend from 
Oklahoma and my friend from Colorado.
  I have been trying for a long time to beef up the cadet program in 
the Civil Air Patrol. We need to strengthen the cadet program. These 
inner-city kids especially are looking for things to do. They need some 
order. They need some structure and discipline in their lives.

[[Page S6175]]

 This is what the Civil Air Patrol can do for them. It will help build 
up our summer camps where these kids get to go for a couple of weeks. 
They can learn some technology and get some discipline and order in 
their lives. They can wear a uniform of which they can be proud. 
Believe me. I think we ought to do more to strengthen and to build up 
the cadet program in the Civil Air Patrol. I think it would be one of 
the best things we could do for the future of our country.
  Again, I appreciate all the work that Senator Allard has done on 
this. I have talked to so many Democrats on my side who are supporting 
the Allard amendment. I believe there is overwhelming support on both 
sides for this approach.
  Again, if we want to have a voice vote on it, that is fine with me.
  I thank my colleague from Colorado.
  I thank my friend from Oklahoma. I think he has done a service here 
by at least highlighting the problem and pointing out that we have to 
do something. We may have disagreed a little bit on how to do it, but 
that is normal. I think now we are set on a course that is really going 
to improve and make the Civil Air Patrol even better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. The other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Iowa last 
expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I agree with a lot of the things the 
Senator from Iowa is saying. I felt that we were in a position where we 
couldn't do nothing. We had the accusations out there. I think, quite 
frankly, ``60 Minutes'' has had more publicity out of this than the CAP 
has. However, that is the reality. Any time there are accusations like 
this and 95 percent of the taxpayers' money is being spent, we have a 
responsibility for oversight. I think we will be able to do that. I 
certainly have no objection to working on this and making it happen.
  I also say, since I have a minute remaining, that I am particularly 
concerned, because 2 weeks ago I was thinking about this ACP while 
flying an airplane which had an engine blow, and I wasn't sure I was 
going to be able to land safely gliding into the airport. I could very 
well have been their product a couple of weeks ago.
  I yield the remaining time.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to summarize briefly before 
we go to a vote. I think the Allard amendment is a reasonable plan. It 
sets out the process in which we can gather our facts through a GAO 
report, and I am sure the report from the Inspector General, then hold 
some hearings and make some reasonable decisions. We all, I think, 
agree that we need to understand the problem before we can come to some 
satisfactory conclusion. I think the plan does that.
  I urge the Members to vote aye. I yield any remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 396) was agreed to.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wanted to ask my colleagues whether 
or not they are ready to go to an amendment right this second, or 
whether I could have 3 minutes as if in morning business.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, can I get more clearly in mind the amount 
of time the Senator needs?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague that I think I can do everything 
in 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Is it related to the bill?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. No.
  Mr. WARNER. We have a Senator that is anxious to address a matter on 
the bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have the floor, but I know we want to 
move forward.
  Mr. President, while I have the floor, we are going to go forward 
with the Kennedy amendment. Is that correct? Can I ask unanimous 
consent that after we dispense with the Kennedy amendment I have 5 
minutes?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, allow the managers to represent to the 
Senator that we will find a window in which the Senator from Minnesota 
can address the matter not related to the bill. But we have good 
momentum on this bill. I would like to ask the Senator from 
Massachusetts as to what his desire is.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to submit the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will send the amendment to the desk and speak probably 
for 4 or 5 minutes on it. I think my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, may 
want to talk for a similar period of time. We are prepared. There is 
virtual support for it, and no opposition. Then we would obviously like 
to get a vote on it and have it at a time that is suitable with the 
managers any time during the course of the day.

  Mr. WARNER. If I might inquire, Mr. President, of the Senator from 
Massachusetts, he said get the vote. Would a voice vote be suitable?
  Mr. KENNEDY. This issue is sufficiently important, Mr. President, 
dealing with Libya that I think it is advantageous to the Secretary of 
State and on the whole issue of Qadhafi that we have a strong vote in 
the Senate. We would be glad to accommodate leaders to vote at any time 
during the course of the day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, here is a schedule that the ranking member 
and I are considering; that is, to have the debate by the Senator from 
Massachusetts and the Senator from New Jersey. That would take, say, 10 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will only take about 4 or 5. I believe 
that is what the Senator from New Jersey desires. But I have not heard 
from him this morning. I think we could at least present the amendment, 
and I will speak briefly. I am trying to get the Senator from New 
Jersey here at the present time.
  Mr. WARNER. Then I would suggest the following: The Senator from 
Minnesota is very anxious and very patient to try to get 5 minutes to 
address the Senate on a matter other than the bill. I am perfectly 
willing, as this manager, to grant him 5 minutes within which time the 
Senator can contact Senator Lautenberg. Then that will be followed, as 
soon as the Senator from Minnesota has concluded his remarks, with 20 
minutes of debate on the Kennedy amendment, with, let's say, 12 minutes 
under the control of the Senator from Massachusetts, and 8 minutes 
under the control of Senator Brownback.
  Then we will proceed to a record vote on the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator wanted to modify 10 minutes on our side, 
that is fine. Senator Lautenberg indicated he only wanted 5 minutes, so 
that would be fine.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is that modification agreeable?
  Mr. WARNER. I withhold the request momentarily, because I am just now 
informed that Senator Feingold is ready, in which case we would stack 
the votes to make it convenient, if we can determine the time the 
Senator from Wisconsin desires.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I have two amendments. It is perfectly acceptable to 
have the votes stacked after they are presented. The only issue is the 
time agreement.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator desires a record vote on both amendments?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I do. In terms of time on my side for the presentation, 
30 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Could the Senator identify which amendment that is?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. The first amendment is the so-called cost cap amendment 
which I ask for a total of 30 minutes on my side; the other is the 
amendment having to do with contract specifications, and we only need 
15 minutes on my side.
  Mr. WARNER. Could the Senator possibly reduce 30 minutes to 20 
minutes?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That would be difficult. We started off with 45 minutes 
and we are going down. It is a very complicated issue.

[[Page S6176]]

  Mr. WARNER. I appreciate that, but it is a subject that I think is 
pretty well known. The Senator has raised it very conscientiously 
through the years. We have the necessity to get this bill completed by 
early afternoon. If the Senator could grant us 20 minutes on the first 
amendment, say 10 minutes on the second amendment, then I ask for only 
5 minutes on each amendment on this side.
  Excuse me, I am told on the first amendment the Senator from 
Wisconsin would have 20 minutes; on this side, we would have 15 
minutes; is that agreeable?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That is pretty tough, but I will agree to it and 
proceed accordingly.
  Mr. WARNER. That is the first amendment.
  As to the second amendment, the amount of time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I would like 15 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Fifteen minutes; we would take 10 minutes on this side.
  So that concludes those two amendments.
  I think the Senator from Massachusetts is agreeable now. The Senator 
has 10 minutes equally divided and the Senator from New Jersey----
  Mr. KENNEDY. Ten minutes on our side. There is no opposition to this.
  Mr. WARNER. We will reserve 5, in the event someone is in opposition.
  We have three amendments: two from the Senator from Wisconsin, one 
from the Senator from Massachusetts. Has the Senator decided who goes 
first?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate going first because we will be very brief.
  Mr. WARNER. Preceding these amendments, we want to accommodate the 
Senator from Minnesota for just 5 minutes. Is that agreeable?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. We will proceed as follows: 5 minutes allocated to the 
Senator from Minnesota to address the Senate; followed by the Senator 
from Massachusetts, with 10 minutes under his control; 5 minutes under 
the control of the Senator from Virginia, if necessary. That will 
require a record vote, and it will be stacked. We will then proceed to 
the Feingold amendments, the first one with 20 minutes under the 
control of the Senator from Wisconsin, 15 under the control of the 
Senator from Virginia; then to the second Feingold amendment, 15 
minutes under the control of the Senator from Wisconsin and 10 minutes 
under the control of the Senator from Virginia. That will be two record 
votes.
  So we will have three record votes in approximately about an hour's 
time. We will add no amendments in order to any of the three amendments 
that we just recited.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I understand 
the three votes will not only be stacked at the end of the debate on 
the third amendment but that we would vote on them in the order in 
which they are presented; is that correct?
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Virginia 
for his graciousness, together with both of my colleagues, Senator 
Kennedy and Senator Feingold.


                                 Kosovo

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, to have 
printed in the Record a very eloquent, powerful and important piece 
written by President Jimmy Carter, entitled, ``Have We Forgotten the 
Path to Peace?'' from the New York Times.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, May 27, 1999]

                  Have We Forgotten the Path to Peace?

                           (By Jimmy Carter)

       After the cold war, many expected that the world would 
     enter an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity. Those who 
     live in developed nations might think this is the case today, 
     with the possible exception of the war in Kosovo. But at the 
     Carter Center we monitor all serious conflicts in the world, 
     and the reality is that the number of such wars has increased 
     dramatically.
       One reason is that the United Nations was designed to deal 
     with international conflicts, and almost all the current ones 
     are civil wars in developing countries. This creates a 
     peacemaking vacuum that is most often filled by powerful 
     nations that concentrate their attention on conflicts that 
     affect them, like those in Iraq, Bosnia and Serbia. While the 
     war in Kosovo rages and dominates the world's headlines, even 
     more destructive conflicts in developing nations are 
     systematically ignored by the United States and other 
     powerful nations.
       One can traverse Africa, from the Red Sea in the northeast 
     to the southwestern Atlantic coast, and never step on 
     peaceful territory. Fifty thousand people have recently 
     perished in the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia, and almost 
     two million have died during the 16-year conflict in 
     neighboring Sudan. That war has now spilled into northern 
     Uganda, whose troops have joined those from Rwanda to fight 
     in the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire). The 
     other Congo (Brazzaville) is also ravaged by civil war, and 
     all attempts to bring peace to Angola have failed. Although 
     formidable commitments are being made in the Balkans, where 
     white Europeans are involved, no such concerted efforts are 
     being made by leaders outside of Africa to resolve the 
     disputes. This gives the strong impression of racism.
       Because of its dominant role in the United Nations Security 
     Council and NATO, the United States tends to orchestrate 
     global peacemaking. Unfortunately, many of these efforts are 
     seriously flawed. We have become increasingly inclined to 
     sidestep the time-tested premises of negotiation, which in 
     most cases prevent deterioration of a bad situation and at 
     least offer the prospect of a bloodless solution. Abusive 
     leaders can best be induced by the simultaneous threat of 
     consequences and the promise of reward--at least 
     legitimacy within the international community.
       The approach the United States has taken recently has been 
     to devise a solution that best suits its own purposes, 
     recruit at least tacit support in whichever forum it can best 
     influence, provide the dominant military force, present an 
     ultimatum to recalcitrant parties and then take punitive 
     action against the entire nation to force compliance.
       The often tragic result of this final decision is that 
     already oppressed citizens suffer, while the oppressor may 
     feel free of further consequences if he perpetrates even 
     worse crimes. Through control of the news media, he is often 
     made to seem heroic by defending his homeland against foreign 
     aggression and shifting blame for economic or political woes 
     away from himself.
       Our general purposes are admirable: to enhance peace, 
     freedom, democracy, human rights and economic progress. But 
     this flawed approach is now causing unwarranted suffering and 
     strengthening unsavory regimes in several countries, 
     including Sudan, Cuba, Iraq and--the most troubling example--
     Serbia.
       There, the international community has admirable goals of 
     protecting the rights of Kosovars and ending the brutal 
     policies of Slobodan Milosevic. But the decision to attack 
     the entire nation has been counterproductive, and our 
     destruction of civilian life has now become senseless and 
     excessively brutal. There is little indication of success 
     after more than 25,000 sorties and 14,000 missiles and bombs, 
     4,000 of which were not precision guided.
       The expected few days of aerial attacks have now lengthened 
     into months, while more than a million Kosovars have been 
     forced from their homes, many never to return even under the 
     best of circumstances. As the American-led force has expanded 
     targets to inhabited areas and resorted to the use of anti-
     personnel cluster bombs, the result has been damage to 
     hospitals, offices and residences of a half-dozen 
     ambassadors, and the killing of hundreds of innocent 
     civilians and an untold number of conscripted troops.
       Instead of focusing on Serbian military forces, missiles 
     and bombs are now concentrating on the destruction of 
     bridges, railways, roads, electric power, and fuel and 
     fresh water supplies. Serbian citizens report that they 
     are living like cavemen, and their torment increases 
     daily. Realizing that we must save face but cannot change 
     what has already been done, NATO leaders now have three 
     basic choices: to continue bombing ever more targets until 
     Yugoslavia (include Kosovo and Montenegro) is almost 
     totally destroyed, to rely on Russia to resolve our 
     dilemma through indirect diplomacy, or to accept American 
     casualties by sending military forces into Kosovo.
       So far, we are following the first, and worst, option--and 
     seem to be moving toward including the third. Despite earlier 
     denials by American and other leaders, the recent decision to 
     deploy a military force of 50,000 troops on the Kosovo border 
     confirms that the use of ground troops will be necessary to 
     assure the return of expelled Albanians to their homes.
       How did we end up in this quagmire? We have ignored some 
     basic principals that should be applied to the prevention or 
     resolution of all conflicts;
       Short-circuiting the long-established principles of patient 
     negotiation leads to war, not peace.
       Bypassing the Security Council weakens the United Nations 
     and often alienates permanent members who may be helpful in 
     influencing warring parties.
       The exclusion of nongovernmental organizations from 
     peacemaking precludes vital ``second track'' opportunities 
     for resolving disputes.
       Ignoring serious conflicts in Africa and other 
     underdeveloped regions deprives these people of justice and 
     equal rights.

[[Page S6177]]

       Even the most severe military or economic punishment of 
     oppressed citizens is unlikely to force their oppressors to 
     yield to American demands.
       The United States' insistence on the use of cluster bombs, 
     designed to kill or maim humans, is condemned almost 
     universally and brings discredit on our nation (as does our 
     refusal to support a ban on land mines).
       Even for the world's only superpower, the ends don't always 
     justify the means.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will read the relevant section:

       Our general purposes are admirable: to enhance peace, 
     freedom, democracy, human rights and economic progress. But 
     this flawed approach is now causing unwarranted suffering and 
     strengthening unsavory regimes in several countries, 
     including Sudan, Cuba, Iraq and--the most troubling example--
     Serbia.
       There, the international community has admirable goals of 
     protecting the rights of Kosovars and ending the brutal 
     policies of Slobodan Milosevic. But the decision to attack 
     the entire nation has been counterproductive, and our 
     destruction of civilian life has now become senseless and 
     excessively brutal. There is little indication of success and 
     more than 25,000 sorties and 14,000 missiles and bombs, 4,000 
     of which were not precision guided.
       The expected few days of aerial attacks have now lengthened 
     into months, while more than a million Kosovars have been 
     forced from their homes, many never to return even under the 
     best of circumstances. As the American-led force has expanded 
     targets to inhabited areas and resorted to the use of anti-
     personnel cluster bombs, the result has been damage to 
     hospitals, offices and residences of a half-dozen 
     ambassadors, and the killing of hundreds of innocent 
     civilians and an untold number of conscripted troops.
       Instead of focusing on Serbian military forces, missiles 
     and bombs are now concentrating on the destruction of 
     bridges, railways, roads, electric power, and fuel and fresh 
     water supplies. Serbian citizens report that they are living 
     like cavemen, and their torment increases daily. Realizing 
     that we must save face but cannot change what has already 
     been done, NATO leaders now have three basic choices: to 
     continue bombing ever more targets until Yugoslavia 
     (including Kosovo and Montenegro) is almost totally 
     destroyed, to rely on Russia to resolve our dilemma through 
     indirect diplomacy, or to accept American casualties by 
     sending military forces into Kosovo.
  The reason I read from this piece today is to build on what I said 
last night in the debate. Today there is a report in the Washington 
Post that we are going to be going after telephone systems, 
communications, in Yugoslavia, as well as bombing electrical grids. 
This ends up targeting the people there.
  Slobodan Milosevic has been indicted as a war criminal. He has 
committed brutal crimes against the Kosovars. But the citizens of 
Yugoslavia have not been the ones who have committed these crimes.
  I come to the floor to say to all of my colleagues, I hope you have 
time to read President Carter's piece. I believe we are severely 
undercutting our own moral authority by targeting the civilian 
infrastructure. I think we are making a terrible mistake by doing so. I 
come to the floor of the Senate to speak out against this and to make 
it clear that this goes far beyond what we said was our original goal 
of these airstrikes and our military action--which was to degrade the 
military capacity of Milosevic.
  Now this infrastructure is being targeted. Too many civilians are 
being targeted. As a Senator, I call into question these airstrikes. I 
think Jimmy Carter has done a real service for the country by writing 
this piece, putting the emphasis on diplomacy, putting the emphasis on 
a diplomatic solution to this conflict.


                      Veterans Accountability Day

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to inform my colleagues 
about a nationwide event which is going to be taking place the Memorial 
Day weekend.
  This is going to be an accountability day. It is organized by the 
Disabled American Veterans. It is an extremely important gathering.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the list of the locations and the 
dates of these events printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       DAV Save VA Health Care Rallies, 1999 Memorial Day Weekend

                            (As of 5/26/99)

                                Alabama

               DAV National Service Office: 334-213-3365

       Birmingham--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Montgomery--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Tuscaloosa--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Tuskegee--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                Arizona

               DAV National Service Office: 602-640-4655

       Phoenix--10 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Prescott--10 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Tucson--10 am, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                Arkansas

               DAV National Service Office: 501-370-3838

       Little Rock--3 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                               California

        W. Los Angeles DAV National Service Office: 310-235-2539

       West Los Angeles--12 noon, Friday, 5/28/99
       Lorna Linda--11 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Long Beach--11 am, Sunday, 5/30/99

           Oakland DAV National Service Office: 510-834-2921

       Fresno--10 am, Friday, 5/28/99
       Palo Alto--10 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       San Francisco--1 pm, Friday, 5/28/99

                                Colorado

               DAV National Service Office: 303-914-5570

       Denver--8 am, Saturday, 5/29/99
       Fort Lyon--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Grand Junction--1 pm, Sunday, 5/28/99

                              Connecticut

               DAV National Service Office: 860-240-3335

       West Haven--3 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                Delaware

                 National Service Office: 302-633-5324

       Wilmington--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                          District of Columbia

                 National Service Office: 202-691-3060

       Washington, DC.--12:30 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                Florida

                 National Service Office: 727-319-7444

       Bay Pines--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Gainesville--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Miami--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Tampa--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       West Palm Beach--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                Georgia

                 National Service Office: 404-347-2204

       Augusta--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Decatur--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Dublin--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Savannah--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                 Hawaii

               DAV National Service Office: 808-566-1610

       Honolulu @ VARO--1 pm, Friday, 5/28/99

                                 Idaho

               DAV National Service Office: 208-334-1956

       Boise--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                Illinois

               DAV National Service Office: 312-353-3960

       Chicago (Lakeside)--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Danville--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Hines--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Marion--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       North Chicago--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                Indiana

               DAV National Service Office: 317-226-7928

       Fort Wayne--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Marion--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                  Iowa

               DAV National Service Office: 515-284-4658

       Des Moines--12 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Iowa City--12 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Knoxville--12 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                 Kansas

               DAV National Service Office: 316-688-6722

       Wichita--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                Kentucky

               DAV National Service Office: 502-582-5849

       Lexington--3 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Louisville--3 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                               Louisiana

               DAV National Service Office: 504-619-4570

       Alexandria--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       New Orleans--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Shreveport--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                Maryland

               DAV National Service Office: 410-962-3045

       Baltimore--2:30 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Perry Point--2:30 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                             Massachusetts

               DAV National Service Office: 617-565-2575

       West Roxbury--10 am, Tuesday, 6/1/99

                                Michigan

               DAV National Service Office: 313-964-6595

       Allen Park--11 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Ann Arbor--11 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Battle Creek--11 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Iron Mountain--11 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Saginaw--11 am, Sunday, 5/30/99

                               Minnesota

               DAV National Service Office: 612-970-5665

       Minneapolis--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                              Mississippi

               DAV National Service Office: 601-364-7178

       Biloxi--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Jackson--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                Missouri

               DAV National Service Office: 314-589-9883

       Kansas City--1 pm, Monday, 5/31/99 (DAV Chapter #2 Home)
       Poplar Bluff--2:30 pm, Monday, 5/31/99
       St. Louis--1:30 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                Montana

               DAV National Service Office: 406-443-8754

       For Harrison--2 pm, Monday, 5/31/99

                                Nebraska

               DAV National Service Office: 402-420-4025

       Grand Island--

[[Page S6178]]

       Lincoln--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Omaha--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                 Nevada

               DAV National Service Office: 775-784-5239

       Reno--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Las Vegas--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                             New Hampshire

               DAV National Service Office: 603-666-7664

       Manchester--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                               New Jersey

               DAV National Service Office: 973-645-3797

       East Orange--9 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Lyons--9 am, Sunday, 5/30/99

                               New Mexico

               DAV National Service Office: 505-248-6732

       Albuquerque--11 am, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                New York

      Albany DAV National Service Office : 518-462-3311 ext. 3574

       Albany--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

           Buffalo DAV National Service Office: 716-551-5216

       Buffalo--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Bath--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Rochester OC--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

        New York City DAV National Service Office: 212-807-3157

       New York City--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

           Syracuse DAV National Service Office: 315-423-5541

       Syracuse--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Canandaigua--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                             North Carolina

               DAV National Service Office: 336-631-5481

       Asheville--10 am, Saturday, 5/29/99
       Fayetteville--10 am, Friday, 5/28/99

                              North Dakota

               DAV National Service Office: 701-237-2631

       Fargo--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                  Ohio

          Cleveland DAV National Service Office: 216-522-3507

       Chillicothe--3 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Cleveland--3 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Dayton--3 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

          Cincinnati DAV National Service Office: 513-684-2676

       Cincinnati--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                Oklahoma

               DAV National Service Office: 918-687-2108

       Muskogee--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Oklahoma City--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                 Oregon

               DAV National Service Office: 503-326-2620

       Portland--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                              Pennsylvania

         Philadelphia DAV National Service Office: 215-381-3065

       Philadelphia--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Altoona--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Coatesville--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Lebanon--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

          Pittsburgh DAV National Service Office: 412-395-6787

       Pittsburgh--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Erie--3 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Butler--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                              Puerto Rico

               DAV National Service Office: 787-766-5112

       San Juan--10 am, Friday, 5/28/99

                              Rhode Island

               DAV National Service Office: 401-528-4415

       Providence--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                             South Carolina

               DAV National Service Office: 803-255-4238

       Charleston--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Columbia--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                              South Dakota

               DAV National Service Office: 605-333-6896

       Fort Meade--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Sioux Falls--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                               Tennessee

               DAV National Service Office: 605-736-5735

     (VISN director has said no to any rallies on hospital grounds)

       Memphis--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Mountain Home--10 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Nashville--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                 Texas

         San Antonio DAV National Service Office: 210-949-3259

       Kerrville--11 am, Saturday, 5/29/99

             Waco DAV National Service Office: 254-299-9932

       Amarillo--1:30 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Big Spring--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Waco--1:30 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

            Dallas DAV National Service Office: 214-857-1119

       Dallas--1 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

           Houston DAV National Service Office: 713-794-3665

       Houston--10 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Marlin--11 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       San Antonio--3 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                  Utah

               DAV National Service Office: 801-524-5941

       Salt Lake City--5 pm, Friday, 5/28/99

                                Vermont

               DAV National Service Office: 802-296-5167

       White River Junction--12:30 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                Virginia

           Roanoke DAV National Service Office: 540-857-2373

       Hampton--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Richmond--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Salem--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

           Norfolk DAV National Service Office: 757-423-7100

       Newport News--12 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                               Washington

               DAV National Service Office: 206-220-6225

       Seattle--10 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Spokane--10 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Walla Walla--10 am, Sunday, 5/30/99

                             West Virginia

               DAV National Service Office: 304-529-5465

       Beckley--3 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Clarksburg--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Huntington--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Martinsburg--2 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99

                               Wisconsin

               DAV National Service Office: 414-382-5225

       Madison--10 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Milwaukee--10 am, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Tomah--10 am, Sunday, 5/30/99

                                Wyoming

           DAV National Service Office (Denver): 303-914-5570

       Cheyenne--12 pm, Sunday, 5/30/99
       Sheridan--1 pm, Monday, 5/31/99

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me urge colleagues during this recess to attend 
these sessions with the veterans community. This is an important voice. 
They have many important concerns to raise with us. I hope the Democrat 
and Republican Senators will make sure they meet with veterans as we 
move forward in this whole budget debate and appropriations. Right now 
the message is that the veterans should not expect timely care, the 
veterans can do with less health care, the veterans are not a top 
priority. We have to change that.
  The veterans are organizing and the veterans are going to put the 
pressure on us and I hope we will respond.
  I thank my colleagues for their graciousness and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 442

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding the continuation 
                      of sanctions against Libya)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment for myself and the 
Senator from New Jersey and others 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 Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. 
     Moynihan, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Torricelli, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. 
     Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 442.

  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. ____. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING THE CONTINUATION 
                   OF SANCTIONS AGAINST LIBYA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On December 21, 1988, 270 people, including 189 United 
     States citizens, were killed in a terrorist bombing on Pan Am 
     103 Flight over Lockerbie, Scotland.
       (2) Britain and the United States indicted two Libyan 
     intelligence agents, Abd al-Baset Ali al-Megrahi and Al-Amin 
     Khalifah Fhimah, in 1991 and sought their extradition from 
     Libya to the United States or the United Kingdom to stand 
     trial for this heinous terrorist act.
       (3) The United Nations Security Council called for the 
     extradition of the suspects in Security Council Resolution 
     731 and imposed sanctions on Libya in Security Council 
     Resolutions 748 and 883 because Libyan leader Colonel Muammar 
     Qadhafi refused to transfer the suspects to either the United 
     States or the United Kingdom to stand trial.
       (4) The United Nations Security Council Resolutions 731, 
     748, and 883 demand that Libya cease all support for 
     terrorism, turn over the two suspects, cooperate with the 
     investigation and the trial, and address the issue of 
     appropriate compensation.
       (5) The sanctions in United Nations Security Council 
     Resolutions 748 and 883 include--
       (A) a worldwide ban on Libya's national airline;
       (B) a ban on flights into and out of Libya by other 
     nations' airlines; and
       (C) a prohibition on supplying arms, airplane parts, and 
     certain oil equipment to Libya, and a blocking of Libyan 
     Government funds in other countries.
       (6) Colonel Muammar Qadhafi for many years refused to 
     extradite the suspects to either the United States or the 
     United Kingdom and had insisted that he would only

[[Page S6179]]

     transfer the suspects to a third and neutral country to stand 
     trial.
       (7) On August 24, 1998, the United States and the United 
     Kingdom agreed to the proposal that Colonel Qadhafi transfer 
     the suspects to The Netherlands, where they would stand trial 
     under a Scottish court, under Scottish law, and with a panel 
     of Scottish judges.
       (8) The United Nations Security Council endorsed the United 
     States-United Kingdom proposal on August 27, 1998 in United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 1192.
       (9) The United States, consistent with United Nations 
     Security Council resolutions, called on Libya to ensure the 
     production of evidence, including the presence of witnesses 
     before the court, and to comply fully with all the 
     requirements of the United Nations Security Council 
     resolutions.
       (10) After years of intensive diplomacy, Colonel Qadhafi 
     finally transferred the two Libyan suspects to The 
     Netherlands on April 5, 1999, and the United Nations Security 
     Council, in turn, suspended its sanctions against Libya that 
     same day.
       (11) Libya has only fulfilled one of four conditions (the 
     transfer of the two suspects accused in the Lockerbie 
     bombing) set forth in United Nations Security Council 
     Resolutions 731, 748, and 883 that would justify the lifting 
     of United Nations Security Council sanctions against Libya.
       (12) Libya has not fulfilled the other three conditions 
     (cooperation with the Lockerbie investigation and trial; 
     renunciation of and ending support for terrorism; and payment 
     of appropriate compensation) necessary to lift the United 
     Nations Security Council sanctions.
       (13) The United Nations Secretary General is expected to 
     issue a report to the Security Council on or before July 5, 
     1999, on the issue of Libya's compliance with the remaining 
     conditions.
       (14) Any member of the United Nations Security Council has 
     the right to introduce a resolution to lift the sanctions 
     against Libya after the United Nations Secretary General's 
     report has been issued.
       (15) The United States Government considers Libya a state 
     sponsor of terrorism and the State Department Report, 
     ``Patterns of Global Terrorism; 1998'', stated that Colonel 
     Qadhafi ``continued publicly and privately to support 
     Palestinian terrorist groups, including the PIJ and the PFLP-
     GC''.
       (16) United States Government sanctions (other than 
     sanctions on food or medicine) should be maintained on Libya, 
     and in accordance with U.S. law, the Secretary of State 
     should keep Libya on the list of countries the governments of 
     which have repeatedly provided support for acts of 
     international terrorism under section 6(j) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 in light of Libya's ongoing 
     support for terrorists groups.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the President should use all diplomatic means necessary, 
     including the use of the United States veto at the United 
     Nations Security Council, to prevent the Security Council 
     from lifting sanctions against Libya until Libya fulfills all 
     of the conditions set forth in United Nations Security 
     Council Resolutions 731, 748, and 883.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  This is an amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Lautenberg, 
Brownback, Gordon Smith, Moynihan, Schumer, Torricelli, Mikulski, and 
Kyl. This amendment states the sense of the Congress that UN Security 
Council sanctions against Libya should not be lifted until Libya meets 
all conditions specified in UN Security Council Resolutions 731, 748, 
and 883, and urges the Secretary of State to use all diplomatic means 
necessary to prevent sanctions from being lifted before these 
conditions are met.
  On December 21, 1988, 270 people, including 189 U.S. citizens, were 
killed in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103 Flight over Lockerbie, 
Scotland. In 1991, Britain and the United States indicted two Libyan 
intelligence agents and sought their extradition from Libya to the 
United States or the United Kingdom to stand trial for this despicable 
act. Libyan leader Qadhafi refused to transfer the suspects, and the 
United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on Libya.
  The sanctions in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 748 and 
883 include a worldwide ban on Libya's national airline; a ban on 
flights into and out of Libya by other nations' airlines; a prohibition 
on supplying arms, airplane parts, and certain oil equipment to Libya, 
and a blocking of Libyan Government funds in other countries.
  The Security Council demanded that Libya cease all support for 
terrorism and terrorist groups, turn over the two suspects, cooperate 
with the investigation and the trial, and address the issue of 
appropriate compensation for the victims' families before sanctions 
could be lifted.
  Last month, after years of intensive diplomacy, a compromise was 
finally reached, and Colonel Qadhafi transferred the two suspects to 
The Netherlands, where they will be tried under a Scottish court, under 
Scottish law, before a panel of Scottish judges. The United Nations 
Security Council, in turn, suspended its sanctions against Libya that 
same day.
  On or before July 5, the United Nations Secretary General will issue 
a report to the Security Council on the issue of Libya's compliance 
with the remaining conditions. I hope he will recommend that the 
sanctions against Libya should not be permanently lifted.
  It is clear that Libya has only fulfilled one of the four 
conditions--the transfer of the suspects accused in the Lockerbie 
bombing--in the UN Security Council resolutions. Libya has not ceased 
its support for terrorist groups. The State Department's ``Patterns of 
Global Terrorism: 1998'' clearly states that Colonel Qadhafi 
``continued publicly and privately to support Palestinian terrorist 
groups . . .'' In addition, because the trial has not begun and is 
expected to last at least several months, it would be premature to 
conclude that Libya has fulfilled the other remaining conditions.
  The amendment I am offering expresses our view that the United 
Nations Security Council should not permanently lift the sanctions 
against Libya, until Libya has fulfilled all of the remaining 
conditions in the Security Council resolutions. It also calls upon the 
Secretary of State to use all diplomatic means necessary, including the 
use of our veto at the U.N. Security Council, to prevent the Security 
Council from lifting sanctions against Libya until Libya fulfills all 
of the conditions.
  The Secretary of State has steadfastly and commendably maintained a 
vigilant stand against Libya, and this amendment will provide the 
strong support of Congress for using all diplomatic means necessary, 
including the use of the veto, to block the lifting of the sanctions.
  Mr. President, it would be a gross injustice to the Pan Am 103 
families, who have suffered so much in this ordeal, to reward Libya for 
policies it has not fulfilled. We must all remain vigilant and make 
sure that justice is served in all of its aspects in the Lockerbie 
bombing trial. We must remain vigilant and make sure that Libya 
ceases--not just in words, but in deeds--its support for terrorist 
groups.
  I know of no opposition to this amendment, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my colleague, Senator 
Lautenberg, be able to retain his 5 minutes on this.
  It is the intention, if I could ask the floor managers, to ask for 
the yeas and nays at the appropriate time for all the amendments. Am I 
correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. Can we get the yeas and nays on the Kennedy amendment now? 
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Massachusetts has requested, and I surely 
have no objection, that the remainder of his time be saved and reserved 
until some point either during or after the conclusion of the Feingold 
amendments. If that is agreeable with the Senator from Wisconsin, I 
think that would accommodate Senator Lautenberg.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I have no objection, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I want to clarify, the votes would still all be stacked 
at the end of that period; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield on that point? My friend from 
Virginia is attempting, if the Senator from Virginia is able to do 
this, to see if we cannot have the votes begin at a slightly later time 
than would previously be indicated by the way in which the three 
amendments are stacked. Since the

[[Page S6180]]

Senator from Virginia is the manager, if he is willing, we could give 
that preliminary alert.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Democratic leader 
has a commitment at the White House. We were not aware of that at the 
time this was established. We want to accommodate the minority leader, 
and therefore we will at this time vacate the order of the timing of 
these three votes until we can establish another time. But I would want 
the Senate to know that time would be right around 12 to 12:30.
  Mr. LEVIN. That would be very accommodating.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent to vacate that order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. We will continue with the debate and conclude all 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask to be informed by the Chair at a 
point when I have consumed 15 minutes of my time.


                           Amendment No. 443

       (Purpose: To limit the total cost of the F/A-18 E/F 
     aircraft program.)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. 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 Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 443.

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

       On page 26, after line 25, insert the following:
       (c) Limitation on Total Cost.--(1) For the fiscal years 
     2000 through 2004, the total amount obligated or expended for 
     production of airframes, contractor furnished equipment, and 
     engines under the F/A-18E/F aircraft program may not exceed 
     $8,840,795,000.
       (2) The Secretary of the Navy shall adjust the amount of 
     the limitation under paragraph (1) by the following amounts:
       (A) The amounts of increases or decreases in costs 
     attributable to economic inflation occurring since September 
     30, 1999.
       (B) The amounts of increases or decreases in costs 
     attributable to compliance with changes in Federal, State, or 
     local laws enacted after September 30, 1999.
       (C) The amounts of increases or decreases in costs 
     resulting from aircraft quantity changes within the scope of 
     the multiyear contract.
       (3) The Secretary of the Navy shall annually submit to 
     Congress, at the same time the budget is submitted under 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, written 
     notice of any change in the amount set forth in paragraph (1) 
     during the preceding fiscal year that the Secretary has 
     determined to be associated with a cost referred to in 
     paragraph (2).

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment is a straightforward, 
common sense measure that establishes greater accountability in the 
Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet program.
  The Navy and Boeing say they need $8.8 billion over the next five 
years to procure the Super Hornet. Specifically, they say the $8.8 
billion would procure the airframe, contractor furnished equipment, and 
engines. My amendment simply sets a cost cap that holds them to that 
amount. My amendment doesn't terminate the funding; it doesn't hold 
that money up; it doesn't even restrict use of the money. My amendment 
just holds them to the amount that they say they need.
  I would like to discuss the spectacular medicocrity of the Navy's F/
A-18E/F, or Super Hornet, aircraft program, and to raise concerns about 
the poor decisions that have been made with regard to this 
breathtakingly expensive program.
  President Eisenhower warned us four decades ago about the inexorable 
momentum of the military-industrial complex. Today we face the 
military-industrial-congressional complex that plods forward with a 
relentlessness that Ike, for all his foresight, could not have 
imagined. I have long feared that the Super Hornet is not the future of 
naval aviation, but rather a step backward. The Super Hornet just isn't 
worth the cost. It's as simple as that.
  The Pentagon wants to spend 45 billion of our tax dollars to buy the 
Super Hornet for the Navy. But the plane isn't as good, in some 
respects, as the one they currently use, and may have design problems 
that could cost billions more to fix. ``Super'' is not the way to 
describe this plane--``superfluous'' really is.
  For very limited gain, the American taxpayers are getting hit with a 
100 percent premium on the sticker price.
  At this point in the program's development and testing, my colleagues 
may be asking why I continue to tilt at this windmill. I continue this 
effort in part because pilots' lives may be placed at risk in the E/F 
for the next 25 to 30 years. I come to the floor today to point out not 
just the failings of the Super Hornet but the failed decision-making 
process that has brought us to this point--a point where both the 
Pentagon and Congress continue to approach a 21st century reality with 
a Cold War mentality.
  Exhibit A for this failed decisionmaking process is the Defense 
Department's current strategy for its aviation programs. The Super 
Hornet is just one overpriced piece of this strategy, which carries an 
almost $350 billion price tag. Here is the real kicker: The strategy 
will not even adequately replace our existing tactical aviation fleet.
  This strategy has been roundly criticized. It has been criticized by 
the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office, members 
of the congressional Armed Services Committees, the Cato Institute, and 
defense experts such as President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of 
Defense, Lawrence Korb.
  The Navy's Super Hornet is just the crown jewel in this misguided 
tactical aviation acquisition strategy.
  The story of the Super Hornet is one of huge sums of money spent with 
really very disappointing returns. The plane's failings have been 
expensive and alarming. These problems do not just empty our 
pocketbook; they could endanger our pilots.
  I want to discuss what the Navy has described as the ``pillars'' of 
the Super Hornet program. These are the performance parameters that the 
Navy touts as justifications for this expensive program. But these 
pillars have become problems.
  First and foremost is the plane's range. The Navy argues that the 
Super Hornet will fly significantly farther than the Hornet. But these 
improvements have yet to be proven in reality. What is worse, initial 
Super Hornet range predictions have actually declined as flight data 
has been gathered. By continuing to base range predictions on actual 
flight test data, the Super Hornet range in the interdiction role 
amounts to an 8-percent improvement over the Hornet, and this is not 
particularly impressive.
  Adding to the range shortcoming is the wing-drop problem. When the 
Super Hornet is in air-to-air combat, when it most needs to maintain 
its precise ability to position itself, the plane can lose wing lift, a 
problem beyond the pilot's control that essentially causes the plane to 
roll out of position.
  We have been wrestling with the wing problem for a couple of years 
now, and it still is not resolved. Potential fixes for the wing-drop 
problem will decrease range, but since we do not know which solution 
the Navy will employ, the actual decrease is not yet known.
  Also affecting the range, believe it or not, is the potential of 
bombs colliding with each other or with the aircraft. The Navy's 
solution increases drag, thus resulting in a deficiency that would 
preclude the aircraft from carrying external fuel tanks. If the 
aircraft does not carry the two 480-gallon tanks, it will not be able 
to meet its required range specification. The Navy and its contractor 
now have little choice but to redesign the wing pylons.
  A second pillar of the program is survivability. Since the inception 
of the Super Hornet program, the Navy has asserted that the aircraft 
will be more survivable than the current Hornet. Based on operational 
tests, however, survivability issues now comprise the majority of the 
program's deficiencies, as identified by the Procurement Executive 
Office for Tactical Aircraft. A chief survivability problem is that the 
plane's exhaust will actually burn through its decoy tow line. The 
towed decoy is designed to attract enemy missiles away from the 
aircraft. Obviously, losing a decoy will not increase survivability.
  A third pillar put forth is growth space, or space availability to 
accommodate new systems. When the Navy

[[Page S6181]]

was pitching the Super Hornet to Congress, they said the Hornet just 
did not provide enough space to accommodate additional new systems 
without removing existing capability. We were told that the Super 
Hornet would have a 21 cubic feet of growth space versus less than a 
few feet in the Hornet. But now, GAO actually reports that the Super 
Hornet has only 5.46 cubic feet of usable growth space. The Navy's F/A-
18 upgrade roadmap shows that most of the upgrades planned for the 
Super Hornet are already planned to be installed on the Hornet as well.

  The remaining pillars are that of payload and bringback. The Navy 
claims that the Super Hornet would provide greater payload and 
bringback than the Hornet. Increased payload should mean the Super 
Hornet is able to carry more weapons and fuel, and increased bringback 
should mean that the Super Hornet should return from its mission 
carrying more of its unused weapons than the Hornet, so pilots do not 
have to lessen their load for the trip home by dropping missiles 
unnecessarily. That is what payload and bringback should mean, but with 
the Super Hornet, the reality falls short of expectation.
  Flight tests have revealed additional wing stations that allow for 
increased payload may cause noise and vibration that could damage 
missiles. In response to this glitch, the Navy is determining whether 
the missiles need to be redesigned. The Navy also plans to restrict 
what can be carried on inner wing pylons during Operational Test and 
Evaluation because of the excessive loads on them. These restrictions 
would prohibit the Super Hornet from carrying 2,000-pound bombs on 
these pylons, which reduces the payload capacity for the interdiction 
mission. GAO also reports that the pylon load problems could negatively 
affect bringback.
  What all this technical talk is about, simply stated, is that the 
pillars supporting the Super Hornet program are crumbling. But don't 
take my word for it. Just look at the troubling evidence amassed by the 
GAO which makes the best case yet against the Super Hornet program.
  According to GAO, the aircraft's performance is less than stellar. In 
fact, GAO reports that the aircraft offers only marginal improvements 
over the Hornet, the same finding it made in 1996. Over the last 3 
years, GAO has offered evidence of shortcomings in each and every area 
the Navy declared as justifications for the Super Hornet. In addition, 
the Super Hornet is actually worse than the Hornet in turning, 
accelerating, and climbing--actually worse than the plane we are using 
now that is less expensive.
  GAO testified recently before Congress that the Super Hornet is not 
meeting all of its performance requirements. It is behind schedule, and 
it is above cost, regardless of Navy boasts to the contrary. The Navy's 
statements on performance actually reflect the single-seat E model of 
the aircraft, and it does not factor in the performance of the less 
capable two-seat F model. This is troubling because the F model 
actually comprises 56 percent of the Pentagon's purchasing plan for the 
overall Super Hornet program. Not only that, the Navy's assertions 
about performance are based on projections, not on actual performance.
  GAO's work has made crystal clear the setbacks the Super Hornet has 
already faced and the serious problems that lie ahead. There is really 
a mountain of evidence against the Super Hornet. The Navy's response to 
that mountain of evidence has been simply to tell you: It's a molehill; 
don't worry about it.
  To close the cost gap between the Super Hornet and Hornet aircraft, 
Boeing is shutting down production lines for the Hornet. Those lines 
may be prohibitively expensive to reopen if we ever face the facts and 
decide that the Super Hornet is not worth the cost and risk.
  The Navy's response to the Super Hornet's troubles has been to play 
games, to divert attention from the plane's failings, to keep the Navy 
from relying on the more reliable Hornet, and, most of all, they are 
playing games with Federal tax dollars. These games have to stop.

  For the sake of our pilots and American taxpayers, the Navy must be 
forthright with us. By any reasonable assessment, the Super Hornet 
program has problems that have to be corrected before we commit our 
pilots and our taxpayers to a long-term obligation.
  But that is what is so disturbing here, Mr. President. At the very 
moment we should be pausing to reassess this program, in our oversight 
role, the Navy and the Pentagon are pushing for a multiyear procurement 
contract.
  This is despite the fact that the Navy has identified 29 major 
unresolved deficiencies in the aircraft. The Program Risk Advisory 
Board, which is made up of Navy and contractor personnel, states that 
there is a medium risk--a medium risk--that the operational test and 
evaluation might find the Super Hornet is not operationally effective 
and/or suitable, even if all performance requirements are met. In other 
words, even if they fix all the problems plaguing the plane, the Super 
Hornet still might not cut the mustard. How can we sign off on a 5-year 
$9 billion contract before an aircraft is certified operationally 
effective?
  I am very puzzled by that. Instead of signing off on this leap of 
faith, I suggest the Navy complete OPEVAL and then reassess the 
prudence of a multiyear procurement contract. The Super Hornet's OPEVAL 
will allow the Navy and its contractor to stress the aircraft as it 
would be stressed in the fleet. A multiyear procurement decision prior 
to OPEVAL defeats the purpose of the test.
  It is not unreasonable to ask that all deficiency corrections be 
incorporated into the aircraft design and successfully tested prior to 
a 5-year, $9 billion procurement commitment. Not only is it not 
unreasonable, it is consistent with existing Navy criteria.
  What concerns me most here is the conduct of the Navy and the 
Pentagon as they have tried to ensure that the Super Hornet has a place 
in its aviation program. At every turn, they have pushed this plane, 
despite all logic to the contrary. They have even resisted answering 
simple, straightforward questions about the plane's performance.
  My own experiences trying to extract information from the Pentagon 
about the Super Hornet's performance have been fraught with 
difficulties. Last November, I sent a straightforward letter to the 
Secretary of Defense that asked some simple questions about the status 
of the E/F. At the time, Congress had just appropriated more than $2 
billion for the third lot of production. After that letter, I wrote 
four additional times urging DOD to answer very specific, clear 
questions regarding the performance of the aircraft in its latest 
flight test.
  Three months later, I received a memorandum stating that it 
``addresses some'' of my ``concerns.'' This was unfortunate because I 
was assured by Pentagon officials familiar with the report that my 
questions could be easily answered in full. I can assure everyone who 
is listening that I will not stop asking until I get answers.
  I would like to conclude my initial remarks by telling my favorite 
story about this profoundly flawed program.
  This past January, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, 
Development, and Acquisition commissioned an independent study to 
address my questions. I had been asking for a study for some time, so I 
was heartened and relieved and looking forward to the results.
  Unfortunately, the person chosen to lead the inquiry is a well known 
Washington defense lobbyist who had a longstanding business 
relationship with Boeing, the Super Hornet's primary contractor. During 
the meeting with my staff, the lobbyist did not disclose his firm's 
association with Boeing. Later my staff telephoned him, and he 
described his firm's association with Boeing in response to direct 
questions from my staff. Then he went on to say that he had terminated 
his relationship with Boeing ``a few days'' after Mr. Buchanan asked 
him to perform the independent review--``a few days.''
  No one will be shocked to hear that the report was very favorable to 
the Super Hornet.
  This latest episode with the Super Hornet highlights a pervasive 
Pentagon mindset that sometimes sacrifices the interests of our men and 
women in uniform to the assumption that bigger and more expensive 
programs are always better. It puts in stark relief the power of the 
defense industry which gave more than $10 million in PAC money and soft 
money to

[[Page S6182]]

parties and candidates in the last election cycle.
  In the last 10 years, the defense industry gave almost $40 million to 
the two national political parties. You know, for that much money, they 
could buy their own Hornet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 15 of his 20 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield myself 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in the last 10 years, the defense 
industry gave almost $40 million to the two national political parties. 
For that kind of money, these interests could have gotten their own 
Hornet. Unfortunately, they would have needed another $36 million to 
get themselves a Super Hornet.
  Boeing, the Super Hornet's primary contractor, gave more than $3 
million in PAC money and more than $1.5 million in soft money during 
that same period. There were no PACs in Eisenhower's day, but this is 
what he warned us about, only with higher stakes than he may have 
imagined.
  I have stood on the floor of the Senate for 3 years now discussing 
the inadequacy of the Super Hornet program. And for 3 years, Congress 
has turned a deaf ear to the facts. I harbor no illusions that the 
Super Hornet will be terminated. I do hold out hope that this body will 
use some common sense in procuring the aircraft.
  My amendment does nothing more than set a cost cap using the exact 
dollar amount put forward by the Navy--nothing more, nothing less.
  We owe it to our naval aviators to give them a product worthy of 
their courage and dedication. And we owe it to the American taxpayers 
to ensure that we are using their money to modernize our Armed Forces 
wisely.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays and reserve the remainder 
of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the manager of 
this bill for giving me the opportunity to rise in strongest opposition 
to the amendment offered by my colleague from Wisconsin.
  This is becoming an annual ritual where the Senator from Wisconsin 
seeks to undermine the Navy's No. 1 procurement priority against the 
will of the administration, the Department of Defense, and at the 
expense of our Navy warfighters.
  There are quite a few problems with this amendment and the one that 
he will offer to follow it. But on this first one, it is absolutely not 
necessary. A fixed-price contract is already in place. So submitting an 
amendment that purports to do what is already being done is redundant.
  Cost caps are normally reserved for problem programs to control cost 
overruns in the development phase. The F-18 E/F program of today is a 
model program which has consistently come in under budget. It is a well 
controlled program with cost incentives in place.
  The attacks on this program can best be summed up by the words: Don't 
confuse me with the facts, I have my prejudices, and I have my 
viewpoints that I am going to argue, regardless of what the facts are. 
Because the facts are that the F-18 E/F procurement program is under 
budget and it is ahead of schedule.
  It absolutely amazes me that the Senator from Wisconsin would seek 
one more time to hamper the program by adding further administrative 
cost controls for a program that has already been reviewed by the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, 
and the Senate Appropriations Committee. All three of these bodies 
reviewed the F-18 program and found no need to add further 
administrative constraints to this successful program.
  There is a report out, that was put out a year ago by Rear Admiral 
Nathman, the ``N88 Position on OT-IIB.'' This report answers all of the 
contentions raised by the Senator from Wisconsin. I ask unanimous 
consent that this summary be printed in the Record.
  We will have it available for anybody who wants to read it, the 
specific responses to all the points raised. They have been available 
to the Senator from Wisconsin, and all of us, for over a year.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         N88 Position on OT-IIB

       The OT-IIB Report has done an excellent job of further 
     quantifying and qualifying known issues with the F/A-18E/F. 
     The Navy Developmental and Operational Test process is 
     structured to identify issues prior to production to avoid 
     costly production modifications.
       The OT-IIB Report has revalidated that process, confirming 
     that no such issues exist. The F/A-18E/F Hornet Program 
     remains a model program, on cost, on schedule, under budget 
     and meeting or exceeding all performance parameters.--RADM 
     Nathman.

  Mr. BOND. Admiral Nathman says:

       The OT-IIB Report has done an excellent job of further 
     quantifying and qualifying known issues with the F/A-18E/F. 
     The Navy Developmental and Operational Test process is 
     structured to identify issues prior to production to avoid 
     costly production modifications.
       The OT-IIB Report has revalidated that process, confirming 
     that no such issues exist. The F/A-18E/F Hornet Program 
     remains a model program, on cost, on schedule, under budget 
     and meeting or exceeding all performance parameters.

  I think we can take the word of the person who has the responsibility 
for operational program review. We have people who do this for a living 
and who look at these programs full-time. This is what they are saying 
about the program.
  The F/A-18 multiyear contract will be a fixed price incentive 
contract. It is a capped program in application. But the agency retains 
contract administration flexibility, and the contractor maintains 
inherent cost control incentives. The statutory cap being proposed 
would undoubtedly increase contract administration costs.
  In an era where we are experiencing vexing retention problems, I see 
no need to add additional burdens to a major acquisition program 
intended to give our warfighters the best equipment available.
  The viability of the Navy's tactical aviation program is directly 
tied to the success of this program, and any effort to tie up this 
program with needless administrative controls is counterproductive. The 
amendment also contains no cost exemptions that would exclude costs 
beyond the control of the contractor, such as allowance for new 
technology built into later models or changes in aircraft quantity.
  To date, the F-18E/F has flown 4,665 hours during more than 3,100 
flights with no mishaps. The aircraft just finished the Engineering, 
Manufacturing, and Development phase and is scheduled to enter the 
Operational Test and Evaluation Phase, or OPEVAL, this week. It is 
anticipated that OPEVAL will be complete, looking to have a decision on 
full rate production by March 2000.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask if I might be accorded 2 more minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for a moment, 
we are very anxious to start votes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the Senator 2 of my 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. I think this would be an appropriate time for the 
managers to address the Senate as to the schedule of voting.
  We are now hoping to start the first vote at about 11:50. That vote 
would be in the normal sequencing of time, and we hope thereafter to 
have the two following votes at 10 minutes each. I will not propound 
that at this moment. I wish to alert the Senate and those debating so 
when I object to any extension of time for this debate to accommodate a 
number of Senators on the vote schedule, they will understand. I do not 
propose a UC at this time.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 2 
minutes from the time of the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. BOND. Surely.
  Mr. LEVIN. So we can sequence Senator Lautenberg's 5 minutes for an 
earlier amendment in this process, after the Senator from Missouri is 
finished his time and the Senator from

[[Page S6183]]

Pennsylvania is recognized, the Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. You have a few Missouris mixed up. On the No. 1 
amendment, you are going to deal with that; is that correct?
  Mr. BOND. I will make brief comments about the second amendment, and 
then I will conclude.
  Mr. WARNER. Could you advise the managers at what juncture we could 
complete Senator Lautenberg's 5 minutes on the Kennedy amendment? What 
would be convenient?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I only need about 2 minutes to finish up all 
of my efforts on both of these, if I could finish.
  Mr. WARNER. So in between the two amendments we could get 5 minutes?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, that would be fine with me. The two 
Senators from Missouri, myself, and then I would be happy to----
  Mr. WARNER. Why don't you finish up the first amendment, inform the 
Chair, and then we will have Senator Lautenberg complete the Kennedy 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The senior Senator from Missouri is recognized for an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. BOND. Let me reiterate that the F/A-18 program is under budget 
and ahead of schedule. Why don't we just ask the men and women who have 
flown them? Admiral Johnson, Chief of Naval Operations, came before us. 
He represents, and is responsible for, the men and women who fly these 
aircraft. He has flown one, and has given overwhelming, enthusiastic, 
and unqualified support for the Super Hornet.
  Now, we have hearings in this body for a reason; that is, to listen 
to the people who have the expertise and the experience. These people 
have told us that the E/F is the best thing we have for the Navy, and 
they want them. They know it is ahead of schedule, and under budget, 
with improved performance. Why do we even bother with hearings if we do 
not pay attention?
  I say, with respect to the second amendment, this is an attempt to 
set up the GAO as a decision making authority in the Defense 
Department. Constitutionally they are not authorized to do so. We have 
a director of OPEVAL, who is appointed by the President with advice and 
consent of the Senate, to make these decisions. I believe in 
legislative oversight. I believe in the GAO having a responsibility to 
raise questions. The people who have the responsibility in the 
executive branch have answered these questions.
  I think it is time to quit hampering the program, trying to kill or 
cripple a program that is providing us the best tactical aircraft for 
the Navy's carriers.
  I urge my colleagues to join in what I trust will be a tabling motion 
to table both of the amendments or to vote against them if they are not 
tabled.
  I thank the Chair and the chairman of the subcommittee for giving me 
this opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in response to the 
amendment proposed by the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The senior Senator from Missouri has stated eloquently the need to 
respond to the military demands of America in ways that the military 
believes are effective. We have in the E/F a program that is under 
budget, under cost. It is on schedule. It is certified ready for 
operational test and evaluation.
  Those who have had the ability and opportunity to fly it have 
certified to its character and its characteristics as those that are 
needed. Every aircraft that we have in our arsenal has some 
characteristics which preclude others. There are tradeoffs. So there 
will be those who attack this aircraft and say it doesn't do this as 
well as something else does, or it doesn't do that as well as another 
plane does. The fact of the matter is, a plane must do what it is 
designed to do. When it does what it is designed to do, it meets the 
needs of the defense of this United States of America.
  Aircraft fighters and attack aircraft are designed to do specific 
things. There is a need--and we have seen it; we are seeing it plainly 
in the arena of conflict today in the Balkans--for additional mission 
radius. There is a need for the ability to fly further. There is a need 
for increasing the payload. If you look at the strike-sortie to just 
general sortie ratio in the war in the Balkans, it is far different 
than it was in the war in Desert Storm. That is because we are basing 
our planes in a different place.
  This particular aircraft has a 37-percent increase in mission radius. 
That is important. It is a design feature. It is needed. It is 
something the Defense Department and those who fly these airplanes 
understand we have to have in order to defend our interests and to 
protect the most important resource we have in our defense operations, 
and that is the human resource of our pilots.
  There is a 60-percent increase in recovery payload. Depending on the 
mission, the E/F has two to five times the strike capability of the 
earlier model, two to five times the strike capability, being able to 
put destruction on a target. That is an important thing to understand.
  There is a 25-percent increase in frame size to accommodate 20 years 
of upgrades in cooling, power, and other internal systems. That is 
important.
  It may be said this aircraft is only marginally better. Well, the 
margin is what wins races. The winner in the 100 yard dash does it in 
10.4 seconds. The loser does it in 10.5 seconds. It is only marginally 
better, but marginal superiority is what wins conflicts. It is what 
saves lives. It is what makes a difference.
  In testimony before the Armed Services Committee, Phil Coyle, 
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, Department of Defense, said 
it this way:

       The Department of Defense embarked upon the F/A-18E/F 
     program primarily to increase the Navy's capability to attack 
     ground targets at longer ranges.

  Does that sound familiar? That is where we are right now in the 
Balkans. We are having to fly lots of sorties, because we have to have 
lots of refueling and other things, because the current things that we 
have do not have the ability to attack and increase our ability to 
attack ground targets at longer ranges.

  In order to obtain this objective, the principal improved 
characteristics were increased range and payload; increased capability 
to bring back unused weapons to a carrier; improved survivability; and 
growth capacity to incorporate future advanced subsystems . . . .
  Three to five times the strike capability. We need to be able to add 
improved technology. It is my understanding the Senator from Wisconsin 
wants to flatten the plane out, simply to say it can be this plane and 
no further. If there is a generation of technology available to upgrade 
this, we need to be able to add the upgrades.
  I think we need to be in a position where we can do for those who 
fight for America and freedom that which will serve their best 
interests. The idea, somehow, that the GAO should make a determination 
about whether an airplane is ready--I served as an auditor. For 2 years 
I was the auditor for the State of Missouri. It is a great job. It is a 
wonderful responsibility. But those flying green eyeshades and walnut 
desks in Washington should not be compared to those who fly fighters to 
defend freedom. We shouldn't have the green eyeshade accountant flying 
a desk in Washington telling us whether or not the fighter is fit to 
fight. We need to rely on the responsible testimony and information 
provided to us by those whose job it is to defend America and whose 
lives depend on the fighter being fit to fight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 5 minutes.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. What was the order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order, the Senator from Pennsylvania 
has 3 minutes, the Senator from Wisconsin has 3 minutes, and then the 
Senator from New Jersey will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I think the fine representatives from 
the State of Missouri, Senators Bond and Ashcroft, addressed the issue 
of the F/A-18E/F adequately on the merits. Frankly, I will not address 
that because that is not what this amendment does.
  This amendment has nothing to do with the merits of the F/A-18E/F. 
This

[[Page S6184]]

has to do with a cost cap on a fixed price contract. Frankly, I was 
willing to accept this amendment because a fixed price contract is a 
fixed price contract. Putting a cost cap on the fixed price times the 
number doesn't really have any impact.
  What we are going to pay for this is already in law. What his 
amendment did, which I objected to, was that it did not allow any 
increase in money for what is called technology insertion. What does 
that mean? Well, if we come up with a better radar system in the next 
few years while we are procuring these F/A-18E/Fs, and if we want to 
put a new radar system in, which would cost more money, under the 
Feingold amendment we can't do that.
  The Senator from Wisconsin talked about how we have an obligation to 
our naval aviators, to make sure they have the most competent equipment 
to be out there flying. I agree. That is why I can't support this 
amendment. If we put this in, we would be denying those very aviators a 
technology insertion that would be important in improving the 
survivability of the aircraft, or their ability to locate targets, or 
whatever the case may be.
  This is a dangerous amendment. It threatens our naval aviators who 
are going to be flying these aircraft because we are not going to allow 
the insertion of technology for an additional cost that may increase 
the efficacy of that aircraft.
  One other comment. This was in response to the comment of the Senator 
from Wisconsin that we should not be approving this multiyear contract, 
which we do under this bill, without having the operational evaluation 
of testing go on, which could fail.
  I say to the Senator from Wisconsin, if it fails, under our bill, 
there is no multiyear contract. We spell out specifically in this 
legislation that it has to pass OPEVAL. If it doesn't, there is no 
multiyear.
  We have taken care of the Senator from Wisconsin in that if there are 
problems--and the Senator lists a variety that he believes exist--and 
if that is what is determined by the Department of Defense and the 
Bureau of Testing, we will not have a multiyear contract. So the 
Senator will get his wish.
  So I think, in the end, the Senator's amendment is superfluous at 
best--if he would agree to the amendment I suggested--but it is 
dangerous now because it doesn't allow for technology insertion. So I 
will move, at the appropriate time, to table the Feingold amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is pretty obvious at this point that 
any effort to question any weapons system is considered an effort to 
somehow undercut the military strength of our country. The fact is that 
we have a responsibility to do some oversight on our own. We should not 
just take the word of Government bureaucrats, whether they are in one 
Department or the other--the Defense Department or Department of 
Agriculture. We should not just take their word for it. We have some 
responsibility to look at the questions that have been raised by 
independent bodies such as the General Accounting Office that say there 
are real problems.
  There has been a great effort here to distort my amendment. It takes 
the Navy's figure of $8.8 billion and uses that for the cost cap. That 
is what it does. We have done this before on this particular airplane. 
My amendment to do this in another phase of the program a couple of 
years ago was accepted, and it worked just fine.
  On the engineering and manufacturing development portion of it, it 
was not a radical attack. This simply takes the Navy's own numbers and 
holds them to it. We all know what happens with the incredible cost 
increases that occur with these planes.
  Where is the role of oversight of the Senate? There is a attitude of 
``don't confuse me with the facts'' when it comes to such a 
complicated, expensive program. It is a $45 billion program, and we are 
whitewashing the whole thing, even though the General Accounting 
Office--not me, but the GAO--has identified problems on each of the 
five pillars of the program. There was essentially no substantive 
response to any of the points the GAO made that I laid out. They just 
repeated the facts of the original claims without saying one thing 
about what has been determined about problems with survivability, and 
with the additional space. It simply is not as good as originally 
claimed.
  So what we are left with is a blank check. This is the only challenge 
to any weapons system on the floor of the Senate on this entire bill. 
Where have we come to, that we scrutinize and cut so many other areas 
of Government? I have worked hard on that and have a good record on it. 
But why doesn't the Defense Department, and why don't these weapons 
systems have to share in the scrutiny of everything else?
  There are problems with this plane. My amendment doesn't terminate 
the plane; it says we ought to hold them to a dollar amount that the 
Navy itself has identified.
  Regarding the Senator's point, that technology improvement language 
he thinks would help is a giant loophole that will allow anything to 
get through to add to the cost. In fact, you could fly a Super Hornet 
through that loophole.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator's time has 
expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to table the Feingold amendment 
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.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
5 minutes.


                           amendment no. 442

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it was on December 21, 1988, over 10 
years ago, that Pan Am flight 103 was blown out of the sky over 
Lockerbie, Scotland killing 270 people, including 189 American 
citizens. Two Libyan intelligence agents have been indicted for 
planting the bomb in this deliberate terrorist attack.
  Over the past decade, I have watched with respect and admiration as 
the victims' families have courageously pieced together their shattered 
lives. While these families have tried to move on, the agony of losing 
their loved ones will never disappear. Neither they nor we as a nation 
will find closure until those responsible for the bombing are 
prosecuted and Libya rejects terrorism in word and in deed.
  I therefore rise today to join with my friend and colleague from 
Massachusetts in offering an amendment expressing the sense of Congress 
that sanctions against Libya should not be lifted.
  Last month, Senator Kennedy and other colleagues joined me in writing 
to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to support her decision to 
keep U.S. sanctions in place at the U.N. until Libya demonstrates it 
has rejected terrorism.
  We also called for the United States to pursue an investigation to 
identify all those responsible for the Pan Am 103 bombing, including 
those who ordered, organized, and financed this terrible crime. Libya 
and other terrorist nations must know that the U.S. will not allow 
criminal acts against its citizens to go unpunished. We will use all 
available means to ensure justice prevails.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the letter 
that we sent to the Secretary of State printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 27, 1999.
     Hon. Madeleine K. Albright,
     Secretary of State, Department of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Albright: We commend you and Ambassador 
     Burleigh for the diplomacy which has brought Abd al-Baset Ali 
     al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah to the Netherlands to 
     stand trial before a Scottish court for the bombing of Pan Am 
     flight 103.
       The families of the victims of this heinous terrorist act 
     have waited too long--more than a decade--for the first 
     suspects to be

[[Page S6185]]

     brought to justice. We must ensure that they are prosecuted 
     effectively. We hope the families and their representatives 
     will also have access to the trial, if possible through a 
     video link to the United States.
       United Nations sanctions on Libya have already been 
     suspended. The United States should not consent to 
     permanently lifting the sanctions before the trial is 
     concluded to ensure continued Libyan cooperation. We agree 
     with your decision to keep U.S. sanctions in place until it 
     can be demonstrated that Libya has renounced terrorism in 
     word and in deed.
       Our shared commitment to justice for the victims' families 
     cannot end with this trial. We would appreciate your 
     assurances that no line of inquiry has been excluded. The 
     United States must pursue the investigation to identify all 
     those responsible for ordering, financing, and organizing as 
     well as carrying out this terrible crime, wherever they may 
     be. Our national interest demands that we demonstrate that 
     terrorists who attack our citizens will be tracked down and 
     will find no quarter.
       We stand ready to support your efforts to punish terrorists 
     as well as those who support and encourage such unlawful and 
     uncivilized conduct.
           Sincerely,
         Edward M. Kennedy; Barbara A. Mikulski; Daniel Patrick 
           Moynihan; Robert G. Torricelli; Charles Schumer; Dianne 
           Feinstein; Frank R. Lautenberg; Gordon Smith; Arlen 
           Specter; Sam Brownback; Paul D. Wellstone; Paul S. 
           Sarbanes.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Kennedy and I 
offer sends a message to Tripoli that the United States will do 
everything in its power to ensure continuing sanctions against Libya 
until it complies with international demands and renounces terrorism as 
state policy.
  Since the 1988 bombing, three United Nations Security Council 
resolutions--Numbers 731, 748 and 883--have demanded that Libya cease 
all support for terrorism, turn over the bombing suspects, cooperate 
with the investigation and trial, and address the issue of appropriate 
compensation.
  To date, Tripoli has only fulfilled one of the four conditions--
turning the two bombing suspects over to Scottish authorities to stand 
trial at a specially-constituted court in the Netherlands. We have seen 
no indication that the Libyans intend to fulfill the other 
requirements.
  In early July, the U.N. Secretary General will report to the Security 
Council on Libya's compliance with the conditions set by the 
international community. Once he submits that report, members of the 
Security Council may well introduce a resolution to lift sanctions 
against Libya, which until now have only been suspended.
  Mr. President, Libya must not be allowed to gain relief from 
sanctions through half-measures. This Amendment therefore calls on 
President Clinton to use all diplomatic means necessary, including the 
use of the U.S. veto, to prevent sanctions from being lifted until 
Tripoli fulfills all the conditions set out in the resolutions.
  I would urge my colleagues to join us in support of this amendment, 
to speak with one voice to say that sanctions against Libya should not 
be lifted until and unless Libya forever renounces terrorism and 
fulfills the other conditions set out in U.N. resolutions.
  As Americans, we must take action to ensure such horrors never happen 
again. We must punish the guilty and continue to exert pressure until 
Libya resolves to become an accepted member of the world community. 
This amendment is one step in the right direction to make sure that 
happens.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 3 minutes on the Kennedy amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Kansas has 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, 189 Americans were killed in the bombing of Pan Am 
103. Their families have known no peace for more than a decade. While 
it is true that Libya has labored under mild United Nations sanctions 
for much of that time, it is also true that the perpetrators of this 
hideous act of terrorism have lived a life of freedom with their 
families.
  For reasons best known to himself, Colonel Qadhafi has decided to 
turn over the two suspects in the Pan Am 103 bombing to a Scottish 
court constituted in The Hague. In return, the U.N. sanctions against 
Libya have been suspended.
  This measure, a sense of the Congress, highlights some of the 
inadequacies of the current arrangement. For example, Libya has only 
fulfilled one of four requirements set forth in the relevant Security 
Council resolutions. Qadhafi has yet to reassure us he will fully 
cooperate with the investigation and trial; he has yet to renounce his 
support for international terrorism; and he has failed to pay 
compensation to the victims' families.
  I have little confidence that no matter what the outcome of this 
trial, Qadhafi will not change his stripes. He is a dictator and a 
criminal. Indeed, the London Sunday Times of May 23, 1999, reported 
that British intelligence has information clearly linking Qadhafi 
himself to the bombing.
  This amendment states the sense of Congress that the President should 
use all means, including our veto in the Security Council, to preclude 
the lifting of sanctions on Libya until all conditions are fulfilled. I 
would go further. Until we know just who ordered this bombing, and 
until that person is duly punished, Libya must remain a pariah state, 
isolated not only by the United States but by all the decent nations of 
the world.
  I urge colleagues to support this amendment, and commend Senator 
Kennedy for his many efforts of the Pan Am 103 victims and families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Wisconsin is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 444

 (Purpose: To ensure compliance with contract specifications prior to 
multi-year contracting and entry into full-rate production under the F/
                       A-18E/F aircraft program)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 444.

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

       On page 26, strike lines 20 through 25, and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Limitation.--The Secretary may not exercise the 
     authority under subsection (a) to enter into a multiyear 
     contract for the procurement of F/A-18E/F aircraft or 
     authorize entry of the F/A-18E/F aircraft program into full-
     rate production until--
       (1) the Secretary of Defense certifies to the Committees on 
     Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives 
     that the F/A-18E/F aircraft has successfully completed 
     initial operational test and evaluation;
       (2) the Secretary of the Navy--
       (A) determines that the results of operational test and 
     evaluation demonstrate that the version of the aircraft to be 
     procured under the multiyear contract in the higher quantity 
     than the other version satisfies all key performance 
     parameters in the operational requirements document for the 
     F/A-18E/F program, as submitted on April 1, 1997; and
       (B) certifies those results of operational test and 
     evaluation; and
       (3) the Comptroller General reviews those results of 
     operational test and evaluation and transmits to the 
     Secretary of the Navy the Comptroller General's concurrence 
     with the Secretary's certification.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have now reached concurrence among 
leadership and the managers that the three votes that were to begin at 
1:30 today will begin 20 minutes thereafter, at 1:50 a.m. in sequence 
back to back. At the conclusion of the first vote, it is the intention 
of the managers to seek a 10-minute limitation on the remaining two.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Navy would like to rely on flight 
test data from the single seat E version of the Super Hornet to claim 
that the aircraft procured under the Navy's F/A-18E/F program will 
perform up to specifications. Here is the problem. Fifty-six percent of 
the planes the Navy intends to buy will be the lower performing two-
seat F models. My amendment to address this sleight of hand is simple 
and sensible. It would require that the majority of aircraft ordered 
under the Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet program meet the key 
performance parameters in the Operational Requirements Document before 
going into full-rate production and before the Navy

[[Page S6186]]

enters into a multi-year procurement contract.
  Mr. President, my colleagues are well aware of my concerns about the 
Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft program. Over the past three 
years, I've delved into the program's flaws in agonizing detail. 
Earlier, I was on the floor to offer an amendment that institutes a 
cost cap on the E/F program. At the time, I took this body through a 
wide-ranging review of facts and figures from the Pentagon's Director 
of Operational Test and Evaluation and the General Accounting Office, 
on the Super Hornet's shortcomings. So I won't subject my colleagues to 
more of the same facts showing how the Super Hornet program fails to 
improve on the existing Hornet program more than marginally, or in a 
cost-effective manner.
  Mr. President, I'm sure many of my colleagues wonder why I continue 
on this lonesome crusade. I continue this effort pilots' lives will be 
placed at risk in the F/A-18E/F for the next 25 to 30 years. On top of 
that, taxpayers are being asked to pay more than $45 billion for this 
program.
  Mr. President, the amendment I offer simply requires the Super Hornet 
to meet existing performance specifications before going into full-rate 
production. It is simply a common sense measure.
  To briefly summarize the contracting process, in 1992, the Secretary 
of the Navy and the aircraft's primary contractor, Boeing, entered into 
a contract for the development, testing, and production of the Super 
Hornet. Within a follow-up Operational Requirements Document, or ORD, 
which was signed off by the Navy in April, 1997, are a number of key 
performance parameters. Essentially, Mr. President, the contract states 
explicitly what the Navy wants the plane to be able to do.
  Mr. President, the Navy wanted, and I assume still wants, a plane 
with increased range, increased payload, greater bringback capability, 
improved survivability, and increased growth space over the existing F/
A-18C Hornet aircraft. The Navy calls these improvements the pillars of 
the Super Hornet program.
  As I stated earlier, premier among the Navy's justifications for the 
purchase of the Super Hornet is that it fly significantly farther than 
the Hornet. As recently as this past January, the Navy claimed the E/F 
would be able to fly up to 50 percent farther than the Hornet.
  Mr. President, again, these improvements have yet to be proven in 
reality. And in the realm of reality, initial Super Hornet range 
predictions have declined as actual flight data has been gathered and 
incorporated into further prediction models. If the anticipated, but 
yet to be demonstrated range improvements are not included in the 
estimates, the Super Hornet range in the interdiction role amounts to a 
mere 8 percent improvement over the Hornet. According to GAO, this is 
not a significant improvement.
  Mr. President, not only does the Super Hornet fall short in its 
range, but also in its payload capacity, and growth space improvements. 
On top of that, the Super Hornet is worse than the Hornet is turning, 
acceleration, and ability to climb. Again, this plane will cost far 
more, perhaps twice as much as the current model.
  As I mentioned earlier, the General Accounting Office testified 
recently before Congress that the Super Hornet is not meeting all of 
its performance requirements, is behind schedule, and above cost, 
regardless of Navy boasts to the contrary. The agency offered evidence 
of shortcomings in each and every area of the Navy declared as 
justifications for the aircraft. GAO also states that some of the 
Navy's assumed improvements to the aircraft have yet to be 
demonstrated.
  Mr. President, the Navy's statements on performance reflect the 
single-seat E model of the aircraft, not the less-capable two-seat F 
model. This is troubling because the model of the aircraft, not the 
less-capable two seat F model. This is troubling because the F model 
comprises 56 percent of the Pentagon's purchasing plan for the Super 
Hornet. Again, Mr. President, the Navy's statements on performing are 
based on projections, not actual performance.
  According to GAO, which has been reviewing the program for more than 
three years, the aircraft continues to offer only marginal improvements 
over the Hornet, the same finding GAO made in 1996. After three years 
of development and testing, Mr. President, we still stand to gain only 
marginal improvements that don't outweight the cost.
  Again, Mr. President, I have stood on the floor of the United States 
for three years now discussing the inadequacies of the Super Hornet 
program. And for three years, a majority of my colleagues have turned a 
deaf ear to the facts. I hold out hope that this body will use some 
measure of common sense in procuring this aircraft.
  Mr. President, this amendment merely enforces what should be 
blatantly obvious. Before moving to full-rate production, or entering 
into a multi-year procurement contract, of the Super Hornet, the 
contract between the Navy and its contractor should be enforced. The 
Navy signed a contract to receive a plane that can do certain things. I 
agree with the Navy.
  The plane ought to do certain things. We shouldn't go forward until 
we know that it really does those things.
  This amendment simply requires that the Navy receive the plane it 
expects.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays, I reserve the remainder 
of my time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say this with great amusement. When I 
propounded the unanimous consent request for an 11:50 vote, it was 
interpreted as a little too folksy for the Parliamentarian, so I now in 
a very stern voice ask unanimous consent that the votes begin at 11:50.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask for a point of clarification. Does that include 
the following two votes would be 10-minute votes?
  Mr. WARNER. I intend to ask they be 10 minutes, but traditionally we 
don't do it until we determine the whereabouts of all Members.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. In that event, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does this include any time between the votes? Could there 
be 2 minutes between the votes on the first and second and second and 
third amendments--2 minutes equally divided?
  Mr. WARNER. Is it desired?
  Mr. LEVIN. It is desired.
  Mr. WARNER. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  In response to the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin, it is an 
additional hurdle to begin production of the E and F. This says that we 
cannot move forward with production, full-scale production, of this 
aircraft without a successful operational test and evaluation. That 
will be done by operational test pilots, maintenance people, experts in 
evaluating aircraft. They do the testing. They will do the report. The 
commander of operational test forces will issue the report, determine 
whether there was a successful test, and then that report will be given 
to the director of operational test and evaluation, who, under normal 
circumstances, will then make the decision that a successful test has 
been conducted.
  So all of that will have to be done. After that, again, according to 
normal procurement, he would send that recommendation on to the Defense 
Acquisition Board, which would review all of the tests to determine 
whether it was successful and make the decision to go ahead and procure 
the aircraft.
  Under our bill, we put in an additional step. We say that after the 
director of operational test and evaluation reviews the report, they 
have to then get a certification from the Secretary of Defense that 
this program has successfully completed operational test and 
evaluation. We have put an additional step in that is outside the 
course of the normal procurement area before the decision for 
acquisition is made. So we have already put in one additional step.
  What the Senator from Wisconsin wants to do is put an additional step 
in. This is somewhat dangerous in this

[[Page S6187]]

respect: He includes no time limit. GAO can take 2 years if they want 
to. They can take whatever amount of time they want, hold up a $2.8 
billion contract, hold up what is a needed requirement for the Navy to 
determine when a bunch of people with ``green eye shades,'' as the 
Senator from Missouri said--to make the determination as to whether 
auditors believe that the test pilots and the maintenance people and 
the Secretary of Defense and the director of operational test and 
evaluation, the defense acquisition board, they were all wrong--all the 
experts were wrong, and congressional auditors are really the best 
determinant as to whether this aircraft meets its requirements, is 
needed, and should be procured.
  I don't think we want to do that. I think that sets a very dangerous 
precedent. Frankly, it raises some constitutional questions as to 
whether the Congress can, in fact, do that.
  I can say to the Senator from Wisconsin, the junior Senator from 
Missouri had me out to St. Louis. I went through and reviewed 
extensively, spending the better part of a day at the facility in St. 
Louis. This is a program of which I think everyone will be proud. They 
are using state-of-the-art manufacturing techniques. They are, as the 
Senators have said, ahead of schedule, meeting every single benchmark. 
They have 4,000 hours of flight time, more than any other aircraft that 
has been tested in history.
  I think this is an additional hurdle that is unnecessary and 
potentially dangerous. That is why I will at the appropriate time move 
to table the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin controls 9 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield myself the time required at this point.
  Let me say exactly what this amendment does rather than rely on the 
characterization that was given. This appears to be something of a 
sleight-of-hand with regard to proving that this plane actually meets 
the performance parameters it is supposed to meet.
  There are two versions of the Super Hornet aircraft, a one-seat E 
model and another that has been proven to be less capable, a two-seat F 
model. The Navy now states that 56 percent of the Super Hornet will be 
F models, but they are trying to rely on the performance of the E model 
to determine compliance with performance parameters.
  The amendment simply requires that the version of the Super Hornet 
aircraft that represents the majority--the majority--of the Navy's 
purchasing plan has to satisfy all the key performance parameters in 
the program Operational Requirements Documents. That is what this 
amendment does.
  For this to be characterized as an additional hurdle, as has been 
done by the Senator from Pennsylvania, is simply not accurate. It 
simply says that the flight test data used by the Navy, represent the 
version of the plane they intend to purchase. All we are trying to do 
is to be sure that the information we are getting and that the 
assumptions are based on the planes that are actually being purchased 
and that they actually do what they said they would do.
  That is not an additional step. That is just somebody buying 
something, making sure they are actually getting what they contracted 
for. Shouldn't we, as the guardians of the taxpayers' dollars, be sure 
we are getting what we contracted for? How can that be an additional 
hurdle, unless we want to allow the contractor to give us something we 
didn't want and, in fact, paid a fortune for?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania reasonably asked whether or not there 
is a problem with the GAO having a limited time to make their 
certification. I am happy to enter into an agreement for a time limit 
for the GAO, with the Senator's indication that he would regard that as 
a reasonable change. That is not a problem that was intended, and we 
can solve that quite simply.
  This is an incredibly expensive program. Hopefully, this plane, if it 
goes through, will work as well as has been advertised. Hopefully, it 
will not cause problems for our pilots, although there are those who 
are concerned about that.
  All this amendment does is say that when we make the decision to move 
to the next phase, it is actually based on the plane we are buying. Any 
household in America would use that much caution when buying something. 
We talked a lot as we brought down the deficit, on a bipartisan basis, 
about doing things like American families have to do. Don't we have a 
responsibility to make sure we are getting the plane we are paying for? 
We are not paying for it, the taxpayers are paying for it, and they 
will pay $45 billion for it. It ought to be the plane that we are 
supposed to get.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time do the opponents have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask that they yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote against both of these 
amendments, although they are well intended.
  The first amendment has the problem that it would not accommodate 
changes in specifications in order to allow new technologies to be 
inserted which cost more than the specified technology in the cost cap.
  That may be a lot of verbiage, but it is important. I have been very 
active in cost caps. I proposed a cost cap, for instance, for the new 
CVN-77. I supported the cost cap that we previously wrote in to the F-
22, and supported it very strongly. But, in both of those instances, 
the cost caps allowed for the new technology possibility. If new 
technologies come along which are not in the specifications, we should 
want them to be considered. We should not make it difficult or 
impossible for new technologies to be considered. We should want them, 
if that would make the plane more effective, providing the Secretary 
certifies to us--or notifies us, more accurately--that there is a 
change. That is not a loophole. That is something which is desirable, 
it seems to me. I emphasize the cost cap--for instance in the CVN-77, 
which I wrote--contained the exception that if there is a new 
technology which the Secretary of the Navy certifies to us is 
desirable, that then would be an exception to the cost cap.
  On the current amendment----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 2 minutes of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield 1 more minute?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield an additional minute.
  Mr. LEVIN. On the pending amendment, again I think this is a well-
intended amendment. I think up until the last paragraph it is on 
target. We do want the Secretary of the Navy to determine the results 
of operational test and evaluation and to certify that the version of 
the aircraft to be procured under the multiyear satisfies all key 
performance parameters. I think that is very good.
  The problem is it then gives to the Comptroller General, who is in 
the legislative branch, the veto power because the Comptroller General 
must concur with the Secretary's----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's minute has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield an additional 30 seconds?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 30 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Comptroller General must concur with the Secretary's 
certification. I believe that is a clear violation of the separation of 
powers. In Bowsher v. Synar, the Supreme Court ruled:

       To permit the execution of the laws to be vested in an 
     officer answerable only to Congress would, in practical 
     terms, reserve in Congress control over the execution of the 
     laws.

  So, except for that part requiring a legislative concurrence or 
legislative officer's concurrence with the Secretary's certification, I 
think that amendment would have been acceptable. With that additional 
provision, I think it is unacceptable as it violates separation of 
powers and the Supreme Court ruling in the Bowsher case.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Who yields time to the 
Senator from Missouri?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.

[[Page S6188]]

  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the Senator from Missouri 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the F-18 is underbudget and early. The 
Department of Defense is making very, very careful evaluations, and 
will continue to do so. This contracting will not go forward without 
their professional critical evaluation that the plane succeeded.
  The Senator from Wisconsin says these two different planes in the F-
18 package, the single-seater and the two-seater, must meet the same 
flight characteristics. That does not make sense. When you put an extra 
seat in an airplane it changes the characteristics, but it also changes 
the fighting capacity of the airplane. You can do with two pilots--or 
one plus a person operating radar or other things in a hostile 
environment in terms of locating targets--what you can't do with one 
person both flying the airplane and doing that.
  The Senator from Wisconsin asks about oversight. Frankly, we have had 
substantial oversight here. We have had oversight in the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, oversight in the House Armed Services Committee, 
oversight in the Senate Appropriations Committee. There will be, again, 
evaluation in the House Appropriations Committee.
  This is a circumstance where, obviously, there has been substantial 
oversight. The members of the committee and committee chairman are 
saying we should approve this. I believe we should. For us to say the 
Department of Defense, the fighter-fliers, those whose lives depend on 
this airplane performing, are to have their judgment about the airplane 
set aside or deferred or delayed until accountants or auditors from the 
General Accounting Office make a decision on this plane is unwise. It 
is not only unwise, it has been clearly demonstrated, I think, in the 
arguments that it is unconstitutional as well.
  The F-18 is an outstanding aircraft with characteristics that will 
serve well--extended range, extended load-carrying capacity, and 
ability in the two-seat configuration to do things not available in the 
one-seat configuration. It is a well-made airplane that will serve our 
interests well by serving well those who fly them. It will serve us 
well by allowing those conflicts to be survivable. The margin of 
improvement provides the margin of difference that means we win instead 
of lose.
  It is time for us to move forward with this program; stop unnecessary 
attacks on it. This is an airplane that will serve us well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes and 23 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first with regard to the second 
amendment, the one before us now having to do with the question of 
performance parameters, there have been some concerns raised by the 
Senators from Virginia and Michigan about reference to the role of the 
GAO in this amendment.
  At this time I ask unanimous consent that portion of the amendment be 
deleted to address their concerns.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. We have to determine from other Senators----
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am sorry, I can't hear the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. I am simply trying to protect other Senators. At the 
moment, there is an objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will provide the Senate with a copy of 
the amendment as I would modify it and simply delete the section 
relating to the Comptroller General.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. As I understand the objection, it is perhaps a temporary 
one. Is that the understanding of the Senator from Wisconsin? My 
understanding of what the Senator from Virginia said is that in order 
to protect the rights of other Senators, he would object at this time. 
But I suggest at least the possibility that the Senator renew his 
unanimous-consent request and perhaps there will be no objection, after 
there has been an opportunity for people to read the modification.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator from Michigan advise me of the 
appropriate time to raise that unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. LEVIN. They are checking it out now.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate that. I reserve a few 
moments of my time because the response to this will affect my 
argument. The only real objection to this is primarily to the role of 
the GAO in this process. The only other objection was raised by the 
Senator from Missouri who made much of the fact that of course there is 
a difference between the E and F plane.
  The problem is that originally the Navy and the contractor sold this 
plane on the assumption that only 18 percent of the planes would be the 
``F'' version. The reality now is that 56 percent of the planes are 
going to be the lower-performing ``F'' version. That is why it is 
essential that we have this certification, at least by the Navy, that 
in fact a majority of the planes will meet the performance parameters.
  So I am very interested to see if the Senators here who have raised 
this concern will allow me to meet their concerns so we can pass this 
commonsense amendment which, as the Senator from Michigan indicated, 
without that flaw would be a worthwhile amendment.
  With regard to the other amendment, the cost containment amendment, 
let me just make a couple of points in response to the Senator from 
Michigan. I do want to say he has been a tremendous advocate for 
appropriate cost containment and careful evaluation of military 
programs throughout his career.
  First of all, regarding our cap that we propose, which of course is a 
figure the Navy proposed in the first place, that $8.8 billion is only 
for over a 4-year period. It is not a permanent cap. Second, if there 
is a need for new technologies, as has been posited by the Senator from 
Michigan, if something comes up that absolutely has to be done--we are 
here. We are not going anywhere. If something dramatic happens that 
requires additional technology, we are in a position to respond to 
that. In fact, the amendment I have proposed allows a number of 
flexibilities. It is not an absolute $8.8 billion cap.
  It allows cost increases and decreases for inflation. It allows 
changes for compliance in Federal, State, and local law, and it also 
contemplates the possibility of quantity changes in the number of 
planes within the scope of the multiyear contract, which we all know 
can dramatically affect the cost of a plane.
  There is substantial flexibility built into this amendment, and if 
there is a need for the new technology, we are here and able to respond 
to that. Otherwise, all we are doing, as I indicated earlier, by 
including this language for new technology, we are essentially gutting 
our own amendment. We are removing the cost cap provision in our 
amendment.
  How many people would do that? If you are buying a car, if a car 
manufacturer says: Well, we reserve the right, if we come up with a new 
thing to put on this car, to charge you a couple more thousand bucks 
after we cut the contract, after we cut the deal. I do not think we 
should be doing business that way. We have built flexibility into this 
amendment.
  Again, I indicate that all this is is the Navy's own figure of $8.8 
billion. We did a similar cost cap on the same plane previously.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Who yields time? The Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am hopeful this matter can be resolved 
in a matter of minutes. In the interim, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S6189]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Eden Murrie in 
Senator Lieberman's office and Dana Krupa in Senator Bingaman's office 
be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time on the amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to myself for a 
statement unrelated to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time remaining is 25 seconds.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator 
from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, on the second Feingold amendment, we are 
attempting to work some accommodation so we can accept the amendment. I 
ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays which were ordered on the 
second Feingold amendment be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I assume it is the 
intent of the Senator that if we do not work it out, there will be no 
problem getting a rollcall vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Absolutely.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Let's give the number of that amendment so there is 
absolute clarity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. 444 is the second Feingold amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are still on track to start our series 
of two votes now at approximately 11:50. To keep Senators advised, the 
ranking member and I are rapidly clearing amendments. I know of only a 
few remaining amendments that will require rollcall votes. I am anxious 
to complete the bill, as are all Senators. I see now that possibility 
taking place perhaps early to mid-afternoon. We will be addressing the 
Senate on that after the two votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the two votes have 
been ordered at 11:50 with 2 minutes evenly divided before each vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I think we waived the 2 minutes before the first vote and 
we will proceed to the vote.
  Are the yeas and nays ordered on the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the 
first vote as well as the second vote.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. The 2-minute request was between the first and the second 
vote, not before the first vote.
  Mr. WARNER. It is clear now.
  We are proceeding to the vote for the full period of time. At the 
conclusion of that, I will, in all probability, ask the next vote be 10 
minutes, and then there will be a period of time, 2 minutes total, 
prior to the second vote.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 442

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
442. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCain
     Specter
       
  The amendment (No. 442) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next vote 
be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 443

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes equally divided on the Feingold amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment is a straightforward, 
commonsense measure that establishes accountability in the Super Hornet 
program. It holds the Navy to the $8.8 billion over the next 5 years to 
procure the Super Hornet. My amendment simply sets a cost cap at that 
level and holds them to that amount.
  Again, this amendment holds the Navy to the $8.8 billion, its own 
figure. It doesn't terminate the funding, it doesn't hold the money up, 
it doesn't even restrict the use of the money, it just holds them to 
the amount they say they need. I hope the body will use common sense in 
procuring this aircraft.
  The amendment does nothing more than set a cost cap using the exact 
dollar amount put forward by the Navy; nothing more, nothing less. We 
owe it to our naval aviators and to the taxpayers to make sure we 
provide a modernized plane that does what it is supposed to do within 
the parameters the Navy has set forth itself.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the F/A-18E/F is a fixed-price contract. 
It is a fixed-price contract for the extent of the contract. What the 
Senator from Wisconsin does is put a price cap on a fixed-price 
contract. Fine. I am willing to accept that. But what he did not 
include in his amendment was a provision for technology insertion. In 
other words, if we come up with a new radar system that can improve the 
quality of the aircraft, under his amendment we could not buy that 
improvement and put it on the aircraft. I was willing to accept his 
amendment, if he would allow for that technical improvement insertion 
provision. But he refused to do so.

  So, unfortunately, while I think the amendment is somewhat 
meaningless because it is a fixed price contract, I have to oppose the 
amendment, and would ask, for the sake of our naval aviators to make 
sure they have the best equipment to fly, that my colleagues join in 
supporting the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 443. On this question the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 11, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl

[[Page S6190]]


     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--11

     Boxer
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Moynihan
     Reid
     Schumer
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Lautenberg
     Specter
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. WARNER. I, likewise, but I will defer.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bob Perrett, a 
congressional fellow in my office, be allowed the privilege of the 
floor during the consideration of the Defense bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 394, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with respect to amendment No. 394, I ask a 
modification to the amendment be accepted. I send the modification to 
the desk.
  (The text of the amendment (No. 394), as modified, is printed in 
today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  Mr. LEVIN. Section 1061(a) of the amendment would require the 
President to promptly notify Congress whenever an ``investigation'' is 
undertaken. The term ``investigation'' is not defined in the amendment.
  I am concerned that some could interpret this to require the 
President to report to Congress every time the executive branch 
receives an allegation, even before the Justice Department or others 
have an opportunity to determine whether the allegations are based in 
fact. Such an interpretation could lead to the disclosure of a flood of 
unsubstantiated allegations to Congress, with a resulting injustice to 
innocent individuals who may be the subject of such allegations.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for his comments and I appreciate his 
concerns. I am pleased to agree to work closely with the Senator from 
Michigan during the conference on this bill, and to solicit the views 
of the administration, on how this provision will be implemented and in 
an effort to address his concerns.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on both 
sides. I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 394), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on that amendment I ask Senator Baucus be 
added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with regard to the remaining business, I 
am hopeful the leadership clears a unanimous consent request, agreed 
upon between Mr. Levin and myself. It is in the process now. It will 
give clarity to the balance of the day.
  At the moment, there are two Senators who have been waiting for 3 
days. I want to accommodate them. The Senator from Mississippi, Mr. 
Cochran, would like to lay down an amendment and speak to it for 10 
minutes. The amendment is not cleared, so I reserve 10 minutes for the 
opposition to that amendment prior to any vote that is required.


                           Amendment No. 444

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a pending amendment. The Chair tells 
the distinguished Senator the pending amendment at the desk is No. 444 
by the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. My understanding is the various Senators have 
negotiated agreement on this, and it is acceptable on both sides. As 
modified, the Senate is prepared to accept it.


                     Amendment No. 444, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator send the modification to the 
desk.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I send the modification to the desk.
  The amendment (No. 444), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 26, strike lines 20 through 25, and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Limitation.--The Secretary may not exercise the 
     authority under subsection (a) to enter into a multiyear 
     contract for the procurement of F/A-18E/F aircraft or 
     authorize entry of the F/A-18E/F aircraft program into full-
     rate production until--
       (1) the Secretary of Defense certifies to the Committees on 
     Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives the 
     results of operational test and evaluation of the F/A-18E/F 
     aircraft.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense--
       (A) determines that the results of operational test and 
     evaluation demonstrate that the version of the aircraft to be 
     procured under the multiyear contract in the higher quantity 
     than the other version satisfies all key performance 
     parameters appropriate to that versIon of aircraft in the 
     operational requirements document for the F/A-18E/F program, 
     as submitted on April 1, 1997, except that with respect to 
     the range performance parameter a deviation of 1 percent 
     shall be permitted.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified 
and agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 444), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Now, it is the request of the manager that Mr. Cochran be 
recognized for not to exceed 10 minutes to lay down an amendment. If 
that amendment cannot be agreed upon by a voice vote, we would just lay 
it aside with the understanding there is 10 minutes for opposition at 
some point in the afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Florida has waited very patiently for 
about 2 or 3 days. He has an amendment which is to be laid down 
following the Cochran amendment. I ask there be a period of 30 minutes, 
15 minutes under the control of the Senator from Florida, 15 minutes 
under the joint control of Senators Shelby and Robert Kerrey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. I object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WARNER. I guess that is the end of the ability to move things. We 
just have to put that request in abeyance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Mississippi is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 445

   (Purpose: To authorize the transfer of a naval vessel to Thailand)

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 445.

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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:

       In title X, at the end of subtitle B, insert the following:

     SEC. 1013. TRANSFER OF NAVAL VESSEL TO FOREIGN COUNTRY.

       (a) Thailand.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Thailand the CYCLONE class 
     coastal patrol craft CYCLONE (PC1) or a craft with a similar 
     hull. The transfer shall be made on a grant basis under 
     section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2321j).
       (b) Costs.--Any expense incurred by the United States in 
     connection with the transfer authorized under subsection (a) 
     shall be charged to the Government of Thailand.
       (c) Repair and Refurbishment in United States Shipyards.--
     To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary of the Navy 
     shall require, as a condition of the transfer of the vessel 
     to the Government of Thailand under this section, that the 
     Government of Thailand have such repair or refurbishment of 
     the vessel as is needed, before the vessel

[[Page S6191]]

     joins the naval forces of that country, performed at a United 
     States Naval shipyard or other shipyard located in the United 
     States.
       (d) Expiration of Authority.--The authority to transfer a 
     vessel under subsection (a) shall expire at the end of the 
     two-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, this 
amendment would authorize the transfer of a naval vessel to Thailand 
and would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to receive in exchange a 
ship that is now in the fleet of Thailand. The purpose of the amendment 
is to provide authority to the Secretary of the Navy to give a retiring 
U.S. Navy Cyclone class ship to the Government of Thailand in exchange 
for a former U.S. Navy ship which served in World War II in the 
Pacific. That ship is the LCS 102, LCS stands for landing craft 
support. It is presently in the service of the Royal Navy of Thailand.
  For some history on this subject, 3 years ago in Public Law 104-201, 
the Congress went on record in favor of trying to bring back to the 
United States the LCS 102. It is the last surviving ship of its class. 
This ship saw heavy combat action in the western Pacific during World 
War II. It was transferred after the war to Japan and then later was 
transferred to Thailand where she has been in service for 30 years. 
This ship is of great historical significance. It is the last one of 
its kind in existence in the world. Just a few years ago, it was 
entered on the Register of the World Ship Trust.
  Many sailors from World War II might not recognize this class of 
ship, because it was one of many different types of amphibious ships 
used in the Pacific during World War II. But it was highly appreciated 
by the Navy admirals and the Marines because it was a heavily armed 
gunboat which gave close-in fire support to the Marines in amphibious 
landings. In fact, the LCS ships had more firepower per ton than an 
Iowa class battleship.
  These ships were in the thick of it in Iwo Jima, Okinawa, the 
Philippines, and New Guinea. They also served in an anti-aircraft role 
against kamikaze aircraft at Okinawa and Iwo Jima, because of their 
tremendous firepower.
  Mr. President, 26 of the 130 LCSs that were built were sunk, or badly 
damaged in the first 6 months of their duty in the Pacific. Historians 
have begun to write about these ships and the role they played in the 
successful war in the Pacific. There is one illustrative title, 
``Mighty Midgets At War: The Saga of the LCS(L) Ships from Iwo Jima to 
Vietnam,'' by Robert L. Reilly.
  Our distinguished former colleague, who was chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, John Tower of Texas, served aboard the LCS 112. He 
was chief bosun's mate during World War II on that ship. Also, former 
Secretary of the Navy William Middendorf served as an officer abroad 
LCS 53 and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman's father served as 
commanding officer of LCS 18 in the Pacific. He received the Bronze 
Star for bravery during his service at Okinawa.
  In addition, the commanding officer of LCS 122, then lieutenant, 
Richard M. McCool, who now resides in Bainbridge Island in the State of 
Washington, received the Congressional Medal of Honor from President 
Truman for his service during a kamikaze attack at Okinawa.
  There are several former LCS sailors from my State who have written 
me in support of this transfer: Robert Wells of Ocean Springs, MS, 
recently wrote me a letter saying he was the only medical officer 
abroad LCS 31. Here is what else he said in his letter:

       . . . The LCS-31, along with approximately 20 other LCSs, 
     invaded Iwo Jima in February, 1945, assisting the Marines in 
     landing.

       From there, the LCS 31 went to Okinawa and fought suicide 
     planes on radar picket duty where the #31 shot down 6 suicide 
     planes and was hit by 3, killing 9 sailors and wounding 15. 
     The 31 received the Presidential Unit Citation for their 
     efforts. Please help in returning the LCS 102 to the United 
     States and receiving the recognition that the LCSs deserve.

  Mr. President, these ships were a part of the U.S. Navy that fought 
and won the war in the Pacific. The LCS 102 is the last remaining ship 
of its class, and I believe it would be appropriate for it to come home 
and serve as a floating museum and a monument to the brave service of 
tens of thousands of sailors who served on these ships with the 
nickname ``Mighty Midgets.''
  Since the Congress adopted an amendment 3 years ago urging the 
Secretary of Defense to bring home the LCS 102, the Navy has determined 
that the Thai Navy will give up the LCS from its fleet for a return to 
the United States, but they need a replacement ship to fulfill the 
shallow water mission now accomplished by the LCS 102.
  This year, the Navy is retiring a small, fast gunboat from our fleet 
that would meet the Thai Navy's requirement. The ship is a Cyclone 
class ship. It could be made available to the Thai Navy in exchange for 
the LCS 102. This amendment authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to 
offer a Cyclone class ship to the Thai Navy. It does not mandate that 
the trade be consummated; it simply authorizes the trade if it can be 
negotiated and legal hurdles and other details can be worked out.
  There is an urgency to this issue because World War II veterans are 
aging. Most of them are now in their seventies and eighties. If we are 
going to help the LCS association realize its dream and ambition of 
bringing home the last ship of its class, then we need to do it now. 
There are LCS sailors living today all over the country in almost all 
50 States, and they would appreciate a vote in support of this 
amendment.
  Funds will be raised from the private sector to put this ship in 
condition to serve as a museum, and there are still many details to be 
worked out before the LCS can be brought home. But by approving this 
amendment, which is necessary as a first step, the Senate will go on 
record in support, as we did 3 years ago when we suggested this should 
be done by the Navy.
  I hope my colleagues will support the amendment and join the Chief of 
Naval Operations, Jay Johnson, who has written me a letter in support 
of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                    Chief of Naval Operations,

                                                     May 26, 1999.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cochran: I wanted to offer my thanks and 
     support for your proposed amendment to help return the last 
     ex-LCS 102 from Thailand to the United States. This ship 
     would make an excellent public memorial in honor of those who 
     served in ships like her during WWII. Further, it would 
     provide an additional monument for generations to come of the 
     sacrifices of this special generation.
       My staff stands ready to brief yours on the details 
     involved in making the transfer of a retiring Cyclone-class 
     Patrol Craft (PC) come about. Thank you again for your 
     support. If I may be of further assistance, please do not 
     hesitate to let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jay L. Johnson,
                                               Admiral, U.S. Navy.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, I want 
to read just one sentence from this letter:

       This ship would make an excellent public memorial in honor 
     of those who served in ships like her during World War II.
                                                 Adm. Jay Johnson,
                                        Chief of Naval Operations.

  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield if I have any time.
  Mr. REID. The Senator has made very clear this is not a mandate; is 
that right?
  Mr. COCHRAN. That is right. It is authorizing legislation.
  Mr. REID. Also, on page 2 of the Senator's amendment, it says ``on a 
grant basis.'' Is it clear that it could also be done on a sale basis, 
lease basis or a lease with an option to buy basis?
  Mr. COCHRAN. We want to swap it. We want to swap the Cyclone for the 
LCS 102. It authorizes the trade.
  Mr. REID. It says, ``the transfer shall be made on a grant basis.''
  Mr. COCHRAN. That is a legal word of art. I have explained the 
meaning of it. If we had been able to get the committee to adopt the 
amendment as we had hoped they would, there would be report language in 
the committee report. I will be happy to give the Senator a copy of 
that which further explains. If he will let me, I will read it:

       The committee recommends that the Secretary of the Navy be 
     authorized to transfer to the Government of Thailand one 
     Cyclone class patrol vessel for the purpose of supporting 
     Thailand's counterdrug and

[[Page S6192]]

     counterpiracy operations. The committee intends this transfer 
     to replace the former LCS 102 currently in service with the 
     Royal Thai Navy, should the discussions urged in section 1025 
     of PL 104-201 result in the Government of Thailand's decision 
     to return LCS 102 to the Government of the United States. The 
     committee understands that the Secretary of the Navy supports 
     the return of LCS 102 to the United States for public display 
     as a naval museum.

  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. This is just to give the Secretary more options--sale, 
lease, lease option. It will give more discretion to the Secretary 
rather than saying the transfer shall be made by grant. There are other 
ways it can be done. I think it would be in the best interest of all 
concerned if these other options are available. I repeat: sale, lease, 
lease with an option to buy.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I will be happy to consider that, and I appreciate the 
Senator raising it as an alternative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allotted to the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Let me clarify, Mr. President, there still remains some 
time in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi; am 
I correct in that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair observes that Senators said there 
would be 10 minutes allotted to the opposition of the Senator's 
amendment. It was not stated in the form of a request.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think some time should be reserved. I 
indicate for the Record, I support the Senator from Mississippi, but I 
am sure time should be reserved on this side, 10 minutes, and then we 
will determine whether or not a recorded vote is necessary in this 
matter, or it may be voice voted. I put that in the form of a unanimous 
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to support the 
amendment of the Senator from Mississippi. This amendment deserves the 
support of every Senator because it is the right thing to do.
  During World War II more than 10,000 Americans served their country 
on LCS ships, and these ships were heavily involved in combat in the 
Pacific. There is only one LCS left in the world, and a group of World 
War II sailors wants to bring that ship back to the United States and 
make it a floating museum.
  Three years ago, I sponsored an amendment to the Defense 
authorization bill urging the Secretary of Defense to seek the 
expeditious return of the LCS 102 from Thailand. That amendment passed 
the Congress and became part of Public Law 104-201.
  For three years not much has happened because the Thai Navy still 
needed the LCS 102, even though it is now more than 55 years old. Thai 
officials have indicated that they would be prepared to return the LCS 
102 to the United States if we could provide a suitable ship to take 
its place. The U.S. Navy is planning to retire just such a ship this 
year, and that is what this amendment is about.
  The ranks of those World War II sailors is thinning each year, and 
there is a need to move expeditiously. We need to bring this historic 
ship home before all of our World War II veterans are gone.
  Let me list briefly some facts about LCS ships and their service to 
our country.
  These ships were born out of desperate need. In the early years of 
World War II, our Navy and Marine Corps discovered that they needed 
more close-in gunfire support to protect our troops as they went ashore 
in amphibious landings. With typical American ingenuity, a new small 
gunboat was designed and quickly moved into production. The result was 
the LCS(L) which stood for Landing Craft Support Ship (Large).
  This newly designed ship had more firepower per ton than a 
battleship, and it was capable of going all the way in to the beach and 
providing close-in fire support for our troops going ashore.
  One hundred and thirty of these ships were built and rushed into 
service in 1944 and 1945. These ships and their brave crews helped save 
the lives of countless soldiers and Marines by providing heavy close-in 
firepower to support amphibious landings at Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and many 
other Pacific Islands. Twenty-six of these ships were sunk or badly 
damaged in the Pacific campaign.
  These ships were nicknamed the ``Mighty Midgets'' because of their 
firepower and their service in World War II. These ships, like so many 
others, received little notice when the history books were written 
because Carriers, Battleships, and Cruisers took most of the glory. 
However, the sailors aboard LCSs served bravely and well, and their 
part of World War II needs to be preserved as a part of our Navy's 
history.
  LCS sailors received many decorations for their service during World 
War II. A young Lieutenant by the name of Richard McCool from 
Washington State received the Congressional Medal of Honor from 
President Truman for his service at Okinawa. A young Lieutenant by the 
name of John F. Lehman received a bronze star for his service at 
Okinawa, as well. His son, John, Jr. served as a naval officer many 
years later and became Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan.
  Since the mid-1990s, several books have been published covering the 
history of the LCS ships. Former Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman, 
Jr. wrote the foreword to one of those books. This foreword provides 
eloquent summary of the service to our Nation provided by LCSs and 
their brave sailors.
  Finally, Mr. President, a distinguished former Senator who served as 
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in this body served ably as a 
Boatswain's Mate on an LCS during World War II. John Tower served his 
nation in World War II on an LCS.
  This body needs to honor his service and that of all the LCS sailors 
by helping to save the LCS 102--the only one left in the world.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to do what they 
can to help in the task of bringing this ship home to the United States 
to serve as a museum and a memorial to the valiant service of thousands 
of LCS sailors.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to propound a unanimous consent 
request, which is agreed upon on the other side, with regard to a 
procedural matter. As soon as that is concluded, then I want to state a 
UC request on behalf of my two colleagues, Mr. Domenici and Mr. Kyl, on 
this side. I think we can work it out.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I also am a sponsor of this legislation 
and would like to be recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. First, with regard to the balance of the afternoon: I ask 
unanimous consent that all remaining first-degree amendments be offered 
by 2:30 p.m. today, and at 2:10 p.m., Senator Levin be recognized to 
offer and lay aside amendments for Members on his side of the aisle, 
and at 2:20 p.m., the chairman of the committee be recognized to offer 
and lay aside amendments for Members on his side of the aisle, and that 
those amendments be subject to relevant second-degree amendments. I 
further ask that all first-degree amendments must be relevant to the 
text of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, all first-
degree amendments must be relevant and offered by 2:30 p.m. today. It 
is the intention of the managers and leaders to complete action on this 
bill, hopefully, no later than 5 o'clock today.
  We have had a number of Senators patiently waiting. The Senator from 
Florida is willing to accommodate the chairman in his request that a 
period of 30 minutes, under the control of the Senator from Arizona and 
the Senator from New Mexico, be allocated for an amendment which they 
will lay down within that period of time, and at the conclusion of the 
30-minute period, that amendment will be laid aside for the purpose of 
an amendment to be laid down by the Senator from Florida, which 
amendment will require 30 minutes of debate, 15 minutes under the 
control of the Senator from Florida, 15 minutes under the control of 
the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, and that 15 minutes will be 
shared between

[[Page S6193]]

Mr. Shelby and Mr. Kerrey, the ranking member of the Intelligence 
Committee.
  I propose that to the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. That being in order, we will now proceed with the 30 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The distinguished Senator from 
Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you.
  Under the agreement just announced by Senator Warner, it would be the 
intention of Senator Domenici and Senator Murkowski and myself to 
divide the next half-hour into roughly 10 minute segments. I would 
appreciate an indication from the Chair when we have achieved those 
three milestones, if the Chair would, please.


                           Amendment No. 446

  Mr. KYL. At this time I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
myself, Senator Domenici, Senator Murkowski, Senator Shelby, Senator 
Hutchinson, and Senator Helms.
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I say to the manager of the bill, the chairman of the 
committee, there has been no unanimous consent agreement regarding the 
Domenici amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. My understanding is that the Senator from Virginia 
propounded a UC to give the three Senators Senator Kyl just designated 
30 minutes in which to lay down an amendment, and at the end of the 30 
minutes the amendment be laid aside. There is no restriction whatsoever 
on the remainder of the time with respect to further consideration of 
the amendment, I say to my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senator yielding.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself, Mr. 
     Domenici, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. 
     Helms, proposes an amendment numbered 446.

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

       Strike Section 3158 and insert the following:

     ``SEC. 3158(A). ORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 
                   COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, INTELLIGENCE, AND NUCLEAR 
                   SECURITY PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES.

       ``(1) Office of Counterintelligence.--Title II of the 
     Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7131 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:


                   `` `office of counterintelligence

       `` `Sec. 213. (a) There is within the Department an Office 
     of Counterintelligence.
       `` `(b)(1) The head of the Office shall be the Director of 
     the Office of Counterintelligence.
       `` `(2) The Secretary shall, with the concurrence of the 
     Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, designate 
     the head of the office from among senior executive service 
     employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who have 
     expertise in matters relating to counterintelligence.
       `` `(3) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     may detail, on a reimbursable basis, any employee of the 
     Bureau to the Department for service as Director of the 
     Office. The service of an employee within the Bureau as 
     Director of the Office shall not result in any loss of 
     status, right, or privilege by the employee within the 
     Bureau.
       `` `(4) The Director of the Office of Counterintelligence 
     shall report directly to the Secretary.
       `` `(c)(1) The Director of the Office of 
     Counterintelligence shall develop and ensure the 
     implementation of security and counterintelligence programs 
     and activities at Department facilities in order to reduce 
     the threat of disclosure or loss of classified and other 
     sensitive information at such facilities.
       `` `(2) The Director of the Office of Counterintelligence 
     shall be responsible for the administration of the personnel 
     assurance programs of the Department.
       `` `(3) The Director of the Office of Counterintelligence 
     shall inform the Secretary, the Director of Central 
     Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation on a regular basis, and upon specific request 
     by any such official, regarding the status and effectiveness 
     of the security and counterintelligence programs and 
     activities at Department facilities.
       `` `(4) The Director of the Office of Counterintelligence 
     shall report immediately to the President of the United 
     States, the Senate and the House of Representatives any 
     actual or potential significant threat to, or loss of, 
     national security information.
       `` `(5) The Director of the Office of Counterintelligence 
     shall not be required to obtain the approval of any officer 
     or employee of the Department of Energy for the preparation 
     or delivery to Congress of any report required by this 
     section; nor shall any officer or employee of the Department 
     of Energy or any other Federal agency or department delay, 
     deny, obstruct or otherwise interfere with the preparation of 
     or delivery to Congress of any report required by this 
     section.
       `` `(d)(1) Not later than March 1 each year, the Director 
     of the Office of Counterintelligence shall submit to the 
     Secretary, the Director of Central Intelligence, and the 
     Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to the 
     Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate, and the Committee on Commerce of the 
     House of Representatives, and the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate, and the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, a 
     report on the status and effectiveness of the security and 
     counterintelligence programs and activities at Department 
     facilities during the preceding year.
       `` `(2) Each report shall include for the year covered by 
     the report the following:
       `` `(A) A description of the status and effectiveness of 
     the security and counterintelligence programs and activities 
     at Department facilities.
       `` `(B) The adequacy of the Department of Energy's 
     procedures and policies for protecting national security 
     information, making such recommendations to Congress as may 
     be appropriate.
       `` `(C) Whether each Department of Energy national 
     laboratory is in full compliance with all Departmental 
     security requirements, and if not what measures are being 
     taken to bring such laboratory into compliance.
       `` `(D) A description of any violation of law or other 
     requirement relating to intelligence, counterintelligence, or 
     security at such facilities, including--
       `` `(i) the number of violations that were investigated; 
     and
       `` `(ii) the number of violations that remain unresolved.
       `` `(E) A description of the number of foreign visitors to 
     Department facilities, including the locations of the visits 
     of such visitors.
       `` `(3) Each report submitted under this subsection to the 
     committees referred to in paragraph (1) shall be submitted in 
     unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
       `` `(e) Every officer or employee of the Department of 
     Energy, every officer or employee of a Department of Energy 
     national laboratory, and every officer or employee of a 
     Department of Energy contractor, who has reason to believe 
     that there is an actual or potential significant threat to, 
     or loss of, national security information shall immediately 
     report such information to the Director of the Office of 
     Counterintelligence.
       `` `(f) Thirty days prior to the report required by 
     subsection d(2)(C), the Director of each Department of Energy 
     national laboratory shall certify in writing to the Director 
     of the Office of Counterintelligence whether that laboratory 
     is in full compliance with all Departmental national security 
     information protection requirements. If the laboratory is not 
     in full compliance, the Director of the laboratory shall 
     report on why it is not in compliance, what measures are 
     being taken to bring it into compliance, and when it will be 
     in compliance.
       `` `(g) Within 180 days of the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Energy shall report to the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives on the adequacy of the 
     Department of Energy's procedures and policies for protecting 
     national security information, including national security 
     information at the Department's laboratories, making such 
     recommendations to Congress as may be appropriate.
       `` `OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE
       `` `Sec. 214. (a) There is within the Department an Office 
     of Intelligence.
       `` `(b)(1) The head of the Office shall be the Director of 
     the Office of Intelligence.
       `` `(2) The Director of the Office shall be a senior 
     executive service employee of the Department.
       ```(3) The Director of the Office of Intelligence shall 
     report directly to the Secretary.
       `` `(c) The Director of the Office of Intelligence shall be 
     responsible for the programs and activities of the Department 
     relating to the analysis of intelligence with respect to 
     nuclear weapons and materials, other nuclear matters, and 
     energy security.


                  `` `nuclear security administration

       `` `Sec. 215. (a) There shall be within the Department an 
     agency to be known as the Nuclear Security Administration, to 
     be headed by an Administrator, who shall report directly to, 
     and shall be accountable directly to, the Secretary. The 
     Secretary may not delegate to any Department official the 
     duty to supervise the Administrator.
       `` `(b)(1) The Assistant Secretary assigned the functions 
     under section 203(a)(5) shall serve as the Administrator.

[[Page S6194]]

       `` `(2) The Administrator shall be responsible for the 
     executive and administrative operation of the functions 
     assigned to the Administration, including functions with 
     respect to (A) the selection, appointment, and fixing of the 
     compensation of such personnel as the Administrator considers 
     necessary, (B) the supervision of personnel employed by or 
     assigned to the Administration, (C) the distribution of 
     business among personnel and among administrative units of 
     the Administration, and (D) the procurement of services of 
     experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of 
     title 5, United States Code. The Secretary shall provide to 
     the Administrator such support and facilities as the 
     Administrator determines is needed to carry out the functions 
     of the Administration.
       `` `(c)(1) The personnel of the Administration, in carrying 
     out any function assigned to the Administrator, shall be 
     responsible to, and subject to the supervision and direction 
     of, the Administrator, and shall not be responsible to, or 
     subject to the supervision or direction of, any officer, 
     employee, or agent of any other part of the Department of 
     Energy.
       `` `(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``personnel of the Administration'' means each officer or 
     employee within the Department of Energy, and each officer or 
     employee of any contractor of the Department, whose--
       `` `(A) responsibilities include carrying out a function 
     assigned to the Administrator; or
       `` `(B) employment is funded under the Weapons Activities 
     budget function of the Department.
       `` `(d) The Secretary shall assign to the Administrator 
     direct authority over, and responsibility for, the nuclear 
     weapons production facilities and the national laboratories. 
     The functions assigned to the Administrator with respect to 
     the nuclear weapons production facilities and the national 
     laboratories shall include, but not be limited to, authority 
     over, and responsibility for, the following:
       `` `(1) Strategic management.
       `` `(2) Policy development and guidance.
       `` `(3) Budget formulation and guidance.
       `` `(4) Resource requirements determination and allocation.
       `` `(5) Program direction.
       `` `(6) Safeguard and security operations.
       `` `(7) Emergency management.
       `` `(8) Integrated safety management.
       `` `(9) Environment, safety, and health operations.
       `` `(10) Administration of contracts to manage and operate 
     the nuclear weapons production facilities and the national 
     laboratories.
       `` `(11) Oversight.
       `` `(12) Relationships within the Department of Energy and 
     with other Federal agencies, the Congress, State, tribal, and 
     local governments, and the public.
       `` `(13) Each of the functions described in subsection (f).
       `` `(e) The head of each nuclear weapons production 
     facility and of each national laboratory shall report 
     directly to, and be accountable directly to, the 
     Administrator.
       `` `(f) The Administrator may delegate functions assigned 
     under subsection (d) only within the headquarters office of 
     the Administrator, except that the Administrator may delegate 
     to the head of a specified operations office functions 
     including, but not limited to, providing or supporting the 
     following activities at a nuclear weapons production facility 
     or a national laboratory:
       `` `(1) Operational activities.
       `` `(2) Program execution.
       `` `(3) Personnel.
       `` `(4) Contracting and procurement.
       `` `(5) Facility operations oversight.
       `` `(6) Integration of production and research and 
     development activities.
       `` `(7) Interaction with other Federal agencies, State, 
     tribal, and local governments, and the public.
       `` `(g) The head of a specified operations office, in 
     carrying out any function delegated under subsection (f) to 
     that head of that specified operations office, shall report 
     directly to, and be accountable directly to, the 
     Administrator.
       `` `(h) In each annual authorization and appropriations 
     request under this Act, the Secretary shall identify the 
     portion thereof intended for the support of the 
     Administration and include a statement by the Administrator 
     showing (1) the amount requested by the Administrator in the 
     budgetary presentation to the Secretary and the Office of 
     Management and Budget, and (2) an assessment of the budgetary 
     needs of the Administration. Whenever the Administrator 
     submits to the Secretary, the President, or the Office of 
     Management and Budget any legislative recommendation or 
     testimony, or comments on legislation prepared for submission 
     to the Congress, the Administrator shall concurrently 
     transmit a copy thereof to the appropriate committees of the 
     Congress.
       `` `(i) As used in this section:
       `` `(1) The term `nuclear weapons production facility' 
     means any of the following facilities:
       `` `(A) The Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri.
       `` `(B) The Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas.
       `` `(C) The Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
       `` `(D) The tritium operations facilities at the Savannah 
     River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.
       `` `(E) The Nevada Test Site, Nevada.
       `` `(2) The term ``national laboratory'' means any of the 
     following laboratories:
       `` `(A) The Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New 
     Mexico.
       `` `(B) The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 
     Livermore, California.
       `` `(C) The Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New 
     Mexico, and Livermore, California.
       `` `(3) The term ``specified operations office'' means any 
     of the following operations offices of the Department of 
     Energy:
       `` `(A) Albuquerque Operations Office, Albuquerque, New 
     Mexico.
       `` `(B) Oak Ridge Operations Office, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
       `` `(C) Oakland Operations Office, Oakland, California.
       `` `(D) Nevada Operations Office, Nevada Test Site, Las 
     Vegas, Nevada.
       `` `(E) Savannah River Operations Office, Savannah River 
     Site, Aiken, South Carolina.'.
       ``(b) In General.--Section 203 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7133) 
     is amended by adding at the end of the following new 
     subsection:
       `` `(c) The Assistant Secretary assigned the functions 
     under section (a)(5) shall be a person who, by reason of 
     professional background and experience, is specially 
     qualified--
       `` `(1) to manage a program designed to ensure the safety 
     and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile;
       `` `(2) to manage the nuclear weapons production facilities 
     and the national laboratories;
       `` `(3) protect national security information; and
       `` `(4) to carry out the other functions of the 
     Administrator of the Nuclear Security Administration.'.
       ``(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for that 
     Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 212 the following items:
`` `213. Office of Counterintelligence.
`` `214. Office of Intelligence.
`` `215. Nuclear Security Administration'.''

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I express my gratitude to Senator Graham for 
permitting us to take this next half hour to at least lay this down to 
begin setting the framework for the discussion.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Would the Senator yield for a procedural question?
  Mr. KYL. Yes. I hope this will not come out of the 30 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am not intending to take long. I just ask, since we 
have no time allotted during this time, will the sponsors be available 
later in the afternoon to answer questions about the amendment, because 
we have not seen the amendment.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, absolutely. We will be pleased to answer any 
and all questions and discuss this at whatever length the Senator would 
like to discuss it.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Thank you.
  Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield for a moment, it was the 
decision of the manager of the bill that the importance of this 
amendment was such that the sooner it was shared on both sides of the 
aisle the better, because this is an important amendment. We are making 
progress towards completing this bill by the hour of 5 o'clock. This is 
simply the one unknown quantity that we have to assess. This procedure, 
in my judgment, enables the Senate to get an assessment of the 
probability of the resolution of this amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the manager for that statement. 
I am certainly not trying to object, but it is a very large unknown 
quantity since we have not seen the amendment.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 30 minutes 
Senator Warner asked for begin at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you.
  Mr. President, let me briefly describe the purpose of this amendment. 
I will acknowledge right up front that Senator Domenici, from New 
Mexico, has been a primary motivating factor in addressing this 
subject, based upon his expertise with our National Laboratories and 
his concerns about national security. A lot of folks sat down to try to 
determine what the best course of action would be for us to begin to 
take steps to ensure the security of our National Laboratories. 
Certainly, Senator Domenici is the person one would first turn to for 
that kind of consideration.
  Next, Senator Murkowski, the chairman of the Energy Committee, is 
someone who has jurisdiction and who has held hearings and who has a 
great deal to offer with respect to the organization of the Department 
of Energy, in particular the weapons programs, so we can ensure that we 
have security over those programs.

[[Page S6195]]

  Naturally, Senator Shelby, the chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee, has also had his input into this amendment, as have others.
  It will be important that each of these key chairmen has an 
opportunity to discuss this bill. But I especially thank Senator 
Domenici for his efforts in doing literally hundreds of hours of 
research on the best possible approach to secure our National 
Laboratories.
  That is what this amendment is all about. This amendment is, 
actually, the second step we will have taken in this defense 
authorization bill to begin to rebuild the security of our National 
Laboratories.

  In the Armed Services Committee, a provision that deals with this 
subject was included in the bill. We have incorporated that part of 
their bill into this amendment. In addition to that, the Secretary of 
Energy, Secretary Richardson, has some ideas about his organization. 
The centerpiece of his ideas we have also incorporated into this 
amendment.
  What we are trying to do here is to get the best ideas that everybody 
has to offer, and thereby ensure that when we finally finish this 
legislative session, and finish discussing this with the 
administration, we will have the best possible approach to security at 
our National Laboratories.
  The essence of this amendment is to establish, in the Department of 
Energy, a new Office of Counterintelligence which would be headed by a 
senior executive from the FBI. I will come back to that. But that 
office has been identified in the defense authorization bill. We simply 
flush out the provisions of that office in that bill and ensure that 
that officer will have total authority here to deal with issues of 
counterintelligence at our National Laboratories.
  Then the second part of this amendment is to address the longstanding 
management problems of the Department of Energy, especially relating to 
the nuclear weapons complex and reorganizing the Department of Energy 
in such a way that there is a very clear line of authority over the 
nuclear weapons programs, with a person at the top of that, an 
administrator, who has the responsibility over all of these nuclear 
programs, and nothing else, within the Department. And, by the same 
token, nobody else in the Department, except those who are senior to 
him, including the Secretary of the Department of Energy, would have 
any authority over his programs.
  In effect, what we are replacing in the Department of Energy is a 
situation in which all of the rules and regulations and management 
policies, and everything else that applies to everybody within the 
Department--including the weapons complex--have created a situation in 
which, literally, they have not been able to focus on the management of 
the nuclear weapons complexes, especially with regard to security.
  So what this amendment does--in the intelligence community 
terminology--is to create a ``stovepipe'' within the Department of 
Energy. At the top, of course, is the Secretary of Energy. Below him is 
a person with the rank of Assistant Secretary, called the 
``administrator,'' who would, within that stovepipe, have the total 
authority to operate the Department of Energy weapons programs, 
including the security functions of those programs.
  He would be doing this, of course, in coordination with the office 
that would be created by the language put in the bill by the Armed 
Services Committee relating to counterintelligence, with the FBI 
presence here, and the two of them would coordinate the national 
security portions of this program.
  In this way, you do not have people within the Department of Energy 
responsible for all kinds of other things. Somebody talked about 
refrigerator standards and powerplant issues and all of the rest of it. 
Those people would not have anything to do with this. This group would 
not have anything to do with them. This would be a discrete function 
within the Department that would have nothing to do except manage our 
nuclear weapons programs, including, first and foremost, the security 
of those programs.
  We will have much more to say about the details of this after a bit. 
Certainly Senator Domenici can go into many of the reasons he has 
helped to craft this in the way that organizationally it will work.
  Let me just make two concluding points.
  First of all, I do not think we can emphasize enough the need to do 
something about security at the Laboratories now. One of the concerns 
that has been raised about the amendment we have offered here is that 
it is premature, that we should hold hearings, and we should take a 
long time so we can ``do this right.''
  We have since 1995. And this administration has not done it right. It 
is time for the Senate to get involved in this issue and begin the 
debate by putting this amendment out there. We will have plenty of time 
to deal with this before this bill ever goes to the President of the 
United States.
  This is our approach to the best management for this weapons program. 
We believe that to delay anymore is to engage in the same obfuscation 
and delay and, frankly, dereliction of duty that has characterized this 
administration's approach to national security at our Nation's 
Laboratories, our nuclear weapons programs. We can't delay any longer.
  If I were to go home over this Memorial Day recess, the first thing 
my constituents would talk to me about is, what about this Chinese 
espionage? What about security at the Laboratories? If I say to them, 
well, we were in such a hurry to get this Department of Defense 
authorization bill done that we didn't really do anything about 
security at our Nation's Laboratories, we are going to take our time 
and do that later, I think I would be pilloried, and so would all the 
rest of my colleagues. Our constituents expect us to act with alacrity. 
I don't see how we can complain about the Department of Energy and 
about the administration taking their sweet time to deal with this 
problem if we don't address it up front and right now.
  The second point I make in closing is, with regard to a previous 
draft of this legislation, the Secretary of Energy is indicating that 
he doesn't approve of everything in here and might even recommend a 
veto of the legislation. I am sure by the time he is done hearing the 
debate and conferring with us and reading the actual language of the 
amendment, he will be willing to cooperate with us rather than threaten 
vetoes. We need to work together on this.
  I commend Secretary Richardson because from the time he has come in, 
he has tried to do the job of making reforms at the Department of 
Energy. But it will not do to say that he is the only one who has any 
ideas that could work here and for the Congress to but out, thank you.
  The Congress has held numerous hearings, both in the House and the 
Senate. We have a lot of good ideas. Frankly, this management proposal, 
which has gone through a great deal of thought process about how to 
provide security at our National Laboratories, is going to be part of 
that reorganization. I know my colleagues and I look forward to working 
with the Secretary of Energy to make this work.
  As I conclude, might I ask how much time we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-one minutes remaining.
  Mr. KYL. Within 1 minute, I will close. I will come back with more 
discussion of the rationale for the specific changes we have made in 
here.
  I close by saying this: The only way we are going to be able to 
guarantee security for the nuclear programs at our National 
Laboratories in the future is to have somebody with laser-like focus, 
full responsibility over those programs in the Department of Energy, 
responsible for nothing else, and nobody else in the Department 
responsible for these programs. This person should be able to report 
directly to the Secretary of Energy and to the President of the United 
States, which is what our amendment calls for. Finally, he should be 
able to work very closely with the Office of Counterintelligence 
established in the other part of this bill.
  That is the essence of what this does. It detracts nothing from what 
Secretary Richardson is trying to do. As a matter of fact, it fits very 
nicely with what the Secretary is trying to do. I believe that, working 
together, we can provide security at our Nation's Laboratories and, 
therefore, security for the people of the United States.

[[Page S6196]]

  I thank the Chair, and I yield to Senator Domenici from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Chair will advise me when I have used 
10 minutes so there will be 10 minutes remaining for Senator Murkowski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will be more than happy to do that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note the presence on the floor of my 
distinguished colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman. He can rest 
assured that we intend to answer any questions he might have, debate 
any amendments he might have, and do this in a way that all of us can 
feel is right.
  Nobody was more saddened than this Senator when the Cox report was 
issued and when many of the facts broke in the New York Times and other 
newspapers about a Chinese espionage effort.
  I have been working with these Labs for a long time. I believe we are 
very fortunate as a people to have these National Laboratories in our 
midst. Looking at the science they practice, the technology they 
develop, and the way they have protected and preserved our nuclear 
options during a long cold war, with a formidable opponent who chose 
another route in terms of making nuclear weapons but is nonetheless 
formidable both in capacity and number, we are very fortunate that up 
until this time in history, with a few times when it wasn't true, 
almost without limit the very best scientists in America cherished 
working at one of these three great Labs and at the defense portion of 
the Lab in Tennessee at Oak Ridge. Great scientists, great Nobel 
laureates serving America well.
  The problem now is, it has become obvious that for a long time, with 
the biggest emphasis here in the last 3 or 4 years, the Chinese, the 
People's Republic of China, and their spies and cohorts have engaged in 
a solid effort on many fronts to extract as many secrets as they could 
from these Laboratories. We now know there is a high probability that 
they have succeeded and that our children in the future will have a 
much more formidable Communist Chinese leadership confronting the world 
with a much more formidable set of rockets, delivery systems, and 
nuclear weapons.
  All of their sabotage did not occur, all of their efforts to spy did 
not occur, at just the Laboratories. They have had a concerted effort 
across our land. But there is an adage that says, if it ain't broke, 
don't fix it. The counter one to that is, if it is broke, fix it. 
Frankly, before the day is out, as I attempt to answer questions about 
this approach, I will read to the Senate reams of reports, many of 
which have occurred in the last 4 or 5 years, telling us that we must 
change the way we manage the nuclear defense part of the Department of 
Energy. Now we have a reason to do it and a reason to get on with that 
business.
  Frankly, I have struggled mightily to try to figure out what is the 
best approach under these circumstances. I am firmly convinced that 
with the assault on the Laboratories and our scientists that is coming 
from the Congress and coming from across this land, we had better take 
a giant step right now to move in the right direction and to assure 
people and assure the Laboratories that we are not going to do anything 
to hurt their science base and their professionalism and their capacity 
to stay on the cutting edge for us and our children and our future.
  The Laboratories, under this proposal, will retain their multiple-use 
approach. They can do work beyond and outside of what they do for the 
nuclear deterrent part of this bill.
  I am very disturbed when I hear that the President of the United 
States is against this, that he may have even made a few phone calls. I 
figured those are coming because his trusted friend, the Secretary, who 
is also my friend, Bill Richardson, wants to make all of the changes in 
the Department part of an administrative change.
  Let me say loud and clear, as good as he is, as hard as he is trying, 
as much autonomy as the President gives him, the Secretary of Energy 
cannot fix this problem without congressional help. That is what we are 
trying to do here today. We are trying to fix something so our nuclear 
deterrent will have a better chance of remaining the best in the world 
and as free as humanly possible from espionage and spying.
  Frankly, before the afternoon is finished, I will read excerpts from 
three reports in the past 5 years just crying out to fix it.
  We piled together various functions and put them in the Energy 
Department. We created a bunch of rules within the Department that do 
not distinguish between the management of nuclear deterrent affairs and 
the management of such things as refrigerator efficiency research. They 
are all in the same boat, all subject to the same management team, 
hundreds of functions that have nothing to do with nuclear deterrence. 
Yet security was left in a position where the right hand didn't know 
what the left hand was doing.
  And if you look at how it is structured, you can probably figure out 
that there is some justification for it being in such a state of chaos. 
There is not enough focus on the seriousness of the issue. Even when 
signs and signals came forth, there have been people within the 
Department of Energy who didn't do their job right. There have been 
people at the Laboratories who didn't do it right. There have been 
people at the FBI who clearly messed up, and there have been people in 
the White House who surely didn't rise up strongly enough and say 
something must be done now.
  Essentially, what we are doing in this bill is to carve out within 
the Department of Energy--carve out kind of an agency, for lack of a 
better word. It is going to be called the Security Administration, or 
Security Administrator, and an Assistant Secretary will run it and be 
responsible to the Secretary and in total charge. That one individual 
will be in total charge of the nuclear deterrent effort, as defined in 
this bill.
  There will be an extra reporting system that Senator Murkowski asked 
us to put in with reference to security breaches being transmitted to 
the President of the United States and to the Congress, as soon as they 
are known, by this Assistant Secretary who is totally in charge of this 
new administration within the Department of Energy. They will have 
their rules and regulations, and they will conduct the affairs 
singularly and purposefully to make sure our nuclear deterrent is 
handled correctly and that the security apparatus is done efficiently 
and appropriately.
  Once again, I say to the Senators on the other side of the aisle, 
including my friend Senator Bingaman, and the Secretary of Energy, who, 
obviously, is working hard to defeat this amendment, we ought not to 
defeat this amendment. If you have some constructive changes, let's get 
them before us. We ought to send to that conference at least something 
that is much more formidable and apt to do the job than we have done in 
this bill, because we are apt to find some very serious suggestions 
coming from the House.
  If this bill goes there with no serious changes in the Department of 
Energy, they are apt to be changed by the House. We ought to have our 
input, and I am very proud that every chairman of every committee on 
our side of the aisle who will have anything to do with this in the 
future has signed onto this amendment--the Intelligence Committee 
chairman, the Energy and Natural Resources chairman, Government 
Operations, and I am the Senator who appropriates the money. We are all 
on board asking that we take this step in the direction of real reform 
and that we can go home saying this defense bill, when it finally comes 
out, may indeed start us down a path that not only the Chinese, but 
nobody will be able to breach the security the way they have in the 
past.
  Now, from my standpoint, there is not going to be a perfect structure 
ever designed for the nuclear deterrent work, nuclear weapons work, of 
the Department of Energy. It is complicated, it is complex. That 
Department is complicated and complex, but there is nothing within that 
Department more important than this. I have been listening, as people 
have ideas about what ought to happen, and I am worried about some of 
those ideas. I am not worried about this idea.
  I am not worried about this idea; this idea will work. What I am 
worried about are ideas that are talking about putting these 
Laboratories in the Department of Defense, which started

[[Page S6197]]

from Harry Truman on down that it was something we thought we should 
not do as a Nation. I am worried when this bill goes to conference and, 
in the heat of all this, we will do something we should not do. If they 
adopted this amendment, I would feel very comfortable, as a Senator, 
with these Laboratories. I have probably worked longer and harder on 
these issues than any Senator around, and I would be comfortable that 
we are starting down a path to make it work and yet keep alive that 
enormous prestige and scientific prowess that has served us so well.
  Before the afternoon is finished, we will have more remarks. I yield 
the remainder of my time to the chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee and thank him for his efforts in this regard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from New 
Mexico. I rise to join with Senators Kyl, Domenici, and Shelby to offer 
an amendment which I feel confident creates accountability in the 
Department of Energy for protecting our country's national security 
information.
  Mr. President, it is clear that the Cox committee report and the 
Senate's investigation of Chinese espionage at the Labs highlighted, in 
a sense, a dysfunctional Department of Energy. Even though the 
Department of Energy's chief of intelligence, Notra Trulock, was 
ringing alarm bells starting back in 1995, it simply seems that nobody 
was listening. Today, we find that nobody is accountable.
  We recognize the structure of the system simply didn't work. For Mr. 
Trulock to get approval to brief senior officials, he had to go through 
more junior officials. He could not brief the Congress without 
approval. He didn't have access to the executive branch. What the 
amendment that is pending creates is real accountability--
accountability at DOE, accountability for the President, and 
accountability for the Congress. It puts into law an Office of 
Counterintelligence and mandates that the director report to the 
Secretary, the President, and the Congress, any actual or potential 
threat to or loss of national security information.
  We have seen a situation where the individual responsible simply 
didn't have the capability to get the message through the process--to 
any of the four Secretaries of Energy whom we could identify for the 
record.
  Further, this would require a report once a year to the Congress 
regarding the adequacy of the Department of Energy's procedures and 
policies for protecting national security information, and whether each 
Department of Energy Lab is in full compliance with all Department of 
Energy security requirements. The National Labs clearly had different 
security arrangements previously.
  The amendment also would prohibit any officer or employee of the 
Department of Energy or any other Federal agency from interfering with 
the director's reporting. No interference, Mr. President.
  Secretary Richardson has introduced several initiatives aimed at 
correcting the security problems at the Labs. I commend him for his 
efforts. I welcome the Secretary's initiative, energy, and enthusiasm, 
but without a legislative overhaul, I doubt his ability to change the 
mindset at the Department of Energy which has plagued every other 
reform initiative.
  It is kind of interesting to go back and look at the attempted 
reforms. Victor Rezendes, a director of the GAO, who has closely 
followed security initiatives at the Labs, made the following 
observation:

       DOE has often agreed to take corrective action, but the 
     implementation has not been successful.

  A former head of security at Rocky Flats weapons plant, David 
Ridenour, was more blunt. He was quoted in USA Today on May 19:

       It's all the same people and I think they'll continue to 
     fall back into old ways. If there's a problem, classify it, 
     hide it and get rid of the people who brought it up.

  Recall the so-called Curtis plan, which was put forth by Deputy 
Secretary Curtis. A good plan, but after Mr. Curtis left the 
Department, it was either disregarded or forgotten. It was so quickly 
forgotten, as a matter of fact, that Mr. Curtis' successor as Deputy 
Secretary wasn't even informed of its existence. There is no excuse for 
that.
  The New York Times reported that a November 1998 counterintelligence 
report contained some shocking warnings, including that foreign spies 
``rightly view the Department of Energy as an inviting, diverse and 
soft target that is easy to access and that employees are willing to 
share information.''
  So change is necessary. I think creating this new line of 
responsibility will help change the mindset at the Department of 
Energy. The amendment puts the DOE on the road to accountability by 
creating under the law an Office of Counterintelligence, an Office of 
Intelligence, and a Nuclear Security Administration.
  More legislation, obviously, is going to be needed. We simply don't 
have all of the answers now. But the Cox report fills in some of the 
shocking details. After months of investigation, they have revealed 
frightening information about the true ineptness of the espionage 
investigation.
  I understand that the Secretary of Energy opposes this amendment. I 
am sorry to hear that. I gather he sent a letter up here indicating 
that he will recommend that the President veto the bill because 
Congress is taking action to fix the problem. But what does he want 
Congress to do? Wait to take action until U.S.-designed nuclear weapon 
warheads are launched at U.S. cities?
  The problem is precisely that serious. After what we have learned 
about security failures at the Department of Energy, I dare--I dare--
the President to veto this legislation.
  It is time for action, and that is what we are talking about with 
this amendment.
  If one looks at where we are today, I am struck by three revelations.
  First, we have in the Cox report stunning information about a 
compromise of our national security that was self-inflicted. We can 
blame the Chinese for spying. But this happened as a consequence of our 
own failure to maintain adequate security in the Laboratories. Security 
of our most important Laboratories has been marginal at best.
  We find that U.S. companies--Loral and Hughes--allowed their 
commercial interests to override our national security interests. We 
gave the Chinese a roadmap on how to shoot their missiles straight and 
how to arm those missiles with nuclear weapons. Aimed at whom? Well, 
that is another concern.
  Second, how much of this happened on President Clinton's watch?
  Third, the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region could be 
affected by the information they have obtained.
  Based on these finding, I believe now is the time for Congress to 
demand accountability from those who allowed this to happen. We should 
not allow the administration to simply promise change with reforms that 
in previous efforts have been tried but have failed.
  One would not respond to, say, a burglary by saying that the robber 
is irrelevant. Our Nation has been robbed. Years of research and 
hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are lost to the Chinese. Who 
is responsible?
  What should be done is that the Attorney General should testify in 
public and tell the American people why the Department of Justice 
denied requests for access to computer and wiretaps.
  FBI Director Freeh should testify in public as to why the FISA 
warrant was inadequate. Director Freeh should also explain the so-
called ``misinformation'' on Wen Ho Lee's signed waiver of consent to 
access his computer.
  Sandy Berger should testify. He might require a subpoena. So be it. 
The public is entitled to his testimony. Mr. Berger was briefed in 
April of 1996 and July of 1997. Berger should be forced to testify as 
to what precisely he told the President and when.
  Congress should also subpoena the written summary of the Cox report 
to President Clinton, which the President received in January of 1999.
  Let us judge whether the President was being forthcoming in his March 
1999 statement when he said:

       To the best of my knowledge, no one has said anything to me 
     about any espionage which occurred by the Chinese against the 
     laboratories during my presidency.

  What did the Vice President know? When did he know it?

[[Page S6198]]

  The Vice President told the American people on March 10:

       Please keep in mind that the [alleged espionage] happened 
     during the previous administration.

  Now the Vice President is rather silent. What was he told by his 
National Security Adviser, Leon Fuerth, who was briefed in 1995 and 
1996?
  I have held six Energy Committee hearings. At another time I want to 
detail what I have learned from those hearings. But let me summarize 
very briefly.
  Our Laboratories have not and still are not totally prepared to 
protect our Nation's nuclear secrets.
  The DOE put our national security at risk by not searching Wen Ho 
Lee's computer in 1996 in spite of information about Chinese targeting 
of lab computers.
  The FBI investigation was bureaucratic bungling. The right hand never 
knew what the left hand was doing.
  Regarding the waiver, we have learned that on March 22, 1995, the Los 
Alamos Lab issued a policy to all employees, including Wen Ho Lee, 
stating that ``the laboratory or Federal Government may without notice 
audit or access any user's computer.''
  On April 19, 1995, Wen Ho Lee signed a waiver at the DOE Lab to allow 
his computer to be accessed. This is the actual copy of the waiver that 
Wen Ho Lee signed on April 19, 1995. My committee heard testimony from 
the Los Alamos Lab director, the DOE attorney, the DOE director of 
counterintelligence. All agreed that Lee's computer could be searched 
because of these waivers.
  Why wasn't his computer searched and the loss of our nuclear secrets 
prevented? Because the FBI claimed that the DOE told them there was no 
waiver. The FBI then assumed that they needed a warrant to search.
  Here is how the Los Alamos Lab director summed it up.

       The FBI and the Department of Justice decided they should 
     seek court approval before accessing the subject's (Lee's) 
     computer. The Labortary's policy seems clear to be sufficient 
     for FBI access, but the legal framework affecting the FBI's 
     actions, as viewed by them, apparently prevented this.

  What is the result? Lee's computer could have been searched but 
instead was not searched for 3 long years. Yet there was a waiver. This 
waiver was there the entire time, and the FBI didn't know it.
  And then there was DOJ's role: DOJ thwarted investigation by refusing 
to approve FISA warrants--not once, not twice, but three times! Still 
have not heard a reasonable explanation.
  What's frightening, as well as frustrating, is that no one put our 
national security as a priority. FBI and DOJ more concerned about 
jumping through unnecessary legal hoops than about preventing one of 
the most catastrophic losses in history.
  The events involved throughout the Lee case are not only 
irresponsible--they're unconscionable.
  That is why we must have this security change. This is why this 
amendment must prevail.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the ``Rules of Use'' 
which Wen Ho Lee signed be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Rules of Use


                   x-division open local area network

       WARNING: To protect the LAN systems from unauthorized use 
     and to ensure that the systems are functioning properly, 
     activities on these systems are monitored and recorded and 
     subject to audit. Use of these systems is expressed consent 
     to such monitoring and recording. Any unauthorized access or 
     use of this LAN is prohibited and could be subject to 
     criminal and civil penalties.

       Passwords. User passwords are assigned by the X-Division 
     Computing Services (XCS) Team. Exceptions may only be granted 
     by the CSSO. Users may not use their unclassified ICN 
     password. Passwords must be changed each year in cooperation 
     with an Open LAN Computer Security Officer or network 
     administrator. Passwords will not be given out or shared with 
     any other person. Users may not change their passwords. Users 
     will protect passwords according to Laboratory requirements.
       Classified Computing. No classified information or 
     computing is allowed on the X-Division Open LAN.
       User Responsibilities. Users are responsible for:
       Ensuring that information, especially sensitive 
     information, is properly protected.
       Restricting access to their workstation or terminal when it 
     is not attended. The workstation or terminal should be set to 
     a state where a user password is required to gain access 
     (e.g., lockscreen software) or the office door is locked.
       Using the X-Division Open LAN only for official business 
     purposes.
       Properly reviewing, marking, protecting, accounting for, 
     and disposing of their computer output containing sensitive 
     unclassified information. See X-Division Guidance on 
     Computers, available from the XCS Team, for more information.
       Properly labeling and logging of all recording media, 
     including local storage devices. See X-Division Guidance on 
     Computers for more information.
       Installing and using virus control programs, if applicable 
     to their system.
       Reporting security-related anomalies or concerns to the X-
     Division Computer Security Officers.
       Promptly reporting changes in the location, ownership, or 
     configuration of their workstation to the X-Division 
     Computing Services Team.
       Promptly registering all computer systems (open, 
     classified, standalone, networked, and portable) with the X-
     Division Computing Services Team to comply with DOE and 
     Laboratory orders.
       Posting their Rules of Use and workstation information 
     addendum next to their workstations.
       User Restrictions. Users are not permitted to:
       Use a workstation or terminal to simultaneously access 
     resources in different security partitions. Workstations 
     which move between different security partitions must be 
     sanitized according to the X-Division Computer Sanitization 
     Policy which must be posted next to such workstations.
       Install or modify software which has an adverse effect on 
     the security of the LAN.
       Add other users or systems without the prior approval of an 
     X-Division Computer Security Officer.
       I understand and agree to follow these rules in my use of 
     X-Division OPEN LAN. I assume full responsibility for the 
     security of my workstation. I understand that violations may 
     be reported to my supervisor or FSS-14, that I may be denied 
     access to the LAN, and that I may receive a security 
     infraction for a violation of these rules.
       Signed: Wen Ho Lee.
       Date: April 19, 1995.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend, the floor manager, for the time.
  I wish the President a good day.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have negotiated the amendment of the 
Senator from Florida. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes on 
this amendment prior to going to the amendment of the Senator from 
Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment. I view 
it as an augmentation of what we have in the defense bill. I understand 
my colleague from New Mexico addressed the defense bill. I ask the 
question of my colleague from Alaska. The provision in the defense bill 
is a direct product of the working group assembled by the majority 
leader, Senator Lott. I am not entirely sure what Senator Domenici said 
about the provisions of the defense bill. But the Senator from Alaska 
incorporated a portion of that in his bill. So there is some 
redundancy. But I look upon the two as joining forces and, indeed, 
putting forth what is essential at this point in time.
  Does the Senator share that view?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I share that view with the senior Senator from 
Virginia. It is my understanding that the leader is still prepared to 
go ahead with his amendment known as the Lott amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to advise my colleague that the 
amendment has been agreed to and is in the bill now.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Good.
  Mr. WARNER. There are really three components: One, the Armed 
Services' position; Leader Lott's position; and the position recited by 
the three Senators who are sponsors of this amendment. But it all comes 
together as a very strong package. I hope it will be accepted on the 
other side.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I hope that Senators Shelby and Robert Kerrey are 
aware that this amendment is now up, and they have 15 minutes under 
their joint control reserved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 447

    (Purpose: To establish a commission on the counterintelligence 
                   capabilities of the United States)

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

[[Page S6199]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 447.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Sandi 
Dittig of our staff be allowed on the floor for the duration of the 
debate on the Department of Defense authorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, thank you.
  Mr. President, I have presented the Senate with an amendment to the 
Defense Department authorization bill. The amendment would establish a 
national commission to conduct an in-depth assessment of our 
Government's counterintelligence programs.
  The discussion we just had for the past 30 minutes I think 
underscores the necessity of the amendment I am offering. I am afraid 
we are about to be put into a position in which there is a rush to 
action. It is almost analogous to the metaphor of firing before you 
aim.
  We have in the defense bill, as an example, a very comprehensive 
commission on safeguarding security and counterintelligence at the 
Department of Energy facilities. That begins on page 540 of the 
committee bill. Among other things, it states that the commission will 
determine the adequacy of those activities to ensure the security of 
sensitive information, processes, and activities under the jurisdiction 
of the Department against threats of the disclosure of such 
information, processes, and activities.
  In the same bill where we are establishing a commission to review 
those issues of process, we are now about to adopt an amendment which 
countermands this commission by making a decision based on 30 minutes 
of floor debate for answers to provide greater security at the 
Department of Energy.
  I suggest these proposals have not received the thought and 
consideration which their importance to the Nation deserves. I also am 
concerned that there is a highly partisan atmosphere being developed.
  In today's Roll Call magazine there is an article which quotes one 
congressional staffer as saying,

       We're going to milk this [the Chinese espionage issue] for 
     all it's worth.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
immediately after my remarks a copy of that article.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as members of the Congress, we need to 
accept our responsibility and accept the importance of 
counterintelligence to our national security. The country cannot afford 
a partisan debate. We cannot afford a piecemeal solution to what is a 
complex set of issues. Yet with the amendments that are being offered 
in both Houses, that is exactly what we are getting.
  My amendment represents an attempt to transform a potentially 
destructive partisan debate into a nonpartisan, objective, 
dispassionate, and comprehensive review of current counterintelligence 
policies--not just at the Department of Energy, but across the 
government--a review that is long overdue.
  Such a review would address a number of issues: What is the nature of 
the counterintelligence threat? The nature of the threat goes far 
beyond China and it goes far beyond our Department of Energy National 
Laboratories. For example, there are 24 countries on the Department of 
Energy's sensitive country list. Those countries include those that we 
would expect to be on such a list--China, Cuba, Iran, Iraq--but the 
list also includes India, Israel, and Taiwan--countries, I suspect, 
many Americans would be surprised to find on that list.
  Another example of the threat relates to the missile programs in 
India, Pakistan, and North Korea. To what extent have their programs 
benefited from American technology and know-how gleaned from our Labs 
or other high-tech institutions? What leads us to believe that our only 
vulnerability is from China?
  The threat goes beyond the traditional security parameters of guns, 
gates, and guards at the Department of Energy. We must include an 
indepth look across the government and at the new areas of security 
vulnerability.
  I have a report from the General Accounting Office issued to the 
Congress on May 20, 1999. This was an analysis of the vulnerability of 
the NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, about the 
vulnerability of its system to security penetration. I will read a 
paragraph titled ``Results in Brief.''

       We successfully penetrated several mission-critical 
     systems, including one responsible for calculating detailed 
     positioning data for Earth orbiting spacecraft and another 
     that processes and distributes the scientific data received 
     from these spacecraft. Having obtained access to these 
     systems, we could have disrupted NASA's ongoing command and 
     control operations and stolen, modified, or destroyed systems 
     software and data.

  That is just another example of our national vulnerability.
  Who should assess this threat? I believe that the commission that 
should be established by this amendment would appropriately represent 
the interests of the American people through the administration and the 
legislative branches and would necessarily include persons with 
strategic vision and specific counterintelligence experience. I have 
used as the model for the establishment of this commission, a 
commission which was established by the Congress in 1994 under the 
leadership of Senator Warner, a commission which became known as the 
Aspin-Brown Commission, to look at our intelligence community.

  Like that commission, this would have 17 members. The President would 
appoint 9, the leadership of the Senate and the House--majority and 
minority--would appoint a total of 8 commissioners.
  The commission would be charged with assessing the current 
counterintelligence threat and the adequacy of resources being applied 
to that threat. Commissioners would also examine current personnel 
levels and training oversight--both executive and legislative--
coordination among government agencies, the laws now on the books and 
their adequacy, the adequacy of current investigative techniques and, 
last but not least, attempt to determine whether vigorous 
counterintelligence capability can coexist with important work carried 
out by our National Laboratories and other important technological 
institutions.
  It is important that we keep counterintelligence problems and 
possible solutions in some perspective. There is no doubt that 
counterintelligence deficiencies of the Department of Energy are 
longstanding. They have been excruciatingly well documented over a long 
period of time. We should have addressed these issues years ago. But as 
serious as our counterintelligence weaknesses are at the Department of 
Energy and at our National Laboratories, effective focus on 
counterintelligence issues must take into account many other agencies 
of the government. It must do this if we are to construct a 
comprehensive and effective counterintelligence response.
  Those agencies, of course, include those belonging to the 
intelligence community, but also must include agencies such as NASA, 
whose vulnerability I have just outlined, and the Department of 
Commerce, which has had the responsibility for reviewing highly 
technical decisions on whether it is appropriate to license for export 
particular dual-use machinery that might serve a military purpose.
  These reviews of agencies like NASA and the Department of Commerce 
have not been viewed in the past as warranting the degree of 
counterintelligence focus which I believe they deserve. For those who 
argue that we can't wait for the commission, that we must act today, I 
point out that the immediate counterintelligence issues facing our 
Department of Energy National Labs are being addressed.
  According to Ed Curran, a highly respected 37-year FBI veteran who 
now heads the Department of Energy's Counterintelligence Office, 75 to 
80 percent of the Tier One recommendations

[[Page S6200]]

resulting from a 1998 FBI evaluation of Lab counterintelligence are now 
in place. The remainder will be in place within 7 months. These are 
important steps that will go a long way in the short term to protect 
the work going on at the Labs.
  In the heat of the moment, numerous recommendations are being put 
forward to improve counterintelligence at the Department of Energy. 
Some of them may be useful. Others, such as placing counterintelligence 
at the Labs under the FBI's control, may not be. All recommendations 
deserve careful, objective, and dispassionate attention. I believe a 
commission of the type that this amendment would establish would be the 
appropriate place to begin such a comprehensive reexamination.
  I suggest that we draw a collective breath, that we step back, that 
we take a serious indepth look at this very complicated issue, and that 
we reach a consensus as Americans on the best way to proceed. I am 
convinced if we force solutions and force them beyond our current 
analysis and rush our deliberations, that we are likely to end up 
asking the wrong questions and coming up with the wrong answer. America 
will be disserved by this pattern of action and the Congress will be 
the culprit.

                               Exhibit 1

                     [From Roll Call, May 27, 1999]

               Cox Report Sparks Wave of GOP Initiatives

                          (By John Bresnahan)

       This week's release of the report on Chinese espionage by 
     the select House committee chaired by Rep. Christopher Cox 
     (R-Calif.) has triggered a wave of legislative initiatives.
       Senate Republicans are pounding on senior administration 
     officials, including Attorney General Janet Reno, for their 
     perceived failure to address some of the most serious 
     allegations dealing with the scandal, including the Justice 
     Department's refusal to go along with an FBI wiretap of a 
     scientist suspected of transferring sensitive nuclear data to 
     the Chinese government.
       Reno is scheduled to appear today before the senate 
     Judiciary Committee in closed session to talk about her role 
     in the denial of the wiretap request.
       Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese-born scientist, was fired recently 
     from his job at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New 
     Mexico due to his alleged involvement with Chinese 
     intelligence officials.
       Lee first came under scrutiny in 1996 after U.S. 
     intelligence officials learned the Chinese government may 
     have acquired data on an advanced U.S. nuclear weapons 
     systems. The following year, the Justice Department declined 
     to seek a warrant to conduct electronic surveillance on him, 
     with officials arguing that they did not have sufficient 
     evidence to approve such a step.
       Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) now believes 
     Reno personally denied the FBI request for electronic 
     surveillance on Lee, a reversal of his earlier position that 
     he did not think she was directly involved in the 
     controversy.
       ``It looks to me like the line goes directly to her,'' said 
     Lott. ``Clearly, it's indefensible in my mind these two 
     [search] requests were turned down.''
       Lott, though, backed away from any suggestion that Reno 
     should step down from her post.
       ``I have not called for [her] resignation,'' noted the 
     Majority Leader.
       Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the chairman of the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence, has already called on Reno to 
     resign.
       Reno could also face tough questioning from Sen. Robert 
     Torricelli (D-N.J.), who has been highly critical of Reno's 
     behavior, during her Thursday appearance.
       ``I believe President Clinton needs to make an assessment 
     whether Janet Reno is properly administering the department 
     and whether she has any culpability for this failure to find 
     probable cause to issue this warrant,'' Torricelli said this 
     week.
       National Security Adviser Sandy Berger has also come under 
     fire from GOP Congressional leaders for his role in the 
     scandal.
       Senate Republicans plan a broad legislative offensive on 
     China, possibly including new restrictions on the ability of 
     the Chinese officials to travel within the United States 
     during visits here, although they are promising to move 
     slowly on the issue. Republicans are using the 
     recommendations included in an earlier Intelligence Committee 
     report, as well as the Cox report, as the basis for the 
     legislation, said GOP staffers.
       But Lott is still hedging on whether to set up a special 
     Senate investigative committee to look into Chinese 
     espionage, despite calls from some Senate Republicans to do 
     just that.
       Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.) introduced a bill this week calling 
     for a special committee, while Sens. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) 
     and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) support the idea, according to GOP 
     sources.
       The GOP staffers say senior Republicans, including several 
     committee chairmen, are opposed to the idea, believing that 
     Clinton and the Democrats may use the panel as an opportunity 
     to attack Republicans for conducting a witch hunt for Chinese 
     spies.
       ``This idea is not dead,'' said a senior Senate GOP 
     staffer. ``It's going back and forth. It's still 
     percolating.''
       Lott has inaugurated weekly meetings of his China task 
     force, which includes Shelby, Armed Services Chairman John 
     Warner (R-Va.), Foreign Relations Chairman Jesse Helms (R-
     N.C.), Governmental Affairs Chairman Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), 
     Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Frank Murkowski (R-
     Alaska), as well as GOP Sens. Specter, Thad Cochran (Miss.), 
     Pete Domenici (N.M.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tim Hutchinson (Ark.) 
     and Craig Thomas (Wyo.).
       That group is giving Lott weekly updates on China, although 
     the Mississippi Republican also wants to get the most 
     political mileage he can out of the Cox report.
       ``We're going to milk this for all its worth,'' said one 
     Senate GOP staffer. ``What we do next is still being 
     considered.''
       Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) has been 
     echoing the White House line that past administrations, 
     including those of former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George 
     Bush, were guilty of lax oversight of Chinese intelligence 
     activities within the United States.
       Daschle cited an 1988 internal Energy Department study that 
     found ``a significant amount of important technology may have 
     been lost to potential adversaries through visits'' that took 
     place in the early 1980s.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask that amendments sent prior to the 
passage of the bill--that the chairman and ranking minority member be 
recognized to offer a managers' package of amendments, notwithstanding 
the previous consent agreement with respect to the 2:30 p.m. deadline 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise unfortunately to speak in 
opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida, 
Senator Graham. Let me say, first of all, I think the intent of this 
bipartisan commission is right on target; that is, that we take care 
not to rush to judgment, and in our rush to judgment----
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator to yield for one 
administrative announcement? I ask all Senators and their staff to pay 
attention to a hotline call, which will come very shortly, to clarify 
the earlier unanimous consent agreement regarding filing of first-
degree amendments. That includes the need for the offices to resubmit 
certain amendments that may have otherwise been informally sent over to 
the floor staff. So a complete submission is necessary as indicated on 
the hotline. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida has identified a 
very serious potential problem, which is that we have now, in the 
aftermath of the report that was produced and made public by 
Congressman Cox and Congressman Dicks, a great deal of interest in 
doing something, to take some action to look like we are solving the 
problem.
  What I understand the Senator from Florida to be saying is we should 
take a collective deep breath, and I quite agree with him. Because I 
think not only is it possible, it is likely, if we are not careful, we 
will, in our actions, do things that will make the country less safe, 
not more safe and secure.
  Perhaps the most important thing to be saying about the Cox and the 
Dicks report is that there is a lot less there than meets the eye. By 
that, I don't mean to say I am critical of the report, although there 
are three or four conclusions they reach with which I do not agree, 
that I do not think are supported by the classified report they have 
filed. I see in the Cox-Dicks report--and in fact in their own 
evaluation they say: This was not a comprehensive study; there were a 
lot of things we were not able to check out.
  I believe that is essentially what the Senator from Florida is 
saying. There is still a lot that neither the Cox-Dicks committee, the 
Temporary Special Committee, nor the House and the Senate Select 
Committees on Intelligence, have examined. Indeed, one of the people we 
asked to do an evaluation of the damage, Admiral Jeremiah, has said in 
the report he gave to us it is terribly important that we do a net 
assessment; we try to establish what the gains were, what the losses 
were, before we move on.
  I am just not persuaded, I say to my friend from Florida, that this 
commission he is proposing--that would be essentially similar to the 
Brown-Aspin Commission; I think it is modeled after that commission--is 
the right way to do it.

[[Page S6201]]

  I propose as an alternative, No. 1, the Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence try to come up with a scope of study similar to the 
Jeremiah study, try to put it in the intelligence authorization bill, 
but, in other words, challenge our committee to do something similar to 
what we did with Admiral Jeremiah. He started to do a damage assessment 
for us.
  I think much more needs to be done before the Congress knows for 
certain, A, what the damage was and, B, for certain what exactly it is 
we ought to do.
  I know the majority leader has, and I am cosponsoring with him, some 
changes he is recommending that we will be recommending to be made. But 
these are pretty limited. Many of these things can be done 
administratively. They really are just based upon what we know right 
now. So, while I find myself unpersuaded by this amendment--although 
maybe with a little bit more time I could have been persuaded--I am not 
persuaded we need a commission of this kind. I am persuaded we do need 
further examination, in fact a more thorough examination, than done to 
date.
  The damage has been done. So we make certain in our response to this 
story of espionage and story of lax security, not just at the Labs but 
in monitoring and watching the satellites that were being launched in 
the Chinese Long March program, and the whole export regime we have 
established to make certain we do not export things that are then used 
against us in some fashion, that we do not presume, in short, that we 
know everything that happened and we do not take action that could make 
the problem worse.

  I believe what the Senator from Florida is suggesting to us is right 
on target. We have to be very careful that we do not rush to judgment 
and do things that will make things worse. So I recommend an 
alternative that I think will enable us to accomplish the same 
objective.
  Again, I have great respect for the Senator from Florida and what he 
is trying to do. I think I vote with him 9 out of 10 times and do not 
like to be in a position where I am opposing his amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from Nebraska yield for a question?
  Mr. KERREY. It depends on the question.
  Mr. GRAHAM. One of the principal purposes of this commission starts 
with a recognition that our counterintelligence problems, or 
vulnerabilities, are not limited to Chinese penetration and are not 
limited to Department of Energy Laboratories. In fact, I have quoted 
from a study by the General Accounting Office that is less than 10 days 
old about a major potential penetration in NASA of its computer 
systems.
  The question: ``Would the Senator agree that whatever form Congress 
took to look at this issue, in addition to being rational, prudent, 
thoughtful, that it should also be comprehensive, in terms of the 
agencies of the Federal Government and the potential sources of efforts 
to penetrate those agencies?''
  Mr. KERREY. I answer emphatically yes. It needs to be Governmentwide. 
Indeed, I would say to the Senator, as he no doubt knows, there is also 
vulnerability with contractors, current and former employees. There is 
a significant amount of vulnerability.
  Let me point out in the case of the transfer of these designs that 
have been reported to the public, we are not 100 percent certain that 
they were transferred out of Los Alamos. That is the problem. This 
design was held by many other people other than Los Alamos. So that is 
one of the problems here. When you take this particular situation, if 
you are 100 percent certain it is Los Alamos, tighten up security at 
the Lab. If you are not 100 percent certain and we tighten up security 
in the Lab, we may be tightening up security in a place that is not the 
problem.
  So I think there is reason to believe the changes that have been 
suggested thus far will not damage us. But I think what the Senator is 
saying is exactly right. It needs to be Governmentwide. It needs to 
look at the contractors.
  Another thing I think needs to be considered, there was an op-ed 
piece written by Edward Teller, published in the New York Times. Mr. 
Teller can best be described as somebody whose lifetime has been 
devoted to the task of making certain the United States of America has 
a robust nuclear deterrent and that nuclear deterrent was adequate to 
protect the people of the United States of America and our interests.
  Mr. Teller says, and I agree with him, by the way, by the time you 
put all other security measures in place, the most important deterrent 
against losing our technological superiority is not defensive measures 
but making certain we allocate enough for research and development and 
we keep the pointy edge of our technological spear sharp. So long as we 
continue in research and development, not just in design but 
construction and deployment, Mr. Teller is saying you decrease the 
possibility that espionage or some other transfers--in some cases 
transfers you do not even think about--will do damage to the security 
of the United States of America.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska yield for 
another question?
  Mr. KERREY. Yes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator's last point about trade-offs highlights the 
fact that we risk making our nation less secure if we are not careful 
with our solutions. We could potentially be lured into doing what 
Hitler did in the 1930s and 1940s; that is, prevent intelligent and 
capable people from participating in our nation's government and 
society on the basis of their ethnicity. So we do not want, as some 
have suggested, ethnic standards determining who will have an 
opportunity to access our laboratories. In my judgement, security 
should be based on the individual who is involved, not on that 
individual's membership in a larger ethnic group. The danger of denying 
our nation a pool of talent due to ethnic stereotyping illustrates the 
complexity of this issue.
  Would the Senator agree also that in order to sort through all of 
those complexities----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 7\1/2\ minutes of the Senator is up.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Since I don't think Senator Shelby has arrived----
  Mr. KERREY. He is here.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to complete my question and give 
Senator Kerrey 2 minutes to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Does the Senator agree that in order to sort through 
those complexities, we would need a group of Americans who can look at 
this both from a strategic perspective as well as from the technical 
competencies of what is required to do appropriate counterintelligence 
protective processes and methods?
  Mr. KERREY. Yes, I do. I have to answer the first part of the 
Senator's question no. I do not think we are in any danger of following 
Adolf Hitler's example, but I do think we need to be careful that in an 
effort to restrict who gets to know things we do not create an 
additional security problem.
  We have had many examples, as we try to figure out what goes wrong 
with a national security decision, especially intelligence, where we 
discover that the problem was Jim knew it; Mary didn't know it. Neither 
one of them had a right or need to know what each other was doing. As a 
consequence of them simply walking from one cubicle to the other 
talking, a mistake is made.
  We have to be very careful in exercising our judgment in what ought 
to be done in tightening things that we do not actually create 
additional security problems.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I oppose the Graham amendment as the 
chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We should, as an 
institution, oppose all efforts to devolve the authority and the 
responsibility of any congressional committee to an outside group, such 
as this commission, when there is no compelling reason to do so, and 
there is certainly no compelling reason to do so in this instance at 
this time.
  As my colleagues probably know, the Intelligence Committee is already

[[Page S6202]]

aware of the state of our counterintelligence capabilities. I have 
worked with the vice chairman, Senator Kerrey, and other Members on 
both sides of the aisle, in dealing with our counterintelligence 
capabilities because we are engaged in the committee now in an ongoing 
legislative oversight of the intelligence community's approach to 
counterintelligence activities and espionage investigations. That is an 
ongoing, very much alive investigation.
  We have a tremendous staff, I believe--and I believe the Senator from 
Nebraska, the vice chairman, joins me in saying this --a very able 
staff on the Senate Intelligence Committee that is deeply involved in a 
bipartisan way in this investigation.
  The committee has recommended, and will continue to recommend as our 
investigation unfolds, substantive changes in this area. We are working 
with the majority leader, with the minority leader, and their staffs in 
this regard.
  I believe the Intelligence Committee is completely capable--and I 
believe the vice chairman has already indicated this--of addressing 
this relatively small but very, very critical area within the National 
Foreign Intelligence Program.
  Most important, though, this legislation presumes the failure of 
congressional oversight, and that did not happen. It did not happen in 
this instance, and the Senator from Nebraska, who has just come back on 
the floor, was very involved as the vice chairman of this committee in 
pushing for more money for counterintelligence. That goes without 
saying.

  The failure of congressional oversight, as far as the Intel Committee 
is concerned, did not happen. For nearly 10 years, the Intelligence 
Committee has repeatedly directed the intelligence community to improve 
its counterintelligence capabilities communitywide and specifically at 
the Department of Energy where our most precious Labs, our most 
important Labs are located.
  I believe this is really a case of the executive branch failing to 
heed congressional warnings, and I think we will see more and more of 
this as the investigation unfolds.
  Finally, counterintelligence has been a specific priority of the 
Intelligence Committee in the Senate and will continue to be a high 
priority, as it should, as long as I am chairman and as long as I am 
involved.
  This amendment ignores the past and ongoing work of the Intelligence 
Committee in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is under the control of the Senator from 
Alabama and the Senator from Florida. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are trying to work this out right now.
  The Senator from Florida has authorized the managers to make a 
request on his behalf that this amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is a question--more of a statement--for 
the purpose of understanding the schedule for the rest of the day. I 
say at this time, so there are no surprises later on, as you know, 
there has been an amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona and the 
Senator from New Mexico which is pending. I want the body to know that 
this amendment is not satisfactory with the minority and with the 
administration.
  The debate on this amendment is going to take a very, very long time. 
I want everyone to understand that. I have several hours of information 
that I need to explain to the body. Senator Bingaman and others wish to 
speak at length in this regard.
  It is getting late in the day, and I did not want at 3 or 4 o'clock 
for people to ask: Why didn't you tell us earlier? I have suggested to 
both managers of the bill that this amendment causes some problem over 
here, in addition to the fact the President said he will veto it. In 
short, I will not belabor the point other than to say I hope we can 
finish this bill, but this amendment is going to prevent us from doing 
so in an expeditious fashion.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I have not taken much time to debate. I admire the 
leadership of the Senators from Virginia and Michigan. But I have to 
concur with what the Senator from Nevada said. If we are going into 
this new debate topic about security at the Laboratories, we are going 
to have to give it an adequate amount of time, and that will be 
substantial. I hope the Senator understands and will advise his side of 
the aisle.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I hear very clearly what our two 
colleagues have said. I believe that information was imparted to the 
three sponsors of the amendment earlier today. We will just have to 
await their response. At the moment, the Kyl-Domenici amendment is laid 
down. It is the pending business; am I not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been laid aside but it is still 
pending.
  Mr. WARNER. I see other Senators anxious to speak to the Senate. I 
yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Michigan is recognized to offer amendments from the other side.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Michigan yield for a 
question by the Senator from Texas?
  Mr. LEVIN. I would ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Texas 
be recognized, and then we return to the previous order. But before 
offering that suggestion, I ask the Senator what her amendment is.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. This is the amendment to ask for the report from the 
President on the foreign deployments with a report on where these 
deployments could be categorized as low priority and where there can be 
consolidation for reductions in troop commitments.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I inquire of the Senator--I am 
privileged to be a cosponsor of this important amendment. However, in 
the course of the last hour we have had a chance to make a suggestion 
to the Senator from Texas. Has she incorporated that suggestion?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. No. I say to the distinguished cosponsor of my 
amendment, I discussed that particular issue and was told that it would 
be put in an addendum that would be classified if there were any such 
missions that needed to be disclosed.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my 
understanding now from my staff--staffs have been working on this and 
are still working on it. I ask that the Senator withhold that until we 
can see whether or not that can be worked out, because my staff 
indicates that they were actually in the process of discussion, and we 
are not sure what version it is that the Senator is offering.
  So I would not be able to agree to a change in our order unless we 
take a few minutes here to see if we can first work it out. Then I 
would assure the Senator that if it is not worked out--I know our good 
friend from Virginia would assure you as well--there would be an 
opportunity to offer the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would want to be assured from both the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member that if we go past the 2:30 
unanimous consent deadline I would be allowed to offer my amendment if 
there is not an agreement.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I assure my colleague that her amendment 
will be included in the 2:30 unanimous consent agreement. But I thought 
perhaps the Senator from Texas could address the general content of the 
amendment for a few minutes, and perhaps within that period we can work 
out a resolution.
  I note the Senator from Alabama was anxious to speak to the Senate. I 
do not see him at the moment. He has an amendment which I think is 
going to be accepted. He wants to speak to it.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am in no need of speaking to my amendment until I 
am able to offer it.

[[Page S6203]]

  Mr. WARNER. We ask that she withhold it, but will consider it to be 
within the deadline.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. As long as I am assured I will be able to offer it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe the managers are prepared to 
submit to the Chair a package of amendments.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


            Amendments Nos. 376, 386, 387, 398, 399, and 403

  Mr. LEVIN. Pursuant to the prior unanimous consent agreement, I now 
call up the following amendments at the desk:
  The Kerrey amendment, No. 376; the two Sarbanes amendments, Nos. 386 
and 387; two Harkin amendments, Nos. 398 and 399; and one Boxer 
amendment, No. 403.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for other Senators, 
     proposes amendments numbered 376, 386, 387, 398, 399 and 403.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 376

     (Purpose: To strike section 1041, relating to a limitation on 
   retirement or dismantlement of strategic nuclear delivery systems)

       On page 357, strike line 13 and all that follows through 
     page 358, line 4.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 386

(Purpose: To provide for a one-year delay in the demolition of certain 
   naval radio transmitting facility (NRTF) towers at Naval Station, 
    Annapolis, Maryland, to facilitate the transfer of such towers)

       At the end of subtitle E of title XXVIII, add the 
     following:

     SEC. ____. ONE-YEAR DELAY IN DEMOLITION OF RADIO TRANSMITTING 
                   FACILITY TOWERS AT NAVAL STATION, ANNAPOLIS, 
                   MARYLAND, TO FACILITATE TRANSFER OF TOWERS.

       (a) One-Year Delay.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of the Navy may not obligate or expend any 
     funds for the demolition of the naval radio transmitting 
     facility (NRTF) towers described in subsection (b) during the 
     one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Covered Towers.--The naval radio transmitting facility 
     towers described in this subsection are the three 
     southeastern most naval radio transmitting facility towers 
     located at Naval Station, Annapolis, Maryland, that are 
     scheduled for demolition as of the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Transfer of Towers.--The Secretary shall transfer to 
     the State of Maryland, or to Anne Arundel County, Maryland, 
     all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     the towers described in subsection (b) if the State of 
     Maryland or Anne Arundel County Maryland, as the case may be, 
     agrees to accept such right, title, and interest from the 
     United States during the one-year period referred to in 
     subsection (a).
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 387

 (Purpose: To modify land conveyance authority relating to the former 
       Naval Training Center, Bainbridge, Cecil County, Maryland)

       On page 459, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

     SEC. 2844. MODIFICATION OF LAND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY, FORMER 
                   NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, BAINBRIDGE, CECIL 
                   COUNTY, MARYLAND.

       Section 1 of Public Law 99-596 (100 Stat. 3349) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``subsections (b) 
     through (f)'' and inserting ``subsections (b) through (e)'';
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following 
     new subsection (b):
       ``(b) Consideration.--(1) In the event of the transfer of 
     the property under subsection (a) to the State of Maryland, 
     the transfer shall be with consideration or without 
     consideration from the State of Maryland, at the election of 
     the Secretary.
       ``(2) If the Secretary elects to receive consideration from 
     the State of Maryland under paragraph (1), the Secretary may 
     reduce the amount of consideration to be received from the 
     State of Maryland under that paragraph by an amount equal to 
     the cost, estimated as of the time of the transfer of the 
     property under this section, of the restoration of the 
     historic buildings on the property. The total amount of the 
     reduction of consideration under this paragraph may not 
     exceed $500,000.'';
       (3) by striking subsection (d); and
       (4) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 398

 (Purpose: To require the implementation of the Department of Defense 
   special supplemental nutrition program, and to offset the cost of 
  implementing that program by striking the $18,000,000 provided for 
     procurement of three executive (UC-35A) aircraft for the Navy)

       In title VI, at the end of subtitle E, add the following:

     SEC. 676. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL 
                   NUTRITION PROGRAM.

       (a) Clarification of Benefits Responsibility.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 1060a of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``may carry out a program to provide 
     special supplemental food benefits'' and inserting ``shall 
     carry out a program to provide supplemental foods and 
     nutrition education''.
       (b) Funding.--Subsection (b) of such section is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Federal Payments.--The Secretary of Defense shall use 
     funds available for the Department of Defense to provide 
     supplemental foods and nutrition education and to pay for 
     costs for nutrition services and administration under the 
     program required under subsection (a).''.
       (c) Program Administration.--Subsection (c)(1)(A) of such 
     section is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In 
     the determining of eligibility for the program benefits, a 
     person already certified for participation in the special 
     supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and 
     children under section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1996 
     (42 U.S.C. 1786) shall be considered eligible for the 
     duration of the certification period under that program.''.
       (d) Nutritional Risk Standards.--Subsection (c)(1)(B) of 
     such section is amended by inserting ``and nutritional risk 
     standards'' after ``income eligibility standards''.
       (e) Definitions.--Subsection (f) of such section is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) The terms `costs for nutrition services and 
     administration', `nutrition education' and `supplemental 
     foods' have the meanings given the terms in paragraphs (4), 
     (7), and (14), respectively, of section 17(b) of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(b)).''.
       On page 17, line 6, reduce the amount by $18,000,000.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 399

 (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Defense to eliminate the backlog 
 in satisfying requests of former members of the Armed Forces for the 
      issuance or replacement of military medals and decorations)

       In title V, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. 552. ELIMINATION OF BACKLOG IN REQUESTS FOR REPLACEMENT 
                   OF MILITARY MEDALS AND OTHER DECORATIONS.

       (a) Sufficient Resourcing Required.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall make available funds and other resources at the 
     levels that are necessary for ensuring the elimination of the 
     backlog of the unsatisfied requests made to the Department of 
     Defense for the issuance or replacement of military 
     decorations for former members of the Armed Forces. The 
     organizations to which the necessary funds and other 
     resources are to be made available for that purpose are as 
     follows:
       (1) The Army Reserve Personnel Command.
       (2) The Bureau of Naval Personnel.
       (3) The Air Force Personnel Center.
       (4) The National Archives and Records Administration
       (b) Condition.--The Secretary shall allocate funds and 
     other resources under subsection (a) in a manner that does 
     not detract from the performance of other personnel service 
     and personnel support activities within the Department of 
     Defense.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 45 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the status of the backlog described 
     in subsection (a). The report shall include a plan for 
     eliminating the backlog.
       (d) Replacement Decoration Defined.--For the purposes of 
     this section, the term ``decoration'' means a medal or other 
     decoration that a former member of the Armed Forces was 
     awarded by the United States for military service of the 
     United States.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 403

  (Purpose: To authorize transfers to allow for the establishment of 
                additional national veterans cemeteries)

       In title X, at the end of subtitle A, add the following:

     SEC. 10__ TRANSFERS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ADDITIONAL 
                   NATIONAL VETERANS CEMETERIES.

       (a) Authority.--Of the amounts appropriated for the 
     Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000 pursuant to 
     authorizations of appropriations in this Act, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall transfer $100,000 to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs. The Secretary shall select the source of 
     the funds for transfer under this subsection, and make the 
     transfers in a manner that causes the least significant harm 
     to the readiness of the Armed Forces, does not affect the 
     increases in pay and other benefits for Armed Forces 
     personnel, and does not otherwise adversely affect the 
     quality of life of such personnel and their families.
       (b) Use of Amounts Transferred.--Funds transferred to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs under subsection (a) shall be 
     made available to establish, in accordance with chapter 24 of 
     title 38, United States Code, national cemeteries in areas in 
     the United States that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     determines to be most in need of such cemeteries to serve the 
     needs of veterans and their families.
       (c) Relationship to Other Transfer Authority.--The 
     authority to make transfers under subsection (a) is in 
     addition to the transfer authority provided in section 1001.


[[Page S6204]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order the amendments will be set 
aside.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will just have to ask the indulgence of 
my colleague for a minute or two. I hope that can be achieved.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendments Nos. 448 through 457

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Reid, I send an 
amendment to the desk; on behalf of Senator Bryan, I send an amendment 
to the desk; on behalf of Senators Harkin and Boxer, I send an 
amendment to the desk; on behalf of Senator Leahy, I send an amendment 
to the desk; on behalf of Senator Conrad, I send three amendments to 
the desk; on behalf of Senator Lautenberg, I send two amendments to the 
desk; and on behalf of Senator Sarbanes, I send an amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for other Senators, 
     proposes amendments numbered 448 through 457.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 448

(Purpose: To designate the new hospital bed replacement building at the 
 Ioannis A. Lougaris Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in 
                Reno, Nevada, in honor of Jack Streeter)

       On page 387, below line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 1061. DESIGNATION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
                   HOSPITAL BED REPLACEMENT BUILDING IN RENO, 
                   NEVADA.

       The hospital bed replacement building under construction at 
     the Ioannis A. Lougaris Department of Veterans Affairs 
     Medical Center in Reno, Nevada, is hereby designated as the 
     ``Jack Streeter Building''. Any reference to that building in 
     any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of 
     the United States shall be considered to be a reference to 
     the Jack Streeter Building.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 449

  (Purpose: To authorize $11,600,000 for the Air Force for a military 
    construction project at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada (Project 
                              RKMF983014))

       On page 416, in the table following line 13, insert after 
     the item relating to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, the 
     following new item:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nellis Air Force Base...................................     $11,600,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 417, in the table preceding line 1, strike 
     ``$628,133,000'' in the amount column of the item relating to 
     the total and insert ``$639,733,000''.
       On page 419, line 15, strike ``$1,917,191,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,928,791,000''.
       On page 419, line 19, strike ``$628,133,000'' and insert 
     ``$639,733,000''.
       On page 420, line 17, strike ``$628,133,000'' and insert 
     ``$639,733,000''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 450

 (Purpose: To require the implementation of the Department of Defense 
   special supplemental nutrition program, and to offset the cost of 
  implementing that program by striking the $18,000,000 provided for 
     procurement of three executive (UC-35A) aircraft for the Navy)

       In title VI, at the end of subtitle E, add the following:

     SEC. 676. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL 
                   NUTRITION PROGRAM.

       (a) Clarification of Benefits Responsibility.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 1060a of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``may carry out a program to provide 
     special supplemental food benefits'' and inserting ``shall 
     carry out a program to provide supplemental foods and 
     nutrition education''.
       (b) Funding.--Subsection (b) of such section is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Federal Payments.--The Secretary of Defense shall use 
     funds available for the Department of Defense to provide 
     supplemental foods and nutrition education and to pay for 
     costs for nutrition services and administration under the 
     program required under subsection (a).''.
       (c) Program Administration.--Subsection (c)(1)(A) of such 
     section is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In 
     the determining of eligibility for the program benefits, a 
     person already certified for participation in the special 
     supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and 
     children under section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1996 
     (42 U.S.C. 1786) shall be considered eligible for the 
     duration of the certification period under that program.''.
       (d) Nutritional Risk Standards.--Subsection (c)(1)(B) of 
     such section is amended by inserting ``and nutritional risk 
     standards'' after ``income eligibility standards''.
       (e) Definitions.--Subsection (f) of such section is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) The terms `costs for nutrition services and 
     administration', `nutrition education' and `supplemental 
     foods' have the meanings given the terms in paragraphs (4), 
     (7), and (14), respectively, of section 17(b) of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(b)).''.
       On page 17, line 6, reduce the amount by $18,000,000.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 451

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

     SEC.  . TRAINING AND OTHER PROGRAMS.

       (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated 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.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 452

   (Purpose: To require a report regarding National Missile Defense)

       In title II, at the end of subtitle C, add the following:

     SEC. 225. REPORT ON NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE.

       Not later than March 15, 2000, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to Congress the Secretary's assessment of the 
     advantages of a two-site deployment of a ground-based 
     National Missile Defense system, with special reference to 
     considerations of defensive coverage, redundancy and 
     survivability, and economies of scale.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 453

(Purpose: To encourage reductions in Russian nonstrategic ``tactical'' 
 nuclear arms, and to require annual reports on Russia's non-strategic 
                            nuclear arsenal)

       In title X, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. 1061. RUSSIAN NONSTRATEGIC NUCLEAR ARMS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) it is in the interest of Russia to fully implement the 
     Presidential Nuclear Initiatives announced in 1991 and 1992 
     by then-President of the Soviet Union Gorbachev and then-
     President of Russia Yeltsin;
       (2) the President of the United States should call on 
     Russia to match the unilateral reductions in the United 
     States inventory of tactical nuclear weapons, which have 
     reduced the inventory by nearly 90 percent; and
       (3) if the certification under section 1044 is made, the 
     President should emphasize the continued interest of the 
     United States in working cooperatively with Russia to reduce 
     the dangers associated with Russia's tactical nuclear 
     arsenal.
       (b) Annual Reporting Requirement.--(1) Each annual report 
     on accounting for United States assistance under Cooperative 
     Threat Reduction programs that is submitted to Congress under 
     section 1206 of Public Law 104-106 (110 Stat. 471; 22 U.S.C. 
     5955 note) after fiscal year 1999 shall include, regarding 
     Russia's arsenal of tactical nuclear warheads, the following:
       (A) Estimates regarding current types, numbers, yields, 
     viability, locations, and deployment status of the warheads.
       (B) An assessment of the strategic relevance of the 
     warheads.
       (C) An assessment of the current and projected threat of 
     theft, sale, or unauthorized use of the warheads.
       (D) A summary of past, current, and planned United States 
     efforts to work cooperatively with Russia to account for, 
     secure, and reduce Russia's stockpile of tactical nuclear 
     warheads and associated fissile material.
       (2) The Secretary shall include in the annual report, with 
     the matters included under paragraph (1), the views of the 
     Director of Central Intelligence and the views of the

[[Page S6205]]

     Commander in Chief of the United States Strategic Command 
     regarding those matters.
       (c) Views of the Director of Central Intelligence.--The 
     Director of Central Intelligence shall submit to the 
     Secretary of Defense, for inclusion in the annual report 
     under subsection (b), the Director's views on the matters 
     described in paragraph (1) of that subsection regarding 
     Russia's tactical nuclear weapons.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 454

 (Purpose: To require a study and report regarding the options for Air 
                         Force cruise missiles)

       In title II, at the end of subtitle C, add the following:

     SEC. 225. OPTIONS FOR AIR FORCE CRUISE MISSILES.

       (a) Study.--(1) The Secretary of the Air Force shall 
     conduct a study of the options for meeting the requirements 
     being met as of the date of the enactment of this Act by the 
     conventional air launched cruise missile (CALCM) once the 
     inventory of that missile has been depleted. In conducting 
     the study, the Secretary shall consider the following 
     options:
       (A) Restarting of production of the conventional air 
     launched cruise missile.
       (B) Acquisition of a new type of weapon with the same 
     lethality characteristics as those of the conventional air 
     launched cruise missile or improved lethality 
     characteristics.
       (C) Utilization of current or planned munitions, with 
     upgrades as necessary.
       (2) The Secretary shall submit the results of this study to 
     the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate by 
     January 15, 2000, so that the results might be--
       (A) reflected in the budget for fiscal year 2001 submitted 
     to Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United States 
     Code; and
       (B) reported to Congress as required under subsection (b).
       (b) Report.--The report shall include a statement of how 
     the Secretary intends to meet the requirements referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) in a timely manner as described in that 
     subsection.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 455

(Purpose: To require conveyance of certain Army firefighting equipment 
                at Military Ocean Terminal, New Jersey)

       In title X, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. 1061. CONVEYANCE OF FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT AT MILITARY 
                   OCEAN TERMINAL, BAYONNE, NEW JERSEY.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     means for the City of Bayonne, New Jersey, to furnish fire 
     protection through the City's municipal fire department for 
     the tenants, including the Coast Guard, and property at 
     Military Ocean Terminal, New Jersey, thereby enhancing the 
     City's capability for furnishing safety services that is a 
     fundamental capability necessary for encouraging the economic 
     development of Military Ocean Terminal.
       (b) Authority To Convey.--The Secretary of the Army shall, 
     notwithstanding title II of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949, convey without 
     consideration to the Bayonne Local Redevelopment Authority, 
     Bayonne, New Jersey, and to the City of Bayonne, New Jersey, 
     jointly, all right, title, and interest of the United States 
     in and to the firefighting equipment described in subsection 
     (c).
       (c) Equipment To Be Conveyed.--The equipment to be conveyed 
     under subsection (a) is firefighting equipment at Military 
     Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, New Jersey, as follows:
       (1) Pierce Dash 2000 Gpm Pumper, manufactured September 
     1995, Pierce Job #E-9378, VIN#4PICt02D9SA000653.
       (2) Pierce Arrow 100-foot Tower Ladder, manufactured 
     February 1994, Pierce Job #E-8032, VIN#PICA0262RA000245.
       (3) Pierce, manufactured 1993, Pierce Job #E-7509, 
     VIN#1FDRYR82AONVA36015.
       (4) Ford E-350, manufactured 1992, Plate #G3112693, 
     VIN#1FDKE3OM6NHB37026.
       (5) Ford E-302, manufactured 1990, Plate #G3112452, 
     VIN#1FDKE3OM9MHA35749.
       (6) Bauer Compressor, Bauer-UN 12-E#5000psi, manufactured 
     November 1989.
       (d) Other Costs.--The conveyance and delivery of the 
     property shall be at no cost to the United States.
       (e) Other Conditions.--The Secretary may require such 
     additional terms and conditions in connection with the 
     conveyance under this section as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 456

   (Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance, Nike Battery 80 family 
            housing site, East Hanover Township, New Jersey)

       On page 453, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 2832. LAND CONVEYANCE, NIKE BATTERY 80 FAMILY HOUSING 
                   SITE, EAST HANOVER TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may 
     convey, without consideration, to the Township Council of 
     East Hanover, New Jersey (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Township''), all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to a parcel of real property, including 
     improvement thereon, consisting of approximately 13.88 acres 
     located near the unincorporated area of Hanover Neck in East 
     Hanover, New Jersey, the former family housing site for Nike 
     Battery 80. The purpose of the conveyance is to permit the 
     Township to develop the parcel for affordable housing and for 
     recreational purposes.
       (b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined in a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by 
     the Township.
       (c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 457

  (Purpose: To authorize a one-year delay in the demolition of three 
certain radio transmitting facility towers at Naval Station, Annapolis, 
             Maryland and to facilitate transfer of towers)

       At the end of subtitle E of title XXVIII, add the 
     following: SEC. ONE-YEAR DELAY IN DEMOLITION OF RADIO 
     TRANSMITTING FACILITY TOWERS AT NAVAL STATION, ANNAPOLIS, 
     MARYLAND, TO FACILITATE TRANSFER OF TOWERS.
       (a) One-Year Delay.--The Secretary of the Navy may not 
     obligate or expend any funds for the demolition of the naval 
     radio transmitting towers described in subsection (b) during 
     the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Covered Towers.--The naval radio transmitting towers 
     described in this subsection are the three southeastern most 
     naval radio transmitting towers located at Naval Station, 
     Annapolis, Maryland that are scheduled for demolition as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Transfer of Towers.--The Secretary may transfer to the 
     State of Maryland, or the County of Anne Arundel, Maryland, 
     all right, title, and interest (including maintenance 
     responsibility) of the United States in and to the towers 
     described in subsection (b) if the State of Maryland or the 
     County of Anne Arundel, Maryland, as the case may be, agrees 
     to accept such right, title, and interest (including accrued 
     maintenance responsibility) during the one-year period 
     referred to in subsection (a).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order, the amendments will be set 
aside.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 458

   (Purpose: To prohibit the United States from negotiating a peace 
 agreement relating to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and 
    Montenegro) with any individual who is an indicted war criminal)

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, of course, within the unanimous consent 
agreement which requires submission of amendments before 2:30--and it 
is now 2:17--I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 458.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In title X, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. 1061. PROHIBITION ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH INDICTED WAR 
                   CRIMINALS.

       (a) In General.--The United States, as a member of NATO, 
     may not negotiate with Slobodan Milosevic, an indicted war 
     criminal, with respect to reaching an end to the conflict in 
     the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
       (b) Yugoslavia Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Federal Republic of Yugoslavia'' means the Federal Republic 
     of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be set aside.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is there any 
established procedure for the consideration of amendments like the one 
I just sent to the desk?
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. We are trying to repose as much discretion in the 
managers as possible. Your amendment will be treated equally with the 
others. But at the moment we are not going to try to sequence the 
deliberation.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 459

   (Purpose: To amend title XXIX, relating to renewal of public land 
 withdrawals for certain military ranges, to include a placeholder to 
 allow the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Interior the 
    opportunity to complete a comprehensive legislative withdrawal 
 proposal, and to provide an opportunity for public comment and review)

  Mr. LEVIN. On behalf of Senator Bingaman, I send an amendment to the 
desk.

[[Page S6206]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] for Mr. Bingaman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 459.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 476, line 13, through page 502, line 3, strike 
     title XXIX in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:

          ``TITLE XXIX--RENEWAL OF MILITARY LAND WITHDRAWALS.

     ``SEC. 2901. FINDINGS.

       ``The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) Public Law 99-606 authorized public land withdrawals 
     for several military installations, including the Barry M. 
     Goldwater Air Force Range in Arizona, the McGregor Range in 
     New Mexico, and Fort Wainwright and Fort Greely in Alaska, 
     collectively comprising over 4 million acres of public land;
       ``(2) these military ranges provide important military 
     training opportunities and serve a critical role in the 
     national security of the United States and their use for 
     these purposes should be continued;
       ``(3) in addition to their use for military purposes, these 
     ranges contain significant natural and cultural resources, 
     and provide important wildlife habitat;
       ``(4) the future use of these ranges is important not only 
     for the affected military branches, but also for local 
     residents and other public land users;
       ``(5) the public land withdrawals authorized in 1986 under 
     Public Law 99-606 were for a period of 15 years, and expire 
     in November, 2001; and
       ``(6) it is important that the renewal of these public land 
     withdrawals be completed in a timely manner, consistent with 
     the process established in Public Law 99-606 and other 
     applicable laws, including the completion of appropriate 
     environmental impact studies and opportunities for public 
     comment and review.

     ``SEC. 2902. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       ``It is the Sense of the Senate that the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Secretary of the Interior, consistent with 
     their responsibilities and requirements under applicable 
     laws, should jointly prepare a comprehensive legislative 
     proposal to renew the public land withdrawals for the four 
     ranges referenced in section 2901 and transmit such proposal 
     to the Congress no later than July 1, 1999.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 460

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Virginia, I 
send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 460.

  The amendment is as follows:

     SEC.   . ARMY RESERVE RELOCATION FROM FORT DOUGLAS, UTAH.

       With regard to the conveyance of a portion of Fort Douglas, 
     Utah to the University of Utah and the resulting relocation 
     of Army Reserve activities to temporary and permanent 
     relocation facilities, the Secretary of the Army may accept 
     the funds paid by the University of Utah or State of Utah to 
     pay costs associated with the conveyance and relocation. 
     Funds received under this section shall be credited to the 
     appropriation, fund or account from which the expenses are 
     ordinarily paid. Amounts so credited shall be available until 
     expended.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be set aside.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 461

  (Purpose: To authorize payments in settlement of claims for deaths 
arising from the accident involving a United States Marine Corps EA-6B 
 aircraft on February 3, 1998, near Cavalese, Italy and the subsequent 
  determination that parties involved in the accident obstructed the 
                investigation by disposing of evidence)

  Mr. LEVIN. On behalf of Senator Robb, I send an amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] for Mr. Robb, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 461.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 93, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 349. (a) Authority To Make Payments.--Subject to the 
     provisions of this section, the Secretary of Defense is 
     authorized to make payments for the settlement of the claims 
     arising from the deaths caused by the accident involving a 
     United States Marine Corps EA-6B aircraft on February 3, 
     1998, near Cavalese, Italy and the subsequent determination 
     that parties involved in the accident obstructed the 
     investigation by disposing of evidence.
       (b) Deadeline for Exercise of Authority.--The Secretary 
     shall make the decision to exercise the authority in 
     subsection (a) not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Source of Payments.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, of the amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available for the Department of Navy for operation and 
     maintenance for fiscal year 2000 or other unexpended balances 
     from prior years, the Secretary shall make available $40 
     million only for emergency and extraordinary expenses 
     associated with the settlement of the claims arising from the 
     accident and the subsequent determination that parties 
     involved in the accident obstructed the investigation by 
     disposing of evidence described in subsection (a).
       (d) Amount of Payment.--The amount of the payment under 
     this section in settlement of the claims arising from the 
     death of any person association with the accident described 
     in subsection (a) may not exceed $2,000,000.
       (e) Treatment of Payments.--Any amount paid to a person 
     under this section is intended to supplement any amount 
     subsequently determined to be payable to the person under 
     section 127 or chapter 163 of title 10, United States Code, 
     or any other provision of law for administrative settlement 
     of claims against the United States with respect to damages 
     arising from the accident described in subsection (a).
       (f) Construction.--The payment of an amount under this 
     section may not be considered to constitute a statement of 
     legal liability on the part of the United States or otherwise 
     as evidence of any material fact in any judicial proceeding 
     or investigation arising from the accident described in 
     subsection (a).
       (g) [Placeholder for Thurmond language].

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be set aside.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I just wish to thank all Senators. We are 
receiving cooperation with regard to the unanimous consent request and 
making progress.
  I think the Senator from Alabama will seek recognition shortly to 
make a presentation to the Senate regarding an amendment that he has. I 
say to the Senator, with his indulgence, we may have to interrupt from 
time to time to send amendments to the desk.
  If you will forbear for a moment.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator would yield to me for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 462

  Mr. LEVIN. I send an additional amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Lincoln.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] for Mrs. Lincoln, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 462.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Amend the tables in section 2301 to include $7.8 Million 
     for C130 squadron operations/AMU facility at the Little Rock 
     Air Force Base in Little Rock, Arkansas. Further amend 
     Section 2304 to so include the adjustments.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 463

(Purpose: To authorize $3,850,000 for the construction of a Water Front 
Crane System for the Navy at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, 
                             New Hampshire)

  Mr. WARNER. I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Mr. Smith of 
New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for Mr. Smith of New 
     Hampshire, proposes an amendment numbered 463.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 429, line 5, strike out ``$172,472,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$168,340,000''
       On page 411, in the table below, insert after item related 
     Mississippi Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport 
     following new item:
       New Hampshire  NSY Portsmouth  $3,850,000.
       On page 412, in the table line Total strike out 
     ``$744,140,000'' and insert ``$747,990,000.''
       On page 414, line 6, strike out ``$2,078,015,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$2,081,865,000''.
       On page 414, line 9, strike out ``$673,960,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$677,810,000''.
       On page 414, line 18, strike out ``$66,299,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$66,581,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 464

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Helms, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 464.


[[Page S6207]]


  The amendment is as follows:

       Insert at the appropriate place in the bill:

     SEC.   . DISPOSITION OF WEAPONS-GRADE MATERIAL.

       (a) Report on Reduction of the Stockpile.--Not later than 
     120 days after signing an agreement between the United States 
     and Russia for the disposition of excess weapons plutonium, 
     the Secretary of Energy, with the concurrence of the 
     Secretary of Defense, shall submit a report to the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of 
     the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives--
       (1) detailing plans for United States implementation of 
     such agreement;
       (2) identifying the number of United States warhead 
     ``pits'' of each type deemed ``excess'' for the purpose of 
     dismantlement or disposition; and
       (3) describing any implications this may have for the 
     Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Helms amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 465

 (Purpose: To increase the grade established for the chiefs of reserve 
components and the additional general officers assigned to the National 
Guard Bureau and to exclude those officers from a limitation on number 
                     of general and flag officers)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Sessions, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 465.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In title V, at the end of subtitle B, add the following:

     SEC. 522. CHIEFS OF RESERVE COMPONENTS AND THE ADDITIONAL 
                   GENERAL OFFICERS AT THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU.

       (a) Grade of Chief of Army Reserve.--Section 3038(c) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ``major 
     general'' and inserting ``lieutenant general''.
       (b) Grade of Chief of Naval Reserve.--Section 5143(c)(2) of 
     such title is amended by striking ``rear admiral (lower 
     half)'' and inserting ``rear admiral''.
       (c) Grade of Commander, Marine Forces Reserve.--Section 
     5144(c)(2) of such title is amended by striking ``brigadier 
     general'' and inserting ``major general''.
       (d) Grade of Chief of Air Force Reserve.--Section 8038(c) 
     of such title is amended by striking ``major general'' and 
     inserting ``lieutenant general''.
       (e) The Additional General Officers for the National Guard 
     Bureau.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 10506(a)(1) of 
     such title are each amended by striking ``major general'' and 
     inserting ``lieutenant general''.
       (f) Exclusion From Limitation on General and Flag 
     Officers.--Section 526(d) of such title is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Exclusion of Certain Reserve Component Officers.--The 
     limitations of this section do not apply to the following 
     reserve component general or flag officers:
       ``(1) An officer on active duty for training.
       ``(2) An officer on active duty under a call or order 
     specifying a period of less than 180 days.
       ``(3) The Chief of Army Reserve, the Chief of Naval 
     Reserve, the Chief of Air Force Reserve, the Commander, 
     Marine Forces Reserve, and the additional general officers 
     assigned to the National Guard Bureau under section 
     10506(a)(1) of this title.''.
       (g) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sessions amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 466

 (Purpose: To authorize, with an offset, an additional $59,200,000 for 
   drug interdiction and counterdrug activities of the Department of 
                                Defense)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. DeWine, for 
     himself and Mr. Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 
     466.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 62, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 314. ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR DRUG INTERDICTION AND 
                   COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Authorization of Additional Amount.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this Act, the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 301(a)(20) is hereby increased by 
     $59,200,000.
       (b) Use of Additional Amounts.--Of the amounts authorized 
     to be appropriated by section 301(a)(20), as increased by 
     subsection (a) of this section, funds shall be available in 
     the following amounts for the following purposes:
       (1) $6,000,000 shall be available for Operation Caper 
     Focus.
       (2) $17,500,000 shall be available for a Relocatable Over 
     the Horizon (ROTHR) capability for the Eastern Pacific based 
     in the continental United States.
       (3) $2,700,000 shall be available for forward looking 
     infrared radars for P-3 aircraft.
       (4) $8,000,000 shall be available for enhanced intelligence 
     capabilities.
       (5) $5,000,000 shall be used for Mothership Operations.
       (6) $20,000,000 shall be used for National Guard State 
     plans.
       (c) Offset.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     by this Act, the total amount available for ______________.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The DeWine amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 467

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Voinovich, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 467.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . ORDNANCE MITIGATION STUDY.

       (a) the Secretary of Defense is directed to undertake a 
     study, and to remove ordnance infiltrating the federal 
     navigation channel and adjacent shorelines of the Toussaint 
     River.
       (b) The Secretary shall report to the congressional defense 
     committees and the Senate Environment and Public Works on 
     long-term solutions and costs related to the removal of 
     ordnance in the Toussaint River, Ohio. The Secretary shall 
     also evaluate any ongoing use of Lake Erie as an ordnance 
     firing range and justifying the need to continue such 
     activities by the Department of Defense or its contractors. 
     The Secretary shall report not later than April 1, 2000.
       (c) This provision shall not modify any responsibilities 
     and authorities provided in the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986, as amended (Public Law 99-662).
       (d) The Secretary is authorized to use any funds available 
     to the Secretary to carry out the authority provided in 
     subsection (a).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Voinovich amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 468

  (Purpose: To strike the portions of the military lands withdrawals 
                 relating to lands located in Arizona)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 468.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In section 2902, strike subsection (a).
       In section 2902, redesignate subsections (b), (c), and (d) 
     as subsections (a), (b), and (c), respectively.
       In section 2903(c), strike paragraphs (4) and (7).
       In section 2903(c), redesignate paragraphs (5) and (6) as 
     paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively.
       In section 2904(a)(1)(A), strike ``(except those lands 
     within a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System)''.
       In section 2904(a)(1), strike subparagraph (B).
       In section 2904, strike subsection (g).
       Strike section 2905.
       Strike section 2906.
       Redesignate sections 2907 through 2914 as sections 2905 
     through 2912, respectively.
       In section 2907(h), as so redesignated, strike ``section 
     2902(c) or 2902(d)'' and insert ``section 2902(b) or 
     2902(c)''.
       In section 2908(b), as so redesignated, strike ``section 
     2909(g)'' and insert ``section 2907(g)''.
       In section 2910, as so redesignated, strike ``, except that 
     hunting,'' and all that follows and insert a period.
       In section 2911(a)(1), as so redesignated, strike 
     ``subsections (b), (c), and (d)'' and insert ``subsections 
     (a), (b), and (c)''.
       In section 2911(a)(2), as so redesignated, strike ``, 
     except that lands'' and all that follows and insert a period.
       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 2912. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING WITHDRAWALS OF CERTAIN 
                   LANDS IN ARIZONA.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) it is vital to the national interest that the 
     withdrawal of the lands withdrawn by section 1(c) of the 
     Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-606), 
     relating to Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range and the Cabeza 
     Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, which would otherwise expire 
     in 2001, be renewed in 1999;
       (2) the renewed withdrawal of such lands is critical to 
     meet the military training requirements of the Armed Forces 
     and to provide the Armed Forces with experience necessary to 
     defend the national interests;
       (3) the Armed Forces currently carry out environmental 
     stewardship of such lands in a comprehensive and focused 
     manner; and

[[Page S6208]]

       (4) a continuation in high-quality management of United 
     States natural and cultural resources is required if the 
     United States is to preserve its national heritage.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The McCain amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 469

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Helms, for 
     himself and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 469.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 153, line 18, strike ``the United States'' and 
     insert ``such''.
       On page 356, line 7, insert after ``Secretary of Defense'' 
     the following: ``, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     State,''.
       On page 356, beginning on line 8, strike ``the Committees 
     on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives'' and insert ``the Committees on Armed 
     Services and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committees on Armed Services and International Relations of 
     the House of Representatives''.
       On page 358, strike line 21 and all that follows through 
     page 359, line 7.
       On page 359, line 8, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''.
       On page 359, line 16, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(c)''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Helms amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 470

  (Purpose: To ensure continued participation by small businesses in 
               providing services of a commercial nature)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, once again, a number of these amendments 
we are now sending to the desk, the two managers, pursuant to the 
unanimous consent request, are ones which we are in the process of 
clearing--not all of them but some. I urge my colleagues, once again, 
there is no assurance that an amendment that was sent to the staff in 
the last 72 hours is included in the unanimous consent request 
automatically. It has to be resubmitted. We are being very careful and 
very fair about that.
  Now, Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, 
I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Bond, for 
     himself and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 470.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 281, at the end of line 13, add the following: 
     ``However, the commercial services so designated by the 
     Secretary shall not be treated under the pilot program as 
     being commercial items for purposes of the special simplified 
     procedures included in the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
     pursuant to the section 2304(g)(1)(B) of title 10, United 
     States Code, section 303(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(g)(1)(B)), 
     and section 31(a)(2) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 427(a)(2)).''.
       On page 282, line 19, after ``concerns,'' insert the 
     following: ``HUBZone small business concerns,''.
       On page 283, line 19, strike ``(A)'' and insert ``(1)''.
       On page 283, line 23, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 284, line 3, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 284, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       (4) The term ``HUBZone small business concern'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 3(p)(3) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(3)).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Bond amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 471

  (Purpose: To set aside $600,000 for providing procurement technical 
 assistance for Indian reservations out of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated for the Procurement Technical Assistance program)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 471.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In title III, at the end of subtitle A, add the following:

     SEC. 305. PROCUREMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under section 
     301(5) for carrying out the provisions of chapter 142 of 
     title 10, United States Code, $600,000 is authorized for 
     fiscal year 2000 for the purpose of carrying out programs 
     sponsored by eligible entities referred to in subparagraph 
     (D) of section 2411(1) of title 10, United States Code, that 
     provide procurement technical assistance in distressed areas 
     referred to in subparagraph (B) of section 2411(2) of such 
     title. If there is an insufficient number of satisfactory 
     proposals for cooperative agreements in such distressed areas 
     to allow effective use of the funds made available in 
     accordance with this subsection in such areas, the funds 
     shall be allocated among the Defense Contract Administration 
     Services regions in accordance with section 2415 of such 
     title.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The McCain amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 472

  (Purpose: To require a report on the Air force distributed mission 
                               training)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Senator Hatch of Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Hatch, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 472.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

      AUTHORITY FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT TRANSFER TO CERTAIN TAX-
                   SUPPORTED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF SURPLUS 
                   PROPERTY UNDER THE BASE CLOSURE LAWS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     applicable base closure law or any provision of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, the 
     Administrator of General Services may transfer to 
     institutions described in subsection (b) the facilities 
     described in subsection (c). Any such transfer shall be 
     without consideration to the United States.
       (2) A transfer under paragraph (1) may include real 
     property associated with the facility concerned.
       (3) An institution seeking a transfer under paragraph (1) 
     shall submit to the Administrator an application for the 
     transfer. The application shall include such information as 
     the Administrator shall specify.
       (b) Covered Institutions.--An institution eligible for the 
     transfer of a facility under subsection (a) is any tax-
     supported educational institution that agrees to use the 
     facility for--
       (1) student instruction;
       (2) the provision of services to individuals with 
     disabilities:
       (3) the health and welfare of students;
       (4) the storage of instructional materials or other 
     materials directly related to the administration of student 
     instruction; or
       (5) other educational purposes.
       (c) Available Facilities.--A facility available for 
     transfer under subsection (a) is any facility that--
       (1) is located at a military installation approved for 
     closure or realignment under a base closure law;
       (2) has been determined to be surplus property under that 
     base closure law; and
       (3) is available for disposal as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (d) Defintiions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``base closure laws'' means the following:
       (A) Title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and 
     Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526; 10 
     U.S.C. 2687 note).
       (B) The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 
     (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 
     note).
       (2) The term ``tax-supported educational institution'' 
     means any tax-supported educational institution covered by 
     section 203(k)(1)(A) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484(k)(1)(A)).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Hatch amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 473

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that members of the Armed 
Forces who receive special pay should receive the same tax treatment as 
                    members serving in combat zones)

  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Edwards.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Edwards, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 473.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In title VI, at the end of subtitle B, add the following:

     SEC. 629. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX TREATMENT OF 
                   MEMBERS RECEIVING SPECIAL PAY.

       It is the sense of the Senate that members of the Armed 
     Forces who receive special pay for duty subject to hostile 
     fire or imminent danger (37 U.S.C. 310) should receive the 
     same tax treatment as members serving in combat zones.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Edwards amendment will be set aside.

[[Page S6209]]

                           Amendment No. 474

    (Purpose: To commemorate the victory of Freedom in the Cold War)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Mr. Gramm of Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Gramm, for 
     himself, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Lott, and Mrs. 
     Hutchison, proposes an amendment numbered 474.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 387, below line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 1061. COMMEMORATION OF THE VICTORY OF FREEDOM IN THE 
                   COLD WAR.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Cold War between the United States and the former 
     Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the longest and most 
     costly struggle for democracy and freedom in the history of 
     mankind.
       (2) Whether millions of people all over the world would 
     live in freedom hinged on the outcome of the Cold War.
       (3) Democratic countries bore the burden of the struggle 
     and paid the costs in order to preserve and promote democracy 
     and freedom.
       (4) The Armed Forces and the taxpayers of the United States 
     bore the greatest portion of such a burden and struggle in 
     order to protect such principles.
       (5) Tens of thousands of United States soldiers, sailors, 
     Marines, and airmen paid the ultimate price during the Cold 
     War in order to preserve the freedoms and liberties enjoyed 
     in democratic countries.
       (6) The Berlin Wall erected in Berlin, Germany, epitomized 
     the totalitarianism that the United States struggled to 
     eradicate during the Cold War.
       (7) The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, marked 
     the beginning of the end for Soviet totalitarianism, and thus 
     the end of the Cold War.
       (8) November 9, 1999, is the 10th anniversary of the fall 
     of the Berlin Wall.
       (b) Designation of Victory in the Cold War Day.--Congress 
     hereby--
       (1) designates November 9, 1999, as ``Victory in the Cold 
     War Day''; and
       (2) requests that the President issue a proclamation 
     calling on the people of the United States to observe the 
     week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
       (c) Cold War Victory Medal.--Chapter 57 of Title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1133. Cold War medal: award; issue

       ``(a) There is hereby authorized an award of an appropriate 
     decoration, as provided for under subsection (b), to all 
     individuals who served honorably in the United States Armed 
     Forces during the Cold War in order to recognize the 
     contributions of such individuals to United States victory in 
     the Cold War.''
       ``(b) Design.--The Joint Chiefs of Staff shall, under 
     regulations prescribed by the President, design for purposes 
     of this section a decoration called the `Reagan-Truman 
     Victory in the Cold War Medal'. The decoration shall be of 
     appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances.
       ``(c) Period of Cold War.--For purposes of subsection (a), 
     the term `Cold War' shall mean the period beginning on August 
     14, 1945, and ending on November 9, 1989.''.
       (B) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1133. Cold War medal: award; issue.''.

       (d) Participation of Armed Forces in Celebration of 
     Anniversary of End of Cold War.--(1) Subject to paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), amounts authorized to be appropriated by section 
     301(1) shall be available for the purpose of covering the 
     costs of the Armed Forces in participating in a celebration 
     of the 10th anniversary of the end of the Cold War to be held 
     in Washington, District of Columbia, on November 9, 1999.
       (2) The total amount of funds available under paragraph (1) 
     for the purpose set forth in that paragraph may not exceed 
     $15,000,000.
       (3)(A) The Secretary of Defense may accept contributions 
     from the private sector for the purpose of reducing the costs 
     of the Armed Forces described in paragraph (1).
       (B) The amount of funds available under paragraph (1) for 
     the purpose set forth in that paragraph shall be reduced by 
     an amount equal to the amount of contributions accepted by 
     the Secretary under subparagraph (A).
       (e) Commission on Victory in the Cold War.--(1) There is 
     hereby established a commission to be known as the 
     ``Commission on Victory in the Cold War'' (in this subsection 
     to be referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (2) The Commission shall be composed of seven individuals, 
     as follows:
       (A) Three shall be appointed by the President, in 
     consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the 
     Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
       (B) Two shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate.
       (C) Two shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (3) The Commission shall have as its duty the review and 
     approval of the expenditure of funds by the Armed Forces 
     under subsection (d) prior to the participation of the Armed 
     Forces in the celebration referred to in paragraph (1) of 
     that subsection, whether such funds are derived from funds of 
     the United States or from amounts contributed by the private 
     sector under paragraph (3)(A) of that subsection.
       (4) In addition to the duties provided for under paragraph 
     (3), the Commission shall also have the authority to design 
     and award medals and decorations to current and former public 
     officials and other individuals whose efforts were vital to 
     United States victory in the Cold War.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Gramm amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 475

(Purpose: To require a report on military-to-military contacts between 
  the United States and the People's Republic of China and the United 
                                States)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Mr. Smith of New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Smith of 
     New Hampshire, proposes an amendment numbered 475.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 357, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 1032. REPORT ON MILITARY-TO-MILITARY CONTACTS WITH THE 
                   PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       (a) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     Congress a report on military-to-military contacts between 
     the United States and the People's Republic of China.
       (b) Report Elements.--The report shall include the 
     following:
       (1) A list of the general and flag grade officers of the 
     People's Liberation Army who have visited United States 
     military installations since January 1, 1993.
       (2) The itinerary of the visits referred to in paragraph 
     (2), including the installations visited, the duration of the 
     visits, and the activities conducted during the visits.
       (3) The involvement, if any, of the general and flag 
     officers referred to in paragraph (2) in the Tiananmen Square 
     massacre of June 1989.
       (4) A list of facilities in the People's Republic of China 
     that United States military officers have visited as a result 
     of any military-to-military contact program between the 
     United States and the People's Republic of China since 
     January 1, 1993.
       (5) A list of facilities in the People's Republic of China 
     that have been the subject of a requested visit by the 
     Department of Defense which has been denied by People's 
     Republic of China authorities.
       (6) A list of facilities in the United States that have 
     been the subject of a requested visit by the People's 
     Liberation Army which has been denied by the United States.
       (7) Any official documentation, such as memoranda for the 
     record, after-action reports, and final itineraries, and any 
     receipts for expenses over $1,000, concerning military-to-
     military contacts or exchanges between the United States and 
     the People's Republic of China in 1999.
       (8) An assessment regarding whether or not any People's 
     Republic of China military officials have been shown 
     classified material as a result of military-to-military 
     contacts or exchanges between the United States and the 
     People's Republic of China.
       (9) The report shall be submitted no later than March 31, 
     2000 and shall be unclassified but may contain a classified 
     annex.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 476

(Purpose: To improve implementation of the Federal Activities Inventory 
                              Reform Act)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Mr. Thomas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Thomas, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 476.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section and renumber any following sections accordingly:

     SEC.  . IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FEDERAL ACTIVITIES INVENTORY 
                   REFORM ACT.

       The Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (P.L. 
     105-270) shall be implemented by an Executive Order issued by 
     the President.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Thomas amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 477

(Purpose: To require the President to submit to Congress a proposal to 
 prioritize and begin disengaging from non-critical overseas missions 
                     involving U.S. combat forces)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Hutchison.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mrs. Hutchison, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 477.


[[Page S6210]]


  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . (a): Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) It is the National Security Strategy of the United 
     States to ``deter and defeat large-scale, cross-border 
     aggression in two distant theaters in overlapping time 
     frames;''
       (2) The deterrence of Iraq and Iran in Southwest Asia and 
     the deterrence of North Korea in Northeast Asia represent two 
     such potential large-scale, cross-border theater 
     requirements;
       (3) The United States has 120,000 troops permanently 
     assigned to those theaters;
       (4) The United States has an additional 70,000 forces 
     assigned to non-NATO/non-Pacific threat foreign countries;
       (5) The United States has more than 6,000 troops in Bosnia-
     Herzegovina on indefinite assignment;
       (6) The United States has diverted permanent assigned 
     resources from other theaters to support operations in the 
     Balkans;
       (7) The United States provides military forces to seven 
     active United Nations peacekeeping operations, including some 
     missions that have continued for decades;
       (8) Between 1986 and 1998, the number of American military 
     deployments per year has nearly tripled at the same time the 
     Department of Defense budget has been reduced in real terms 
     by 38 percent;
       (9) The Army has 10 active-duty divisions today, down from 
     18 in 1991, while on an average day in FY98, 28,000 U.S. Army 
     soldiers were deployed to more than 70 countries for over 300 
     separate missions;
       (10) Active Air Force fighter wings have gone from 22 to 13 
     since 1991, while 70 percent of air sorties in Operation 
     Allied Force over the Balkans are U.S.-flown and the Air 
     Force continues to enforce northern and southern no-fly zones 
     in Iraq. In response, the Air Force has initiated a ``stop 
     loss'' program to block normal retirements and separations.
       (11) The United States Navy has been reduced in size to 339 
     ships, its lowest level since 1938, necessitating the 
     redeployment of the only overseas homeported aircraft carrier 
     from the Western Pacific to the Mediterranean to support 
     Operation Allied Force;
       (12) In 1998 just 10 percent of eligible carrier naval 
     aviators--27 out of 261--accepted continuation bonuses and 
     remained in service;
       (13) In 1998 48 percent of Air Force pilots eligible for 
     continuation opted to leave the service.
       (14) The Army could fall 6,000 below Congressionally 
     authorized troop strength by the end of 1999.
       (b) Sense of Congress:
       (1) It is the sense of Congress that--
       (A) The readiness of U.S. military forces to execute the 
     National Security Strategy of the United States is being 
     eroded from a combination of declining defense budgets and 
     expanded missions;
       (B) There may be missions to which the United States is 
     contributing Armed Forces from which the United States can 
     begin disengaging.
       (c) Report Requirement.
       (1) Not later than March 1, 2000, the President shall 
     submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and 
     the Committee on National Security of the House of 
     Representatives, and to the Committees on Appropriations in 
     both Houses, a report prioritizing the ongoing global 
     missions to which the United States is contributing troops. 
     The President shall include in the report a feasibility 
     analysis of how the United States can:
       (1) shift resources from low priority missions in support 
     of higher priority missions;
       (2) consolidate or reduce U.S. troop commitments worldwide;
       (3) end low priority missions.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Hutchison amendment will be laid aside.


                           Amendment No. 478

      (Purpose: Relating to chemical demilitarization activities)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Mr. Wyden and Mr. Smith of Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Smith of 
     Oregon, for himself, and Mr. Wyden, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 478.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Wyden-Smith amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 479

 (Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding settlement of 
 claims with respect to the deaths of members of the United States Air 
  Force resulting from the accident off Namibia on September 13, 1997)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Mr. Thurmond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Thurmond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 479.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS OF 
                   AMERICAN SERVICEMENS' FAMILIES REGARDING DEATHS 
                   RESULTING FROM THE ACCIDENT OFF THE COAST OF 
                   NAMIBIA ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1997.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) On September 13, 1997, a German Luftwaffe Tupelov TU-
     154M aircraft collided with a United States Air Force C-141 
     Starlifter aircraft off the coast of Namibia.
       (2) As a result of that collision nine members of the 
     United States Air Force were killed, namely Staff Sergeant 
     Stacey D. Bryant, 32, loadmaster, Providence, Rhode Island; 
     Staff Sergeant Gary A. Bucknam, 25, flight engineer, Oakland, 
     Maine; Captain Gregory M. Cindrich, 28, pilot, Byrans Road, 
     Maryland; Airman 1st Class Justin R. Drager, 19, loadmaster, 
     Colorado Springs, Colorado; Staff Sergeant Robert K. Evans, 
     31, flight engineer, Garrison, Kentucky; Captain Jason S. 
     Ramsey, 27, pilot, South Boston, Virginia; Staff Sergeant 
     Scott N. Roberts, 27, flight engineer, Library, Pennsylvania; 
     Captain Peter C. Vallejo, 34, aircraft commander, Crestwood, 
     New York; and Senior Airman Frankie L. Walker, 23, crew 
     chief, Windber, Pennsylvania.
       (3) The Final Report of the Ministry of Defense of the 
     Defense Committee of the German Bundestag states 
     unequivocally that, following an investigation, the 
     Directorate of Flight Safety of the German Federal Armed 
     Forces assigned responsibility for the collision to the 
     Aircraft Commander/Commandant of the Luftwaffe Tupelov TU-
     154M aircraft for flying at a flight level that did not 
     conform to international flight rules.
       (4) The United States Air Force accident investigation 
     report concluded that the primary cause of the collision was 
     the Luftwaffe Tupelov TU-154M aircraft flying at an incorrect 
     cruise altitude.
       (5) Procedures for filing claims under the Status of Forces 
     Agreement are unavailable to the families of the members of 
     the United States Air Force killed in the collision.
       (6) The families of the members of the United States Air 
     Force killed in the collision have filed claims against the 
     Government of Germany.
       (7) The Senate has adopted an amendment authorizing the 
     payment to citizens of Germany of a supplemental settlement 
     of claims arising from the deaths caused by the accident 
     involving a United States Marine Corps EA-6B aircraft on 
     February 3, 1998, near Cavalese, Italy.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the Government of Germany should promptly settle with 
     the families of the members of the United States Air Force 
     killed in a collision between a United States Air Force C-141 
     Starlifter aircraft and a German Luftwaffe Tupelov TU-154M 
     aircraft off the coast of Namibia on September 13, 1997; and
       (2) the United States should not make any payment to 
     citizens of Germany as settlement of such citizens' claims 
     for deaths arising from the accident involving a United 
     States Marine Corps EA-6B aircraft on February 3, 1998, near 
     Cavalese, Italy, until a comparable settlement is reached 
     between the Government of Germany and the families described 
     in paragraph (1) with respect to the collision described in 
     that paragraph.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Thurmond amendment will be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 480

(Purpose: To authorize $3,850,000 for the construction of a Water Front 
Crane System for the Navy at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, 
                             New Hampshire)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Mr. Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 480.

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 429, line 5, strike out ``$172,472,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$168,340,000.''
       On page 411, in the table below, insert after item related 
     Mississippi Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport 
     following new item:
       New Hampshire    NSY Portsmouth    $3,850,000.
       On page 412, in the table line Total strike out 
     ``$744,140,000'' and insert ``$747,990,000.''
       On page 414, line 6, strike out ``$2,078,015,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$2,081,865,000''.
       On page 414, line 9, strike out ``$673,960,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$677,810,000''.
       On page 414, line 18, strike out ``$66,299,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$66,581,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Domenici amendment will be set aside.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe we have all the amendments in 
under the prescribed time agreement.

[[Page S6211]]

Two colleagues have been waiting patiently to speak, and there is a 
third. We will allocate the time that each Senator desires. Could the 
Senators from Texas and Alabama indicate who will go first and how much 
time each will take?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would be happy with 5 minutes, and I would be happy 
for the Senator from Alabama to go first.
  Mr. WARNER. How much time for the Senator from Alabama?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Five.
  Mr. WARNER. I understand 20 minutes is needed by our colleague from 
New Mexico.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what are we dividing time up on?
  Mr. LEVIN. We are sequencing speeches.
  Mr. REID. I am not going to agree to anything. I have been waiting to 
speak on the Kyl-Domenici amendment, and I was here early this morning.
  Mr. WARNER. I will withdraw the request. I was asked to enter that. 
Could my two colleagues complete their remarks and then we will go to 
the distinguished minority whip?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 465

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today the valiant men and women of our 
Armed Forces are in their third month of deployment for Operation 
Allied Force in Yugoslavia and Kosovo. However, in these final months 
of this Century, when you say Armed Forces, you are not referring 
merely to our Active Duty forces. In nearly every situation concerning 
our Nation's defense forces, when you speak of Armed Forces you also 
must include the Reserve Components. As Secretary Cohen and General 
Shelton have asserted, the Armed Forces cannot undertake any 
significant deployment without the citizen-soldiers of the Reserves and 
the National Guard, together we call them the Reserve Components. For 
example, 2,937 reservists are currently deployed world-wide on 
operational deployments; 1,000 reservists have supported Operation 
Uphold Democracy in Haiti; 12,000 reservists have deployed to Bosnia; 
annually 20,000 reservists deploy to world-wide training sites. When we 
look at these figures in light of the major missions the reserves have 
been involved in since Desert Storm to Operation Southern Watch , for 
instance, reserve participation has gone up for some elements from a 
Desert Storm high of 33% to a high of 51% of the overall force deployed 
in later operations. To bring this point even closer to home, the 
President just called up two weeks ago 33,100 reservists for duties in 
support of the air operations over Kosovo and Serbia.
  So, for those of us who find it imperative to provide our Armed 
Forces with the resources that they need to carry out our Nation's 
increasingly diverse military responsibilities, this means providing 
all of our components, Active, Reserve, and National Guard with the 
leadership structure that they need.
  Mr. President, it would be my wish to tell you today that we could 
count on the leadership of the Department of Defense to provide all of 
the components of our Armed Forces with the resources they need, be it 
equipment, personnel, or training. Unfortunately, while the leadership 
means well, and I am sure is trying to do the right thing for each 
component, in a number of areas at the end of the day the Active 
Components are doing far better from a resourcing standpoint than are 
the Reserve Components. This is because when the services sit down at 
the table to allocate resources the cards are stacked, I am afraid, 
heavily in favor the active component missions and requirements.
  How this happens can be attributed to the inequity of the rank those 
officers who make the resource decisions at the senior levels. It is at 
these levels that the Active Duty forces have an overwhelming advantage 
rank and in the power of the advocates who design the missions, provide 
and train the manpower, and who get establish the requirements for 
equipment and resources, as well as installations from which they 
project combat power.
  In the Armed Forces there is a very simple way to measure power, you 
can count the senior officers--specifically the generals and admirals 
who make the decisions for their components. In the Army there are a 
total of 307 general officers. In the Air Force the number is 282. When 
compared to the 118 United States Army Reserve General Officers and the 
75 United States Air Force Reserve General Officers or the 195 Army 
National Guard General Officers of whom only 92 have Federal 
Recognition there appears to be an inequity when it comes to the 
Reserve Components. In the case of the Army, Air Force, Marine and Navy 
Reserves, there are no four or three star positions. In the case of the 
National Guard, the answer is one three star--- the Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau who represents both the Army and the Air National 
Guard. This means that in the case of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 
Marine Corps Reserves and the Army and Air Force National Guard, each 
component's home team advocate is merely a two-star.

  I do not choose the phase ``merely a two-star'' by accident. 
``Merely'' is an apt word when you are talking about the fight for 
resources in the Pentagon. When programming and budgeting decisions are 
made within the services, the existing rank structure excludes the 
Reserve chiefs from what I consider to be full participation in 
deliberations, which are the realm of three-star participants. The 
Reserve chiefs are relegated to the periphery and must rely on a 
higher-ranking participant at the table to champion their cause. They 
cannot speak for themselves or their components unless asked. Now, this 
is wrong in my opinion and a classic example of how the Reserve chiefs 
are restricted from actively participating in the decision making 
process.
  Furthermore, the two-star Reserve Component commanders exercise their 
preeminent authority over other senior commanders of their components 
who also wear two stars. While the Reserve and Guard chiefs, by 
necessity, have made this situation work, this arrangement is 
considered exceptional everywhere but in the Reserve Components.
  Let me give you a compelling example of the inequity I am speaking of 
by looking closely at but one of our Reserve Components, the Army 
Reserve: The Chief, Army Reserve, or the CAR as he is commonly known, 
is responsible for more than 20 percent of the Army's personnel. The 
same applies for the Chief of the Navy Reserve. The CAR commands a 
total Army Reserve force of over a million soldiers. Of those soldiers 
over 415,000 are in the Ready Reserve and of those billets, nearly 
205,000 are in the ever more frequently deployed Selected Reserve. 
Don't let anybody use the outdated pejorative ``weekend warrior'' for 
these citizen soldiers. Granted, when not deployed, they are not 24-
hour-a-day troops. Nevertheless, the CAR also commands nearly 19,000 
full-time support personnel plus nearly 4,400 Department of the Army 
Civilians, or DA civilians. In contrast an Active Component four-star, 
yes, a four-star general in the field commands an average of 48,400 
troops plus DA civilians. An active component three-star general in the 
field commands lesser number of troops, plus civilians, but only 3 
percent of that commanded by the Chief, Army Reserve.
  The Chief, Army Reserve, in the exercise of his preeminent authority 
over the other senior commanders of his component is also responsible 
for evaluating 57 brigadier generals and 42 major generals. In contrast 
an active component four-star, yes, four-star general in the field is 
responsible for evaluating an average of 31 brigadier generals and 10 
major generals. An active component three-star general or admiral in 
the field is responsible for evaluating an average of only 7 brigadier 
generals and only 2 major generals.

  The Chief, Army Reserve has full responsibility for $3.5 billion of 
fiscal year 1999 appropriations--nearly triple that ($1.2 billion) of a 
three-star general in the field and over 62% of that ($5.6 billion) of 
a four-star general in the field.
  Currently the Army National Guard provides 54 percent of the Army's 
combat forces, 46 percent of the Combat Support capability, and about 
one third of the Combat Service Support forces. Likewise, the Air 
National Guard is a fully integrated partner in the Air Force providing 
49 percent of

[[Page S6212]]

the theater airlift capability, 45 percent of the aerial tanker forces, 
34 percent of the fighters and 36 percent of the Air Rescue resources.
  The Air Force Reserve, 74,000 strong, notably has been the second 
largest major command in the USAF since it was elevated to that status 
in 1997. Only the Air Combat Command, with its 90,000 personnel is 
larger, and, of the other eight major Air Force commands, seven are 
commanded by 4-star generals. Only the smallest, the Special Operations 
Command with fewer than 10,000 personnel, is commanded by a major 
general. Prior to Desert Storm the Air Force Reserve had been involved 
in 10 contingencies. However, since the Gulf War, it has been involved 
in over 30 contingency, nation-building and peacekeeping operations. 
The Air Force Reserve provides the Air Force 20 percent of its 
capability. Air Force Reserve Command aircrews serve over 125 days a 
year on average; support personnel serve over 60.
  The Commander Naval Reserve serves in a billet that, in the past, 
actually was filled by a vice admiral and reports directly to the Chief 
of Naval Operations, which is not even typical for a Navy three-star 
admiral. He is responsible for software development and acquisition for 
the Navy's Manpower and Personnel information systems. The Naval 
Reserve is responsible for: five percent of the Navy's total complement 
of ships and aircraft, 100 percent of intra-theater air logistics, 100 
percent of the Navy's harbor surface and subsurface surveillance 
forces, 90 percent of the Navy's Expeditionary Logistics Support Force, 
47 percent of the Navy's combat search and rescue capability, and 35 
percent of the Navy's total airborne ocean surveillance capability.
  The Commander, Marine Force Reserve commands over 40,000 personnel 
and provides 20 percent of all U.S. ground divisions and 13 percent of 
all U.S. tactical air. The Marine Corps Reserve provides the Marine 
Corps the following: 100 percent of the adversary aircraft, 100 percent 
of the civil affairs groups, 50 percent of the theater missile defense, 
50 percent of the tanks, 40 percent of the force reconnaissance, 40 
percent of the air refueling, and 30 percent of the artillery. We find 
similar core competencies in the Army Reserve where the USAR provides 
97% of Civil Affairs units, 81% of all psychological units, 100% of 
Chemical Brigades, 75% of Chemical battalions; and 85% of all medical 
brigades or roughly 47% of all Army Combat Service Support.
  What are the implications for the Reserve Components?
  Well, when reserve commanders, by virtue of their ranks, are 
outgunned so to speak by active counterparts, it means that the men and 
women in the Reserve Components, which are deploying with ever-
increasing frequency, might be deploying with less than the best 
resources because of the type of unit, where it fits in the equipping 
matrix or the deployment matrix. I am gravely concerned that ALL TROOPS 
regardless of component receive the training they need before they 
deploy. I am concerned you see because I was an Army reservist for 13 
years and understand what it means to be on the short end of things 
they need like professional development training or speciality 
training.
  Admittedly, in some cases there are valid reasons for these 
disparities. In other cases there are not. What is clearly needed is a 
level playing field to ensure that the limited defense resources, 
whether equipment, personnel, or training slots, are fairly 
distributed.
  Because the nation has come to depend to such a great extent on the 
readiness of the Reserves and the National Guard, decisions taken 
within the Pentagon must be discussed, made and agreed to among 
individuals more nearly alike in authority. To expect a two-star major 
general to compete equally with three- and four-star generals is 
unrealistic. To not compete for funds on an equal basis is to guarantee 
the component is under-capitalized for the mission it is asked to 
perform.
  The need for three star ranks for the Reserve and Guard chiefs has 
been understood for years. In 1989, a study by General William 
Richardson recommended elevation of the Chief, Army Reserve to (four-
star) general. In 1992 the Hay Group, which reviewed all Reserve 
Component general and flag officer billets, specifically recommended 
elevation of the Chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force Reserves and 
the Directors of the Army and Air Force National Guard to three-star 
rank. In 1992, an independent commission chaired by General John Foss, 
USA (Ret) recommended elevation of the CAR to lieutenant general. The 
1997 Defense Authorization Act directed the Secretary of Defense report 
to Congress not later than six months after enactment the recommended 
grades for the Reserve and Guard chiefs. It is now May 1999 and we have 
yet to see the report called for in the 1997 statute. So, you can see 
my point. We have waited patiently for DoD to send us a report 
upon which to make a full evaluation on general officer positions and 
it hasn't arrived. More deliberation and delay is sought. I say NO. It 
is time to take action--NOW.

  This is why I am offering this command equity amendment to the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
  My amendment will make the positions of the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, 
Air Force, and Marine Corps Reserve and the Directors of the Army and 
Air National Guard carry the three-star ranks. Each of them absolutely 
must have it to ensure success and proper resources given the realities 
of today. Incumbents will be promoted and their successors will be 
promoted to three-star ranks upon confirmation by this body.
  A valid argument can be made that the Army and Air Force already have 
all the three-star generals (45 and 37 respectively) that they need and 
while the active army, for instance, has reduced its overall general 
officers from a 407 in 1991 to 307 in 1999 to correspond with changes 
in force structure and missions, the reserves conversely need these 
grade increases to correspond with increases in assigned world-wide 
missions, contingency deployments and need for greater share of 
resources.
  Accordingly, my command equity amendment, while creating a few more 
three star positions, does not exacerbate that situation by increasing 
the overall numbers of senior officers in the Army or Air Force. This 
over abundance of high grade officers is not the case for the Navy and 
the Marines, who are not now flush with senior grade billets; 
therefore, my amendment does provide new billets that the Navy and 
Marines really would need.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased today that Chairman Warner, Senator 
Levin, and others who have been working on this bill have seen it 
fitting to agree and to accept as an amendment that there will be a 
series of three-star ranks given to the Reserve Forces of the United 
States. That is a critically important matter.
  For a few minutes, I would like to explain why it is equitable and 
fair and why this will be an important step forward for the Reserves. I 
served for 13 years in the Army Reserve. In the unit I served there was 
a chief of staff. I remember getting out after 13 years and he remained 
in and was activated for 6 months for Desert Storm. Reservists all over 
America, like those in the 11-84 transportational unit, are being 
deployed; 33,000 have now been called up for the Kosovo activities.
  In Desert Storm, in Kuwait, the Iraq war, 33 percent of the forces 
committed to that war were Reserves or National Guard. I am including 
National Guard when I talk about the Reserve components. They play a 
critical role. Yet, in our allocation of rank, they have not been 
treated, in my opinion, fairly. It impacts on them when they seek to 
make sure that the interests of the National Guard and Reserves are 
properly taken care of. When the brass sits around the table and 
decides how we are going to deal with the limited amount of resources 
available, the Army Reserve, the Naval Reserve, the Air Force Reserve 
and the Marine Reserve--their officers sit there with just two stars. 
They do not have the same level of clout that they would otherwise 
have.
  I would like to share a few things with you. I have some charts that 
deal primarily with the United States Army Reserve, but the numbers are 
similar regarding the Navy, Air Force, and the National Guard units. 
The Chief of the Army Reserve is now a two-star general. In the course 
of his duties, he is required to evaluate 57 brigadier generals. That 
is one star, and there are 42 major generals with two stars just like 
himself. That is a responsibility he has,

[[Page S6213]]

whereas in the Active Army a four-star general is only required to 
evaluate 31 brigadier generals, one star, and ten major generals, two 
stars.

  This shows you what a four-star has responsibility for and what the 
Chief of Army Reserve has. In the Active Army, a three-star general is 
responsible for evaluating an average of just seven brigadier generals 
and two major generals, but he has a higher rank than the Chief of the 
Army Reserve who has to rate 57 brigadiers and 42 major generals.
  It strikes me that we have gone a little bit too far in containing 
the rank available for the important position of Chief of Army Reserve.
  The Chief of the Army Reserve also, for example, has full 
responsibility for $3.372 billion in the fiscal year 1999 
appropriations. That is nearly triple that of a field three-star 
general, and over 62 percent, almost as much, as a four-star field 
active-duty general. An active three-star general's prorated share of 
the Active Army 1999 appropriations is a mere $1 million.
  Let me show you this chart. I think it again adds some impact to what 
I am saying.
  The General Chief of the Army Reserve commands over 1 million total 
Army reserves. Those include those who are in retired status, subject 
to being recalled; the active reservists, which has 200,000; the ready 
reserves, which are subject to a more immediate callup; plus 18,000 FTS 
personnel and nearly 4,300 civilian personnel; whereas a field Active 
Army four-star commands an average of only 48,000 troops plus 
civilians.
  So you can begin to see the situation we are facing. I do not believe 
it reflects a proper balance.
  Two years ago, the Appropriations Committee asked the Department of 
Defense to submit an analysis of this situation for improvement. That 
report has not been received as requested.
  It seems to me plainly obvious that we need at least three-star 
generals in charge of the Army Reserve and the Naval Reserve--a three-
star general for Army Reserve, Naval Reserve, and Air Force Reserve, 
Marine Reserve. There is one three-star general in the National Guard. 
Because of their large size--they are bigger than any one of the other 
components--we believe they need two three-star generals. With that, I 
believe we will have a more appropriate balance in the leadership and 
rank in our Defense Department.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to speak in support 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend our colleague. He is a very 
valuable member of the committee.
  I was privileged to be in the Pentagon when Secretary Melvin Laird 
devised the total force concept, which means the United States of 
America looks to its national security in terms of not only the Active 
Forces but the Reserve and the Guard. That was the turning point, a 
recognition for those men and women who so proudly and in a great deal 
of sacrifice in terms of their private lives--because they have to 
balance a full-time job in most instances together with Reserve and 
Guard commitments requiring them very often to forgo their vacations--
contribute that time to their desired slots in the Reserve and the 
Guard.
  Therefore, I strongly support this amendment.
  I want to clarify one thing. This does not add any more numbers of 
general or flag officers to the total number now in the Pentagon. The 
numbers that will be used for these promotions are to be drawn from a 
number within the ranks of each of the departments of the military.
  Am I not correct on that?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. In fact, there are 45, now, three-star 
generals in the Army. This would only involve two of those.
  Mr. WARNER. Just by way of quick anecdote, when I was Secretary of 
Navy, I felt so strongly about the Naval Reserve that I promoted the 
then two-star admiral to the grade of three, and he served in that 
grade throughout my tenure. The day after I left the Department, the 
third star disappeared, and it never reappeared again until this moment 
when we agree to this amendment. I hope it will become law.
  I commend the Senator.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 477

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I call up amendment No. 477.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  This amendment requires that the President and the Department of 
Defense come forward and report on the missions we have throughout the 
world.
  One thing that has become very clear to me as I have visited with our 
troops--whether it is in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, whether it is in 
Bosnia or in Albania just 2 weeks ago--is that our troops are 
overdeployed.
  Secretary Bill Cohen said in testimony just last week to the Defense 
Appropriations Committee that we have either too few people or too many 
missions. The fact is that this is beginning to show the wear and tear 
on our military. Between 1986 and 1998, the number of American military 
deployments per year nearly tripled at the same time that the 
Department of Defense budget was reduced by 38 percent. There is no 
question that our military is stretched. No one disagrees with that.
  The Department of Defense is asking for help. Congress realizes that 
this is a problem and has continually tried to increase the military 
spending, including pay raises for our military to give them more 
chances to live a quality of life. But the fact is that we have to do 
something about either overdeployment or too few numbers. In fact, our 
present military strategy is to deter and defeat large-scale cross-
border aggression in two distant theaters in an overlapping timeframe.
  We have the deterrence of Iraq and Iran in southwest Asia and the 
deterrence of North Korea in northeast Asia. That represents two such 
potentially large-scale cross-border theater requirements. In addition 
to that, we have 120,000 troops permanently assigned to those theaters 
and 70,000 in addition to that assigned to non-NATO, nonspecific-threat 
foreign countries. The United States has more than 6,000 in Bosnia-
Herzegovina and many others around the world. What we need to do is to 
start to prioritize where our missions are and where American troops 
should be deployed.
  On May 27 of this year, the Secretary of the Air Force announced a 
stop-loss program that places a temporary hold on transfers, 
separation, and retirement from the Air Force. This is a decision that 
is normally reserved for wartime or severe conflicts. And, yet, we now 
have in place that no one can separate from the Air Force.
  My amendment says it is the sense of Congress that the readiness of 
our U.S. military forces to execute the national security strategy is 
being eroded from a combination of declining defense budgets and 
expanded mission. It says to the President that we must have a report 
that prioritizes ongoing global missions, that the President shall 
include a report on the feasibility and analysis of how the United 
States can shift resources from low-priority missions in support of 
high-priority missions, and consolidate the use of U.S. troop 
commitments worldwide, and end low-priority missions. This is a report 
that the President would make through the Department of Defense to 
prioritize these missions.
  I believe the Department of Defense has been looking for this type of 
opportunity to prioritize and to say we are going to look at the wear 
and tear on our military and we are going to have to make some final 
decisions.
  I think when we get this report we will be able to see if, in fact, 
we need more military and we need to ``ramp up'' the military force 
strength in our country or whether we can prioritize the overseas 
missions and stop the overdeployment and the mission fatigue that so 
many of our military people have.
  I am very pleased to offer this amendment. I think it is a step in 
the right direction. It is a positive step toward relieving our very 
stretched military. Certainly, as we are watching events unfold in 
Kosovo and we are seeing more and more of our military being called up, 
I think it is time for

[[Page S6214]]

Members to assess everywhere we are in the world and ask the President 
to prioritize those. Then Congress can work with the President to 
determine if we need to ramp up our military force structure or ramp 
down the number of deployments that we have around the world.
  I ask that the amendment be agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I commend the Senator from Texas. This is a very 
important amendment. I am a cosponsor. I believe it is acceptable on 
this side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment is acceptable here. It 
performs a useful purpose. The Defense Department has in the past given 
the Senate these lists, but this updates it and gives us a little more 
detail. I think it is very important we know all of our missions and 
how many people are involved around the world.
  We have no objection to it at all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The question is on agreeing 
to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 477) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that we return to the amendment 
numbered 446. I also ask unanimous consent that the two-speech rule not 
apply to the remarks about which I am about to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 446

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the country established the independence of 
the weapons laboratory directors for a reason. We are lucky to have had 
the weapons laboratories that have been such an important, integral 
part of this country. They are one of the main reasons the cold war 
ended. They have been established independently so that the President 
and the Congress could expect independent and objective reporting of 
the directors' honest judgment regarding assessment of the safety and 
reliability of nuclear weapon stockpile. We are talking about thousands 
of nuclear warheads.
  The problem in the world today is the fact that we have too many 
nuclear warheads, but those that we have must be maintained to be safe 
and reliable. It is a responsibility of our weapon laboratories to make 
sure that, in fact, is the case.
  This amendment, No. 446, strips our laboratory directors of this 
independent objective status. The amendment makes the laboratory 
directors directly subject to the supervision and direction of the 
administration.
  What this means, in very direct language, is that we will get the 
opinion of the administration regarding stockpile safety and 
reliability--not the lab director's expertise and, therefore, their 
opinion. They will say what the President tells them to say, what the 
administration tells them to say--not what their scientists and 
engineers tell them is appropriate with these weapons of mass 
destruction. There will no longer be any reason to believe that 
stockpile assessments are founded on scientific and technical fact.
  If this amendment comes to be we should just declare the stockpile 
adequate and simply not bother evaluating it for safety and 
reliability. This would be a tragedy not only for this country but the 
world.
  That is the reason that the Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, 
wrote a letter yesterday to the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, the senior Senator from Virginia. He said, among other 
things in this letter, ``The proposal would effectively cancel my 6-
month effort to strengthen security at the Department in the wake of 
the Chinese espionage issue,'' and he goes on to say if this proposal 
is adopted by the Congress, ``I will recommend to the President he veto 
the defense authorization bill.''
  This has gone a step further, separate and apart from the letter--the 
President will veto this bill if this language is in the bill.
  This proposal would reverse reforms in the Department of Energy. 
According to the Secretary of Energy, still referring to this letter to 
Chairman Warner:

       This proposal would reverse reforms in the Department of 
     Energy going back to the Bush Administration by placing 
     oversight responsibilities within defense programs. A program 
     would be in charge of its own security oversight, its own 
     health oversight and its own safety oversight.

  He says the fox will, in fact, be guarding the chicken coop.
  Secretary Richardson says in the final paragraph of this letter:

       In short, the security mission cuts across the entire 
     Department, not just defense programs facilities. We need a 
     structure that gives this important function proper 
     visibility and focus and provides the means to hold the 
     appropriate line manager responsible.
  The Secretary of Energy is a person who served in the Congress of the 
United States for about 16 years, who served as the Ambassador to the 
United Nations, who has been involved in some of the most responsible 
and sensitive negotiations in the last 10 years that have taken place 
in this country, traveling all over the world, working to free 
hostages, and doing other things upon the recommendation and under the 
auspices of the President.
  We are told that this bill, in effect, is going nowhere if this 
amendment is in there.
  Why? This isn't the way to legislate. The legislative process is an 
orderly process, or should be an orderly process. If there is a bill 
that is to be heard, there should be hearings held on that bill, 
especially one as sensitive as this that deals with the nuclear 
stockpile of the United States. We have had no hearings. There are 
multiple committees that have jurisdiction. We know that the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee has jurisdiction. We know the Armed 
Services Committee has jurisdiction.
  The Cox-Dicks report--which was a bipartisan report and we should 
treat it as such--said the problems with the laboratories as far as the 
espionage problems go back at least three administrations. Secretary 
Richardson has reported this past week that 85 percent of the report's 
recommendations are already adopted or in the process of being adopted 
and, in fact, the report was one that most everyone agrees did a good 
job. Congressman Cox and Congressman Dicks did a good job.
  I don't think it is appropriate that we go charging forth for 
political reasons to attempt to embarrass the administration or to 
embarrass Secretary Richardson. This deals with the most sensitive 
military resources we have--management of nuclear weapons. To change 
how that takes place, while keeping them safe and reliable, in an 
amendment being discussed in the few hours prior to a congressional 
recess, is not the way to go, especially when there have been no 
congressional hearings. This committee deserves to take a look at 
calling witnesses.
  In short, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. As I have 
said earlier today, this amendment is not going to go away. This deals 
with the security of this Nation. When I finish speaking, there are 
other Senators wishing to speak. I see the junior Senator from New 
Mexico who is going to speak, the senior Senator from Illinois said he 
will speak, we will have Senator Boxer from California speak. It will 
take a considerable period of time before enough is said about this 
amendment.
  If adopted, this amendment would make the most sweeping changes in 
the Department structure and management since the Department's creation 
in 1977. This amendment fundamentally overturns the most basic 
organizational decisions made about the Department when it was created. 
It does it without any congressional hearings, without any oversight 
hearings, without any investigations having taken place. These changes 
will result in long-term damage to the Department of Energy. The 
defense National Laboratories will be tremendously compromised as 
scientific institutions.
  The weapons laboratories have always been held out as being 
scientific institutions, not political institutions. Those who deal 
with these laboratories--and I had the good fortune the last 3 years to 
be the ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee that 
appropriates money for these laboratories--I have found the people that 
work in these laboratories to be some of the most nonpolitical people I 
have ever dealt with in my entire political

[[Page S6215]]

career. They are not involved in politics. They are involved in 
science. We shouldn't change that.
  Today, their work--that is, the work of the National Laboratories on 
national security--is underpinned by scientific excellence, in a wide 
range of civilian programs that sustained needed core competency at the 
laboratories.

  This amendment, No. 446, will result in the Department of Energy's 
defense-related laboratories losing their multipurpose character to the 
detriment of the laboratories themselves as scientific institutions and 
to the detriment of their ability to respond to defense needs.
  This change reverses management improvements made at DOE by a series 
of Secretaries of Energy under both Republican and Democratic 
administrations. These improvements were made after careful 
consideration and review by these Secretaries. They looked at the 
management deficiencies they encountered during their tenures. There 
were hearings held in the Congress before the rightful committees, and 
decisions were made as to what changes the Secretaries recommended 
should be made in permanent law. That is how we should do things. That 
is not how we are doing things with this bill.
  These improvements made part of the law have been made by careful 
review by the Secretaries of the management deficiencies they 
encountered during their tenures. This amendment re-creates 
dysfunctional management relationships at the Department of Energy that 
have proven in the past not to work. I repeat, these sweeping changes 
are being proposed on the floor of the Senate without any input from 
the committees of jurisdiction over general department management--that 
is, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, or the committee 
with specific jurisdiction over atomic energy defense activities--this 
committee, the Committee on Armed Services.
  The two managers of this bill have worked very, very hard. As I said 
the other day, on Monday evening, I do not know of two more competent 
managers we could have for a piece of legislation. They have dedicated 
their lives to Government. They have dedicated much of their adult 
lives to making sure the United States is safe and secure. They have 
worked very hard to have a bill that should be completed today, a very 
important bill dealing with the armed services of the United States. We 
should not let this stand in its way. We should not have a bill that 
comes out of here that is vetoed. We do not need this information in 
the bill.
  To this point, this bill has been proceeding forward on a bipartisan 
basis. This is the way legislation should move forward. We have been 
working on this bill for a few short days. In the past, it has taken as 
many as 14 days of floor activity to complete this legislation. These 
two very competent managers are completing this bill, if we get rid of 
this, completing this bill in 4 days. We should go forward.
  There are so many important things in this bill that need to be 
completed that we should do that. If my friends on the other side--my 
friends, the Senator from Arizona and the senior Senator from New 
Mexico--if they really think there are problems in this regard I will 
work with them. I will work from my position as the ranking member of 
the Energy and Water Subcommittee. I will do whatever I can to make 
sure, if they believe a bill needs to come forward on the floor dealing 
with these things, we would not object to a motion to proceed, that 
they could bring this bill forward on the floor. We do not want to hold 
up this bill. But the bill is being held up, not because of anything we 
are doing on this side but because of this mischievous legislation.
  I say to my two friends, the Senator from Arizona and the Senator 
from New Mexico--who are not on the floor; they are two Senators for 
whom I have the greatest respect--this is not the way to proceed on 
this. No matter how strongly they feel about what went on with the 
Chinese espionage, whatever the reasons might be, let's work together 
and see if, in fact, after we go through the normal legislative 
process, with hearings, with committees of jurisdiction, that their 
method is the way to proceed. Certainly, we are not going to proceed on 
an afternoon with a bill of this importance, without, I repeat, 
committee hearings and the other things that go into good legislation.

  These sweeping changes are being proposed with no supporting 
analysis, no public record. Indeed, the changes to be made fly in the 
face of past recommendations made by distinguished experts and past 
reports of congressional hearings on the subject--DOE Organization, 
Reorganization and Management.
  These changes are firmly opposed, and that is an understatement, by 
the administration, and I think we should pull this amendment so we can 
go forward with this bill. The absurdity of this amendment is even more 
striking when you see who the senior management officials in the 
Department of Energy are at this time. Think of this. The current Under 
Secretary of Energy is Dr. Ernest Moniz, who, if not the top nuclear 
physicist in the country is one of the top nuclear physicists in the 
whole country. This man is the former chairman of the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology's physics department--the most prestigious, 
famous institution of science in this country, especially their physics 
department.
  Under this amendment, Secretary Moniz would be forbidden by law from 
helping Secretary Richardson, whose office is 40 feet away, manage and 
direct this program. He could not exercise any role in the management 
of the Department's nuclear weapons research and development. Is this a 
crazy result? The answer is, obviously, yes, it is a crazy result.
  The safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile is absolutely 
critical to our national security and to the U.S. policy and strategy 
for international peace and nonproliferation. My friend from New 
Mexico, the junior Senator from New Mexico, is going to talk about why 
this amendment substantively is so bad. I want to talk more about 
procedurally why it is so bad. I have tried to lay that out. It is 
procedurally bad because we should not be here today talking about this 
as we are now. There should be a bill introduced, referral to committee 
or committees and a committee hearing or hearings with people coming 
forward to talk about this issue.
  This is not whether we are going to change the way boxing matches are 
held in this country or how much money we are going to give to highways 
in this country. This deals with approximately 6,000 nuclear warheads, 
any one of which, as a weapon of mass destruction, would cause untold 
damage to both people and property. So this is not how we should 
proceed on this legislation. We should proceed on this legislation in 
an orderly fashion.
  I say to my friends, the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from 
Arizona, if they are right--which I certainly do not think they are--
but if they are right, then let's have this legislation in the openness 
of a legislative hearing, the openness of the legislative process.
  This amendment No. 446 causes us to be in the midst of protracted 
debate when we should be trying to complete this most important 
legislation.
  We are in the midst of a major change in the way we ensure this 
critical stockpile safety and reliability because we can no longer 
demonstrate weapons performance with nuclear tests.
  We have had approximately 1,000 nuclear weapons tests in the State of 
Nevada--approximately 1,000. Some of these tests were set off in the 
atmosphere. We did not know, at the time, the devastation these nuclear 
devices would cause, not to the area where the devices were detonated, 
but what happened with the winds blowing radioactive fallout into 
southern Utah, creating the highest rates of cancer anyplace in the 
United States as a result.
  I would awaken in the mornings as a little boy and watch the tests, 
watch the detonation, and see that orange flash in the sky. It was a 
long way from where I was, but not so far that you could not see this 
orange ball, over 100 miles away or more, that would light up the 
morning sky. It was not far enough away that you could not hear the 
noise. Still, we were very fortunate in that the wind did not blow 
toward Searchlight, my hometown; it blew the other way.
  We have set off over 1,000 of these nuclear weapons in the air, 
underground, in tunnels, shafts. We cannot do that anymore. We cannot 
do it because there has been an agreement made saying we are no longer 
going to test in

[[Page S6216]]

that manner. We have to manage our nuclear stockpile using science and 
computer simulation instead of nuclear testing. This is a terribly, 
terribly complex job. The greatest minds in the world are trying to 
figure out how they can understand these weapons of mass destruction to 
make sure they are safe and reliable.
  It needs all of our attention and energy because we must demonstrate 
with high confidence that this job can be done without returning to 
nuclear testing. We have not proven that the stockpile can be 
maintained without nuclear testing, but we are doing everything we can 
to succeed.
  We have developed a program called subcritical testing. What does 
that mean? It means that components of a nuclear device are tested in a 
high explosive detonation. The fact is, the components cannot develop 
into a critical mass, necessary for a nuclear detonation. It is 
subcritical. As a result of computerization, they are able to determine 
what would have happened had the tests become critical. We are working 
on that. We think it works, but there is a lot more we need to do. We 
need, for example, to develop computers that are 100 times faster than 
the ones now in existence. Some say, we need computers 1,000 times 
faster than the ones now in existence to ensure these nuclear weapons, 
nuclear devices, are safe and reliable.
  This tremendously demanding job is made even more difficult by all 
the other problems with managing the nuclear stockpile. For example, we 
have to clean up the legacy of the cold war at our production 
facilities. We are spending billions of dollars every year doing that. 
We need to develop the facilities and skills for stockpile stewardship. 
We need to maintain an enduring, skilled workforce.
  The people who worked in this nuclear testing for so long are an 
aging population. We have to make sure we have people who have the 
expertise and the ability to continue ensuring that these weapons are 
safe and reliable. We need to provide the special nuclear materials for 
the stockpile, because the material that makes up a nuclear weapon does 
not last forever. Tritium, for example, has a life expectancy in a 
weapon of maybe 12 years. Weapons have to be continually monitored to 
determine if they are safe and reliable.
  All these things are complicated by the discovery that some of our 
most closely guarded nuclear secrets about our stockpile have been 
compromised over the past 20 years. That makes it even more difficult 
and makes it even more important that we proceed to ensure that in the 
future our nuclear stockpile is safe, that it is not seen by eyes that 
should not see the secrets that go into our nuclear stockpile. We 
should not be determining the afternoon before the Memorial Day recess 
how we are going to do that.

  Secretary Richardson is one of the most open, available Secretaries 
with whom I have dealt in my 17 years. He is open to the majority; he 
is open to the minority. We should not do this to him. He is a 
dedicated public servant. We need to concentrate on the most important 
things right now, not later.
  I do not think an ill-conceived administrative change--and that is 
what it is; we are legislating administrative changes in the way that 
this most important, difficult job is being managed --is the most 
important thing we can do right now. Clearly, it is not. We have far 
more pressing matters to attend to in the nuclear stockpile.
  We talk about the stockpile, but it is a nuclear stockpile. It is 
something we have to maintain closely, carefully, to make sure it is 
safe and reliable. We need to improve our computational capability; I 
said by 100, others say by 1,000 or more, beyond the advances we have 
already made. That is where we need to direct our attention. We need to 
develop new simulation computer programs that will make effective use 
of these higher performance machines.
  I have been in the tunnels where these subcritical tests are 
conducted. I have been in the tunnels where the critical tests were 
conducted. We need to continue, I repeat, making sure these weapons of 
mass destruction are safe and reliable.
  We need to design, as I say, advanced experimental facilities to 
provide the data for this advanced simulation capability.
  We need to hire and train the next generation of weapons physicists 
and technicians before our experienced workforce really withers away.
  We have to continue the training of these individuals, not only 
continue the training but have work for them to do, which we will 
surely do.
  We need to establish better and more effective controls in how we do 
these jobs to ensure no further environmental contamination at our 
working sites. Hanford, that is an environmental disaster; Savannah 
River, environmental disaster. We cannot let that take place anymore.
  We should be directing our attention to those efforts, not 
legislating on a bill that we should have completed by now. We could 
have completed this bill, and I think we will if we can figure out some 
way to get rid of this amendment.
  We need to establish better and more effective controls in how we do 
those jobs, making sure we do not have Savannah Rivers or Hanford, WA, 
sites where we are spending billions upon billions of dollars to make 
those places environmentally sensitive and clean.
  Just as important--maybe more important--we need to implement 
effective security measures that will protect our secrets without 
unnecessary interference in this very important work. Whatever we do in 
this terribly important job, we need to do it right.
  There is neither the time nor the money to make mistakes. This 
proposed change in management of the nuclear weapons program is not the 
right thing to do right now. I feel fairly confident, having spent 
considerable time speaking to Secretary Richardson, that he is really 
dedicated to doing the right thing. He does not want to remedy the 
problems in the weapons labs with our weapons systems in a Democratic 
fashion--I am talking in the form of a party--or a Republican fashion. 
He wants to do it in a bipartisan fashion.
  This amendment No. 446 would make the most sweeping changes in the 
Department of Energy structure and management since its creation in 
1977. These drastic changes would be made with no consideration or 
suggestions, I repeat, by the committee of jurisdiction. They would be 
made with no consideration or suggestions by the committee that has 
general management jurisdiction; that is, the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources; or the committee that has jurisdiction over atomic 
energy defense activities, the Armed Services Committee.
  There have been no hearings and testimony by proponents and opponents 
of a change, and not just this proposed change, but other proposed 
changes as well.
  These jurisdictional considerations and testimony by credible 
witnesses are mandatory for such a change, because what is being 
proposed is not obviously better than the present program management 
framework.
  I want to take this opportunity to compliment the Secretary of 
Energy--with whom I came to Congress in the same year--for his 
energetic response to the problems that have come to light since he 
assumed his responsibilities. I think his public and private statements 
regarding the possible compromise by the Chinese or others have been 
outstanding. I think he has done extremely well. No Secretary in my 
memory has taken such forthright and aggressive actions to remedy 
problems in this most complex and, I repeat, important Department. He 
is searching out the Department's problems. He is doing everything he 
can to correct these deficiencies.
  Let's give him a chance to succeed. I am confident he will. I know 
the Secretary has an outstanding relationship with one of the authors 
of this legislation, the senior Senator from New Mexico. Secretary 
Richardson is from New Mexico. He served in Congress for many years 
from New Mexico. He has a good working relation with the junior Senator 
from New Mexico and, frankly, with most everyone in this body. Let's 
give him a chance to be successful.
  This amendment has not been given, I believe, enough thought. There 
are obvious deficiencies in this proposal. Damage to our weapons 
laboratories' capabilities would surely occur under the terms of this 
amendment. The National Weapons Laboratories are truly multiprogram 
laboratories, providing their skills and facilities, unmatched anywhere 
in the world.

[[Page S6217]]

  We talk about how proud we are of our National Institutes of Health, 
and we should be, because it does the finest medical research that has 
ever been done in the history of the world. That is going on as we 
speak. But likewise, the National Laboratories are truly unmatched 
anywhere in the world for the solution of critical defense and 
nondefense problems as well.
  We think of the Laboratories as only working with nuclear weapons. 
But the genome research was started in one of our National 
Laboratories. Many, many things that are now being developed and worked 
on in the private sector were originally developed with our National 
Laboratories.
  Enactment of this amendment would isolate these multiprogram national 
assets, making their contributions to other than defense work very 
difficult, if not impossible. This isolation would reduce and erode the 
technical scope and skills within the weapons laboratories, and that 
might result in missing an important national defense opportunity.

  I am absolutely confident that the directors of the weapons labs will 
testify to the enormous defense benefits that accompany the opportunity 
to attack important nondefense problems. I repeat that. There is no 
doubt in my mind that the directors of the National Laboratories would 
testify privately or publicly to the enormous defense benefits that 
accompany the opportunity they have had in the past and continue to 
have to attack important nondefense problems. That opportunity exists 
because the weapons program is not isolated within the Department, as 
it would be in this amendment.
  There is a critical need to rebuild our confidence that necessary 
work can be done in a secure way and within a secure environment. I am 
very uncomfortable with placing the management of security in a 
position where it might compete with the management of the technical 
program. That critical function needs to exist independently of the 
program function so that these two equally important matters can be 
managed without conflict.
  This amendment would require unnecessary duplication and redundancy 
of activities in the Department of Energy. Security of nuclear 
materials and information is necessary for activities that would not be 
included in the administration proposed by this amendment. This would 
require separate security organizations to undertake the same and other 
very similar functions. There is not enough money to allow this kind of 
inefficiency to creep into the weapons program.
  The Secretary of Energy and the President of the United States oppose 
this amendment. The President promises to veto the defense 
authorization bill if it is included in the bill. I personally oppose 
this proposal for the reasons I have mentioned, and many other reasons 
that at the right time I will be happy to discuss.
  I have worked with the senior Senator from New Mexico now for 3 years 
as ranking member, and many other years as a member of his 
subcommittee. I just think there is a better way to do this. I know of 
the time and effort he has spent with the National Laboratories. I 
believe this amendment compromises the National Laboratories.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment or to vote for 
the motion to table, which I am sure will precede an opportunity to 
vote on this ill-conceived and untimely measure.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks 
not count against the two-speech rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first just say that I have had a 
chance now to read the amendment. We received it at about 1:15, about 
10 minutes into the description of the amendment by the Senator from 
Arizona.
  I have had that chance to read it. It is really three separate 
provisions. I just want to briefly point out that two of them are 
totally acceptable to this Senator, at least as I see it.
  The first, of course, would put into statute the provision 
establishing an Office of Counterintelligence in the Department of 
Energy. This is something which was done as a result of Presidential 
Decision Directive 61 in February of 1998. It is something which the 
previous Secretary of Energy has done administratively. This Secretary 
has carried through on that. Clearly, this is a good thing to do, and 
putting it in statutory form is also helpful.
  So I have no problem with that part of the amendment at all. I would 
support that. In fact, I point out that those provisions, with very few 
changes, are in the underlying bill. But I can certainly agree to 
whatever changes the authors of this amendment would like to see in 
that section.
  The second part of the three parts in this bill is establishing the 
Office of Intelligence. Again, I believe this is totally appropriate. 
Again, this is something that the administration has already done 
administratively, but clearly there can be a good argument made that we 
should put this in statute. I have no problem with that. Again, the 
underlying bill which we are considering has in it the establishment of 
the Office of Intelligence. So if this version of that legislative 
provision has some improvements in it, that certainly is appropriate. I 
do not oppose that.
  The third part of the amendment is the part which I find very 
objectionable. Let me use the rest of my time to just describe the 
nature of my concern about the rest of it.
  The third part of the amendment is the part designated ``Nuclear 
Security Administration.'' This sets up a totally new organizational 
structure within the Department of Energy which is, as my good friend 
and colleague from Nevada said, by far the most far-reaching 
reorganization of the Department of Energy since that Department was 
created 22 years ago in 1977.
  The reasons I object to this provision, as it now stands, are 
several. Let me start by saying that I object to it because of the 
procedure we followed in getting to where we are today. This is an 
important proposal. It has far-reaching ramifications. Much of what we 
do here in the Senate is impacted by the law of unintended 
consequences, and this is a prime example of something that is going to 
produce substantial unintended consequences, in my opinion.

  We have had many studies about the problems in the Department of 
Energy. Some of those have been very useful. None of those studies have 
suggested that we solve the problems with this solution.
  The last time we had a hearing on the problems of organization in the 
Department of Energy was in September of 1996. That was nearly 3 years 
ago. I sit on the committee, as does my colleague from New Mexico, as 
do many of us involved in this discussion, I sit on the committee that 
has jurisdiction over this Department, the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee. In that committee, we have had a great many hearings on the 
Chinese espionage problem. We have had six hearings in that committee 
alone. We have had one joint hearing with the Armed Services Committee, 
which I also sit on. That is seven hearings.
  In none of those hearings have we considered any of this set of 
recommendations. In none of those hearings have we asked the Secretary 
of Energy to come forward and explain what changes he thinks might be 
appropriate or whether or not these kinds of proposals might be 
appropriate as a way to fix the problem.
  My friend, the Senator from Arizona, said it would be a derogation of 
our duty if we didn't go ahead and pass this this afternoon. I say it 
is almost a derogation of our duty if we do pass it this afternoon, 
because we will not have given the administration a chance to react. We 
will not have given the administration a chance to explain why they 
oppose this. I think that is the only reasonable course to follow.
  Another suggestion was made by my colleague from Arizona that 
although Secretary Richardson had objected to an earlier draft, he was 
fairly confident that those problems had been resolved in the latest 
bill, which is the one we received at 1:15.
  I have in my hand here--I will ask unanimous consent that it be 
printed in the Record--a letter from Secretary Richardson just received 
a few minutes ago in which he says:

       I have reviewed the latest version of the amendment being 
     offered by Senator Domenici to the Defense Authorization 
     bill. I am still deeply concerned that it moves the 
     Department of Energy and its effort to improve

[[Page S6218]]

     security in the wrong direction. I remain firmly opposed to 
     the amendment, and I want to reiterate my intention to 
     recommend to the President that he veto the Defense 
     Authorization bill if this proposal is adopted by the 
     Congress.

  He goes on to explain in more detail why that is his view.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                     Washington, DC, May 27, 1999.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: I have reviewed the latest version 
     of the amendment being offered by Senator Domenici to the 
     defense authorization bill. I am still deeply concerned that 
     it moves the Department of Energy and its effort to improve 
     security in the wrong direction. I remain firmly opposed to 
     the amendment and want to reiterate my intention to recommend 
     to the President that he veto the defense authorization bill 
     if this proposal is adopted by the Congress.
       As I stated in my letter of May 25, 1999, our security 
     program deserves a senior departmental advocate, with no 
     missions ``conflict of interest'' to focus full time on the 
     security mission. The requirements of the security program 
     should not compete with other programmatic priorities in 
     Defense Programs for the time and attention of the senior 
     management of that program, as well as for budgetary 
     resources. Resource competition has been a core problem of 
     Department of Energy security for decades, and we have seen 
     firsthand that inherent conflicts arise and security suffers 
     when the office that must devote resources to the security 
     mission has a competing primary mission, such as Stockpile 
     Stewardship. It is critical that we have a separate office 
     setting security policy and requirements in order to avoid 
     financial and other pressures from limiting security 
     requirements and operations.
       Also, it is important to recognize that the Environmental 
     Management Program has significant security responsibilities 
     for securing large quantities of nuclear weapons materials at 
     its sites--Rocky Flats, Hanford, and Savannah River. Under 
     this proposal, if the security function were exclusively 
     located in Defense Programs, it would undermine my ability to 
     hold my top line manager for the clean-up sites accountable.
       In short, the security mission cuts across the entire 
     department, not just Defense Programs facilities. We need a 
     structure that gives this important function proper 
     visibility and focus and provides the means to hold the 
     appropriate line managers responsible.
       I appreciate your attention to this serious matter.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                  Bill Richardson.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. So procedurally, we should not be here on a Thursday 
afternoon, where the very distinguished manager of the bill, the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has said we need to finish 
this bill in the next hour and a half. We need to leave town. Everyone 
has their plane reservations. We have to fly out. And by the way, 
before we leave, let's reorganize the Department of Energy.
  This is not a responsible way for us to proceed. Accordingly, I do 
object to the procedure.
  Let me talk about the substance. My friend from Arizona, who is a 
prime sponsor on the bill, described the bill fairly accurately when he 
said, this bill, this provision, the third part of the amendment that I 
have said is objectionable, the establishment of this Nuclear Security 
Administration, says this bill creates a stovepipe. That is his exact 
quote. I agree that that is what happens.
  Let me use this chart beside me here to describe very briefly how the 
Department of Energy functions now.
  The Secretary of Energy is in charge of the Department of Energy. 
There are, under the Secretary, various subdepartments. We have defense 
programs. We have environmental management, energy efficiency, nuclear 
nonproliferation, fossil energy and science.
  With regard to each of those, the Secretary has established--and much 
of this has been done by Secretary Richardson in the 6 months he has 
been there--some crosscutting responsibilities. Some people with 
crosscutting responsibilities are directly answerable to the Secretary. 
One is the director of counterintelligence. This was a major step 
forward, and I think everybody who sat through these hearings would 
acknowledge that this was a major step forward. This was one of the 
actions that was taken, really, by Secretary Richardson's predecessor, 
when Ed Curran, who is the gentleman who has been put in the Office of 
Director of Counterintelligence, was hired. This was in April of 1998.
  That individual, the director of counterintelligence, under the 
administrative procedure now in place, and under the provisions of this 
bill, has crosscutting responsibility for counterintelligence in each 
of the parts of the Department of Energy; in fact, in each laboratory. 
Mr. Curran has testified to various of the committees up here that he 
will have a person who is responsible to him and who has authority by 
virtue of his position to demand certain actions on the issue of 
counterintelligence in each of our National Laboratories. That is as it 
should be. That is putting accountability into the counterintelligence 
system. It is a good step forward. That is a step in the right 
direction.
  A second crosscutting responsibility is the security czar on security 
policy. A third is this independent Safety and Security Oversight 
Office that Secretary Richardson has established.
  So at the present time there are those three entities that report 
directly to the Secretary of Energy on these issues related to 
security.
  These are the reforms that Secretary Richardson has been trying to 
put into place. These are the reforms that are called for under 
Presidential Decision Directive-61, and then additional administrative 
steps that have been taken by this Secretary of Energy. I believe the 
system is structured in a way that makes some sense.
  Let me now show the stovepipe organizational chart, because we have 
one of those as well. This, as Senator Kyl indicated, is a major 
change, this third part; the establishment of this Nuclear Security 
Administration is a major change in the way the Department operates.
  What essentially is done is you eliminate the defense programs 
portion of the Department of Energy and you rename that the ``Nuclear 
Security Administration.'' You put that in the so-called stovepipe. You 
say there will be no independent counterintelligence authority over how 
that agency functions. There will be no independent security oversight 
over how that agency, that independent agency or administration 
functions. There will be no environmental oversight, through the 
Department, on that. And there will be no oversight regarding health 
and safety factors relating to workers.
  Under that we put all of the facilities that relate to nuclear 
weapons. One reason why I am particularly concerned, frankly, about 
this, is that the two National Laboratories in my State would be in 
this stovepipe. I do not know that that is good for them long term. I 
have great doubts that that is good for them long term. I really do 
have doubts as to whether that is a wise course for us to follow.
  One problem--and I think the Senator from Nevada referred to this--is 
that under this new arrangement, it makes it very clear with very 
specific language here; it says the administrator of this new stovepipe 
agency, who shall report directly to and shall be accountable directly 
to the Secretary, ``the secretary may not delegate to any department 
official the duty to supervise the administrator.''
  Presumably, what that means is that Secretary Richardson could not 
ask his Under Secretary, in this case Dr. Moniz, to take on any of the 
responsibility for supervising what is going on in this so-called 
stovepipe agency. Regardless of the experience or the qualifications of 
Secretary Moniz, or any other Under Secretary, Secretary Richardson 
would have to personally exercise that oversight, or it would not be 
exercised. That is clearly not a good management arrangement.

  This stovepipe agency, as it is contemplated in this Nuclear Security 
Administration, eliminates the ability of the Secretary of the Interior 
to integrate important work on nuclear weapons with other important 
scientific work going on in the Department of Energy.
  I believe very strongly that our laboratories and our nuclear weapons 
program are strengthened by the interaction that scientists and 
engineers in that nuclear weapons program have with other scientists 
and other engineers working elsewhere in the Department of Energy. That 
would be stopped. That would be much more difficult under this kind of 
a stovepipe arrangement. There is no prohibition

[[Page S6219]]

against it happening here, but it is very clear that the head of this 
Nuclear Security Administration has all authority, and exclusive 
authority, for what goes on in his department, and there is very little 
incentive for anyone else to try to put work in those laboratories or 
interact necessarily with those laboratories on nonnuclear weapons 
activity.
  As a result of this, I fear very much--and I know my good friend and 
colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, who is a cosponsor of this 
amendment, says he believes that something like this amendment should 
be adopted by the Senate because it will keep the Congress, ultimately, 
after we conference with the House, from going even further and taking 
a step toward shifting some of this nuclear weapons responsibility to 
the Department of Defense.
  My fear is somewhat different. My fear is that this is a first and 
sort of a logical step toward going in that direction, and that if you 
are going to set up all of this nuclear weapons activity in a stovepipe 
and it is going to be cordoned off from the rest of the Department of 
Energy, as is proposed in this bill, I think it is very easy to go from 
that point to the point of saying let's just cut this loose entirely 
from the Secretary of Energy and make it responsible to the Secretary 
of Defense.
  I think that would be a serious mistake. That is a mistake that our 
predecessors had the wisdom to avoid. President Truman had the wisdom 
to avoid that. Those who set up the nuclear weapons program in this 
country decided early on that it should be in a civilian agency, it 
should not be in a Department of Defense agency; and, clearly, the 
closer we move toward making this defense-specific, defense-only, I 
think we would be making a mistake.
  Creating the stovepipe, in my view, does threaten the long-term 
vitality of our laboratories. I believe it threatens the long-term 
ability to attract people we need to these laboratories, to keep them 
world-class, cutting-edge scientific institutions.
  I may be overdramatizing, but my own view is that we have seen the 
stovepipe model in action. Two years ago, I went to the Soviet Union 
and visited Chelyabinsk-70, also referred to as Shnezinsk. Shnezinsk is 
one of the nuclear cities, one of the secret cities. When you go there, 
you see how stovepipe organizations function. There is nobody there 
doing any research on solar energy. There is nobody there worrying 
about environmental problems that might be a result of research or work 
going on at that facility. There is nobody there interacting with much 
of anyone.

  That is one of the big problems. That is why we have the nuclear 
cities initiative in this bill that we are trying to get going, to help 
these laboratories in Russia break out of the stovepipe and begin to 
interact with other elements in the society, with other scientists, and 
begin to apply their talents to other activities.
  So I am sure this is well intentioned. I am sure this proposal is 
well intentioned, and I would like very much to have some hearings and 
bring in some experts to tell us what they think of this and allow the 
administration to give us their point of view. I think that is an 
appropriate course for us to follow. But my initial reaction, after 
reading it here for the last hour and a half, or 2 hours that I have 
had this, is that it does not do what the sponsors intend. It does not 
solve the problem of Chinese espionage. It does create or result in 
many other unintended consequences that will be long-term adverse to 
our nuclear weapons program.
  Mr. President, I have great problems about it. I have a series of 
questions I was going to raise about it. I see my colleague from New 
Mexico wishing to speak. Maybe he would like to speak and I could ask 
him a few questions about this.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time has been used on the other 
side of the aisle with reference to this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit on this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand that, but did somebody keep time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will check the records.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There is no need to do that. Let me say to Senator 
Bingaman, first of all, I believe that over the past 15 years--
certainly within the last 6 or 7--and I am not casting aspersions in 
any way on anybody else, but I believe I have had as much to do with 
keeping the labs diversified as any single Member of Congress.
  I believe we have done an exciting job in dealing with the cards that 
were dealt to us when we decided not to do anymore underground testing. 
And I believe what Senator Reid spoke about, which has the very fancy 
words surrounding it--``science-based stockpiled stewardship''--you 
have no idea how long it was difficult for me to put all four of those 
words together. I used to leave half of them off. But I think I have 
got it now. It was a very complicated concept. It was imposed on a 
laboratory system that, I regret to say to you and everybody, was 
broken down.
  In fact, I am going to quote from some reports--all current ones, 
because they go back years--saying the Department of Energy, in terms 
of doing its work right for the nuclear weapons part--I haven't seen an 
analysis about solar, but that is a little program, whether they run it 
or fund it. I have not seen a report in the last decade, and there are 
two within the last 6 years, that does not say the Department of 
Energy's ability to handle nuclear weapons development is not broken to 
the core. That is principally because it is stuck in a department with 
so many other things to do that are, with reference to urgency, much 
different and much easier and not as important as nuclear weaponry and 
all that goes with it.
  Yet, decisionmakers are making decisions on refrigerator efficiency, 
and then they move over and make a decision on nuclear weapons. I would 
almost say with certainty--but I am not going to say I will predict--if 
they don't adopt this amendment--and we are going to stay here for a 
while and see if we are going to adopt it. Maybe some of you want to 
filibuster it. Some of you haven't filibustered yet, so it might be 
exciting. But I can tell you, either this model or a totally 
independent department for nuclear weapons is going to be the aftermath 
of this espionage.
  I am not worried that it is going to be the Department of Energy 
managing this because I think too many people have spoken out about 
that. But when those looking at the management end up saying it cannot 
fit in a department of the type that is the Department of Energy and be 
run in a regular, ordinary chain of command decisionmaking, which is 
what I call this proposal--you can allude to it as stovepipe. I choose 
the Marine concept that is chain of command--I almost would predict 
today--but not quite--that it will be one of those, freestanding. When, 
finally, it is determined what I have been frustrated with for years 
about the ability to manage that Department, perhaps you can manage the 
other aspects that are not so critical, but you can't manage the 
nuclear part under the current environment. It needs dramatic change.

  The reason we are on the floor and the reason we are going to finally 
get it done is because we are scared, because now it is not a question 
of efficiency and how long it takes to make decisions for nuclear 
weaponry. It is because we are frightened that we are getting kicked to 
death. So being frightened, we are going to fix something. This fix is 
not going to be a little tiny fix as we have done in the past. If 
anybody chooses to say this is the most dramatic change in 22 years 
since it was created from its former underpinnings called ERDA, which 
was another department put together with bits and pieces from 
everywhere, they are right. It is the most significant proposal to 
streamline nuclear weaponry that has ever been put forward.
  But let me suggest that this administration has had two reports, or 
three, suggesting that dramatic changes ought to be made, and nothing 
has been done of any significance.
  Secretary Richardson, in the aftermath of what some have called the 
``greatest espionage'' in our whole history, is busy and is to be 
admired and respected for trying to reform. But if you try to reform 
it, and you are the Secretary of Energy, and you are as diligent as 
Bill Richardson--and one who likes to run a lot of things, which

[[Page S6220]]

I admire him for, and one who is a good politician, so he wants to do 
things politically acceptable, especially for the White House and those 
he works for--you will never come to the conclusion that this 
Department should be streamlined such that the Secretary has only one 
person to be responsible for the nuclear weapons and they will run it 
inside out, because in a sense it diminishes the role of the Secretary.
  I don't know whether Secretary Richardson does or not. But they are 
not in office more than 6 months, and they run around calling these 
great laboratories, including those in my State, ``my laboratories.'' 
It is just like: Isn't this great? The Secretary of Energy has this 
big, $3 billion laboratory, and he calls it ``my laboratory.''
  I did not say Secretary Richardson does that. I have not heard him. 
But, if he did, he would be consistent with the other ones.
  We have a suggestion here that is probably going to make it a little 
more difficult for Secretaries of Energy to run around and call them 
``my laboratories,'' because they are going to be a laboratory system 
run by an administrator within the Department, whether he ends up being 
an Under Secretary or an Assistant Secretary who is going to run the 
whole show.
  For those who do not think there are models such as this, there are. 
You can take a look at DARPA. You can take a look within the Energy 
Department at the nuclear Navy. It is different than this, but if you 
want to look at a model that is within a big department where you have 
something structured to handle a very important role and mission, there 
are such models. As a matter of fact, there are experts who say this is 
a good model, if you want to keep it within the department.
  I want to address two other things, and I want to read some notes.
  First, if this Senator thought for 1 minute that the implementation 
of this approach would minimize the diversification and versatility of 
these three major laboratories to do outside work for the government 
and others, I would pull it this afternoon. I don't believe that will 
happen. I don't believe it is inherent in this amendment. I believe 
that if there is concern it can be fixed with language, because the 
fact that it is so poorly managed under this structure that we have is 
not what is contributing one way or another to its versatility. It is 
the efficiency and effectiveness of the scientists that are making 
these laboratories multiuse, multipurpose, multifaceted and that do 
work beyond nuclear work.
  Since my colleague asked that his first speech not be counted as two 
speeches, which I didn't object to, I gather that the other side 
doesn't intend to let us vote on this. I don't know what we should do 
about that. I will meet with our leadership. If it is just up to me, I 
will debate it as long as we can tonight, and I will go home without 
the bill completed and bring it up and take another week on it when we 
come back.
  The time is now to fix this tremendous deficiency in terms of how our 
nuclear weapons and everything attendant to it are managed.
  Secretary Richardson is doing a mighty job, but he will never fix it 
without reorganization and streamlining and chain of command that is 
provided in this amendment, which is not perfect and not the only one. 
But this is what it is intended to do.
  Let me just read a couple of things. This is Admiral Chiles' report, 
the so-called Chiles report of March 1, 1999:

       Establish clear lines of authority in DOE. The commission 
     believes that the disorderly organization within DOE has a 
     pervasive and negative impact on the working environment. 
     Therefore, on recruitment and retention, accordingly the 
     commission recommends that the Secretary of Energy organize 
     defense programs----

  That is what we are talking about----

     consistent with the recommendations of the 120-day study. We 
     recommend three structural changes.

  They recommend three, for starters.
  I use this because anybody, including my colleagues and Senator Reid, 
who has today spoken about how well the laboratories have done, would 
almost have to admit that they have done well in spite of the absolute 
chaotic condition with reference to sustained accountability within the 
laboratories as a piece of DOE.
  Frankly, I have appropriated for 5 years--this is my sixth--the 
Committee on Energy and Water, which funds totally the laboratories, to 
some extent, not totally, with reference to nuclear work and to some 
extent on nonnuclear.
  There were Congressmen asking that we create some new regional 
centers for headquarters, Albuquerque, for example, or a greater region 
somewhere in Texas and the like. We asked, rather than do that, that 
the appropriations fund a 120-day study. That was done. I am sure my 
colleague has that. If he doesn't, his staff does.
  I am going to quote from the executive summary of this, which is 
dated, incidentally, February 27, 1997. Still reports are saying ``fix 
it, fix it.''
  At the bottom of page ES-1, ``These practices''--after describing 
practices within this Department of Energy as it pertains to nuclear 
weaponry--``are constipating the system.''
  I am quoting.

       They undermine accountability, making the entire system 
     less safe. Further, the process prevents timely decisions and 
     their implementation. Untold millions of dollars are wasted 
     on idle plants and equipment awaiting approvals of various 
     types, or on investments which age and become obsolete and 
     expensive to maintain without ever having been used for the 
     original productive purposes. Finally, the defense program 
     has a job to do--maintenance of a nuclear deterrent, which is 
     not well served by the ES&H review and approval process that 
     drags on forever.

  That is the current system of environmental safety and health review 
in this Department.
  People worry about what this amendment is going to do.
  Let me tell you. This report says that we are not well served by that 
which exists in the Department now, and an approval process that drags 
on forever helps no one.
  There is much more to be read in the most current studies that kind 
of clamor for doing something dramatic and different.

       The largest problem [says this same 120-day study on page 
     ES-1] uncovered is that the defense program practices for 
     managing safety, health and environmental concerns are based 
     on nonproductive, hybrid, or centralized and decentralized 
     management practices that have evolved over the past decade. 
     It goes on to say that because they have evolved doesn't mean 
     they are effective or operative.

  I very much am pleased that Senator Bingaman yielded so I could have 
a few words. Senator, I will be back shortly, but I am called to the 
majority leader's office to discuss this issue. It will not take me 
over 15 minutes, and I will return.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. I rise to speak on behalf of an amendment I sponsored that 
was agreed to previously as part of the managers' package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kyl 
amendment, which brings new security accountability and intelligent 
administration to the Department of Energy's (DOE) nuclear weapons 
program.
  The Cox report has shown us that we have ceded design information on 
all of our most sensitive nuclear warheads and the neutron bomb to 
China. These designs, our legacy codes, and our computer data have been 
lost because of lax security at our national labs (Los Alamos, Lawrence 
Livermore, Oak Ridge, and Sandia), incompetent administrations, and 
possibly, obstructions of investigations.
  What have we lost because of this espionage? According to the Cox 
report, ``Information on seven U.S. thermonuclear warheads, including 
every currently deployed thermonuclear warhead in the U.S. ballistic 
missile arsenal.'' These warheads are the W-88, W-87, W-78, W-76, W-70, 
W-62, and W-56. China has also obtained information on a number of 
associated reentry vehicles. But it does not end there. China also has 
classified design information for the neutron bomb, which no nation has 
yet deployed. Other classified information, not available to the pubic, 
has also been stolen.
  With this information, China has made a quantum leap in the 
modernization of its nuclear arsenal. China will now be able to deploy 
a mobile nuclear force, with its first deployment as soon as 2002.
  The cost of these nuclear thefts is the security of the U.S. and the 
security of our allies in the Asia-Pacific.

[[Page S6221]]

The ability to miniaturize and place multiple warheads on a single 
ballistic missile will have serious destabilizing effects in the 
region. India is watching China warily, as are Japan, South Korea, and 
Taiwan.
  I hope that our troops in the Asia-Pacific will not have to suffer 
for a domestic security failure. I hope that we will not have to pay 
for these thefts in American lives.
  But the costs will not be limited to the Asia-Pacific region. We can 
bet that this information will not stay in the hands of China. China 
has supplied Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Libya with 
sensitive military technology in the past. We have no real guarantees 
that China will not spread our lost secrets again.
  This fiasco of security did not happen by accident. There was a 
concerted effort on behalf of the Chinese government to obtain this 
information and a lack of effort on part of certain individuals to 
protect those secrets. Janet Reno must be held accountable if she 
denied her own FBI the authority to investigate suspected spies. 
Likewise, Sandy Berger must be held accountable if he delayed 
notification of the President of the United States or if he delayed 
action on these security breaches.
  Mr. President, for two decades we have left the door to our DOE 
facilities open to thieves. We have exposed our most sensitive details 
to China. It is time to secure the door of security.
  We cannot reverse what has taken place. We cannot take back the 
information that has been stolen. But we must prevent further theft of 
our secrets.
  The Kyl amendment takes necessary steps in enhancing security at our 
DOE facilities. It establishes increased reporting requirements to 
Congress and the President, as well as layers of checks and balances to 
knock down the stone walls of silence. This amendment also gives the 
Assistant Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Weapons programs statutory 
authority to competently administer our nuclear programs and enforce 
regulations.
  But we must also recognize that this measure is not an iron sheath 
for our weapons secrets. Beyond espionage at our national labs, there 
have also been illegal transfers of sensitive missile design 
information by Loral and Hughes, two U.S. satellite manufacturers, to 
China. With this information, China can improve its military command 
and control through communications satellites.
  In its efforts to engage a ``strategic partner,'' the Clinton 
Administration loosened export controls, allowing satellite and high 
performance computer experts. Within two years of relaxing export 
controls, a steady stream of high performance computers flowed from the 
U.S. to China, giving China 600 supercomputers. Once again, China is 
using these supercomputers to advance its military capabilities. These 
high performance computers are useful for enhancing almost every sector 
of the military, including the development of nuclear weapons.
  We have not reached the bottom of this pit of security failures. The 
investigations will continue and Congress will hold the Administration 
accountable. In the meantime I urge my colleagues to support the Kyl 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 418

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, last night the 
Senate did pass an amendment I drafted establishing a policy that would 
require the President to establish a multinational embargo against 
adversary nations once our Armed Forces have become engaged in 
hostilities. I thank the chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Warner, and Senator Levin, as well as minority and 
majority staffs of the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign 
Relations Committee for working with me on this initiative.
  This amendment would impose a requirement on Presidents to seek 
multilateral economic embargoes, as well as foreign asset seizures, 
against governments with which the United States engages in armed 
hostilities.
  After 1 month of conflict in Kosovo, the Pentagon had announced that 
NATO had destroyed most of Yugoslavia's interior oil-refining capacity. 
At approximately the same point in time, we had the Secretary of State 
acknowledging that the Serbians had continued to fortify with imported 
oil their hidden armed forces in the province.
  Just 3 weeks ago, the allies first agreed to an American proposal, 
one which had been put forward by this administration, to intercept 
petroleum exports bound for Serbia but then declined to enforce the ban 
against their own ships.
  On May 1, 5 weeks after the Kosovo operation had begun, the President 
finally signed an Executive order imposing an American embargo against 
Belgrade on oil, software, and other sensitive products.
  Yet, NATO and the United States have paid a steep price for failing 
to impose a comprehensive economic sanction on Serbia from the 
beginning of the air campaign, which started in March.
  As recently as May 13, a Government source told Reuters that the 
Yugoslavian Army continued to smuggle significant amounts of oil over 
land and water.
  At the end of April, General Clark gave the alliance a plan for the 
interdiction of oil tankers coming into the Adriatic towards Serbian 
ports. To justify this proposal, he cited the fact that through 
approximately 11 shipments, the Yugoslavians had imported 450,000 
barrels containing 19 million gallons of petroleum vital to their war 
effort. Let me repeat: 450,000 barrels, containing 19 million gallons 
of oil, that supported the war effort. Half of those 19 million gallons 
of oil would support them for 2 months; half of the 19 million gallons 
of oil supported the Serbian war effort for 2 months, yet we allowed 11 
shipments to come through since the beginning of this air campaign.
  Unfortunately, it has been economic business as usual for the 
Serbians as our missiles try to grind their will. The President 
declared on March 24 the beginning of the NATO campaign and set a goal 
of deterring a bloody offensive against the Moslem civilians. We know 
what happened.
  I have a chart that illustrates a chronology of the situation when it 
comes to economic business as usual. We started the air campaign March 
24. Then on April 13, while we were adding more aircraft to the 
engagement, Serbia had reached the midpoint of receiving 11 shipments 
of oil from abroad.
  Of course, on April 27, General Clark announced:

       We have destroyed his oil production capacity.

  NATO estimates of displaced Kosovars rise to 820,000. Serbia receives 
165,000 barrels of imported fuel over a 24-hour period.

  While we were adding more aircraft, it now had been a month later 
since the campaign began, we find they are still bringing in more oil. 
A month after the start, they were at the midpoint of receiving 450,000 
barrels of oil.
  By the close of April, General Clark confirmed the destruction of 
Yugoslavia's oil production capacity. On the same day, however, the 
Serbs took in 165,000 barrels of imported oil. As I mentioned earlier 
in this chronology, while we are still bringing in the aircraft, they 
are still bringing in the oil.
  Interestingly enough, just today, in the Financial Times of London, 
General Wesley Clark was understood to have expressed concern about the 
oil issue when he briefed NATO ambassadors yesterday on the progress of 
the 9-week-old air campaign. He has expressed disappoint that U.S. 
proposals for using force to support the embargo, at least in the 
Adriatic, were rejected by other allies--notably France. NATO is still 
working out how the details of a voluntary ``visit and search'' regime 
under which the alliance warships would check on ships sailing up the 
Adriatic Sea. Let me repeat, they are still working out the details of 
a voluntary visit and search regime.
  Now we are in the ninth week of the campaign, well over 400 aircraft, 
23, 24 Apache helicopters, the President has called up 33,000 
reservists, and they have yet to establish procedures for an oil 
embargo. They are still working out the details.
  The article goes on to say the North Atlantic Council agreed this 
week to introduce the regime but has to approve the rules of 
engagement.
  It is clear that the air campaign is still being operated, and, 
obviously, the oil embargo, according to committee.
  On May 1, when the President signed the Executive order barring oil 
and

[[Page S6222]]

software receipts, there were 11 foreign oil shipments of 450,000 
barrels. Milosevic has now received the last of the 11 April oil 
shipments, for a total of 450,000 barrels on the day when the President 
signed the Executive order barring the oil and software imports.
  As of 3 weeks ago, the number of displaced Kosovars had topped 1 
million, and NATO acknowledges the continuation--as we have certainly 
learned today in the most recent news updates--of energy imports by the 
enemy. These imported energy reserves play a significant role in 
supporting Serbian ground operations.
  The U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates that Yugoslavian forces 
consume about 4,000 barrels of oil per day. This fact means that if 
Serbian armored units in Kosovo used only one half of the imported fuel 
just from the month of April alone, they could have operated for nearly 
2 months, just half the amount they imported in April, yet as we well 
know, the air campaign began on March 24.
  It took nearly 1 month after the start of the NATO campaign, however, 
for Milosevic to uproot the vast majority of the ethnic Albanian 
population of the province. By the timeframe that NATO had claimed to 
destroy Serbia's oil refining capacity, which was mid to late April, as 
we have seen here when General Clark announced it on April 27, the 
Yugoslavians still managed to perpetrate Europe's the worst 
humanitarian crisis since World War II. We now face the strategic and 
operational challenge of uprooting dispersed tank, artillery and, 
infantry units in Kosovo. This challenge confounds NATO because our 
military campaign ignored the offshore economic base sustaining the 
aggression that we had pledged to overcome.
  This example teaches us that military victory involves more than the 
decisive application of force. It also demands, as Operation Desert 
Storm so dramatically illustrated, a coordinated diplomatic and 
economic enemy isolation effort among the United States and its allies.
  Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 1, 1991. Five days later, on August 6, 
the United Nations Security Council, with only Cuba and Yemen in 
opposition, passed a resolution directing ``all States'' to bar Iraqi 
commodity and product imports. This action first helped to freeze 
Saddam in Kuwait before he could move into Saudi Arabia. The wartime 
coalition subsequently faced the more manageable task of expelling this 
dictator from a small country rather than the entire Arabian peninsula.
  The point is, during Operation Desert Storm the President of the 
United States had worked in concert with the allies to establish an 
embargo. That was effective. What is difficult to understand is why the 
President and the NATO alliance did not agree to this at the outset? 
Why, at a time when we were conducting--initiating an air campaign, 
this oil embargo was not in place? We must always try to damage or 
destroy the offensive military apparatus of a hostile State, but as the 
Persian Gulf war taught us, it should also be starved of its resources.
  No law can mandate an immediate multinational embargo. But this 
amendment that will be included in this reauthorization will make it 
more difficult for future Presidents to repeat President Clinton's 
mistake, the alliance's mistake of waiting a month--and actually it is 
even more than that, because we do not have it in full force. There is 
no immediate impact of a voluntary embargo currently, as we have 
obviously heard today with General Clark's concerns about this issue 
that continues to fortify Milosevic's defenses. So we do not want 
future Presidents to repeat the mistake of waiting a month, waiting 
longer to allow the enemy to conserve fuel, to get more fuel and to be 
able to become more entrenched on the ground as we have seen Milosevic 
has done in Kosovo, and to cloud the prospects for victory.
  The United States, as a matter of standing policy, should pursue an 
international embargo immediately. In fact, that should have been done 
even before the campaign had been initiated. That should have been part 
of the planning process. It should not have been an afterthought. It 
should not have been ad hoc. It should not have been a few days later 
we will get to it. In this case, obviously, it was more than a month 
and it is still running. It should be done immediately. If we are 
willing to place our men and women and weaponry in harm's way in the 
middle of a conflict, in the midst of hostilities, then at the very 
least the ability of any adversaries to reinforce their military 
machine should cease. Dictators, tyrants, would further know in advance 
that we would wage a parallel diplomatic and trade campaign next to the 
military one to disable their war machinery.
  This amendment is not micromanaging policy, but it provides increased 
assurances of victory and averts a delay in the interception of war 
materiel. In the case of Kosovo, the administration and the alliance 
admits this was helpful to the enemy. We keep seeing that time and time 
again. We keep hearing it is helpful. That should have been done long 
ago. It does beg the question why this was not considered as part of 
the planning process before we initiated the air campaign. It seems to 
me it would be very logical.
  This amendment will not constrain but strengthen future Presidents in 
organizing the international community against regional zealots like 
Milosevic. We must remember the European Union states declined to 
enforce the Adriatic Sea embargo, against the advice of the United 
States. Obviously, that is what General Clark is stating, in terms of 
his concerns. Obviously, the NATO alliance does not have the rules of 
engagement for even doing a voluntary search and seizure process.
  So I think this amendment will be helpful to lend the force of law to 
future Presidents in order to strengthen their hand in implementing an 
embargo and to seek international agreement with those countries with 
whom we are engaged in a military effort so we can force an aggressor 
into military and economic bankruptcy.
  As our Balkan campaign reveals, the foreign energy and assets at the 
disposal of dictators can provide their forgotten tools of aggression. 
But this amendment signals that the United States will not only 
remember these tools, but take decisive action to break them. It 
signals we should not bomb only so the enemy can trade and hide and can 
conduct business as usual. It has been business as usual for Mr. 
Milosevic, regrettably.
  So I hope this amendment will enforce greater clarity in our 
strategies of isolating our adversaries of tomorrow.
  I am pleased the Senate has given its unanimous support of this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. LEVIN. Object.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a quorum call in progress.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of 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 quorum call be put in 
effect after I finish this statement. It will take about 5 minutes as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. STEVENS pertaining to the introduction of S. 1159 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  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. LEVIN. 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 ask that Senator Reed be recognized to 
talk about the bill for 10 minutes and that then the quorum call be 
reinstated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S6223]]

  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, as a preliminary matter, I ask unanimous 
consent that Herb Cupo, a fellow in Senator Robb's office, and that 
Sheila Jazayeri and Erin Barry of Senator Johnson's staff be granted 
floor privileges during the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1059, the 
fiscal year 2000 defense authorization bill. As a new member of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, I would like to thank Chairman Warner 
and Ranking Member Levin for their leadership on this legislation and, 
also, the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members who have been very 
helpful. The staff of the committee has also given us able support and 
assistance throughout this process.
  This bill represents a significant increase in funding for national 
defense, $288.8 billion. This is an $8.3 billion increase over the 
request of the Administration. I must admit that although I recognize 
the need for increasing defense spending, this is a substantial 
increase that puts tremendous pressure on other priorities of the 
nation. Nevertheless, I think at this time in our history it is 
important to reinvest in our military forces to give them the support 
they need to do the very critical job they perform every day to defend 
the United States.
  I am also pleased that, given this increase, the committee has very 
wisely allocated dollars to needs of the services that are paramount. 
We have been able, for example, to increase research and development by 
$1.5 billion. In an increasingly technological world, we have to 
continue to invest in research and development if our military forces 
are going to have the technology, equipment and the sophisticated new 
weapons systems that they need to be effective forces in the world.
  In addition, we have added about a billion dollars to the operation 
and maintenance accounts. These are critical accounts because equipment 
needs to be maintained and our troops need to be trained. All of these 
operations are integral parts of an effective fighting force, and we 
have made that commitment.
  In addition, we have tried with those extra dollars to fund, as best 
we can, the Service Chiefs' unfunded requirements. Those items they 
have identified--the Chiefs of Staff of the Army, Air Force, CNO of the 
Navy--are critical systems they think are vital to the performance of 
their service's mission.
  In addition, we have also looked at and dealt with a very critical 
problem, and that is recruitment and retention of the military forces. 
We are finding ourselves each month, in many services, falling behind 
our goals for enrolling new enlistees to the military services and 
retaining the valuable members of the military services coming up for 
reenlistment.
  This bill, which incorporates many provisions of S. 4, increases pay 
by 4.8 percent and significantly changes the retirement provisions that 
were adopted in the 1980s to more favorably represent a retirement 
system for our military. It also will incorporate the provisions of 
Senator Cleland's bill with respect to Montgomery G.I. bill benefits, 
making them more flexible for military personnel so they can be used 
for a spouse or child. This is a very important development, not only 
because of the substance, but also in the fact that it represents that 
type of innovative thinking about dealing with the problem of 
recruitment and retention, not simply by doing the obvious, but 
something that is innovative and, in the long term, helpful. I commend 
the Senator from Georgia for his great leadership on this issue.
  What we are also recognizing here is that among the quality of life 
issues that affect the military is the issue of health care. I am 
pleased to note that we have attempted to deal with a nagging problem 
with the military, and that is the difficulty of obtaining assistance 
regarding the TriCare system--that is the HMO, if you will, that 
military families and personnel use. We have heard numerous complaints 
about TriCare. Indeed, they are many of the same complaints we hear 
about civilian HMOs from constituents back home.
  It is interesting to note that this legislation incorporates an 
ombudsman program for TriCare. There will be an 800 number where a 
military person can call with a complaint, with a question, or with a 
concern, and we will have an individual at that number who will help 
the person negotiate and navigate through the intricate system of 
managed care. This is such an interesting program, and, indeed, we are 
working on this in the context of civilian health care. Senator Wyden 
and I introduced legislation to create an ombudsman program for all 
managed care in the United States. Our program would authorize States 
to set up ombudsman programs to assist our constituents in dealing with 
problems just as real and just as complicated as problems facing 
military personnel in the TriCare system.

  I hope that our unanimous support of this provision today in this 
legislation will be a beacon of hope as we consider managed care reform 
on this floor in the days ahead so that we can, in fact, adopt an 
ombudsman provision for our civilian programs as well as our military 
TriCare program.
  I am also pleased to note that we have actively supported the 
nonproliferation provisions in this legislation.
  The Cooperative Threat Reduction program is absolutely essential to 
our national security. We authorize $475 million, an increase of $35 
million.
  The crucial area of concern obviously is the stockpile of nuclear 
weapons in the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. We 
want to make sure that they safeguard that system. We want to also make 
sure that we can work with them to dismantle those systems which will 
lead both to their security and our security and the security of the 
world.
  I am somewhat regretful, however, that the Senate chose to table 
Senator Kerrey's amendment which would strike the requirement that the 
United States maintain strategic force levels consistent with START I 
until START II provisions come into effect. We all agree that the 
United States needs to maintain a robust deterrent force, although I 
argue that this can be best accomplished at the START II level. 
Mandating that the United States maintain a START I level is another 
example of how we sometimes over-manage and hobble the Department of 
Defense. I think we can, and should have, adopted the amendment of the 
Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey. It would have been a valuable 
contribution to this overall legislation.
  We also are fortunate that we have in fact pushed ahead on another 
provision which touches on our nuclear security and a strategic 
posture, and that is the approval of the decision of the Department of 
Defense to reduce our Trident submarine force from 18 ships to 14 
ships. That is a step in the right direction towards the START II 
level.
  I am also pleased that this bill will authorize funding to begin 
design activity regarding the conversion of those four Trident 
ballistic nuclear submarines to conventional submarines which are more 
in line with the current situation in the world. In fact, when I have 
talked to commander in chiefs throughout the world, they say they are 
continually asked to use those submarines for conventional missions. 
This will give us four more very high quality platforms to use in 
conventional situations. I think that is an improvement, both in our 
strategic posture in terms of nuclear forces and also in terms of our 
conventional posture.
  I am, however, also disappointed with respect to another issue. And 
that is the failure to adopt a base closing amendment as proposed by 
Senator McCain and Senator Levin. We are maintaining a cold war 
infrastructure in the post-cold-war world. We reduced our forces but we 
can't reduce our real estate. It is not effective.
  Until we give our Secretary of Defense and our military chiefs the 
flexibility in the base closing process to identify and to close excess 
military installations, we will be spending money that we don't have. 
And we will be taking that money from readiness, from modernization, 
and from our forces in the field. They do not deserve that reduction in 
resources, but in fact deserve the shift of those resources from real 
estate that is excess to the

[[Page S6224]]

real needs of our fighting forces. The real needs are taking care of 
their families, being ready for the mission, and having equipment to do 
the mission. And every dollar that we continue to invest in resources 
and installations that we don't need is one dollar less that we don't 
have for the real needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines 
who are out in harm's way standing up and protecting this great 
country.
  I hope we can pass a base closing amendment. I am encouraged that we 
have more support this year than last year. I hope that we can do so, 
because it is the one way we cannot only eliminate excess space but 
also do it in a way that is not political. I know there have been many 
charges on this floor about politicization. As I hear these charges and 
these arguments against base closings, I fear that we are the ones that 
are the issue, that we are the ones that are letting politics get in 
the way of national security policy. The longer we do that, the more 
detrimental will be our impact upon the true interests of the country 
and the needs of our military forces.
  Again, let me say in conclusion that this effort, led by Senator 
Warner and Senator Levin, by the ranking Members, and the Chairpersons 
of the subcommittees and assisting agencies, results, I think, in 
excellent legislation. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  I note the absence of quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that I 
will propound at this time. I do think the issue which has been before 
the Senate is a very important issue. I have shown my interest and my 
concern regarding security and more reports with regard to China, 
satellite technology, and security of our labs. We have added a 
significant amount of language into this bill. I also think an 
important part of making sure we have secure labs in the future and 
that the administration is handled properly will involve reorganization 
at the Department of Energy. Obviously, what is now in place is not 
working. But this is not about organization; this is about security.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour for debate to be equally 
divided on amendment No. 446, the amendment by Senators Kyl, Domenici, 
and others; following that time, the Senate proceed to vote on or in 
relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order prior to the 
vote.
  I might add before the Chair rules, this agreement is the same type 
of agreement that we have been reaching for dozens of amendments 
throughout the consideration of the DOD bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask consent that a vote occur on or in relation to this 
amendment with the same parameters as outlined above, but the vote 
occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader after 
consultation with the Democratic leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. I inquire of the assistant Democratic leader, is the 
Senator objecting because he does not want a direct vote on the 
amendment No. 446, or is there some other problem with that request?
  Mr. REID. I say with the deepest respect for the majority leader, I 
have spent considerable time here this afternoon indicating why I think 
this is the wrong time for this amendment. I have stated there are 
parts of the amendment that I think are acceptable and agreeable to the 
minority, but this is not the time for a full debate on reorganizing 
the Department of Energy. This is on the eve of the recess for the 
Memorial Day weekend. We have had no congressional hearings; we have 
not heard from the Secretary of Energy, except over the telephone. This 
is not the appropriate way to legislate.
  For these and other reasons, I ask there be other arrangements made 
so that we can proceed to this most important bill, the defense 
authorization bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in light of that objection, I ask consent 
that when the Senate considers H.R. 1555--that is the intelligence 
authorization bill--following the opening statement by the manager, 
Senator Kyl be recognized to offer an amendment relative to national 
security at the Department of Energy; I further ask consent that if 
this agreement is agreed to, amendment No. 446 be withdrawn, following 
60 minutes of debate to be equally divided between Senators Kyl and 
Domenici and Reid and Levin, or their designees.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I do 
say to the majority leader, I appreciate on behalf of the minority, 
very much, this arrangement being made. This we acknowledge is 
important legislation. It is an important amendment, one that deserves 
the consideration of this body, I think, at an appropriate time. As 
indicated, H.R. 1555 will be the time we can fully debate this issue.

  So I say to the sponsors of the amendment, Senators Kyl, Domenici, 
Murkowski, we look forward to that debate and express our appreciation 
for resolving this most important legislation today. There is no 
objection from this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. Leader, would you take the time you have allotted 
to the two of us, the Arizona Senator and myself, and add Senator 
Murkowski, equally divided?
  Mr. LOTT. I will so amend my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, then we will 
continue. The managers have some work they need to do with regard to 
some amendments that are still pending. During this 60 minutes of 
debate, I hope that can be resolved. We are expecting that final 
passage on the Department of Defense authorization bill would occur 
this evening, hopefully before 8 o'clock. If we can make it any sooner 
than that, certainly we will try to, but 8 o'clock is still our goal.
  Just one final point. I must say, I do not like having to pull aside 
this amendment. I thought we should have full debate, that it was a 
very important amendment and we should have had a vote on it. But we 
will have an opportunity. This is an issue that is important. It does 
go to the fundamental question of security at our energy and nuclear 
labs. But I think this Department of Defense authorization bill is the 
best defense authorization bill we have had in several years. A lot of 
good work has been done and I thought it would not have been wise to 
leave tonight without this Department of Defense authorization bill 
being completed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank both leaders for arranging for this bill to go 
forward now.
  Senators will recall, pursuant to an earlier unanimous consent, we 
asked Senators to send to the desk such amendments and file them, as 
have not been as yet cleared by the managers. We are continuing to work 
on those amendments, but we cannot guarantee we will be able to include 
all of them into the package.
  So once we finish this debate, it is the intention of the managers to 
move to third reading unless Senators come down with regard to these 
amendments that are pending at the desk.
  I will be on the floor, as will Senator Levin, continuously to try to 
work out as many as we possibly can. But it is essential, as the 
majority leader said, we try to vote this bill at 8 o'clock right now.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, I concur with his suggestion 
that those who have amendments that have not been cleared come over. We 
do not want to raise false hopes that we will be able to clear many 
more of them because we have cleared, I believe, a goodly number.
  Mr. WARNER. There were about 40.

[[Page S6225]]

  Mr. LEVIN. We are doing the best we can, but it is going to get more 
and more difficult to clear additional amendments. We have, I believe, 
cleared about 25 of the 40, roughly, that were sent to the desk. We 
just may not be able to clear many more because of differences on both 
sides.
  Mr. WARNER. But we both want to be eminently fair to our colleagues. 
The bulk of the amendments remaining at the desk are ones that we, at 
this time, either on Senator Levin's side or my side, find 
unacceptable.

  Mr. LEVIN. At this moment that is correct. We are going to do our 
best to see if we cannot get a few more to be acceptable, but it is 
getting difficult.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 446

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the pending Kyl amendment? 
The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe I have 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would greatly appreciate it if you 
notify me when I have used up 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I first want to say how sorry I am at 
the treatment of this amendment, the first major, significant effort to 
put our nuclear weapons development house in order and stop the 
espionage we have been hearing about. The American people are now very 
fearful of the consequences of this situation. There can be all the 
talk the other side wants that the Secretary of Energy is going to fix 
this. The truth of the matter is, the Secretary of Energy is lobbying 
very hard against this, even calling the President about it. I think it 
is because the Secretary wants to fix it himself.
  As good a friend as I am of his, and as complimentary as I am about 
his work, the truth of the matter is he cannot fix what is wrong with 
the Department of Energy as it pertains to nuclear weapons development 
and maintenance.
  Second, he cannot correct the lack of accountability among those 
various elements of the Department that are charged with security 
transgression activities. It is impossible under the current structure 
of the Department.
  Some have said this is being done too quickly with not enough notice. 
One of my fellow Senators was saying the Chinese did not give us very 
much notice when they set about to steal our secrets. We already know 
the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. We already 
know about that. It is not going to get better until we decide to 
change things dramatically and raise, within the Department, the 
concern about the tremendous value of nuclear secrets and nuclear 
weapons development information. It cannot any longer be dealt with in 
the same way we deal with all the other things in the Department of 
Energy. There are hundreds of energy issues in that Department that 
take up the same time of the same people, the same regulators who are 
supposed to be concerned about nuclear weapons. That must stop. Sooner 
or later something like we proposed here is going to take shape.
  I hear some have said it is the status quo. It is the opposite of the 
status quo. I understand our Secretary has said it is the status quo. 
It is the very opposite of it. I understand some have said it gives the 
nuclear part of this, the nuclear weapons people, total control where 
they are not responsible to anyone. That is not true. The Secretary is 
still in charge. The truth of the matter is, if we made them a little 
less responsible for all the goings on in this monster department, we 
would all be better off. So in that regard, we will take some credit 
for that.
  There are others who suggest this has not previously been thought of 
in this way. I want to read from a 1990 report of the Defense Committee 
in the House.

       We concur with the recommendation of the Clark task force 
     group to ``strengthen DOD's management attention to national 
     security responsibilities.'' These steps should include 
     raising the stature of nuclear weapons programs management 
     within DOE, for example by establishing a separate 
     organizational entity and administration with a clearly 
     enunciated budget, reporting directly to the Secretary.

  That is precisely what we have done.
  I want to close tonight by saying this issue will be revisited. We 
can say to the Secretary and the Democratic whip, and those on that 
side who would not let us vote--who did not bother to try to amend 
this, just decided they would threaten a filibuster and be prepared to 
do it--that they have not seen the last day of this approach. Because 
it is imperative, if our country is going to do justice to the future 
and be fair with our children and their children, we cannot continue 
down the path we have been on with reference to nuclear weapons and 
nuclear weapons design and development. We must do better.

  If you were to design a system calculated to give the most important 
and most effective part of the Department the least attention, that is 
what you would do. You would do it like we are doing it.
  Or if you were to decide that the most important function for our 
future should be treated along with other functions that are rather 
irrelevant to our future, you would design this Department and you 
would be here fighting this amendment because you would have that 
situation that I just described right on top of the most important 
function of the Department of Energy.
  So, with a lot of care and attention, I worked on this. I will 
continue to work on it. I know a lot about it, but I do not assume that 
I know more than other people. We ought to all work on it. But I 
suggest to the President and to Secretary Richardson, they better get 
with suggesting to Congress some real ways that we can be involved in 
stopping what has been going on in the Department of Energy on both 
fronts, the sabotage and the stealing of secrets, which we will never 
correct unless we change the structure, making the nuclear weapons 
system the most important function of the Department of Energy, bar 
none, second to none, at the highest elevation, not fettered or 
burdened by all these other functions of the Department.
  If you can imagine that the bureaucracy within that Department 
worries about--I said a couple times on the floor--refrigerators and 
their ability to be more energy efficient, and those who worry about 
that are the same group of people who worry about the same kind of 
things as pertains to nuclear energy. They do not belong in the same 
league. They should be separated.
  Our suggestion, for accountability and more direct reporting, more 
opportunity for committees in Congress and the President himself to 
know when security violations are occurring and are serious, must at 
some point be adopted.
  Frankly, none of this is said with any idea that my good colleague, 
Senator Bingaman, is anything but totally concerned about this issue. 
He has different views than I tonight, but clearly I do not in any way 
claim that he has anything but the highest motives in his lack of 
support for the amendment on which I have worked.
  Neither do I think the distinguished minority whip in his remarks 
should have said about this amendment that it will put the national 
security at risk and that it will put our nuclear weapons and 
development of them at risk. He should retract that statement and take 
it out of there. If anything, any management team would say it would 
improve the situation.
  I yield the floor and reserve my 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do not know if the other proponents of 
the amendment want to speak at this time. I gather they do not since 
they are not on the floor, so I will take a very few minutes of our 
time and make a few moments.
  First of all, I think this is a good result we have come up with that 
allows for a reasoned and deliberate consideration of this proposal. I 
certainly repeat what I said earlier today, which is, I question 
nobody's motives. I am sure everyone's motives are the same as mine, 
and that is, how do we improve the security of our nuclear weapons 
program and, at the same time, maintain the good things about our 
nuclear weapons program in our National Laboratories in our Department 
of Energy.
  I, for one, started this from the proposition that the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program, which is the program that is essentially 
responsible for maintaining

[[Page S6226]]

our nuclear deterrent, has been a success. That is my strong 
impression, and the suggestion that it has been fettered and burdened--
I believe that is the language that was used--by other activities in 
the Department, I do not believe is true.
  My strong impression is that the Stockpile Stewardship Program is 
alive and well, that our nuclear deterrent is secure and reliable, and 
that in fact there is a lot we can point to with pride in that regard. 
Clearly, there have been security lapses. Clearly, classified 
information has been stolen, and we need to put in place safeguards 
against that ever recurring. I favor that, and I believe we have some 
strong provisions in this underlying bill which will accomplish that 
and will move us in the direction of accomplishing that.
  Maybe there should be more. I am not totally averse to considering 
reorganization in parts of the Department of Energy. That may be a very 
constructive suggestion for us to look into. But I do believe that the 
way to do it is through hearings.
  Hopefully, we can have hearings in the Armed Services Committee. This 
is the appropriate committee, I believe. I serve on that committee. 
Perhaps Senator Warner can schedule some hearings as early as the week 
after next when we return, if there is a sense of urgency, and I share 
a sense of urgency about doing all that is constructive to do.
  I am not in any way arguing that we should not look into this issue. 
I believe if we have hearings, we should give the Secretary of Energy 
the chance to testify. I do believe that if we are going to embark upon 
a major reorganization of the Department of Energy, the logical thing 
to do is to ask the Secretary of Energy his reaction to our proposed 
reorganization. That is the kind of responsible, deliberate action that 
our constituents expect of us. That is what the Secretary of Energy has 
a right to expect. That is what the President expects. I hope that is 
the course we follow.
  I will briefly respond to the point my colleague, Senator Domenici, 
made about a 1990 report by the Clark task force. I am not personally 
familiar with that report, but I point out to my colleagues that in 
1990 the Secretary of Energy was Admiral Watkins. That was not a 
Democratic administration; that was a Republican administration. 
Admiral Watkins was a very, very qualified individual to be our 
Secretary of Energy. His credentials for line management and command 
and control and maintaining military security cannot be questioned.
  Admiral Watkins, of course, evidently did not think the 
recommendations from that Clark task force alluded to should be 
followed up and implemented, and did not do that. There have been a lot 
of capable people in the Department of Energy, some in the position of 
Secretary, who have spent substantial time looking at this problem. 
They have made some improvements. Perhaps more are needed, and I 
certainly will embrace additional improvements if that is the case.
  I do, once again, make the point I made earlier today, and that is 
that we do not want to do something that has not been thoroughly 
discussed, has not been thoroughly analyzed, and which can have very, 
very adverse consequences, unintended adverse consequences, on the 
strength of our National Laboratories, on our ability to retain, to 
maintain, and to recruit the top scientists and engineers in this 
country to work on these programs and to work in these laboratories.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time 
to see if other of my colleagues wish to speak on this issue as well.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am really appalled at the state of 
affairs on the floor. Earlier today, I asked that an order for a quorum 
call be rescinded in order to discuss further the Kyl amendment which 
Senator Domenici, Senator Kyl, and I have participated in developing. I 
was really disappointed we were denied that opportunity. I am pleased 
we have this limited time available to us.
  When we offered the amendment, we each had 10 minutes. That is not 
very much time to explain it. I had hoped the minority would have 
granted more time. I can only assume the minority is very much opposed 
to a full discussion of the circumstances surrounding the greatest 
breach of our national security, as evidenced by the Cox report which 
came down yesterday.
  I am further shocked that the administration has succeeded in 
temporarily derailing this amendment. And that is what they have done; 
they have derailed the amendment. The administration seems to be more 
concerned about how the bureaucracy within the Department of Energy is 
organized than whether the national security of the United States is 
protected. We had an obligation prior to this recess to initiate a 
corrective action within the Department of Energy. The minority has 
precluded us from proceeding with that opportunity today.
  As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have 
held seven hearings. These hearings have revealed the shocking, dismal 
state of security at our weapons labs. Those on the other side do not 
want to repair it now; they want to study. How long have they studied 
it? It has gone through at least four Secretaries, that we know of. It 
has gone back a decade. Why, for the life of me, do we delay now? I 
don't know.

  The pending Kyl amendment would have provided some assurances to the 
Congress and the American people that this will not happen again. This 
amendment was about accountability--accountability by the Department of 
Energy, accountability by the Department of Energy laboratories, 
accountability by the Secretary of Energy, accountability by the 
President--because it would provide, if you will, reporting not just to 
the Secretary but to the Congress and to the President.
  This would have provided accountability to the people of the United 
States. They are entitled to it. But not now. The administration and 
the minority have succeeded in derailing it.
  The opponents of the amendment claim that it would make the DOE, the 
Department of Energy, bureaucracy unworkable. Well, I have news for 
you. Unworkable? It is already unworkable. That bureaucracy is so 
unworkable, it has allowed all our secrets--all our secrets--that we 
have spent billions of dollars on, to simply pass over to the Chinese, 
and perhaps other nations as well.
  The Department of Energy's bureaucracy has proven time and time again 
that no matter how diligent any individual Secretary of Energy is, the 
bureaucracy can outwait the Secretary, the bureaucracy can ignore the 
Secretary, the bureaucracy can do whatever it pleases without fear of 
any consequences.
  Let me just give you one example.
  In 1996, the Deputy Secretary of Energy, Charles Curtis, implemented 
the so-called Curtis Plan. It was a security plan. It was a good plan. 
It was a plan to enhance security at the DOE laboratories.
  But in early 1997 he left the Department of Energy. And guess what. 
Not only did the Department of Energy bureaucracy ignore the Curtis 
Plan, the DOE bureaucracy did not even tell the new Secretary about the 
Curtis Plan.
  I have had the opportunity in hearings to personally ask the new 
Secretary if he was familiar with the Curtis Plan. The specific 
response was: Well, it was never transmitted.
  Why wasn't it transmitted?
  Well, we don't know. We just have fingers pointing the fingers back 
and forth.
  I certainly commend Secretary Richardson for his efforts to improve 
security. He has improved security. But the plans, the traditional 
Department of Energy security plans, seem to have the life of a fruit 
fly.
  The loss of our nuclear weapons secrets is just too important to 
ignore or to trust to the bureaucracy of an agency that has time and 
time again proven that it simply cannot be trusted, because the 
bureaucracy does not work, the checks and balances are not there.
  So I am extremely disappointed that the Secretary has said in a 
letter he will demand that the President veto the bill because Congress 
is taking action--Congress is taking action--to fix the problem. Can 
you imagine that? We are taking action to fix the problem, and they are 
saying it is too hasty, we should not fix the problem.
  This is just part of the problem. This amendment is just part of the 
answer.

[[Page S6227]]

 But at least we are trying to do something. The Democrats on the other 
side say: Oh, no, you're too early.
  The pending amendment would have created accountability and 
responsibility for protecting the national security at the Department 
of Energy; but not now, as a result of the administration's objections.
  The pending amendment would have created three new organizations 
within the Department of Energy to protect our national secrets; but 
not now, as a result objections from the minority and the 
administration.
  The pending amendment would require the Department of Energy to fully 
inform the President and the Congress about any threat to or loss of 
national security information; but not now, as a result of the 
objections of the minority and the administration.

  President Clinton will rightfully be able to claim ignorance--claim 
ignorance--again on what is going on, because he will be ignorant of 
what is going on.
  The amendment would have prohibited anyone in the Department of 
Energy or the administration from interfering with reporting to 
Congress about any threat to or loss of our Nation's national security 
information; but not now, as a result of the objections of the minority 
and the administration.
  The amendment would have required the Department of Energy to report 
to Congress every year regarding the adequacy of the Department of 
Energy's procedures and policies for protection of national security 
information and whether each DOE laboratory is in full compliance with 
all the DOE security requirements; but not now, as a result of the 
objections of the minority and the administration.
  The amendment would have required each Department of Energy 
laboratory director to certify in writing whether that laboratory is in 
full compliance with all departmental national security information 
protection requirements; but not now, as a result of the objections of 
the minority and the administration.
  In short, this amendment would have gone far--not all the way--but it 
would have gone far in preventing further loss of our nuclear weapons 
secrets to China; but not now--well, it is evident--as a result of the 
objections by the minority and by the administration.
  I suggest that the administration has made a tragic mistake, that the 
minority has made a tragic mistake. The American people expect a 
response from the Congress, the Senate, now in this matter--not next 
week or next month.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  I ask what the time remaining is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Two minutes 13 seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  I believe there are other Senators wishing to speak at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I inquire, was the time on the 
Republican side equally divided, 10 minutes each, among Senators 
Murkowski, Domenici, and myself?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KYL. In that event, I suggest that Senator Murkowski yield the 
remainder of his time to Senator Hutchinson--he has comments to make--
unless Senator Murkowski has further comments.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will need another 30 seconds to a minute at the end. 
You have 10 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank Senator Kyl and Senator Murkowski for their 
efforts in this area.
  I, along with every Member of this body, received the three volumes 
of the Cox report. I share the absolute shock at the indescribable 
breach of our national security at our labs. I think it is inexcusable 
that we would leave for the Memorial Day recess without taking even 
this step.
  Senator Kyl has presented to us--and I am glad to cosponsor the 
amendment--an amendment that makes eminent good sense. It calls for the 
head of DOE counterintelligence to report immediately to the President 
and the Congress on any actual or potential significant loss or 
threatened loss of national security information. That is an 
indisputable need. It is clear in the Cox report that that was one area 
of failure.
  For the Democrats, at a time when this Nation is at war, to threaten 
that they are going to block, through filibuster, a national security 
reauthorization bill because they do not want us to debate an amendment 
to address this shocking failure of security, I think is inexplicable, 
disappointing, and is going to be hard to explain to our constituents.
  I wish we had debated the Kyl amendment, had enough time to spend on 
it, have a vote on it, and take the kind of step Senator Kyl has 
proposed in this amendment.
  I leave with disappointment and dismay that such a filibuster would 
be threatened on an amendment that is so important to the security of 
the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 9 minutes 30 
seconds. The Senator from Michigan has 15 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Levin's time be assigned to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me respond to a few of the points 
that have been made. Then I will yield, because I know the Senator from 
Arizona, who is the prime sponsor on the amendment, is here and wishes 
to speak.
  The suggestion that we are leaving without knowing anything about 
security in our National Laboratories in the Department of Energy is 
just wrong.
  I am on the Armed Services Committee. I participated in the drafting 
of the language that is included in this bill. We have 24 pages in the 
defense authorization bill which is the best--the best--we could come 
up with in the Armed Services Committee to deal with this problem of 
security and put in place more safeguards.
  We start on page 540, establishing a Commission on Safeguards, 
Security, and Counterintelligence at Department of Energy 
Facilities. We go on; that commission is established. We move on to 
increase the background investigations of certain personnel at the 
Department of Energy facilities. We move on to requiring a plan for 
polygraph examinations of certain personnel at the Department of Energy 
facilities. We then go on to establish civil monetary penalties for 
violations of the Department of Energy regulations related to 
safeguarding and security of restricted data.

  We have a moratorium on lab-to-lab and foreign visitors and 
assignment programs unless there is a certification made by the head of 
the FBI, the head of the CIA, the Secretary of Energy himself as to the 
fact that safeguards are in place.
  We increase penalties for misuse of restricted data. We establish the 
Office of Counterintelligence in statute, which is essentially a third 
of the amendment that the Senator from Arizona is proposing. So two of 
the three parts of the amendment the Senator from Arizona and my 
colleague from New Mexico are proposing are included in this amendment.
  It is just not accurate to say we are leaving here without having 
done anything. We also provide for increased protection for whistle-
blowers in the Department. We provide for investigation and remediation 
of alleged reprisals for disclosure of certain information to Congress. 
We provide for notification to Congress of certain security and 
counterintelligence failures at the Department of Energy facilities. 
All of these provisions are in the bill the way it now reads.
  I say again what I said before: Maybe there should be more. I hope 
very much we will have some hearings in the Armed Services Committee, 
perhaps on the Energy Committee. I know my colleague from Alaska, the 
chairman of

[[Page S6228]]

the Energy Committee, expressed his great concern that we are not 
moving ahead this afternoon on this. Since we have already had seven 
hearings on this China espionage issue, we should go ahead and have an 
eighth hearing, hopefully the week after next, and we should look at 
this proposal or similar proposals to see what can be done.
  One other minor item: There has been reference made to the failure to 
implement the recommendations that Charles Curtis, our former Under 
Secretary, made with regard to security. I agree, this was a failing. 
The information was not properly passed from one group of appointed 
officials to the next group of appointed officials when they came into 
office. That is a very unfortunate lapse. Under this amendment, 
Secretary Curtis would have been stripped of any authority over the 
nuclear weapons program. It would be prohibited for the Secretary of 
Energy to allow the Under Secretary any authority over that program 
under this proposal.
  One of our outstanding Secretaries of Energy, since I have been 
serving in the Senate, has been Secretary Watkins. He is known for his 
attention to the detail of management and administration. During the 
time he was Secretary of Energy, he issued a great many management 
directives or ``notices,'' as he called them. I have here a notebook 
containing 37 of these management directives that Secretary Watkins 
issued. They are all related to the organization and management of the 
Department of Energy. None of them contain the provisions or anything 
like the provisions that are contained in here.
  I hope when we have hearings in the Armed Services Committee, in the 
Energy Committee, in whatever committee the majority would like to hold 
hearings, let's call Secretary Watkins, Admiral Watkins, to come and 
explain to us his view of this proposal. Surely we cannot question his 
commitment to dealing with safeguards and security and with the problem 
of Chinese espionage. If some of my colleagues want to imply that 
Members on the Democratic side are less than concerned, let us call 
Secretary Watkins and see whether he is less than concerned about some 
of these issues.

  I am persuaded that he is very concerned. I am persuaded that all of 
my colleagues in the Senate, Democrat and Republican, are very 
concerned. We need to do the right thing. We need to be sure that 
whatever we legislate helps, rather than hinders, our ability to deal 
with this problem.
  I yield the floor at this point and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I just address the Senate to say 
that Senator Levin and I are still working with regard to the managers' 
package and reviewing such amendments at the desk when Senators come 
and discuss them. It is the intention of this Senator to move to third 
reading very shortly, just minutes following the debate on the current 
amendment by the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, is there anybody else on the Democratic side 
who wishes to speak at this point?
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the time now is being controlled by Senator 
Bingaman. I ask him for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the Senator such time as he wants.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman has just put in the Record 
the extensive actions that are taken in this bill in order to enhance 
security at these labs, actions which were taken after some very 
thoughtful debate and discussion by the Armed Services Committee. 
Senator Bingaman has outlined those for the Record and for the Nation.
  I want to put in the Record at this time the summary of the amendment 
that we adopted here today. Senator Lott offered an amendment earlier 
today. It was modified somewhat. In essence, it does some of the 
following things:
  First, it requires the President to notify the Congress whenever an 
investigation is undertaken of an alleged violation of export control 
laws. It would require the President to notify Congress whenever an 
export license or waiver is granted on behalf of any person who is the 
subject of a criminal investigation. It would require the Secretary of 
Defense to undertake certain actions that would enhance the performance 
and effectiveness of the Department of Defense program for monitoring 
so-called satellite launch campaigns. It would enhance the intelligence 
community's role in the export license review process. It proposes a 
mechanism for determining the extent to which the classified nuclear 
weapons information has been released by the Department of Energy. It 
proposes putting the FBI in charge of conducting security background 
investigations of DOE laboratory employees.
  These are a long list of actions which are now in this bill, that 
started off in this bill from the Armed Services Committee that had 
been improved on the floor today. To suggest that we are not doing 
anything relative to trying to clamp down on espionage activities which 
have been going on for 20 years at these labs, it seems to me, is a 
total misstatement of what is in this bill that we will be voting on in 
a few minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the Lott amendment, again, 
slightly modified since this list has been prepared, but that a summary 
of the Lott amendment be printed in the Record at this time.
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object--I do not intend to--could 
you describe who prepared the summary?
  Mr. LEVIN. This was prepared by Senator Lott's staff. Again, there 
were some slight modifications in this, which Senator Lott agreed to, 
which I proposed prior to the adoption of the amendment. This, in 
essence, is the summary of the Lott amendment. This, plus the numerous 
provisions in the Senate bill that came out of the Armed Services 
Committee, a commission on safeguarding security, counterintelligence 
at the facility, background check investigations now going on that had 
not been taking place, polygraph examinations, monetary penalties to be 
added to the criminal penalties, moratorium on laboratory-to-laboratory 
and foreign visitors in assignment programs, counterintelligence and 
intelligence program activities being organized, whistle-blower 
protection, notification of Congress of certain security and 
counterintelligence failures at these labs.

  This is a significant effort on the part of the Armed Services 
Committee. It was supplemented by the full Senate today. I don't think 
we ought to denigrate this effort on the part of the Armed Services 
Committee or of the Senate in adopting the amendment we adopted today 
by just suggesting we are not doing anything because in a few hours 
prior to a recess, without one hearing on the subject, we are not 
reorganizing the Department of Energy without even hearing from the 
Secretary of Energy. I think that suggestion is a denigration of what 
is in this bill, which was thoughtfully placed in this bill by the 
Armed Services Committee, and a denigration of the amendment of the 
majority leader, which we adopted here this morning on this floor.
  We should not characterize these kinds of efforts and diminish these 
kinds of efforts by sort of saying we are not doing anything before we 
are going home on recess. We are doing an awful lot, and there is more 
to be done. But we ought to do it in a way that will do credit to this 
institution, the Senate. We ought to do it promptly after the recess. 
We ought to do it after a hearing, where the Secretary of Energy is 
heard. The head of the Department should at least be heard. We received 
a letter from him today. Do we not want to hear from him prior to 
reorganizing the Department? That is not thoughtful.
  That is not the way to proceed to close the hole. That is a way of 
precipitously trying to do something and trying to get some advantage 
from the refusal of others to go along with that kind of precipitous 
action. But more important, I believe it would denigrate the 
significant steps that are in this bill, both as it came to the floor 
and as it was added by the majority leader

[[Page S6229]]

with modifications, which I suggested, and that work is significant. It 
will close, we hope, most of the holes that have been in these labs in 
terms of trying to protect against espionage for 20 years, where 
nothing was done until finally last year the President issued a 
Presidential directive that started the process of tightening up the 
security at these laboratories.
  We should be proud of these efforts. They were done thoughtfully in 
committee by the majority leader, by Senators on the floor. We should 
not denigrate them and simply slough them off because there is not a 
precipitous reorganization of the entire Department 2 hours before the 
recess, without even having a hearing on the subject and hearing from 
the Secretary of the Department.
  That is more than 1 minute, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent 
that the summary of the Lott amendment be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         Lott Amendment Summary

       First, this amendment would require the President to notify 
     the Congress whenever an investigation is undertaken of an 
     alleged violation of U.S. export control laws in connection 
     with the export of a commercial satellite of U.S. origin. It 
     also would require the President to notify the Congress 
     whenever an export license or waiver is granted on behalf of 
     any U.S. person or firm that is the subject of a criminal 
     investigation.
       Second, this amendment would require the Secretary of 
     Defense to undertake certain actions that would significantly 
     enhance the performance and effectiveness of the DOD program 
     for monitoring so-called ``satellite launch campaigns'' in 
     China and elsewhere.
       Third, this amendment would enhance the Intelligence 
     Community's role in the export license review process, and 
     would require a report by the DCI on efforts of foreign 
     governments to acquire sensitive U.S. technology and 
     technical information.
       Fourth, this amendment expresses the Sense of Congress that 
     the People's Republic of China should not be permitted to 
     join the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) as a member 
     until Beijing has demonstrated a sustained commitment to 
     missile nonproliferation and adopted an effective export 
     control system.
       Fifth, the amendment expresses strong support for 
     stimulating the expansion of the commercial space launch 
     industry here in America. This amendment strongly encourages 
     efforts to promote the domestic commercial space launch 
     industry, including through the elimination of legal or 
     regulatory barriers to long-term competitiveness. The 
     amendment also urges a review of the current policy of 
     permitting the export of commercial satellites of U.S. origin 
     to the PRC for launch.
       Sixth, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to 
     provide information to U.S. satellite manufacturers when a 
     license application is denied.
       Seventh, this amendment also would require the Secretary of 
     Defense to submit an annual report on the military balance in 
     the Taiwan Straits, similar to the report delivered to the 
     Congress earlier this year.
       Eighth, the amendment proposes a mechanism for determining 
     the extent to which classified nuclear weapons information 
     has been released by the Department of Energy.
       Ninth, the amendment proposes putting the FBI in charge of 
     conducting security background investigations of DOE 
     laboratory employees, versus the OPM.
       Tenth, the amendment proposes increased counter-
     intelligence training and other measures to ensure classified 
     information is protected during DOE laboratory-to-laboratory 
     exchanges.


                     Amendment No. 458, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send a modification of amendment No. 458 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 458), as modified, is as follows:

       In title X, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. 1061. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH INDICTED 
                   WAR CRIMINALS.

       (a) In General.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
     United States as a member of NATO, should not negotiate with 
     Slobodan Milosevic, an indicted war criminal, or any other 
     indicted war criminal with respect to reaching an end to the 
     conflict in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
       (b) Yugoslavia Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Federal Republic of Yugoslavia'' means the Federal Republic 
     of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will you advise us as to the time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New Mexico has 11 
minutes; the senior Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes; the Senator 
from Alaska has 2 minutes 13 seconds; and the Senator from Arizona has 
8 minutes 25 seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have had a lot of conversation here 
on the floor as we have looked at the examples of finger-pointing. It 
is apparent also that we have had bungling at the very highest level.
  I'd like to share a couple of examples with my colleagues. Why wasn't 
Wen Ho Lee's computer searched to prevent the loss of our secrets? 
Because the FBI claims that the DOE told the FBI that there was no 
waiver. The FBI then assumed they needed a warrant to search.
  Well, Wen Ho Lee did sign a computer access waiver. This is the 
waiver on this chart. I can't tell you how many days of communication 
it took to get this waiver, because the first explanation was that it 
didn't exist. When the FBI asked the Department of Energy if there was 
a waiver on Wen Ho Lee, the Department of Energy examined their records 
and they could not find a waiver. Here is a waiver signed by Wen Ho 
Lee, April 19, 1995. It says:

       These systems are monitored and recorded and subject to 
     audit. Any unauthorized access or use of this LAN is 
     prohibited and could be subject to criminal and civil 
     penalties. I understand and agree to follow these rules.

  There it is. We found it. What is the result? Lee's computer could 
have been searched, but instead was not searched for 3 long years. 
There was a waiver the entire time. What is the excuse of the 
bureaucrats for that? They point to one another.
  Then there is the role of the Justice Department. The Justice 
Department thwarted the investigation by refusing to approve a warrant, 
not once, twice, but three times. We still have not heard a reasonable 
explanation. The Attorney General owes to the American people and the 
taxpayers an explanation as to why it was turned down.
  What is frightening, as well as frustrating, is that nobody put our 
national security as the priority. The FBI and the Department of 
Justice were more concerned about jumping through unnecessary legal 
hoops than about preventing one of the most catastrophic losses in 
history. The events involved throughout the Lee case are not only 
irresponsible, they are unconscionable.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I agree that there was substantial 
bungling by various officials and, clearly, that computer should have 
been investigated. Maybe we ought to have an amendment out here to 
reorganize the FBI. Maybe that is the solution to this problem, and we 
can consider it tonight before we leave town. Clearly, there is no 
disagreement between Democrats and Republicans about the fact that 
serious problems exist and they need correcting.
  The question is, Should we do a major reorganization of the 
Department of Energy with no hearings, no opportunity for the Secretary 
of Energy to come forward, and do so here as everyone is trying to rush 
out to National Airport and fly home? In my view, that is clearly not 
the responsible way to proceed. Accordingly, we did object to that 
portion of the amendment. I think that is the right thing to do. After 
hearings, after consideration and meaningful discussion with the 
Department and with other experts about how to proceed, we may well 
find some ways to improve that Department through changes in its 
organization. If we do find those, I will certainly be the first to 
support such a proposal. But I do think it is appropriate for us, at 
this stage, to stay with what we know will help and continue to look 
for other ways to help in the weeks and days ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I suggest that the example of the FBI and the 
Department of Energy not knowing that this waiver existed that Senator

[[Page S6230]]

Murkowski spoke about is the perfect case of the right hand not knowing 
what the left hand was doing, and it is precisely what this amendment 
seeks to correct. There is an old debate technique called the ``red 
herring.''
  If you can't meet the real argument of your opponent, throw something 
out there that you can defeat and pretend like that is the issue.
  Members of the Democratic side have said, why, there are all kinds of 
security provisions in this bill. How dare the Republicans suggest that 
we haven't done anything about security in the bill.
  The security provisions in the bill were put there by Republicans. We 
know full well that we have security provisions in the bill. Virtually 
every one of them were put there by Republicans. And I am informed that 
in the Armed Services Committee, Democrats fought many of them. Now 
they come to the floor very proud of what is in the bill--not having 
sponsored them, having opposed some of them, but now contend that we 
have solved the problems, because the Republicans on the Armed Services 
Committee put some provisions in the bill, and because the Republican 
majority leader, Senator Lott, brought a whole series of things to the 
floor. Much of what was quoted by the Democrats came from the Lott 
amendment. In fact, Senator Levin even put into the Record a summary of 
the Lott amendment.
  I am glad. These are all very good provisions. Republicans are 
serious about our national security.
  But to suggest that what was done there is the end of it, now we can 
go home, is to quit way before this problem has been solved.
  The Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski amendment is an amendment that seeks to 
get to the core of the problem. As Senator Bingaman said, two-thirds of 
the Armed Services Committee amendments were incorporated into our 
amendment. That is true. We did that for stylistic purposes.
  What is the problem? It is the remaining one-third. They don't want 
to get to the core of the problem, which is the organization of the 
Department of Energy.
  Here is what it boils down to: Who do you trust? Do you trust the 
Clinton administration with the national security of the United States 
saying: Trust us; we will do the reorganization down here at the 
Department of Energy. We are going to get this figured out.
  Is that who you trust?
  I don't think the American people can afford to continue to put their 
trust in an administration which has known about this problem since 
1995, and only in 1999 did it begin to do anything about it because of 
public pressure. From the management review report of the Department of 
Energy itself, as recently as last month, it recognized that, 
``significant problems exist in that the roles and responsibilities are 
unclear.''
  That is precisely what we are trying to fix--to get these roles and 
responsibilities straight.
  Only a month before, a congressionally created administration said, 
``The Assistant Secretary of Defense programs should be given direct 
line management over all aspects of the nuclear weapons complex.'' That 
is our amendment.
  The GAO report--a whole list of reports, all highly critical of the 
management at the Department of Energy and the defense weapons complex.
  I finally conclude with this point: The GAO testified that the 
continuing management problems at the Department ``were a key factor 
contributing to security problems at the laboratories and a major 
reason why DOE has been unable to develop long-term solutions to the 
recurring problems reported by advisory groups.''

  Is that who you want to trust to clean this up and fix it up, and 
make sure that we don't have any more problems? I think not. I think it 
is time for Congress to get involved.
  What is so amazing to me tonight is that the Democrat minority would 
hold up the defense authorization bill at a time when we are at war in 
Kosovo, because they don't even want to debate our amendment. They 
called a quorum call and wouldn't take it off so that Republican 
Members couldn't even come to the floor. Senator Domenici asked to be 
allowed to speak on our amendment. He is a coauthor. The minority 
refused him the opportunity even to speak.
  So not only will they not allow us to vote on our amendment, but they 
won't even allow it to be debated. Yet their ostensible reasoning for 
opposing it is not because they don't think it has some good ideas in 
it but because we have to have a lot more discussion and debate about 
this; we haven't had hearings; we need to talk about this.
  We have offered them the opportunity to talk about it, but they don't 
want to talk about it. They don't want to talk about it because it gets 
right to the guts of the problem--the Department of Energy has to be 
reformed. This amendment does that.
  The national security of the United States cannot be protected until 
we do that. And the suggestion of the distinguished minority whip that 
now is not the time, on the eve of the Memorial Day recess, is 
astounding. What is more important, that Members get to go home for the 
Memorial Day recess, or that we act with alacrity to fix the problems 
of national security at our laboratories?
  I am astonished that the Democratic minority would take this kind of 
cavalier approach to the national security of the United States--we 
need to talk about it more, but we are not going to let you talk about 
it. We need to get out of town for the recess. So withdraw your 
amendment.
  Only because the Department of Defense needs the authorization bill 
are the authors of this amendment willing to withdraw it at this time.
  There is a war in Kosovo. It is irresponsible for the minority to 
threaten to filibuster this bill until kingdom come while that war is 
going on, because they don't even want to talk about an amendment that 
would guarantee the security at our National Laboratories.
  This is a sad day for those who are opposing this amendment. It is a 
sad day when Members of this Senate won't let their colleagues talk 
about this amendment, won't allow a vote on it, and can't wait to get 
out of town to brag about whatever it is that they have done, but 
without doing the unfinished business of protecting the security of our 
National Laboratories.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent not to take from 
the time of the debate and to continue to work on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Florida has 
debated an amendment today. Senator Shelby and Senator Robert Kerrey 
replied to that debate.
  I am now informed that they will consider the amendment of the 
Senator from Florida at such time as the intelligence bill is brought 
up, and that basically meets the requirements of the distinguished 
Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


             Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Amendment No. 447

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate considers H.R. 1555 I be recognized to offer an amendment 
relative to counterintelligence, and I further ask consent that if this 
agreement is agreed to that amendment 447 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Michigan 
and I will shortly send a managers' package to the desk. I don't know 
that that package is ready at this moment. We hope very much to start 
the final vote before 8 o'clock. There are a number of our colleagues 
whose plans can be greatly enhanced if we can start this vote as 
quickly as possible.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me make some comments, and then I 
will be prepared to yield the remainder of our time. Perhaps I will not 
be able to with my colleague from Nevada here.

[[Page S6231]]

  But let me just make a few comments at least, and then return the 
remainder of the time over to him for any comments he has.
  I think that trying to characterize this problem which exists in our 
Department of Energy and in our National Laboratories as this 
``administration's problem'' rather than all of our problem is just a 
rewriting of history.
  I have a list that, once I have completed my statement, I will offer 
or ask unanimous consent to add to the Record. It is called ``Security 
Concerns at America's Nuclear Facilities,'' excerpts from GAO Reports, 
1980 through 1993.
  When you go through this and look at just the titles of these 
reports, you see that the problems we are debating--the problems of 
adequate safeguards for nuclear secrets, and for these facilities--have 
been with us a long time--long before I ever came to the Senate.
  From a GAO report, March of 1980: Adequate safeguards to prevent the 
theft or diversion of weapons usable material from commercial nuclear 
fuel reprocessing plants have not yet been deployed.
  May, 1986: DOE has insufficient control over nuclear technology 
exports.
  March of 1987: DOE reinvestigation of employees has not been timely.
  August of 1987: Department of Energy needs tighter controls over 
reprocessing information.
  December of 1987: DOE needs a more accurate and efficient security 
clearance program.
  June of 1989: Better controls needed over weapons-related information 
and technology.
  These are the titles of GAO reports. These are all GAO reports that 
were issued in the 1980s before this administration ever came to town, 
before this administration was ever heard of.
  To try to say this is a problem that this administration created and 
that now, this afternoon, we have to get this problem solved because 
otherwise we would be in derogation of our duty, I think is just 
clearly wrong.
  There are significant improvements in security and safeguards of 
secure information and classified information in this bill and there 
are additional safeguards put in place in the Lott amendment which we 
all agree to.
  I was at the Armed Services Committee markup. I can say without 
qualification that the Democrats did not object to the provisions that 
were offered and that are now included in this bill. I believe that we 
Democrats--and I was one of them in that committee markup--
substantially improved the provisions which wound up in the final bill. 
I think we worked with the majority, we tried very hard to be 
constructive and to come up with proposals that were workable and that 
were effective in improving security. I think we have done that.
  I look forward to going through the very same process on this 
question of reorganization of the Department of Energy. We should 
consider the provisions in this amendment which relate to 
reorganization of the Department of Energy and we should do so with 
hearings. We can have them as soon as the week after next. I am happy 
to stay next week and have them, if the Senator is suggesting we are 
trying to leave town without doing our duty to the country. I am happy 
to have them next week in the committees I serve on. If the Energy 
Committee and the Armed Services Committee schedule hearings next week, 
I will be there and I will do all I can to help make whatever 
legislative provisions we propose out of those committees be 
constructive and effective in improving the security of our National 
Laboratories and our Department of Energy, generally, and improving the 
organization of that Department.
  It is highly improper, in my view, to try to legislate something here 
without allowing the Secretary of Energy to testify, without allowing 
him to give his input into it, and without looking at how other 
Secretaries of Energy feel about some of these major, far-reaching 
changes as well.
  We should do this right. We should do it quickly. We should take 
whatever action we determine makes sense for the country's good, and we 
should not play politics with this issue. This is not a Democrat or 
Republican issue. We are all very concerned about our national 
security. We are all anxious to do the right thing--Secretary 
Richardson as much as anyone in this body, and we need to ask his 
advice. We need to talk to all the experts we can find. I hope we can 
come up with some good solutions here.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry. How much time remains on this 
unanimous-consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes, the 
Senator from Arizona 1 minute 42 seconds.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Arizona, in my 
absence, talked about how I had improperly held up this bill. I 
complied with every Senate rule. The rules of the Senate have been in 
effect for a long time.
  I think what we should understand is that it appears there was some 
kind of game playing here, that late in the day this amendment would be 
offered and because people wanted to go home --and I am not one of 
those Senators who had some desire to rush out of here; I had no 
airplane today--there would be a capitulation to this amendment which 
was filed late in the game. It was filed at a time when there were no 
congressional hearings, there had been no time to review this 
responsibly. The minority would not cave in to that.
  We are not talking about Memorial Day recess. We are talking about 
good legislation. This is not good legislation. We have acknowledged 
that there are certain pieces of this amendment we are willing to 
accept, but the rest of it we are not. We are not going to be compelled 
to do so. We complied with the Senate rules, as we always try to do.
  We shouldn't be dealing with this on a partisan basis. The Cox-Dicks 
report dealing with the espionage at one of the National Laboratories 
was done on a bipartisan basis. If we are going to do something to 
change the way the Department of Energy is administered, it should be 
done on a bipartisan basis.
  There may be feelings hurt in this matter; certainly my feelings are 
not hurt. I did what was appropriate to protect the prerogatives of a 
Senator and a minority. That is a reason the Senate has fared so well 
over the two centuries or more that it has been in existence--that the 
rights of the minority can be protected. This is the body to do it. We 
did protect our rights.
  I look forward to the day when we can debate this again. I think it 
will be an interesting debate.
  I have said this before: I commend and applaud the managers of this 
bill. They have done an outstanding job to get rid of this very, very 
important, big piece of legislation. They could not have done it with 
this amendment pending.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the assistant Democratic leader. Senator Levin 
and I have been able to move this bill, but it is because of the 
cooperation we have had from the leadership and all Senators. This is 
my 21st armed services authorization bill and Senator Levin's 21st. I 
don't know of a smoother one. We have had few quorum calls and 
excellent cooperation.
  I wish to say to my distinguished friend and assistant Democratic 
leader, the timing of the bringing up of the Kyl-Domenici amendment I 
am largely responsible for. I worked with them and said I recognized 
that this could begin to slow the bill down. It wasn't a last-minute 
type of thing.
  Mr. REID. I accept that explanation, but I think it underscores what 
I said about the capabilities of the two managers of this bill. Had 
this come up earlier, this bill would not be completed now.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the leader, and I certainly want to pay my 
respect to Senator Lott. He has worked on this issue knowing the 
interest of all parties relating to this important amendment. He has 
worked with us for some several days on it.
  Mr. President, we are ready to begin to wrap things up.


                Amendments Nos. 482 Through 536, En Bloc

  Mr. WARNER. On behalf of myself and the ranking member, the Senator 
from Michigan, I send 56 amendments to the desk. This package of 
amendments is for Senators on both sides of the aisle and has been 
cleared by the minority.

[[Page S6232]]

  I send the amendments to the desk at this time and I ask they be 
considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be 
considered en bloc.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself and Mr. 
     Levin, proposes amendments Nos. 482 through 536, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 482

 (Purpose: To add an exception to a requirement to reimburse a mentor 
                 firm under the Mentor-Protege Program)

       On page 273, line 20, strike ``a period;'' and insert `` `, 
     except that this clause does not apply in a case in which the 
     Secretary of Defense determines in writing that unusual 
     circumstances justify reimbursement using a separate 
     contract.'; ''.
                                  ____



                           amendment No. 483

   (Purpose: To provide for the consolidation of Air Force Research 
    Laboratory facilities at the Rome Research Site, Rome, New York)

       On page 417, in the table preceding line 1, strike 
     ``$12,800,000'' in the amount column of the item relating to 
     Rome Laboratory, New York, and insert ``$25,800,000''.
       On page 420, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

     SEC. 2305. CONSOLIDATION OF AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY 
                   FACILITIES AT ROME RESEARCH SITE, ROME, NEW 
                   YORK.

       The Secretary of the Air Force may accept contributions 
     from the State of New York in addition to amounts authorized 
     in section 2304(a)(1) for the project authorized by section 
     2301(a) for Rome Laboratory, New York, for purposes of 
     carrying out military construction relating to the 
     consolidation of Air Force Research Laboratory facilities at 
     the Rome Research Site, Rome, New York.


                           amendment no. 484

(Purpose: To provide for the repair and conveyance of the Red Butte Dam 
    and Reservoir, Salt Lake City, Utah, to the Central Utah Water 
                         Conservancy District)

       On page 453, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 2832. REPAIR AND CONVEYANCE OF RED BUTTE DAM AND 
                   RESERVOIR, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH.

       (a) Conveyance Required.--The Secretary of the Army may 
     convey, without consideration, to the Central Utah Water 
     Conservancy District, Utah (in this section referred to as 
     the ``District''), all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to the real property, including the dam, 
     spillway, and any other improvements thereon, comprising the 
     Red Butte Dam and Reservoir, Salt Lake City, Utah. The 
     Secretary shall make the conveyance without regard to the 
     department or agency of the Federal Government having 
     jurisdiction over Red Butte Dam and Reservoir.
       (b) Provision of Funds.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary may make 
     funds available to the District for purposes of the 
     improvement of Red Butte Dam and Reservoir to meet the 
     standards applicable to the dam and reservoir under the laws 
     of the State of Utah.
       (c) Use of Funds.--The District shall use funds made 
     available to the District under subsection (b) solely for 
     purposes of improving Red Butte Dam and Reservoir to meet the 
     standards referred to in that subsection.
       (d) Responsibility for Maintenance and Operation.--Upon the 
     conveyance of Red Butte Dam and Reservoir under subsection 
     (a), the District shall assume all responsibility for the 
     operation and maintenance of Red Butte Dam and Reservoir for 
     fish, wildlife, and flood control purposes in accordance with 
     the repayment contract or other applicable agreement between 
     the District and the Bureau of Reclamation with respect to 
     Red Butte Dam and Reservoir.
       (e) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by 
     the District.
       (f) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.


                           amendment No. 485

 (Purpose: To provide $3,000,000 (in PE 62234N) for the Navy for basic 
  research on advanced composite materials processing (specifically, 
resin transfer molding, vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding, and co-
      infusion resin transfer molding), and to provide an offset)

       On page 29, line 11, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 29, line 14, increase the amount by $3,000,000.


                           amendment no. 486

    (Purpose: To add $3,000,000 (in PE 65326A) for the Army Digital 
                    Information Technology Testbed)

       On page 29, line 10, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 29, line 14, reduce the amount by $3,000,000.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, housed at Fort Leavenworth's Center for 
Army Lessons Learned (CALL), the Digital Information Technology Test 
Bed (DITT) established the pilot test bed and core capabilities for the 
Army's University After Next (UAN) and the Joint and Army Virtual 
Research Library (VRL). In May 1997, the Office of Secretary of Defense 
designated the DITT as the DoD functional prototype to conduct concept 
exploration, operational prototyping, and full requirements definition 
for multimedia research libraries (multimedia national and tactical 
imagery) in support of technology-assisted learning, intelligence 
analysis, C2, and operational decision making. DITT systems can further 
support warfighting capabilities by fielding innovative systems and 
methods to store, retrieve, declassify, and destroy DoD-held data. In 
FY 1999, Congress authorized and appropriate $3.5 million for the DITT 
program. However, continued funding is needed in FY 2000 and I ask 
colleagues' support for adding $3 million to the Army FY 2000 budget 
specifically for the DITT program.


                           amendment no. 487

       At the end of Title 8 insert:

     SEC. [SC099.447]. CONTRACT GOAL FOR SMALL DISADVANTAGED 
                   BUSINESSES AND CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER 
                   EDUCATION.

       Extension of Requirement.--Subsection (k) of section 2323 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``2000'' both places it appears and inserting ``2003''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 488

   (Purpose: To authorize payment of special compensation to certain 
             severely disabled uniformed services retirees)

       At the end of subtitle D of title VI, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 659. SPECIAL COMPENSATION FOR SEVERELY DISABLED 
                   UNIFORMED SERVICES RETIREES.

       (a) Authority.--(1) Chapter 71 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 1413. Special compensation for certain severely 
       disabled uniformed services retirees

       ``(a) Authority.--The Secretary concerned shall, subject to 
     the availability of appropriations for such purpose, pay to 
     each eligible disabled uniformed services retiree a monthly 
     amount determined under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Amount.--The amount to be paid to an eligible 
     disabled uniformed services retiree in accordance with 
     subsection (a) is the following:
       ``(1) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying 
     service-connected disability rated as total, $300.
       ``(2) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying 
     service-connected disability rated as 90 percent, $200.
       ``(3) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying 
     service-connected disability rated as 80 percent or 70 
     percent, $100.
       ``(c) Eligible Members.--An eligible disabled uniformed 
     services retiree referred to in subsection (a) is a member of 
     the uniformed services in a retired status (other than a 
     member who is retired under chapter 61 of this title) who--
       ``(1) completed at least 20 years of service in the 
     uniformed services that are creditable for purposes of 
     computing the amount of retired pay to which the member is 
     entitled; and
       ``(2) has a qualifying service-connected disability.
       ``(d) Qualifying Service-Connected Disability Defined.--In 
     this section, the term `qualifying service-connected 
     disability' means a service-connected disability that--
       ``(1) was incurred or aggravated in the performance of duty 
     as a member of a uniformed service, as determined by the 
     Secretary concerned; and
       ``(2) is rated as not less than 70 percent disabling--
       ``(A) by the Secretary concerned as of the date on which 
     the member is retired from the uniformed services; or
       ``(B) by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs within four 
     years following the date on which the member is retired from 
     the uniformed services.
       ``(e) Status of Payments.--Payments under this section are 
     not retired pay.
       ``(f) Source of Funds.--Payments under this section for any 
     fiscal year shall be paid out of funds appropriated for pay 
     and allowances payable by the Secretary concerned for that 
     fiscal year.
       ``(g) Other Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `service-connected' has the meaning give 
     that term in section 101 of title 38.
       ``(2) The term `disability rated as total' means--
       ``(A) a disability that is rated as total under the 
     standard schedule of rating disabilities in use by the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs; or
       ``(B) a disability for which the scheduled rating is less 
     than total but for which a rating of total is assigned by 
     reason of inability of the disabled person concerned to 
     secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a 
     result of service-connected disabilities.

[[Page S6233]]

       ``(3) The term `retired pay' includes retainer pay, 
     emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1413. Special compensation for certain severely disabled uniformed 
              services retirees.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--Section 1413 of title 10, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on 
     October 1, 1999, and shall apply to months that begin on or 
     after that date. No benefit may be paid to any person by 
     reason of that section for any period before that date.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has adopted 
my amendment to S. 1059, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2000, to authorize special compensation for severely 
disabled military retirees who suffer under an existing law regarding 
``concurrent receipt.'' As many of my colleagues know, current law 
requires military retirees who are rated as disabled to offset their 
military retired pay by the amount they receive in veterans' disability 
compensation. This requirement is discriminatory and wrong.
  Today, America's disabled military retirees--those individuals who 
dedicated their careers to military service, and who suffered disabling 
injuries in the course of that service--cannot receive concurrently 
their military retirement pay, which they have earned through at least 
20 years of service in the Armed Forces, and their veterans' disability 
compensation, which they are owed due to pain and suffering incurred 
from military service. In other words, the law penalizes the very men 
and women who have sacrificed their physical or psychological well-
being in uniformed service to their country.
  My amendment does not provide for full payment to eligible veterans 
of both the disability compensation and the retired pay they have 
earned. I regret that such a proposal, which I support in principle, 
would be far more expensive than many of my colleagues could accept. I 
learned that lesson the hard way in the course of sponsoring more 
ambitious concurrent receipt proposals in previous Congresses.
  The amendment instead authorizes special compensation for the most 
severely disabled retired veterans--those who have served for at least 
20 years, and who have disability ratings of between 70 and 100 
percent. More specifically, it would authorize monthly payments of $300 
for totally disabled retired veterans; $200 for retirees rated as 90 
percent disabled; and $100 for retirees with disability ratings of 70-
80 percent.
  These men and women suffer from disabilities that have kept them from 
pursuing second careers. If we cannot muster the votes to provide them 
with their disability pay and retired pay concurrently, the least we 
can do is authorize a modest special compensation package to 
demonstrate that we have not forgotten their sacrifices.
  The Military Coalition, an organization of 30 prominent veterans' and 
retires' advocacy groups, supports this legislation, as do many other 
veterans' service organizations, including the American Legion and 
Disabled American Veterans. These highly respected organizations 
recognize, as I do, that severely disabled military retirees deserve, 
at a minimum, special compensation for the honorable service they have 
rendered the United States.
  The existing requirement that military retired pay be offset dollar-
for-dollar by veterans' disability compensation is inequitable. I 
firmly believe that non-disability military retired pay is post-service 
compensation for services rendered in the United States military. 
Veterans' disability pay, on the other hand, is compensation for a 
physical or mental disability incurred from the performance of such 
service. In my view, the two pays are for very different purposes: one 
for service rendered and the other for physical or mental ``pain and 
suffering.'' This is an important distinction evident to any military 
retiree currently forced to offset his retirement pay with disability 
compensation.
  Concurrent receipt is, at its core, a fairness issue, and present law 
simply discriminates against career military people. Retired veterans 
are the only group of federal retirees who are required to waive their 
retirement pay in order to receive VA disability. This inequity needs 
to be corrected. The Senate has made important progress toward that end 
with the adoption of this amendment.
  I continue to hope that the Pentagon, once it finally understands our 
message that it cannot continue to unfairly penalize disabled military 
retirees, will provide Congress with a fair and equitable plan to 
properly compensate retired service members with disabilities. It is 
hard to disagree with the simple logic that disabled veterans both need 
and deserve our full support after the untold sacrifices they made in 
defense of this country.
  I look forward to the day when our disabled retirees are no longer 
unduly penalized by existing limitations on concurrent receipt of the 
benefits they deserve. And I thank Senators Warner and Levin, the 
managers of S. 1059, for accepting my amendment to provide special 
compensation for severely disabled retired veterans, who deserve our 
ongoing support and gratitude.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 489

 (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Defense to eliminate the backlog 
 in satisfying requests of former members of the Armed Forces for the 
      issuance or replacement of military medals and decorations)

       In title V, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. 552. ELIMINATION OF BACKLOG IN REQUESTS FOR REPLACEMENT 
                   OF MILITARY MEDALS AND OTHER DECORATIONS.

       (a) Sufficient Resourcing Required.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall make available funds and other resources at the 
     levels that are necessary for ensuring the elimination of the 
     backlog of the unsatisfied requests made to the Department of 
     Defense for the issuance or replacement of military 
     decorations for former members of the Armed Forces. The 
     organizations to which the necessary funds and other 
     resources are to be made available for that purpose are as 
     follows:
       (1) The Army Reserve Personnel Command.
       (2) The Bureau of Naval Personnel.
       (3) The Air Force Personnel Center.
       (4) The National Archives and Records Administration
       (b) Condition.--The Secretary shall allocate funds and 
     other resources under subsection (a) in a manner that does 
     not detract from the performance of other personnel service 
     and personnel support activities within the Department of 
     Defense.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 45 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the status of the backlog described 
     in subsection (a). The report shall include a plan for 
     eliminating the backlog.
       (d) Replacement Decoration Defined.--For the purposes of 
     this section, the term ``decoration'' means a medal or other 
     decoration that a former member of the Armed Forces was 
     awarded by the United States for military service of the 
     United States.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 490

  (Purpose: To clarify the relationship between the pilot program for 
commercial services and existing law on the transportation of supplies 
                                by sea)

       On page 283, line 18, strike ``(h)'' and insert the 
     following:
       (h) Relationship to Preference on Transportation of 
     Supplies.--Nothing in this section shall be construed as 
     modifying, superseding, impairing, or restricting 
     requirements, authorities, or responsibilities under section 
     2631 of title 10, United States Code.
       (i)

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I offer this amendment to clarify the 
applicability of the Cargo Preference Act to the acquisition 
streamlining authority found in section 805 of S. 1059. Section 805 
creates a new pilot acquisition program for commercial services, one of 
which is ``transportation, travel and relocation services.'' Although 
cargo preference or preference waivers are not mentioned, this pilot 
program could potentially be used to permit waivers of cargo preference 
law found in 10 U.S.C. 2631. In the absence of cargo preferences, DOD 
would have to acquire an immense organic fleet and use very scarce 
uniformed manpower at enormous cost of more than $800 million per year. 
This would dwarf any acquisition reform savings. This amendment would 
ensure the waivers of 10 U.S.C. 2631 for commercial service contracts 
are not authorized under this pilot program.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 491

    (Purpose: To require a report on the use of the facilities and 
  electronic infrastructure of the National Guard for support of the 
                    provision of veterans services)

       On page 357, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

[[Page S6234]]

     SEC. 1032. REPORT ON USE OF NATIONAL GUARD FACILITIES AND 
                   INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SUPPORT OF PROVISION OF 
                   VETERANS SERVICES.

       (a) Report.--(1) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
     shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs, submit to the Secretary of Defense a report 
     assessing the feasibility and desirability of using the 
     facilities and electronic infrastructure of the National 
     Guard for support of the provision of services to veterans by 
     the Secretary. The report shall include an assessment of any 
     costs and benefits associated with the use of such facilities 
     and infrastructure for such support.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense shall transmit to Congress the 
     report submitted under paragraph (1), together with any 
     comments on the report that the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (b) Transmittal Date.--The report shall be transmitted 
     under subsection (a)(2) not later than April 1, 2000.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that 
promises to extend to the Nation's veterans an improved, more 
accessible way to submit and process claims for benefits and other 
services. Recently, in my state of New Mexico, complaints about 
processing claims for veterans benefits reached high volume. Billboards 
appeared around the city of Albuquerque that the Albuquerque regional 
office of the Veterans Administration was the ``worst VA office in the 
country.'' I was very concerned about those charges and looked into the 
situation. Information provided by the Albuquerque office essentially 
confirmed the accusations I read on the billboard. Statistics show that 
the system is broken and needs fixing. Compensation for completed 
claims in New Mexico takes 301.6 days on average; the nationwide 
average is 192.9 days. Pension compensation claims average 149.9 days 
in Albuquerque versus 108.8 days nationwide. ``Cases Pending Over 180 
Days'' in Albuquerque are about 31 percent of the total. Nationwide, 
only about 22 percent fall into that category.
  The system appears to be broken and the situation is ripe for 
creative new ways to solve our beleaguered veterans' problems.
  I recently received a briefing that I thought might go a long way to 
serving veterans' needs, particularly in rural States such as New 
Mexico. The proposal suggested that veterans be permitted to use 
National Guard armories and communications infrastructure to receive 
counsel on a wide range of veterans problems and programs. As you are 
aware, National Guard armories are typically used during weekends for 
exercises and training, but often are underutilized during the week. 
The proposal suggested that the National Guard and the Veterans 
Administration coordinate ideas and concerns into a program which could 
take advantage of the considerable resources already in place at the 
armories. The wide dispersion or armories, particularly among rural 
communities, would provide a considerably more convenient venue for 
receiving veterans services than the long commute to major metropolitan 
areas such as Albuquerque that is now required.
  My amendment requires the National Guard in consultation with the 
Veterans Administration to examine this idea, and to report their 
findings regarding costs and benefits to the Secretary of Defense, who, 
having reviewed the report, would submit it and any additional findings 
to the Congress. I am optimistic that the analysis will show that 
investing resources in this project would pay major dividends to the 
veterans community which is experiencing considerable difficulty in 
settling benefit claims under the current process.
  I am pleased to introduce this idea to my fellow Senators and 
appreciate its acceptance as an agreed amendment in this year's defense 
bill.
       In title II, t the end of subtitle C, add the following:

     SEC. 225. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BALLISTIC MISSILE 
                   DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY FUNDING.

       It is the Sense of Congress that--
       (1) because technology development provides the basis for 
     future weapon systems, it is important to maintain a healthy 
     funding balance between ballistic missile defense technology 
     development and ballistic missile defense acquisition 
     programs;
       (2) funding planned within the future years defense program 
     of the Department of Defense should be sufficient to support 
     the development of technology for future and follow-on 
     ballistic missile defense systems while simultaneously 
     supporting ballistic missile defense acquisition programs;
       (3) the Secretary of Defense should seek to ensure that 
     funding in the future years defense program is adequate for 
     both advanced ballistic missile defense technology 
     development and for existing ballistic missile defense major 
     defense acquisition programs; and
       (4) the Secretary should submit a report to the 
     congressional defense committees by March 15, 2000, on the 
     Secretary's plan for dealing with the matters identified in 
     this section.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, funding for Ballistic Missile Defense 
Technology has been in a steady decline since Fiscal Year 1992, with 
the Army part of the budget down approximately 70% during this period. 
All indications are that it appears technology funding is headed for 
further descent in the future.
  The Ballistic Missile Defense Technology program is in the category 
of research and development, a category that bridges the gap between 
basic research and full-scale weapon system development and it is 
critical to preventing technical obsolescence and to meeting emerging 
threats.
  Historically, this applied research in the area of ballistic Missile 
Defense has been vital to the evolution of systems that are being 
developed and deployed today to meet an ever-growing missile threat. It 
is the wellspring of new defense systems and the source of demonstrated 
technology that is needed to make upgrades to systems already in the 
field.
  The emphasis in the Ballistic Defense Technology program for the past 
7 to 8 years has been on acquisition, getting systems developed and 
fielded. Following Desert Storm in 1991, it was clear that ballistic 
missiles were a real threat and that the problem of proliferation of 
these missiles would be of grave concern for many years to come. There 
were understandable calls to rapidly build defense systems to counter 
this threat.
  While this emphasis is on deployment certainly justified by the pace 
and scale of the threat, it has resulted in a serious reduction in the 
advanced development budget. This means the missile defense systems 
entering the inventory today are the products of laboratories of the 
services over a number of years, in some cases over a span of 20 or 
more years.
  If we are to remain the world's leader in missile systems, it is 
imperative that we do all we can to stop this dramatic erosion of 
Ballistic Missile Defense Advanced Technology funding and strengthen 
the chain of development upon which future defense capability depends. 
We are indeed ``eating our seed corn'' when we pull from our research 
efforts to fund the deployment of systems or carry out other military 
missions such as those found in the contingency operation arena such as 
Bosnia or Kosovo.
  This Sense of the Congress calls upon the Secretary of Defense to 
take a hard look at the Future Years Defense Program to ensure that 
funding in the future years defense program is adequate for both 
advanced ballistic missile defense technology development and for 
existing ballistic defense major defense acquisition and improvement 
programs. To that end we look forward to the Secretary's report by 
March 15th, 2000 on his plan for dealing with the matters identified in 
the amendment.


                           amendment no. 493

   (Purpose: To require a report regarding National Missile Defense)

       In title II, at the end of subtitle C, add the following:

     SEC. 225. REPORT ON NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE.

       Not later than March 15, 2000, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to Congress the Secretary's assessment of the 
     advantages or disadvantages of a two-site deployment of a 
     ground-based National Missile Defense system, with special 
     reference to considerations of the worldwide ballistic 
     missile threat, defensive coverage, redundancy and 
     survivability, and economies of scale.


                           amendment no. 494

   (Purpose: To require a report from the Comptroller General on the 
  closure of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado)

       On page 578, below line 21, add the following:

     SEC. 3179. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON CLOSURE OF ROCKY 
                   FLATS ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY SITE, COLORADO.

       (a) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2000, the 
     Comptroller General shall submit to the Committees on Armed 
     Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report 
     assessing the progress in the closure of the Rocky Flats 
     Environmental Technology Site, Colorado.

[[Page S6235]]

       (b) Report Elements.--The report shall address the 
     following:
       (1) How decisions with respect to the future use of the 
     Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site effect ongoing 
     cleanup at the site.
       (2) Whether the Secretary of Energy could provide 
     flexibility to the contractor at the site in order to quicken 
     the cleanup of the site.
       (3) Whether the Secretary could take additional actions 
     throughout the nuclear weapons complex of the Department of 
     Energy in order to quicken the closure of the site.
       (4) The developments, if any, since the April 1999 report 
     of the Comptroller General that could alter the pace of the 
     closure of the site.
       (5) The possibility of closure of the site by 2006.
       (6) The actions that could be taken by the Secretary or 
     Congress to ensure that the site would be closed by 2006.


                           amendment no. 495

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, this dynamic legislative year has seen 
some monumental events. This body began the year by passing S. 4, the 
Soldiers, Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. 
With an overwhelming vote of 91-8, the United States Senate did not 
hesitate to show this great Nation that we appreciate the sacrifices 
and contributions of our service men and women. We also sent a message 
to the senior leaders of our military services that their pleas for 
assistance in stemming the flow of highly qualified service members 
from the military would not go unanswered.
  The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 
1999 included a 4.8% pay raise, pay table reform, REDUX repeal, a 
thrift savings plan, and improvements to the current GI Bill. These GI 
Bill improvements included an increase in GI Bill benefits from $528 to 
$600 per month, elimination of the now-required $1200 service member 
contribution, permission to accelerate lump sum benefits and finally, 
authority to transfer GI Bill benefits to immediate family members. 
While the bill we are considering today addresses pay and retirement 
system reforms, it does not address the GI Bill enhancements. You, my 
distinguished colleagues, showed your support for these GI Bill 
enhancements earlier this year. I, and the members of our armed 
services--and their families, asks for your support again.
  Since the end of the Cold War, our military services have been 
reduced by one-third, yet worldwide commitments have increased 
fourfold. Our forces are poised in Asia, standing guard in the Sinai, 
providing assistance in south America and Haiti, flying combat missions 
in Iraq, and engaged in war in Kosovo. They are providing invaluable 
humanitarian assistance to those who have been devastated by a number 
of natural disasters around the world. And, members of our Guard and 
Reserve components will be this country's sole providers of a 
``Homeland Defense'' against the challenge of weapons of mass 
destruction presented by this uncertain world.
  Sadly, these men and women who sacrifice so much for our country are 
bearing the brunt of these competing demands. By improving pay and 
benefits, as well as providing for increases in equipment upgrades, 
weapons procurement and replenishment, and spare parts funding, we can 
show America's brightest that we value their service and recognized 
their sacrifices.
  In my opinion, improvements to the GI Bill may be the single most 
important step the Congress can take in assisting the recruiting and 
retaining of America's best. Data we are seeing indicate that education 
benefits are an essential component in attracting young people to join 
the armed services. As the costs of college tuition rise, we must 
remain in step by increasing in GI Bill benefits, or the benefits 
themselves will become less effective over time. The transferability 
option, under which service members would be allowed to transfer their 
GI Bill benefits to their spouse or children, is an innovative, 
powerful tool that sends the right message to those young people we are 
trying to attract into the military and those we are trying to retain.
  This Nation changed dramatically, and for the better, under the 
original GI Bill. Now we have another chance to address future national 
needs by creating the GI Bill of the 21st Century. I ask that you join 
me as we choose the right path at this important historical crossroads.


                           amendment no. 496

   (Purpose: To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the 
 minimum Survivor Benefit Plan basic annuity for surviving spouses age 
                             62 and older)

       In title VI, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. 659. COMPUTATION OF SURVIVOR BENEFITS.

       (a) Increased Basic Annuity.--(1) Subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) 
     of section 1451 of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``35 percent of the base amount.'' and inserting 
     ``the product of the base amount and the percent applicable 
     for the month. The percent applicable for a month is 35 
     percent for months beginning on or before the date of the 
     enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2000, 40 percent for months beginning after such 
     date and before October 2004, and 45 percent for months 
     beginning after September 2004.''.
       (2) Subsection (a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of such section is amended 
     by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the percent 
     specified under subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) as being applicable 
     for the month''.
       (3) Subsection (c)(1)(B)(i) of such section is amended--
       (A) by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the 
     applicable percent''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The percent 
     applicable for a month under the preceding sentence is the 
     percent specified under subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) as being 
     applicable for the month.''.
       (4) The heading for subsection (d)(2)(A) of such section is 
     amended to read as follows: ``Computation of annuity.--''.
       (b) Adjusted Supplemental Annuity.--Section 1457(b) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``5, 10, 15, or 20 percent'' and inserting 
     ``the applicable percent''; and
       (2) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``The percent used for the computation shall be an even 
     multiple of 5 percent and, whatever the percent specified in 
     the election, may not exceed 20 percent for months beginning 
     on or before the date of the enactment of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, 15 percent 
     for months beginning after that date and before October 2004, 
     and 10 percent for months beginning after September 2004.''.
       (c) Recomputation of Annuities.--(1) Effective on the first 
     day of each month referred to in paragraph (2)--
       (A) each annuity under section 1450 of title 10, United 
     States Code, that commenced before that month, is computed 
     under a provision of section 1451 of that title amended by 
     subsection (a), and is payable for that month shall be 
     recomputed so as to be equal to the amount that would be in 
     effect if the percent applicable for that month under that 
     provision, as so amended, had been used for the initial 
     computation of the annuity; and
       (B) each supplemental survivor annuity under section 1457 
     of such title that commenced before that month and is payable 
     for that month shall be recomputed so as to be equal to the 
     amount that would be in effect if the percent applicable for 
     that month under that section, as amended by this section, 
     had been used for the initial computation of the supplemental 
     survivor annuity.
       (2) The requirements for recomputation of annuities under 
     paragraph (1) apply with respect to the following months:
       (A) The first month that begins after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (B) October 2004.
       (d) Recomputation of Retired Pay Reductions for 
     Supplemental Survivor Annuities.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall take such actions as are necessitated by the amendments 
     made by subsection (b) and the requirements of subsection 
     (c)(1)(B) to ensure that the reductions in retired pay under 
     section 1460 of title 10, United States Code, are adjusted to 
     achieve the objectives set forth in subsection (b) of that 
     section.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. President, my amendment is the text of S. 763 as introduced on 
April 12. It would increase the minimum Survivor Benefit Plan basic 
annuity for surviving spouses age 62 and older. I am pleased to have 
join me as cosponsors of the amendment: Senators Lott, Burns, Cochran, 
Cleland, Collins, Hutchinson of Arkansas, Mack, McCain and Snowe.
  Mr. President, as our Armed Forces are engaged in operations over 
Yugoslavia, it is appropriate for the Congress to correct a long-
standing economic injustice to the widows of our military retirees. My 
amendment would immediately increase for survivors over the age 62 the 
minimum Survivor Benefit Plan annuity from 35 percent to 40 percent of 
the Survivor Benefit Plan-covered retired pay. The amendment would 
provide a further increase to 45 percent of covered retired pay as of 
October 1, 2004.
  Mr. President, I expect every member of the Senate has received mail 
from military spouses expressing dismay

[[Page S6236]]

that they would not be receiving the 55 percent of their husband's 
retirement pay as advertised in the Survivor Benefit Plan literature 
provided by the military. The reason that they do not receive the 55 
percent of retired pay is that current law mandates that at age 62 this 
amount be reduced either by the amount of the Survivors Social Security 
benefit or to 35 percent of the SBP. This law is especially irksome to 
those retirees who joined the plan when it was first offered in 1972. 
These service members were never informed of the age-62 reduction until 
they had made an irrevocable decision to participate. Many retirees and 
their spouses, as the constituent mail attests, believed their premium 
payments would guarantee 55 percent of retired pay for the life of the 
survivor. It is not hard to imagine the shock and financial 
disadvantage these men and women who so loyally served the Nation in 
troubled spots throughout the world undergo when they learn of the 
annuity reduction.
  Mr. President, when the Survivor Benefit Plan was enacted in 1972, 
the Congress intended that the government would pay 40 percent of the 
cost to parallel the government subsidy of the Federal civilian 
survivor benefit plan. That was short-lived. Over time, the 
government's cost sharing has declined to about 26 percent. In other 
words, the retiree's premiums now cover 74 percent of expected long-
term program costs versus the intended 60 percent. Contrast this with 
the federal civilian SBP, which has a 42 percent subsidy for those 
personnel under the Federal Employees Retirement System and a 50 
percent subsidy for those under the Civil Service Retirement System. 
Further, Federal civilian survivors receive 50 percent of retired pay 
with no offset at age 62. Although Federal civilian premiums are 10 
percent retired pay compared to 6.5 percent for military retirees, the 
difference in the percent of contribution is offset by the fact that 
our service personnel retire at a much younger age than the civil 
servant and, therefore pay premiums much longer than the federal 
civilian retiree.
  Mr. President, 2 years ago, with the significant support from the 
Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was successful in 
gaining approval from the Congress in enacting the Survivor Benefit 
Plan benefits for the so-called Forgotten Widows. This is the second 
step toward correcting the Survivors Benefit Plan and providing the 
surviving spouses of our military personnel earned and paid for 
benefits.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President.


                           amendment no. 497

(Purpose: To authorize the award of the Navy Combat Action Ribbon based 
upon participation in ground or surface combat as a member of the Navy 
 or Marine Corps during the period between December 7, 1941, and March 
                                1, 1961)

       On page 134, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 552. RETROACTIVE AWARD OF NAVY COMBAT ACTION RIBBON.

       The Secretary of the Navy may award the Navy Combat Action 
     Ribbon (established by Secretary of the Navy Notice 1650, 
     dated February 17, 1969) to a member of the Navy and Marine 
     Corps for participation in ground or surface combat during 
     any period after December 6, 1941, and before March 1, 1961 
     (the date of the otherwise applicable limitation on 
     retroactivity for the award of such decoration), if the 
     Secretary determines that the member has not been previously 
     recognized in appropriate manner for such participation.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment for 
myself and Senator Smith of New Hampshire, to ensure that Navy and 
Marine Corps Combat veterans get the recognition they deeply deserve.
  The ongoing action in Kosovo reminds us of the dangers our men and 
women in uniform face when called upon during a time of conflict. In 
recognition of their service, they are awarded campaign and combat 
decorations to identify them as those who have faced this nation's 
fiercest challenge--enemy fire. America's combat veterans risk their 
lives to preserve our freedoms, and carry out the orders of the 
President in answering the challenges to our nation's security.
  During World War II, the Army created the combat infantry badge to 
identify those soldiers who had faced combat. The Navy had no similar 
award until the 1960's. Although the Navy awarded Combat Stars prior to 
that point, the Combat Action Ribbon was created as a way to better 
recognize those who had served in combat. Recently, legislation was 
introduced in the House of Representatives to make Navy and Marine 
combat veterans who served in combat for any period after July 4, 1943, 
and before March 1, 1961, eligible for the Navy Combat Action Ribbon. 
In response to this legislation, a Pearl Harbor survivor from my state 
wrote to me and pointed out that the dates included in the legislation 
exclude many of the combat veterans who served in the war's fiercest 
naval battles, Pearl Harbor and Midway among them.
  In response to this oversight, our legislation will make eligible for 
the Navy Combat Action Ribbon those Navy and Marine combat veterans who 
served in combat for any period after December 6, 1941, and before 
March 1, 1961, The Secretary of the Navy will review those who apply 
for these awards to ensure that those who have not yet been recognized 
are not forgotten. We believe it is only appropriate that we honor 
those who were willing to sacrifice their lives for this country.


                           amendment no. 498

   (Purpose: To authorize Coast Guard participation in DOD education 
                   programs, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . COAST GUARD EDUCATION FUNDING.

       Section 2006 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Department of Defense education 
     liabilities'' in subsection (a) and inserting ``armed forces 
     education liabilities'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (b) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) The term `armed forces educational liabilities' means 
     liabilities of the armed forces for benefits under chapter 30 
     of title 38 and for Department of Defense benefits under 
     chapter 1606 of this title.'';
       (3) by inserting ``Department of Defense'' after ``future'' 
     in subsection (b)(2)(C);
       (4) by striking ``106'' in subsection (b)(2)(C) and 
     inserting ``1606'';
       (5) by inserting ``and the Secretary of the Department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating'' after ``Defense'' in 
     subsection (c)(1);
       (6) by striking ``Department of Defense'' in subsection (d) 
     and inserting ``armed forces'';
       (7) by inserting ``the Secretary of the Department in which 
     the Coast Guard is operating'' in subsection (d) after 
     ``Secretary of Defense.'';
       (8) by inserting ``and the Department in which the Coast 
     Guard is operating'' after ``Department of Defense'' in 
     subsection (f)(5);
       (9) by inserting ``and the Secretary of the Department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating'' in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) of subsection (g) after ``The Secretary of Defense''; and
       (10) by striking ``of a military department'' in subsection 
     (g)(3) and inserting ``concerned.''.

     SEC.   . TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO PROHIBITION ON RELEASE OF 
                   CONTRACTOR PROPOSALS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF 
                   INFORMATION ACT.

       Title 10 Amendment.--Section 2305(g) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended in paragraph (1) by striking ``the 
     Department of Defense'' and inserting ``an agency named in 
     section 2303 of this title.''
                                  ____



                             amendment 499

 (Purpose: To designate the officials to administer the defense reform 
initiative enterprise pilot program for military manpower and personnel 
                              information)

       In title V, at the end of subtitle F, add the following:

     SEC. 582. ADMINISTRATION OF DEFENSE REFORM INITIATIVE 
                   ENTERPRISE PROGRAM FOR MILITARY MANPOWER AND 
                   PERSONNEL INFORMATION.

       (a) Executive Agent.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     designate the Secretary of the Navy as the executive agent 
     for carrying out the defense reform initiative enterprise 
     pilot program for military manpower and personnel information 
     established under section 8147 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-262; 112 Stat. 2341; 
     10 U.S.C. 113 note).
       (b) Action Officials.--In carrying out the pilot program, 
     the Secretary of the Navy shall act through the head of the 
     Systems Executive Office for Manpower and Personnel, who 
     shall act in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense 
     for Personnel and Readiness and the Chief Information Officer 
     of the Department of Defense.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, just a little over a week ago, I had the 
privilege of traveling with the Secretary of Defense down to my home 
state. It was a terrific trip and I believe the Secretary was very 
impressed with the work that we are doing in Louisiana at our military 
installations and with our defense industry. One of the real highlights 
of the trip was the ribbon cutting ceremony for the Naval Information 
Technology Center in New Orleans. This facility, hosted by the 
University of New Orleans, is home to the

[[Page S6237]]

Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System, as well as other 
personnel software projects for the Navy.
  The DIHMRS project is one of those rare proposals that instantly 
captures the support of those that understand it. The military services 
have spent countless billions of dollars in developing and supporting 
``stove pipe'' personnel software systems, that were out-of-date before 
they were complete, had no capacity for interconnectivity and did not 
provide the breadth of personnel information to be of real utility to 
our military leadership.
  DIHMRS seeks to change all of that. It will provide an integrated 
system of personnel information, that will ultimately tie all the 
services all the personnel systems and records, and do so in a easily 
accessible fashion that will give commanders the information about 
training and experience that they need to make deployment decisions. 
This project fits perfectly into our efforts to craft smaller, faster 
and more flexible force structures. One of the key ingredients to 
creating smaller, more effective forces, is the ability to quickly 
identify individuals with the experience and training that needed for 
particular missions. This is daunting task for any service now, it 
becomes more so if you are trying to put together an inter-service task 
force. When fully operational DIHMRS will address this need.
  These advantages do not even address the enormous savings that the 
Department of Defense will realize by terminating the innumerable 
individual human resource computer systems that track only one kind of 
data for one branch of the military. Thus, this project is a boon to 
both readiness and economic efficiency.
  For that reason, I have introduced an amendment which emphasizes the 
Senate Armed Service Committee's support for this effort. It is 
important to note that a project like DIHMRS requires innovation and 
division. Thus, the management structure for the program has also 
required a degree of innovation and flexibility. I believe that the 
unique structure adopted for the DIHMRS project is critical for its 
ultimate success. For that reason, the amendment reemphasizes the 
support for the present management structure expressed in Section 8147 
of Public Law 105-262. That appropriations law directed the Department 
to establish a Defense Reform Initiative enterprise program for 
military manpower, personnel, training and compensation using a revised 
DIHMRS project as the baseline. Additionally, the amendment also 
expresses the intention that the DoD maintain this enterprise project, 
and the management and executive responsibility be contained within the 
Systems Executive Office for Manpower and Personnel.
  The President's budget request includes $65 million dollars for 
DIHMRS. I believe that these monies must be used according to the 
direction given in last year's Defense Appropriation's conference 
report to maintain the success of the program. Specifically, these 
funds should be used to: (1) address modernization and migration 
systems support for service information systems within the enterprise 
of manpower, personnel, training and compensation; (2) to continue 
support for infrastructure improvements at the Naval Information 
Technology Center; and, (3) to continue Navy central design activity 
consolidations and relocations already begun under the Systems 
Executive Officer and the Naval Reserve Information Systems Office.
  The consolidation of the personnel information reform efforts is 
necessary for both budgetary concerns, and valuable as a tool for 
managing our soldiers, sailors and airmen better. I believe that DIHMRS 
will make an invaluable contribution to that effort. I thank the 
mangers for accepting this amendment, and I look forward to working 
with the Navy to make this project a real success.


                           amendment no. 500

 (Purpose: To authorize a demonstration program on open enrollment in 
     managed care plans of the former uniformed services treatment 
                              facilities)

       In title VII, at the end of subtitle A, add the following:

     SEC. 705. OPEN ENROLLMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       Section 724 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 10 U.S.C. 1073 note) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Open Enrollment Demonstration Program.--(1) The 
     Secretary of Defense shall conduct a demonstration program 
     under which covered beneficiaries shall be permitted to 
     enroll at any time in a managed care plan offered by a 
     designated provider consistent with the enrollment 
     requirements for the TRICARE Prime option under the TRICARE 
     program but without regard to the limitation in subsection 
     (b). Any demonstration program under this subsection shall 
     cover designated providers selected by the Department of 
     Defense and the service areas of the designated providers.
       ``(2) Any demonstration program carried out under this 
     section shall commence on October 1, 1999, and end on 
     September 30, 2001.
       ``(3) Not later than March 15, 2001, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on any 
     demonstration program carried out under this subsection. The 
     report shall include, at a minimum, an evaluation of the 
     benefits of the open enrollment opportunity to covered 
     beneficiaries and a recommendation concerning whether to 
     authorize open enrollments in the managed care plans of 
     designated providers permanently.''.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, access to quality health care concerns many 
of our military men and women, both active and retired. My amendment 
would allow the Department of Defense to start a pilot project allowing 
continuous open enrollment in managed health care plans form military 
retirees at 2 sites selected by the Defense Department.
  The term ``continuous enrollment'' means the opportunity for military 
beneficiaries to join the Prime option in TRICARE at any time. 
Currently, military retirees and their beneficiaries wishing to enroll 
in the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan (USFHP) may only do so 
during an annual 30-day long, open session.
  This arrangement inconsistent with the enrollment rules under TRICARE 
Prime option. These same beneficiaries can join TRICARE Prime on a 
continuous basis, but are restricted from joining the USFHP to joint 
once a year for a 30-day period.
  Coupled with the many changes in TriCare, including new enrollment 
fees and higher copayments, many military beneficiaries are confused 
and unsure if the HMO option in TriCare, either Prime through the 
managed care support contractor of the USFHP, is the right choice for 
them and their families. Thus, as I have been informed by physicians 
from my own state, many beneficiaries and their families have decided 
not to join either program.
  What this restriction means in practical terms for retirees is that 
they are not able to take advantage of health are providers that may 
practice in close proximity to their residences, but instead travel 
significant distances to a military treatment facility. In locations 
where there are no TriCare Prime network providers, the retirees are 
aced with limited choices and higher costs.
  The Department of Defense has indicate that this open enrollment 
would be too costly; however, there is limited data to support their 
contention that this provision will generate a significant influx of 
new enrollees in the program. DOD's key concerns are based on two 
factors; the possible increase in cost due to the number of enrollees, 
and the risk adjustment in the Medicare program scheduled to take 
effect January 1, 2000. However, based on a review of the actual 
enrollment data the number of people enrolled in the USFHP program has 
actually declined from 29,256 in October 1997 to 26,950 in March 1999.
  This trend represents a decline of 7.6% over eighteen months and an 
annual rate of decline of 5.0%.
  As of June 1, six of seven designated providers which operate the 
USFHP will have completed ``open season'' enrollment. The preliminary 
results show a net increase of 3,754 individuals enrolled in the USFHP. 
Of this number, approximately 18% or 676, were 65 and older. This is a 
much lower percentage--18% compared to 28%--than the 65 and older 
enrollees were as a percentage of enrollment before the current open 
season started.
  This amendment would authorize the Department of Defense to 
demonstrate the continuous open enrollment program at a minimum of two 
sites for a two year period. During the second year of the 
demonstration period, DOD would submit a report to Congress evaluation 
the benefits of the program and a recommendation concerning

[[Page S6238]]

whether the authorize open enrollments in the managed care plans on a 
permanent basis.
  This proposal is supported by numerous organizations such as the 
National Military Family Association and the National Military and 
Veterans Alliance. The national Military and Veterans Alliance includes 
organizations such as: The Retired Officers Association, Non-
Commissioned Officers Association, Naval Reserve Association, National 
Association of Uniformed Services, the Reserve Enlisted Association and 
the Korean War Veterans Association.
  In testimony before the Personnel Subcommittee earlier this year, 
representatives from many of these organizations have emphasized that 
access to quality health care is one of their primary concerns.
  Finally, I believe that this amendment is a measured step, but one 
that leads us toward a fair and good faith effort to address the 
inconsistency in providing our retirees access to health care on an 
equal basis with TriCare Prime.


                           amendment no. 501

       (Purpose: To require a report on the D-5 missile program)

       On page 28, below line 21, add the following:

     SEC. 143. D-5 MISSILE PROGRAM.

       (a) Report.--Not later than October 31, 1999, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services 
     of the Senate and House of Representatives a report on the D-
     5 missile program.
       (b) Report Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) An inventory management plan for the D-5 missile 
     program covering the life of the program, including--
       (A) the location of D-5 missiles during the fueling of 
     submarines;
       (B) rotation of inventory; and
       (C) expected attrition rate due to flight testing, loss, 
     damage, or termination of service life.
       (2) The cost of
       (A) terminating procurement of D-5 missiles for each fiscal 
     year prior to the current plan.
       (3) An assessment of the capability of the Navy of meeting 
     strategic requirements with a total procurement of less than 
     425 D-5 missiles, including an assessment of the consequences 
     of--
       (A) loading Trident submarines with less than 24 D-5 
     missiles; and
       (B) reducing the flight test rate for D-5 missiles; and
       (4) An assessment of the optimal commencement date for the 
     development and deployment of replacement systems for the 
     current land-based and sea-based missile forces.
       The Secretary's plan for maintaining D-5 missiles and 
     Trident Submarines under START II and proposed START III, and 
     whether requirements for such missiles and submarines would 
     be reduced under such treaties.

                           amendment no. 502

   (Purpose: To provide $10,000,000 (in Budget Activity 1: Operating 
  Forces) for Navy Operations and Maintenance Funding for Operational 
   Meteorology and Oceanography and UNOLS, and to provide an offset)

       Of the funds authorized to be appropriated in section 
     301(2), an additional $10 million may be expended for 
     Operational Meteorology and Oceanography and UNOLS.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 503

  (Purpose: To require that due consideration be given to according a 
  high priority to attendance of military personnel of the new member 
nations of NATO at professional military education schools and programs 
                          of the Armed Forces)

       In title X, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. 1061. ATTENDANCE AT PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION 
                   SCHOOLS BY MILITARY PERSONNEL OF THE NEW MEMBER 
                   NATIONS OF NATO.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that it is in the national 
     interests of the United States to fully integrate Poland, 
     Hungary, and the Czech Republic, the new member nations of 
     the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, into the NATO 
     alliance as quickly as possible.
       (b) Military Education and Training Programs.--The 
     Secretary of each military department shall give due 
     consideration to according a high priority to the attendance 
     of military personnel of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
     Republic at professional military education schools and 
     training programs in the United States, including the United 
     States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the 
     United States Air Force Academy, the National Defense 
     University, the war colleges of the Armed Forces, the command 
     and general staff officer courses of the Armed Forces, and 
     other schools and training programs of the Armed Forces that 
     admit personnel of foreign armed forces.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf 
of myself and Senator Lautenberg. The purpose of this amendment is to 
encourage the Secretaries of each military department to give due 
consideration to providing a higher priority to the officers from 
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic for attendance at our military 
schools and training programs. Our professional military schools and 
training programs including the service academies, the senior service 
colleges and the command and general staff colleges provide an 
outstanding opportunity for these officers to become fully immersed in 
our military doctrine and develop a deeper understanding for the 
American military culture. As new member nations of NATO, it is 
important that the officers of these countries become fully integrated 
as quickly as possible. The professional friendships and the mutual 
understanding which results from attendance at these courses is 
invaluable for both American officers and for foreign military 
officers.
  I recently led a Congressional delegation to the Balkans. In Budapest 
we met with Hungarian Chief of Defense Staff, General Ferenc Vegh, who 
was proud to inform the delegation that he was a graduate of the United 
States Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. As a direct result 
of the professional association gained as a student at the War College, 
General Vegh has been key in directing Hungary's rapid integration into 
NATO. His story is simply one example among many of how the United 
States and the NATO Alliance has reaped an enormous benefit by 
providing the opportunity for foreign officer attendance at our 
military schools.
  Attendance at our service academies on a priority basis will also 
provide an outstanding opportunity for future officers from our new 
NATO allies to foster long-term relationships with future U.S. military 
leaders. Historically, the relationships fostered through attendance at 
the Military Academy, the Naval Academy and the Air Force Academy among 
American and foreign cadets over the four-year curriculum at the 
service academies have formed the basis for closer long-term military-
to-military relations. Numerous foreign cadets who have graduated from 
our service academies have gone on to serve at the very highest levels 
as military and civilian leaders, including many heads of state.
  It is my expectation that this legislation will encourage the 
Secretaries of our military departments to give the officers and cadets 
from Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, our new NATO allies, a 
priority for attendance at our professional military schools and 
academies.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 504

(Purpose: To enhance the technology of health care quality surveillance 
                          and accountability)

       In title VII, at the end of subtitle B, add the following:

     SEC. 717. HEALTH CARE QUALITY INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY 
                   ENHANCEMENT.

       (a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to ensure 
     that the Department of Defense addresses issues of medical 
     quality surveillance and implements solutions for those 
     issues in a timely manner that is consistent with national 
     policy and industry standards.
       (b) Department of Defense Center for Medical Informatics 
     and Data.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish a 
     Department of Defense Center for Medical Informatics to carry 
     out a program to support the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
     for Health Affairs in efforts--
       (A) to develop parameters for assessing the quality of 
     health care information;
       (B) to develop the defense digital patient record;
       (C) to develop a repository for data on quality of health 
     care;
       (D) to develop a capability for conducting research on 
     quality of health care;
       (E) to conduct research on matters of quality of health 
     care;
       (F) to develop decision support tools for health care 
     providers;
       (G) to refine medical performance report cards; and
       (H) to conduct educational programs on medical informatics 
     to meet identified needs.
       (2) The Center shall serve as a primary resource for the 
     Department of Defense for matters concerning the capture, 
     processing, and dissemination of data on health care quality.
       (c) Automation and Capture of Clinical Data.--The Secretary 
     of Defense shall accelerate the efforts of the Department of 
     Defense to automate, capture, and exchange controlled 
     clinical data and present providers with clinical guidance 
     using a personal information carrier, clinical lexicon, or 
     digital patient record.
       (d) Enhancement Through DoD-DVA Medical Informatics 
     Council.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish a 
     Medical

[[Page S6239]]

     Informatics Council consisting of the following:
       (A) The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs
       (B) The Director of the TRICARE Management Activity of the 
     Department of Defense.
       (C) The Surgeon General of the Army.
       (D) The Surgeon General of the Navy.
       (E) The Surgeon General of the Air Force.
       (F) Representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
     whom the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall designate.
       (G) Representatives of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, whom the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall designate.
       (H) Any additional members that the Secretary of Defense 
     may appoint to represent health care insurers and managed 
     care organizations, academic health institutions, health care 
     providers (including representatives of physicians and 
     representatives of hospitals), and accreditors of health care 
     plans and organizations.
       (2) The primary mission of the Medical Informatics Council 
     shall be to coordinate the development, deployment, and 
     maintenance of health care informatics systems that allow for 
     the collection, exchange, and processing of health care 
     quality information for the Department of Defense in 
     coordination with other departments and agencies of the 
     Federal Government and with the private sector. Specific 
     areas of responsibility shall include:
       (A) Evaluation of the ability of the medical informatics 
     systems at the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs to 
     monitor, evaluate, and improve the quality of care provided 
     to beneficiaries.
       (B) Coordination of key components of medical informatics 
     systems including digital patient records both within the 
     federal government, and between the federal government and 
     the private sector.
       (C) Coordination of the development of operational 
     capabilities for executive information systems and clinical 
     decision support systems within the Departments of Defense 
     and Veterans Affairs.
       (D) Standardization of processes used to collect, evaluate, 
     and disseminate health care quality information.
       (E) Refinement of methodologies by which the quality of 
     health care provided within the Departments of Defense and 
     Veterans Administration is evaluated.
       (F) Protecting the confidentiality of personal health 
     information.
       (3) The Council shall submit to Congress an annual report 
     on the activities of the Council and on the coordination of 
     development, deployment, and maintenance of health care 
     informatics systems within the Federal Government and between 
     the Federal Government and the private sector.
       (4) The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs 
     shall consult with the Council on the issues described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (5) A member of the Council is not, by reason of service on 
     the Council, an officer or employee of the United States.
       (6) No compensation shall be paid to members of the Council 
     for service on the Council. In the case of a member of the 
     Council who is an officer or employee of the Federal 
     Government, the preceding sentence does not apply to 
     compensation paid to the member as an officer or employee of 
     the Federal Government.
       (7) The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) 
     shall not apply to the Council.
       (e) Annual Report.--The Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
     Health Affairs shall submit to Congress each year a report on 
     the quality of health care furnished under the health care 
     programs of the Department of Defense. The report shall cover 
     the most recent fiscal year ending before the date of the 
     report and shall contain a discussion of the quality of the 
     health care measured on the basis of each statistical and 
     customer satisfaction factor that the Assistant Secretary 
     determines appropriate, including, at a minimum, the 
     following:
       (1) Health outcomes.
       (2) Extent of use of health report cards.
       (3) Extent of use of standard clinical pathways.
       (4) Extent of use of innovative processes for surveillance.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to other 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Department of 
     Defense for fiscal year 2000 by other provisions of this Act, 
     that are available to carry out subsection (b), there is 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense 
     for such fiscal year for carrying out this subsection the sum 
     of $2,000,000.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 505

(Purpose: To guarantee the right of all active duty military personnel, 
merchant mariners, and their dependents to vote in Federal, State, and 
                            local elections)

  At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Military Voting Rights Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. GUARANTEE OF RESIDENCY.

       Article VII of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act 
     of 1940 (50 U.S.C. 700 et seq.) is amended by adding at he 
     end the following:
       ``SEC. 704. (a) For purposes of voting for an office of the 
     United States or of a State, a person who is absent from a 
     State in compliance with military or naval orders shall not, 
     solely by reason of that absence--
       ``(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in 
     that State;
       ``(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or domicile in 
     any other State; or
       ``(3) be deemed to have become resident in or a resident of 
     any other State.
       ``(b) In this section, the term `State' includes a 
     territory or possession of the United States, a political 
     subdivision of a State, territory, or possession, and the 
     District of Columbia.''.

     SEC. 3. STATE RESPONSIBILITY TO GUARANTEE MILITARY VOTING 
                   RIGHTS.

       (a) REGISTRATION AND BALLOTING.--Section 102 of the 
     Uniformed and Overseas Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-
     1) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) ELECTIONS FOR FEDERAL OFFICES.--'' 
     before ``Each State shall--''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) ELECTIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL OFFICES.--Each State 
     shall--
       ``(1) permit absent uniformed services voters to sue 
     absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee 
     ballot in general, special, primary, and run-off elections 
     for State and local offices; and
       ``(2) accept and process, with respect to any election 
     described in paragraph (1), any otherwise valid voter 
     registration application from an absent uniformed services 
     voter if the application is received by the appropriate State 
     election official not less than 30 days before the 
     election.''
       (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The heading for title I of such 
     Act is amended by striking out ``FOR FEDERAL OFFICE''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 506

  (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding United States-
        Russian cooperation in commercial space launch services)

       In title X, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES-RUSSIAN 
                   COOPERATION IN COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the United States should agree to increase the 
     quantitative limitations applicable to commercial space 
     launch services provided by Russian space launch service 
     providers if the Government of the Russian Federation 
     demonstrates a sustained commitment to seek out and prevent 
     the illegal transfer from Russia to Iran or any other country 
     of any prohibited ballistic missile equipment or any 
     technology necessary for the acquisition or development by 
     the recipient country of any ballistic missile;
       (2) the United States should demand full and complete 
     cooperation from the Government of the Russian Federation on 
     preventing the illegal transfer from Russia to Iran or any 
     other country of any prohibited fissile material or ballistic 
     missile equipment or any technology necessary for the 
     acquisition or development by the recipient country of any 
     nuclear weapon or ballistic missile; and
       (3) the United States should take every appropriate measure 
     necessary to encourage the Government of the Russian 
     Federation to seek out and prevent the illegal transfer from 
     Russia to Iran or any other country of any prohibited fissile 
     material or ballistic missile equipment or any technology 
     necessary for the acquisition or development by the recipient 
     country of any nuclear weapon or ballistic missile.
       (b) Definitions.--
       (1) In general.--The terms ``commercial space launch 
     services'' and ``Russian space launch service providers'' 
     have the same meanings given those terms in Article I of the 
     Agreement Between the Government of the United States of 
     America and the Government of the Russian Federation 
     Regarding International Trade in Commercial Space Launch 
     Services, signed in Washington, D.C., on September 2, 1993.
       (2) Quantitative limitations applicable to commercial space 
     launch services.--The term ``quantitative limitations 
     applicable to commercial space launch services'' means the 
     quantitative limits applicable to commercial space launch 
     services contained in Article IV of the Agreement Between the 
     Government of the United States of America and the Government 
     of the Russian Federation Regarding International Trade in 
     Commercial Space Launch Services, signed in Washington, D.C., 
     on September 2, 1993, as amended by the agreement between the 
     United States and the Russian Federation done at Washington, 
     D.C., on January 30, 1996.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the 
Department of Defense Authorization bill regarding Russian 
nonproliferation and U.S.-Russian cooperation on commercial space 
launch service.
  This amendment is very simple: It states that a sustained Russian 
commitment to cooperation with the United States in preventing the 
proliferation of ballistic missile technology to Iran can provide the 
basis for an increase in the current quota limit on commercial space 
launches. Lifting the launch quota is an important incentive for Russia 
to cooperate with the U.S. on this issue.
  This amendment also demands continued Russian cooperation on non-
proliferation, and calls on the United

[[Page S6240]]

States to take every appropriate measure to encourage the Russian 
government to seek out and prevent the illegal transfer of fissile 
material or missile equipment or any other technology necessary for the 
acquisition or development of nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles.
  I offer this amendment because I believe that there may be no greater 
long term threat to peace and stability in the Middle East than an Iran 
actively seeking ballistic missile and nuclear weapons.
  Preventing the transfer of illegal nuclear and missile technology 
from Russia to Iran must be at the top of the U.S. policy agenda.
  There have been numerous reports over the past several years of 
Russian missile technology reaching Iran, sometimes with a semi-
official wink from government authorities in Moscow, sometimes by rogue 
operators.
  Either way, the Russian Government must put a stop to these 
transfers.
  As much as we want good relations with Russia, cooperation in this 
area is crucial. In some ways, I believe it is a litmus test of what 
sort of player Russia wants to be in the post-cold war international 
system.
  There is ample reason for concern. According to a Congressional 
Research Service report:
  Despite pledges by Soviet leaders in 1990 and by various Russian 
leaders since then to ban missile exports, President Yeltsin's 1994 
agreement to refrain from new arms sales to Iran, and Russia's entry 
into the Missile Technology Control Regime in October 1995, there are 
recurring reports that Russian companies are selling missile technology 
to Iran and other countries.
  On February 6, 1997, Vice President Gore issued a diplomatic warning 
to then-Premier Chernomyrdin regarding Russian transfers to Iran of 
parts and technology associated with SS-4 medium-range ballistic 
missiles. Over the next several months, press reports indicated that 
Russian enterprises provided Iran specialty steels and alloys, tungsten 
coated graphite, wind tunnel facilities, gyroscopes and other guidance 
technology, rocket engine and fuel technology, laser equipment, machine 
tools, and maintenance manuals.
  Russian assistance has apparently helped Iran overcome a number of 
obstacles and advance its missile development program faster than 
expected. The Rumsfeld Commission said, ``The ballistic missile 
infrastructure in Iran is now more sophisticated than that of North 
Korea and has benefitted from broad, essential assistance from Russia. 
* * *''
  In February 1998, the Washington Times reported that Russia's Federal 
Security Service (FSB, a successor to the KGB) was still working with 
Iran's intelligence service to pass technology through a joint research 
center, Persepolis, with facilities in St. Petersburg and Tehran.
  In March 1998, the State Department listed (but did not make public) 
20 Russian entities suspected of transferring missile technology to 
Iran.
  Lastly, there are still unanswered questions about Russian-Iranian 
nuclear cooperation raised by the January, 1995 contract signed by the 
Russian nuclear agency MINATOM to finish one unit of the Bushehr 
nuclear power project. Although the Bushehr plant itself is not 
considered a source of weapons material, the project is viewed as a 
proliferation risk because it entails massive involvement of Iranian 
personnel in nuclear technology, and extensive training and 
technological support from Russian nuclear experts.
  Last year, the American Jewish Committee released a report, ``The 
Russian Connection: Russia, Iran, and the Proliferation of Weapons of 
Mass Destruction'' which provides an excellent overview of Russia's 
record in this area, as well as U.S.-Russian cooperation.
  In addition to the troubling questions raised by some of Russia's 
past actions, however, there are also indications that the Russian 
government is making efforts to control the proliferation of missile 
and nuclear technology to Iran.
  Although initially Moscow denied that its missiles or missile 
technology had been transferred to Iran, in September 1997, Russian 
officials reportedly stated that such transfers were being made without 
the consent of the government.
  In January 1998, in response to concerns raised by numerous U.S. 
officials, Yuri Koptev, head of the Russian space agency, said of 13 
cases raised by the U.S. Government, 11 had no connection to technology 
transfers related to weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, 
or chemical) that were banned under a 1996 agreement.
  On July 15, 1998, Russian authorities announced that nine Russian 
entities were being investigated for suspected violation of laws 
governing export of dual-use technologies. The nine include the Inor 
NPO, Polyus Research Institute, and Baltic State Technical University 
cited earlier, plus the Grafit Research Institute, Tikhomirov 
Institute, the MOSO Company, the Komintern plant (Novosibirsk), 
Europalace 2000, and Glavcosmos.
  Also last year, Russia announced the cancellation of a 1997 contract 
between a Russian entity, NPO Trud, and Iran in which rocket engine 
components were to have been shipped under the guise of gas pipeline 
compressors.
  According to an April 15 letter I received from the Vice President, 
which I would like to submit for the Record, U.S. Special Ambassador 
Gallucci and Mr. Koptev have agreed to a work plan that addresses many 
of the concerns the U.S. has about missile proliferation, including the 
establishment of internal compliance offices at several of the entities 
of concern.
  U.S. experts have also developed a work plan with the Russian 
Ministry of Atomic Energy on measures to sever the links between 
NIKIET, a leading Russian nuclear institute, and Iran, according to the 
Vice President.
  I believe that we should try to build on Russia's record of 
cooperation, and that the best and most effective way to work with 
Russia on this issue is to offer them a carrot--lifting the launch 
quota--as an inducement to continued cooperation on this vital matter.
  The current quota on commercial space launches is set at sixteen. 
Pending Russian cooperation, I believe that this quota can be raised to 
20 and, if Russia continues to cooperate, incrementally raised again in 
the coming years. Each launch provides Russia with approximately $100 
million in hard currency--a good incentive to cooperate.
  This amendment also states, however, that the United States must 
continue to demand full and complete cooperation from Russia on this 
issue, and that the United States should take every appropriate measure 
to assure that the government of Russia continues to cooperate on this 
issue.
  Russia must understand that just as we are willing to offer 
inducements to cooperate, there will also be a price to be paid for 
non-cooperation on this critical issue.
  This amendment, I believe, is rather simple and straightforward in 
its make-up. But it is also essential and far reaching in its impact. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent the letter I received dated April 15, 1999, 
from the Vice President be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                           The Vice President,

                                   Washington, DC, April 15, 1999.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your recent letter 
     requesting that I raise the issue of non-proliferation with 
     Russian Prime Minister Primakov during his planned visit to 
     Washington. Cutting off the flow of missile and nuclear 
     technologies from Russian entities to Iran is one of the 
     Administration's most important national security objectives. 
     As you know, I have engaged my Russian counterparts on this 
     issue for the past several years, most recently in January 
     when I saw Prime Minister Primakov in Davos.
       It was my intention to raise this issue again with the 
     Prime Minister last month, but our planned meeting was 
     postponed. I can report, however, that over the past several 
     weeks United States and Russian experts developed concrete 
     plans to curtail cooperation by Russian entities with Iran's 
     nuclear and missile programs. Because of intelligence and 
     security consideration, I will outline only the core elements 
     of the work plans in this letter. My staff can arrange a 
     classified briefing if that would be helpful.
       U.S. Special Ambassador Gallucci and Yuri Koptev, head of 
     the Russian Space Agency, agreed to a work plan that 
     addresses some of our most pressing concerns about missile 
     proliferation. As a central element of this plan--and as a 
     direct result of my earlier intercession with Mr. Primakov--
     Mr. Koptev

[[Page S6241]]

     agreed to cancel a contract with Iran's missile program and 
     to establish on a priority basis internal compliance offices 
     at several entities of concern. These internal compliance 
     offices would be staffed by individuals specially trained in 
     export control procedures and techniques, and would have 
     access to the records they need to do their jobs. The United 
     States Government has offered technical assistance to help 
     these entities set up the necessary export control 
     procedures. The Russian government has committed to take 
     effective measures to prohibit Iranian missile specialists 
     from operating in Russia and to facilitate the early adoption 
     of the Russian export control law.
       The missile work plan represents some forward movement and 
     in my judgment reflects Russia's intense desire to see the 
     launch quota increased and sanctions lifted. It is not, 
     however, a complete accounting for past problems. It may 
     create a credible foundation to inhibit future cooperation. I 
     have underscored that we will be watching Russian 
     implementation of the agreement closely. I have also made 
     clear that a solid track record is needed for us to consider 
     an increase in the launch quota.
       United States experts have also developed a work plan with 
     the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy on measures to sever 
     the links between NIKIET, a leading Russian nuclear 
     institute, and Iran. Again, the key principle underlying this 
     work plan is performance, which we are in a position to judge 
     through our intelligence information. If we are satisfied 
     that Russia's commitments are being implemented, we can begin 
     to incrementally lift our sanctions against NIKIET, beginning 
     with the nuclear reactor safety projects that have been 
     suspended.
       The work plans I have described could represent a path 
     forward if the Russian government acts effectively and 
     quickly. I am by no means ready to suggest that we have 
     resolved either the missile or the nuclear proliferation 
     problem. However, we now have a clear delineation of steps in 
     that direction which we are in a position to verify. 
     Positive, concrete actions by Russia will be the basis for 
     any decisions we take to increase commercial and other forms 
     of cooperation with Russian space and nuclear entities.
       I will continue to raise this issue in discussions with my 
     Russian counterparts until I am satisfied that all our 
     concerns have been addressed.
           Sincerely,
                                                          Al Gore.


                           amendment no. 507

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Of the funds in section 301a(5), $23,000,000 shall be made 
     available to the American Red Cross to fund the Armed Forces 
     Emergency Services.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 508

 (Purpose: To require the Department of Defense and the Department of 
   Veterans Affairs to carry out joint telemedicine and telepharmacy 
                        demonstration projects)

       On page 272, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 717. JOINT TELEMEDICINE AND TELEPHARMACY DEMONSTRATION 
                   PROJECTS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND 
                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense and Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall carry out joint demonstration projects 
     for purposes of evaluating the feasibility and practicability 
     of providing health care services and pharmacy services by 
     means of telecommunications.
       (b) Services To Be Provided.--The services provided under 
     the demonstration projects shall include the following:
       (1) Radiology and imaging services.
       (2) Diagnostic services.
       (3) Referral services.
       (4) Clinical pharmacy services.
       (5) Any other health care services or pharmacy services 
     designated by the Secretaries.
       (C) Selection of Locations.--(1) The Secretaries shall 
     carry out the demonstration projects at not more than five 
     locations selected by the Secretaries from locations in which 
     are located both a uniformed services treatment facility and 
     a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center that are 
     affiliated with academic institutions having a demonstrated 
     expertise in the provision of health care services or 
     pharmacy services by means of telecommunications.
       (2) Representatives of a facility and medical center 
     selected under paragraph (1) shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, carry out the demonstration project in 
     consultation with representatives of the academic institution 
     or institutions with which affiliated.
       (d) Period of Demonstration Projects.--The Secretaries 
     shall carry out the demonstration projects during the three-
     year period beginning on October 1, 1999.
       (e) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2002, the 
     Secretaries shall jointly submit to Congress a report on the 
     demonstration projects. The report shall include--
       (1) a description of each demonstration project; and
       (2) an evaluation, based on the demonstration projects, of 
     the feasibility and practicability of providing health care 
     services and pharmacy services, including the provision of 
     such services to field hospitals of the Armed Forces and to 
     Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient health care 
     clinics, by means of telecommunications.

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment to create a 
Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
collaborative demonstration research pilot for at least five sites 
nationwide. These funded projects would create and expand current 
telemedicine and telepharmacy research efforts. In these times of 
concern over health care resources, telemedicine and telepharmacy 
studies are crucial to determining the best use of health care 
clinicians.
  My amendment would authorize $5 million a year for three years for 
five DoD/VA Telemedicine and Telepharmacy demonstration projects. Under 
my proposal DoD/VA researchers and clinicians will develop rigorous, 
outcome-oriented telemedicine and telepharmacy research projects that 
will benefit military and veteran study participants and potentially 
future servicemembers and veteran recipients of health care.
  Telemedicine is technology's version of the ``doctor's housecall.'' 
Many recipients of care, such as the homebound, find making a visit to 
the doctor a very difficult and often painful experience. Health care 
outreach is needed in the home, remote deployment sites, rural clinics 
and other underserved areas. I also propose a telepharmacy project, 
which will study more efficient ways to bring drug and pharmaceutical 
expertise, as well as supplies, to the patient. For example, the Navy 
has reported its Battlegroup Telemedicine Program as cost-saving and 
groundbreaking in providing onboard ship medical treatment of military 
personnel, thus preventing unnecessary transport.
  Support of collaborative endeavors between DoD and VA to reduce 
escalating health care costs and for more accessible, quality care has 
already been strongly advocated and discussed in the 1999 Report of the 
Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition 
assistance and endorsed by the Congress in the Cleland-Kempthorne Bill, 
S. 1334, which was made part of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 
Authorization Act (P. L. 105-261).
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to further advance DoD/
VA collaboration, to explore innovative ways of providing health care 
for veterans and members of the Armed Services and possible cost-
reduction strategies, and to help military and veterans' health care 
set an example of quality health care.


                           amendment no. 509

 (Purpose: To permit certain members of the Armed Forces not currently 
participating in the Montgomery GI Bill educational assistance program 
                    to participate in that program)

       On page 254, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 676. PARTICIPATION OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
                   FORCES IN MONTGOMERY GI BILL PROGRAM.

       (a) Participation Authorized.--(1) Subchapter II of chapter 
     30 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after section 3018C the following new section:

     ``Sec. 3018D. Opportunity to enroll: certain VEAP 
       participants; active duty personnel not previously enrolled

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an 
     individual who--
       ``(1) either--
       ``(A)(i) is a participant on the date of the enactment of 
     this section in the educational benefits program provided by 
     chapter 32 of this title; or
       ``(ii) disenrolled from participation in that program 
     before that date; or
       ``(B) has made an election under section 3011(c)(1) or 
     3012(d)(1) of this title not to receive educational 
     assistance under this chapter and has not withdrawn that 
     election under section 3018(a) of this title as of the date 
     of the enactment of this section;
       ``(2) is serving on active duty (excluding periods referred 
     to in section 3202(1)(C) of this title in the case of an 
     individual described in paragraph (1)(A)) on the date of the 
     enactment of this section;
       ``(3) before applying for benefits under this section, has 
     completed the requirements of a secondary school diploma (or 
     equivalency certificate) or has successfully completed the 
     equivalent of 12 semester hours in a program of education 
     leading to a standard college degree;
       ``(4) if discharged or released from active duty before the 
     date on which the individual makes an election described in 
     paragraph (5), is discharged with an honorable discharge or 
     released with service characterized as honorable by the 
     Secretary concerned; and
       ``(5) during the one-year period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this section, makes an irrevocable election 
     to receive benefits under this section in lieu of benefits 
     under chapter 32 of this title or withdraws

[[Page S6242]]

     the election made under section 3011(c)(1) or 3012(d)(1) of 
     this title, as the case may be, pursuant to procedures which 
     the Secretary of each military department shall provide in 
     accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of 
     Defense for the purpose of carrying out this section or which 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall provide for such 
     purpose with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not 
     operating as a service in the Navy;

     is entitled to basic educational assistance under this 
     chapter.
       ``(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), in 
     the case of an individual who makes an election under 
     subsection (a)(5) to become entitled to basic educational 
     assistance under this chapter--
       ``(A) the basic pay of the individual shall be reduced (in 
     a manner determined by the Secretary of Defense) until the 
     total amount by which such basic pay is reduced is--
       ``(i) $1,200, in the case of an individual described in 
     subsection (a)(1)(A); or
       ``(ii) $1,500, in the case of an individual described in 
     subsection (a)(1)(B); or
       ``(B) to the extent that basic pay is not so reduced before 
     the individual's discharge or release from active duty as 
     specified in subsection (a)(4), the Secretary shall collect 
     from the individual an amount equal to the difference between 
     the amount specified for the individual under subparagraph 
     (A) and the total amount of reductions with respect to the 
     individual under that subparagraph, which shall be paid into 
     the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.
       ``(2) In the case of an individual previously enrolled in 
     the educational benefits program provided by chapter 32 of 
     this title, the Secretary shall reduce the total amount of 
     the reduction in basic pay otherwise required by paragraph 
     (1) by an amount equal to so much of the unused contributions 
     made by the individual to the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans 
     Education Account under section 3222(a) of this title as do 
     not exceed $1,200.
       ``(3) An individual may at any time pay the Secretary an 
     amount equal to the difference between the total of the 
     reductions otherwise required with respect to the individual 
     under this subsection and the total amount of the reductions 
     with respect to the individual under this subsection at the 
     time of the payment. Amounts paid under this paragraph shall 
     be paid into the Treasury of the United States as 
     miscellaneous receipts.
       ``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), an individual 
     who is enrolled in the educational benefits program provided 
     by chapter 32 of this title and who makes the election 
     described in subsection (a)(5) shall be disenrolled from the 
     program as of the date of such election.
       ``(2) For each individual who is disenrolled from such 
     program, the Secretary shall refund--
       ``(A) to the individual in the manner provided in section 
     3223(b) of this title so much of the unused contributions 
     made by the individual to the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans 
     Education Account as are not used to reduce the amount of the 
     reduction in the individual's basic pay under subsection 
     (b)(2); and
       ``(B) to the Secretary of Defense the unused contributions 
     (other than contributions made under section 3222(c) of this 
     title) made by such Secretary to the Account on behalf of 
     such individual.
       ``(3) Any contribution made by the Secretary of Defense to 
     the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Education Account pursuant to 
     section 3222(c) of this title on behalf of an individual 
     referred to in paragraph (1) shall remain in such account to 
     make payments of benefits to the individual under section 
     3015(f) of this title.
       ``(d)(1) The requirements of sections 3011(a)(3) and 
     3012(a)(3) of this title shall apply to an individual who 
     makes an election described in subsection (a)(5), except that 
     the completion of service referred to in such section shall 
     be the completion of the period of active duty being served 
     by the individual on the date of the enactment of this 
     section.
       ``(2) The procedures provided in regulations referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall provide for notice of the requirements 
     of subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) of section 3011(a)(3) of 
     this title and of subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) of section 
     3012(a)(3) of this title. Receipt of such notice shall be 
     acknowledged in writing.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 30 of 
     that title is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 3018C the following new item:

``3018D. Opportunity to enroll: certain VEAP participants; active duty 
              personnel not previously enrolled.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3015(f) of that title is 
     amended by striking ``or 3018C'' and inserting ``3018C, or 
     3018D''.
       (c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     any law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act 
     which includes provisions terminating or reducing the 
     contributions of members of the Armed Forces for basic 
     educational assistance under subchapter II of chapter 30 of 
     title 38, United States Code, should terminate or reduce by 
     an identical amount the contributions of members of the Armed 
     Forces for such assistance under section of section 3018D of 
     that title, as added by subsection (a).

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this amendment is meant to assist the men 
and women serving in our armed forces in attaining an education. This 
amendment is targeted at a group serving in our military that has been 
forgotten since the passage of the Montgomery GI Bill.
  Before the GI Bill was enacted in 1985, new servicemen were invited 
to participate in a program called the Veterans' Educational Assistance 
Program or VEAP. This program offered only a modest return on the 
service member's investment and, as a consequence, provided little 
assistance to men and women in the armed services who wanted to pursue 
additional education. It was and is inferior to the Montgomery GI Bill 
that every new serviceman is offered today.
  My amendment would allow active duty members of the armed services 
who entered the service after December 31, 1976 and before July 1, 1985 
and who are or were otherwise eligible for the Veterans' Educational 
Assistance Program to participate in the Montgomery GI bill. This group 
of military professionals largely consists of the mid-career and senior 
noncommissioned officer ranks of our services--the exact group that new 
recruits have as mentors and leaders.
  If we really believe in the importance of providing our service men 
and women with the education opportunities afforded by the Montgomery 
GI bill, it is critical that we offer all service members the 
opportunity to participate if they choose.
  It is important to remember that much of the impetus for the creation 
of the Montgomery GI Bill was that the Veterans' Educational Assistance 
Program was not doing the job. It was not providing sufficient 
assistance for young men and women to go to college. It was expensive 
for them to participate, and provided little incentive for young men 
and women to enter the military.
  The Montgomery GI Bill offers those serving in the military a 
significant increase in benefits over its predecessor and has been one 
of the most important recruiting tools over the last decade. It is 
essential that active military still covered under VEAP but not by the 
Montgomery GI Bill be brought into the fold.
  The injustice that my bill attempts to address is that new recruits 
are eligible for a better education program than the noncommissioned 
officers responsible for their training and well-being. Expanding 
Montgomery Bill eligibility to those currently eligible for VEAP would, 
in many cases, help mid-career and senior noncommissioned officers, who 
are the backbone of our force and set the example for younger troops, 
become better educated. This legislation is modest in its scope and 
approach, but is enormously important for the individual attempting to 
better himself through education.
  Moreover, this legislation sends a meaningful message to those 
serving to protect the American interest that Congress cares. S. 4, the 
Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, and Marines Bill of Rights Act which I was 
proud to cosponsor was an enormous step in this direction, and my 
legislation complements that effort.
  Some of the common sense provisions of this amendment are:
  1. Regardless of previous enrollment or disenrollment in the VEAP, 
active military personnel may choose to participate in the GI Bill.
  2. Participation for VEAP-eligible members in the GI Bill is to be 
based on the same ``buy in requirements'' as are currently applicable 
to any new GI Bill participant. For example, an active duty member is 
required to pay $100 a month for twelve months in order to be eligible 
for the Montgomery GI Bill. The same would be required of someone 
previously eligible for VEAP.
  3. Any active duty member who has previously declined participation 
in the GI bill may also participate.
  4. There will be a one year period of eligibility for enrollment.
  I believe that if we are to maintain the best trained, and most 
capable military force in the world, we must be committed to allowing 
the people that comprise our armed forces to pursue further education 
opportunities. I believe that the modest amendment will have a positive 
effect on morale and give our noncommissioned officers additional 
opportunities for self-improvement and life-long learning. I ask for my 
colleagues support in this effort. thank you Mr. President.

[[Page S6243]]

                           amendment no. 510

 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to continue 
payment of monthly educational assistance benefits to veterans enrolled 
    at educational institutions during periods between terms if the 
       interval between such periods does not exceed eight weeks)

       On page 254, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 676. REVISION OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE INTERVAL PAYMENT 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Clause (C) of the third sentence of 
     section 3680(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(C) during periods between school terms where the 
     educational institution certifies the enrollment of the 
     eligible veteran or eligible person on an individual term 
     basis if (i) the period between such terms does not exceed 
     eight weeks, and (ii) both the term preceding and the term 
     following the period are not shorter in length than the 
     period.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to payments of educational 
     assistance under title 38, United States Code, for months 
     beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this amendment, which I offer along with 
Senator Voinovich, would fix an unintended oversight in veterans' 
educational benefits. This amendment is similar to legislation I 
introduced along with my distinguished Ohio colleague in the House of 
Representatives, Congressman Bob Ney, who is the leader of this effort.
  Currently, the law allows qualified veterans to receive their monthly 
educational assistance benefits when they are enrolled at educational 
institutions during periods between terms, if the period does not 
exceed 4 weeks. This allowance was established to enable enrolled 
veterans to continue to receive their benefits during the December/
January holidays.
  The problem with the current time period is that it only covers 
veterans enrolled at educational institutions that operate on the 
semester system. Obviously, many educational institutions, including 
several in Ohio, work on the quarter system, which can have a vacation 
period of eight weeks between the first and second quarters during the 
winter holiday season. As a result, many veterans unfairly lose their 
benefits during this period because of the institution's course 
structure.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that some educational 
institutions that have a sizable veteran enrollment frequently create a 
one credit hour course on military history or a similar topic 
specifically geared towards veterans in order for them to remain 
enrolled and eligible for their educational benefits. It is my 
understanding that, the cost of extending the current eligibility 
period to eight weeks would have a minimal, if not negligible, cost.
  The Department of Veterans' Administration has recognized the need to 
correct this oversight and assisted in the drafting of this legislation 
and has given it their full support.
  I have no doubt that this very simple fix will be well-received by 
our veterans and the educational institutions that operate under the 
quarter system. I already know that Wright State University, Bowling 
Green State University, Ohio University and Methodist Theological 
School in Ohio have expressed their support for this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this common sense fix and allow all 
veterans to receive the uninterrupted educational assistance they 
earned.


                           amendment no. 511

   (Purpose: To authorize the transfer of a naval vessel to Thailand)

       In title X, at the end of subtitle B, insert the following:

     SEC. 1013. TRANSFER OF NAVAL VESSEL TO FOREIGN COUNTRY.

       (a) Thailand.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Thailand the CYCLONE class 
     coastal patrol craft CYCLONE (PC1) or a craft with a similar 
     hull. The transfer shall be made on a sale, lease, lease/buy, 
     or grant basis under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j).
       (b) Costs.--Any expense incurred by the United States in 
     connection with the transfer authorized under subsection (a) 
     shall be charged to the Government of Thailand.
       (c) Repair and Refurbishment in United States Shipyards.--
     To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary of the Navy 
     shall require, as a condition of the transfer of the vessel 
     to the Government of Thailand under this section, that the 
     Government of Thailand have such repair or refurbishment of 
     the vessel as is needed, before the vessel joins the naval 
     forces of that country, performed at a United States Naval 
     shipyard or other shipyard located in the United States.
       (d) Expiration of Authority.--The authority to transfer a 
     vessel under subsection (a) shall expire at the end of the 
     two-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 512

  (Purpose: to authorize payments in settlement of claims for deaths 
arising from the accident involving a United States Marine Corps EA-6B 
 aircraft on February 3, 1998, near Cavalese, Italy and the subsequent 
  determination that parties involved in the accident obstructed the 
                investigation by disposing of evidence)

       On page 93, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 349. (a) Authority to Make Payments.--Subject to the 
     provisions of this section, the Secretary of Defense is 
     authorized to make payments for the settlement of the claims 
     arising from the deaths caused by the accident involving a 
     United States Marine Corps EA-6B aircraft on February 3, 
     1998, near Cavalese, Italy and the subsequent determination 
     that parties involved in the accident obstructed the 
     investigation by disposing of evidence.
       (b) Deadline for Exercise of Authority.--The Secretay shall 
     make the decision to exercise the authority in subsection (a) 
     not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (c) Source of Payments.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, of the amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available for the Department of Navy for operation and 
     maintenance for fiscal year 2000 or other unexpended balances 
     from prior years, the Secretary shall make available $40 
     million only for emergency and extraordinary expenses 
     associated with the settlement of the claims arising from the 
     accident and the subsequent determination that parties 
     involved in the accident obstructed the investigation by 
     disposing of evidence described in subsection (a).
       (6) Amount of Payment.--The amount of the payment under 
     this section in settlement of the claims arising from the 
     death of any person associated with the accident described in 
     subsection (a) may not exceed $2,000,000.
       (e) Treatment of Payments.--Any amount paid to a person 
     under this section is intended to supplement any amount 
     subsequently determined to be payable to the person under 
     section 127 or chapter 163 of title 10, United States Code, 
     or any other provision of law for administrative settlement 
     of claims against the United States with respect to damages 
     arising from the accident described in subsection (a).
       (f) Construction.--The payment of an amount under this 
     section may not be considered to constitute a statement of 
     legal liability on the part of the United States or otherwise 
     as evidence of any material fact in any judicial proceeding 
     or investigation arising from the accident described in 
     subsection (a).
       (g) Resolution of Other Claims.--No payments under this 
     section or any other provision of law for the settlement of 
     claims arising from the accident described in subsection (a) 
     shall be made to citizens of Germany until the Government of 
     Germany provides a comparable settlement of the claims 
     arising from the death of the United States servicemen caused 
     by the collision between a United States Air Force C-141 
     Starlifter aircraft and a German Luftwaffe Tupelov TU-154M 
     aircraft off the coast of Namibia, on September 13, 1997.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 513

 (Purpose: To increase the grade established for the chiefs of reserve 
components and the additional general officers assigned to the National 
Guard Bureau, and to exclude those officers from a limitation on number 
                     of general and flag officers)

       In title V, at the end of subtitle B, add the following:

     SEC. 522. CHIEFS OF RESERVE COMPONENTS AND THE ADDITIONAL 
                   GENERAL OFFICERS AT THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU.

       (a) Grade of Chief of Army Reserve.--Section 3038(c) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ``major 
     general'' and inserting ``lieutenant general''.
       (b) Grade of Chief of Naval Reserve.--Section 5143(c)(2) of 
     such title is amended by striking ``rear admiral (lower 
     half)'' and inserting ``rear admiral''.
       (c) Grade of Commander, Marine Forces Reserve.--Section 
     5144(c)(2) of such title is amended by striking ``brigadier 
     general'' and inserting ``major general''.
       (d) Grade of Chief of Air Force Reserve.--Section 8038(c) 
     of such title is amended by striking ``major general'' and 
     inserting ``lieutenant general''.
       (e) The Additional General Officers for the National Guard 
     Bureau.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 10506(a)(1) of 
     such title are each amended by striking ``major general'' and 
     inserting ``lieutenant general''.
       (f) Exclusion From Limitation on General and Flag 
     Officers.--Section 526(d) of such title is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Exclusion of Certain Reserve Component Officers.--The 
     limitations of this section do not apply to the following 
     reserve component general or flag officers:
       ``(1) An officer on active duty for training.

[[Page S6244]]

       ``(2) An officer on active duty under a call or order 
     specifying a period of less than 180 days.
       ``(3) The Chief of Army Reserve, the Chief of Naval 
     Reserve, the Chief of Air Force Reserve, the Commander, 
     Marine Forces Reserve, and the additional general officers 
     assigned to the National Guard Bureau under section 
     10506(a)(1) of this title.''.
       (g) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 514

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that members of the Armed 
Forces who receive special pay should receive the same tax treatment as 
                    members serving in combat zones)

       In title VI, at the end of subtitle B, add the following:

     SEC. 629. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX TREATMENT OF 
                   MEMBERS RECEIVING SPECIAL PAY.

       It is the sense of the Senate that members of the Armed 
     Forces who receive special pay for duty subject to hostile 
     fire or imminent danger (37 U.S.C. 310) should receive the 
     same tax treatment as members serving in combat zones.

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the Sense of the 
Senate that income received by a member of the Armed Forces of the 
United States while receiving special pay should be tax exempt.
  Currently, members of the U.S. Armed Forces who serve in a ``combat 
zone'' receive special tax exemptions. For example, they do not have to 
pay excise taxes on phone calls that they make from the combat zone. 
Nor do they have to pay income taxes on the money earned while in that 
zone.
  My amendment expresses the Sense of the Senate that the tax 
exemptions should be triggered when the Secretary of Defense designates 
his employees as eligible for ``special pay'' based on hostile 
conditions. Members of the Armed Forces receive special pay under Title 
37, United States Code, Section 310 when: (a) subject to hostile fire; 
(b) on duty in which he, or others with him, are in imminent danger of 
such fire; (c) were killed, injured or wounded by hostile fire or (d) 
were on duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of 
physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, 
civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions.
  The original tax exemption for combat pay was put in place during the 
Korean War. But given the current uses of our Armed Forces, it makes 
sense to update the provision for soldiers in hostile zones.
  And I also believe that making this change in the Tax Code would 
correct an inequity. I think it is only right that soldiers in the 
Kosovo engagement are receiving the tax exemptions. But during a recent 
visit to Fort Bragg, many soldiers and their families commented that 
the same benefits should have been extended to the soldiers who served 
in Haiti and in Somalia. I have to say that I agreed with them. Indeed, 
I will introduce legislation after Memorial Day to implement this Sense 
of the Senate.
  This Sense of the Senate addresses the new realities of the post-cold 
war world that repeatedly affects the members of our armed forces and 
their families. As the Senate knows all too well, the end of the cold 
war brought with it a significant drawdown in the size of our armed 
forces and a withdrawal from an overseas based force to one based 
primarily in the United States. Almost concurrently, our national 
security strategy has lead us into an era of seemingly continuous 
deployments. In the 40 years between 1950 and 1990, the U.S. Army was 
deployed 10 times. In the less than 10 years since the fall of the 
Berlin Wall, the Army has been deployed 33 times. The Navy's responses 
have doubled in the 90's. The Air Force has seen its deployed forces 
rise 400 percent while its active duty personnel dropped 33 percent. 
Some of these deployments are a few months in duration; some are part 
of a continuous presence--such as our forces in the Sinai. All work 
hardship on both the members deployed and their families, particularly 
when there are repeated or back-to-back deployments.
  Again, as the Senate well knows these demands are contributing to 
both recruitment and retention problems. In recognition of these 
demands and of the likelihood that we will continue to see more of 
these deployments, this Sense of the Senate recognizes that we need to 
bring our Tax Code up to date so that it too acknowledges these new 
realities.
  As we approach Memorial Day, I ask the Senate to approve this 
amendment as a means of acknowledging the sacrifices demanded of our 
service members and their families.


                           amendment no. 515

 (Purpose: To increase the funding for the Formerly Used Defense Sites 
                                account)

       (1) On page 56, line 16, add ``$40,000,000''.
       (2) On page 55, line 15, reduce ``$40,000,000''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 516

  (Purpose: To strike the portions of the military lands withdrawals 
                 relating to lands located in Arizona)

       In section 2902, strike subsection (a).
       In section 2902, redesignate subsections (b), (c), and (d) 
     as subsections (a), (b), and (c), respectively.
       In section 2903(c), strike paragraphs (4) and (7).
       In section 2903(c), redesignate paragraphs (5) and (6) as 
     paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively.
       In section 2904(a)(1)(A), strike ``(except those lands 
     within a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System)''.
       In section 2904(a)(1), strike subparagraph (B).
       In section 2904, strike subsection (g).
       Strike section 2905.
       Strike section 2906.
       Redesignate sections 2907 through 2914 as sections 2905 
     through 2912, respectively.
       In section 2907(h), as so redesignated, strike ``section 
     2902(c) or 2902(d)'' and insert ``section 2902(b) or 
     2902(c)''.
       In section 2908(b), as so redesignated, strike ``section 
     2909(g)'' and insert ``section 2907(g)''.
       In section 2910, as so redesignated, strike ``, except that 
     hunting,'' and all that follows and insert a period.
       In section 2911(a)(1), as so redesignated, strike 
     ``subsections (b), (c), and (d)'' and insert ``subsections 
     (a), (b), and (c)''.
       In section 2911(a)(2), as so redesignated, strike ``, 
     except that lands'' and all that follows and insert a period.
       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 2912. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING WITHDRAWALS OF CERTAIN 
                   LANDS IN ARIZONA.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) it is vital to the national interest that the 
     withdrawal of the lands withdrawn by section 1(c) of the 
     Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-606), 
     relating to Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range and the Cabeza 
     Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, which would otherwise expire 
     in 2001, be renewed in 1999;
       (2) the renewed withdrawal of such lands is critical to 
     meet the military training requirements of the Armed Forces 
     and to provide the Armed Forces with experience necessary to 
     defend the national interests;
       (3) the Armed Forces currently carry out environmental 
     stewardship of such lands in a comprehensive and focused 
     manner; and
       (4) a continuation in high-quality management of United 
     States natural and cultural resources is required if the 
     United States is to preserve its national heritage.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Arizona for sponsoring his amendment relating to the withdrawal of 
lands from the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. I am happy to 
cosponsor it, and I look forward to working with him in the future on 
this issue.
  The amendment removes the provision in Title 29 relating to the 
Goldwater Range, and includes nothing more than a placeholder for 
subsequent consideration of the withdrawals. It is no more than a means 
to ensure that the Administration expeditiously completes its review 
process regarding the withdrawals. It is not intended in any way to 
prejudice this process, or to shape the substance of the provisions 
ultimately adopted by Congress.
  Mr. President, my colleague from Arizona and I have agreed to work 
openly and collaboratively on this provision. As the National Wildlife 
Refuge System is within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, I have a strong interest in the withdrawals of lands 
from the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, as well as the Desert 
National Wildlife Refuge, which will be considered later.
  Again, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to my 
distinguished colleague from Arizona. I thank him for his willingness 
to address my concerns and to sponsor this amendment. It is always a 
great pleasure to work with him and his staff, and I am delighted to 
have this opportunity to do so again.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would remove from Title 29 
of the bill all references to renewing the withdrawal from public use 
of the Barry M. Goldwater Range in Arizona. In place of the stricken 
language, I am proposing a ``sense of the Senate'' provision that 
expresses the clear desire to complete the legislative process of 
renewing the withdrawal of this land this

[[Page S6245]]

year, both because of its vital importance to military readiness and 
the environmental and cultural resources that will be preserved and 
protected by its continued withdrawn status.
  I offer this amendment reluctantly, but in full recognition of the 
unintended controversy caused by its inclusion in the bill at this 
time. My intention in including these provisions in the Defense 
Authorization bill this year was to create a meaningful placeholder in 
the bill to ensure that legislation withdrawing the Goldwater Range 
could be enacted during this session of Congress. Based on repeated 
assurances and testimony before Congress, I believe the Administration 
shares that goal, and I intend to pursue inclusion of a final 
legislative package, developed with input from all interested parties, 
in the conference agreement on this legislation.
  Unfortunately, my attempt to craft language which remained neutral on 
the few controversial aspects of the proposed withdrawal appears to 
have been inadequate. In addition, concerns about the process by which 
this legislation was developed have also been raised. Therefore, in 
order to ensure that all interested parties have a full opportunity to 
participate in the drafting of the final legislation withdrawing the 
Goldwater Range, I am proposing this amendment to replace the existing 
language with a ``sense of the Senate'' provision expressing the desire 
to complete the withdrawal process this year.
  As I have said, there has been some controversy about the language of 
title 29.
  I appreciate the concerns raised by the leadership of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee and the Environment and Public Works 
Committee concerning their jurisdiction, respectively, over public 
lands management and wildlife refuges. In no way was the inclusion of 
this language in the bill intended to preclude the ability of those 
Committees to conduct oversight hearings and provide input in the final 
legislation to withdraw the Goldwater and other ranges covered in Title 
29. In full respect, however, of these Committees' interest in ensuring 
this bill in no way prejudices the outcome of the legislative process, 
I agree that a placeholder which simply expresses the desire to the 
Senate to enact legislation this year is more appropriate at this time. 
I fully expect to work closely with all members of the Senate and 
interested outside parties to reach a consensus on legislation that can 
be re-inserted in this bill in conference.
  I also sympathize with the concerns raised by several organizations 
regarding future environmental stewardship of the Goldwater Range, just 
as I fully appreciate and support the need to maintain the availability 
of the range for essential military training.
  Let me reiterate what I said more fully in my additional views filed 
with the bill. This language was intended simply to be a placeholder to 
ensure that, if an Administration proposal is submitted to Congress 
this year for the withdrawal of these lands, it can be appropriately 
considered in the normal legislative process. I have been and will 
remain committed to ensuring that all viewpoints are heard and 
respected in crafting the final language of the withdrawal legislation, 
both because of the importance of the Goldwater Range as a military 
training facility, and to preserve and protect the unique environmental 
and cultural resources in this 2.7 million acre area.
  The placeholder language in Title 29 of the Committee-reported bill 
is generally based on Public Law 99-606, which is the law that 
currently governs the status of these lands and which expires in 2001. 
However, the language is intentionally silent on many of the difficult 
issues that must be resolved before this legislation can be enacted. 
For example, the Committee-approved provision does not specify a length 
of time for the withdrawal of the Goldwater Range. The provision is 
deliberately ambiguous, as is the language of Public Law 99-606 which 
currently governs these lands, about whether the Cabeza Prieta is 
withdrawn or not, and it is silent on the issue of which federal agency 
manages all or part of the land.
  At the same time, through the Committee process, the language was 
amended to include several additional provisions, not in the current 
law, to improve environmental protection and resource management of the 
lands. It mandates at least the same level of resource management and 
preservation be maintained at the range, and requires the Secretary of 
the Interior to provide a report on any additional recommended 
management measures. It precludes changes in the memorandum of 
understanding between the Department of Defense and Department of the 
Interior that governs the management of the Cabeza Prieta without 
notifying Congress 90 days in advance. It also includes a provision 
requiring a study and recommendation, to be submitted to Congress 
within two years, on the proposal to designate the Goldwater Range as 
part of a Sonoran Desert National Park.
  The language would have been subject to further negotiation and 
amendment, pending submission of the Administration's legislative 
proposal to Congress. However, respecting the concerns raised by others 
about the content of the placeholder legislation, I am proposing that 
it be stricken.
  Mr. President, it is vitally important that the Administration 
complete the process for renewing the withdrawal of these lands and 
provide a final legislative proposal to Congress this year. Delaying 
this issue unnecessarily puts at risk both the tremendous efforts to 
protect the natural and cultural resources on these lands and the 
critical need to conduct military training, both of which would end 
with the expiration of the current law.
  The Administration has stated their desire to complete the 
legislative process for withdrawal of these lands during this session 
of the Congress--a goal which I and the Committee fully support--and 
has now committed to send a final legislative proposal to Congress by 
approximately June 9, 1999. I urge the Administration to finalize and 
submit a legislative proposal as early as possible so that all 
interested parties may review it carefully and efforts can be 
undertaken quickly to achieve a consensus on legislation that can be 
enacted this year in this bill.
  Mr. President, I hope this amendment can be accepted. I believe I 
have the support of the able Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
Senator Warner, to try to work out acceptable language on the Goldwater 
Range withdrawal, as well as the Chairmen of the Environment and Energy 
Committees. I look forward to working with the relevant committees and 
interested parties to reach a consensus on a final legislative package 
regarding the Goldwater Range that can be included in the conference 
agreement on this bill.


                           amendment no. 517

(Purpose: To increase by $2,000,000 the amount authorized for the Navy 
   for procurement of MJU-52/B air expendable countermeasures and to 
     offset the increase by a decrease by $2,000,000 of the amount 
       authorized for the Army for UH-1 helicopter modifications)

       On page 16, line 17, strike ``$1,500,188,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,498,188,000''.
       On page 17, line 18, strike ``$540,700,000'' and insert 
     ``$542,700,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 518

  (Purpose: To authorize a one-year delay in the demolition of three 
certain radio transmitting facility towers at Naval Station, Annapolis, 
             Maryland and to facilitate transfer of towers)

       At the end of subtitle E of title XXVIII, add the 
     following: SEC: ONE-YEAR DELAY IN DEMOLITION OF RADIO 
     TRANSMITTING FACILITY TOWERS AT NAVAL STATION, ANNAPOLIS, 
     MARYLAND, TO FACILITATE TRANSFER OF TOWERS.
       (a) One-Year Delay.--The Secretary of the Navy may not 
     obligate or expend any funds for the demolition of the naval 
     radio transmitting towers described in subsection (b) during 
     the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Covered Towers.--The naval radio transmitting towers 
     described in this subsection are the three southeastern most 
     naval radio transmitting towers located at Naval Station, 
     Annapolis, Maryland that are scheduled for demolition as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Transfer of Towers.--The Secretary may transfer to the 
     State of Maryland, or the County of Anne Arundel, Maryland, 
     all right, title, and interest (including maintenance 
     responsibility) of the United States in and to the towers 
     described in subsection (b) if the State of Maryland or the 
     County of Anne Arundel, Maryland, as the case may be, agrees 
     to accept such right, title, and interest (including accrued 
     maintenance responsibility) during the one-year period 
     referred to in subsection (a).

[[Page S6246]]

     
                                  ____
                           amendment No. 519

 (Purpose: To impose certain requirements relating to the recovery and 
  identification of remains of World War II servicemen in the Pacific 
                         theater of operations)

       In title X, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. 1061. RECOVERY AND IDENTIFICATION OF REMAINS OF CERTAIN 
                   WORLD WAR II SERVICEMEN.

       (a) Responsibilities of the Secretary of the Army.--(1) The 
     Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Defense, shall make every reasonable effort, as a matter of 
     high priority, to search for, recover, and identify the 
     remains of United States servicemen of the United States 
     aircraft lost in the Pacific theater of operations during 
     World War II, including in New Guinea.
       (2) The Secretary of the Army shall submit to Congress not 
     later than September 30, 2000, a report detailing the efforts 
     made by the United States Army Central Identification 
     Laboratory to accomplish the objectives described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (b) Responsibilities of the Secretary of State.--The 
     Secretary of State, upon request by the Secretary of the 
     Army, shall work with officials of governments of sovereign 
     nations in the Pacific theater of operations of World War II 
     to overcome any political obstacles that have the potential 
     for precluding the Secretary of the Army from accomplishing 
     the objectives described in subsection (a)(1).

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to thank the 
managers of this bill for accepting this amendment, and I thank all of 
my colleagues for their support.
  Let me say this is a very simple amendment, but one that becomes 
profoundly relevant as we approach Memorial Day next Monday, especially 
for the families of unaccounted for servicemen from World War II.
  The amendment instructs the Secretary of the Army to make every 
reasonable effort to search for, recover, and identify the remains of 
U.S. servicemen from World War II crashsites in the South Pacific. As 
many of my colleagues know, the Army is DoD's executive agent for this 
kind of recovery work.
  Mr. President, earlier this month I attended a military funeral for a 
World War II Army Air Corps pilot from Worcester, Massachusetts. I 
can't begin to tell you how moved I was to attend this funeral and 
listen to the eulogy about this young pilot, who joined the Army the 
day after Pearl Harbor, went on to get his wings in the Army Air Corps, 
married his sweetheart, only to have to leave her two days later. He 
was never to come home. He was lost over the jungles of New Guinea 
flying his P-47 Thunderbolt in 1943.
  Fifty-three years later, in 1996, his remains inside his crashed 
plane were accidently located by a private American citizen, Mr. Fred 
Hagen, who was searching for his great uncle's B-25 bomber.
  Only then, did the emotional rollercoaster ride for the surviving 
elderly family members really begin because it took almost 3 additional 
years, and my continuous intervention along the way, for the remains to 
be formally recovered and identified by the Army. There was political 
instability in New Guinea at one point, and that delayed things, and 
there were also competing priorities that the Army was trying to 
balance.
  That case is now behind us, but I am aware that there are other World 
War II crashsites in New Guinea where the remains of American 
servicemen are presently located, yet they have not been formally 
recovered by the Army. Indeed, Mr. President, I would like to enclose 
for the record a letter I received yesterday from one American who has 
located several crash sites in New Guinea.
  All this amendment does, Mr. President, is ensure that the Army works 
hard at locating, excavating, and identifying remains from these crash 
sites. By passing this amendment, we increase the likelihood that some 
of these families of missing World War II aviators will finally have a 
grave at which to lay flowers during a future Memorial Day. It's the 
least we can do, Mr. President, to honor those who made the ultimate 
sacrifice, and their aging family members.
  Accounting for missing servicemen from World War II is just as 
important as accounting for missing servicemen from the Vietnam or 
Korean Wars. Each of these brave men made the ultimate sacrifice for 
their country. This amendment makes sure every effort is made to 
account for these missing servicemen.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                          Alfred (Fred) Hagen,

                                                 Philadelphia, PA.
     Senator Smith,
     c/o Dino Carluccio.
       Dear Sir: In September, 1998 Cil-Hi apparently flew over 
     the site of a B-25 that I found in November, 1997 and decided 
     that the site should not be recovered due to the danger of 
     landslides and the difficulty of working on the precipitous 
     slope. If Cil-Hi does not change their position on this 
     matter, I plan to organize a private team and recover the 
     site myself.
       We were able to identify the plane as a B-25D-I, #41-30182, 
     38th Bomb Group, 71st Bomb Squadron. The B-25 had departed 
     Saidor on a shuttle flight to Nadzab on July 1, 1944@0907. 
     There were 9 persons aboard:
       They were: Pilot, Richard Hurst, 1st Lt.; Co-Pilot, James 
     Henderson, 1st Lt.; Navigator, Aloysius Steele, 2nd Lt.; 
     Radio/Gunner, John Creighton, Pfc.; Gunner, Henry Miga, Sgt.; 
     Passenger, A. Milazzo, TEC 5; Passenger, B. Durham, Pfc.; 
     Passenger, S. Russell; Pfc.; Passenger, G. Norris, Cpl.
       Their exact fate had been unknown until Friday, November 
     7th, 1997. I picked up the bones of what turned out to be 
     partial remains of three men and put them in my backpack. The 
     remains had already been moved by the natives and no site 
     integrity was lost by my action. I returned the remains to 
     the US Ambassador in Port Moresby.
       After years of searching, I also located the wreckage of 
     the B-25 in which my late relative Major Bill Benn was killed 
     in 1957. The spot was located in very rugged terrain in 1957 
     and was visited by an Australian who performed a cursory 
     ``look around'', salvaged a few bones and left. The site is 
     littered with remains. I returned a number of bones to Cil-Hi 
     after my June 1998 visit and requested that they do a formal 
     site investigation. The site has never been visited by a US 
     serviceman, in fact, there is little doubt in my mind that no 
     one had re-visited the site until my team located in it 1998. 
     The scarce remains of the crew were interred in a single box 
     in Zachary Taylor National Cemetery (chosen due to its 
     central location). I would like all the recoverable remains 
     to come home, the 1957 burial site exhumed and all the 
     remains to be segregated utilizing today's DNA technology. It 
     would be very meaningful to my family to be able to give Bill 
     Benn a proper burial in Arlington, minutes away from the 
     residence of his widow and daughter.
       I don't think that is too much to ask for a man who 
     received the following commendation from General Kenney ``No 
     one in the theatre made a greater contribution to victory 
     than Bill Benn''. He has subsequently been forgotten by the 
     world but not by his family.
       This may not be a high priority for Cil-Hi because the case 
     is supposedly already resolved. The bulk of remains appear to 
     still be in New Guinea, however, and the question is whether 
     it is good enough to appear to recover remains or whether the 
     US military is committed enough to recover all possible 
     remains. I cut a large heli-pad nearby and the site is 
     readily accessible. I am also willing to accompany the team 
     to guide them and render any assistance possible.
       I appreciate your interest and assistance. I understand 
     that you are busy and probably not available on short notice 
     but I want to invite you to attend the burial of another P-47 
     pilot that I discovered in New Guinea named George Gaffney. 
     He is being buried at Arlington on June 9th, 1999. After I 
     found Desilets, Gaffney's daughter contacted me and asked me 
     to look for her father. In what can only be described as a 
     ``miraculous'' turn of good fortune, I succeeded in finding 
     his remains.
           Thank you so much.
                                                       Fred Hagen.


                           amendment no. 520

         (Purpose: To make technical and clarifying amendments)

       On page 33, beginning on line 3, strike ``that involve'' 
     and insert ``, as well as for use for''.
       On page 278, line 4, strike ``1998'' and insert ``1999''.
       On page 283, line 19, strike ``(A)'' and insert ``(1)''.
       On page 283, line 23, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 284, line 3, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 368, line 14, strike ``$40,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$85,000,000''.
       On page 397, beginning on line 2, strike ``readily 
     accessible and adequately preserved artifacts and readily 
     accessible representations'' and insert ``adequately visited 
     and adequately preserved artifacts and representations''.
       On page 411, in the table below line 12, strike the item 
     relating to ``Naval Air Station Atlanta, Georgia''.
       On page 412, in the table above line 1, strike 
     ``$744,140,000'' in the amount column in the item relating to 
     the total and insert ``$738,710,000''.
       On page 413, in the table following line 2, strike the 
     first item relating to Naval Base, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and 
     insert the following new item:


[[Page S6247]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Naval Base, Pearl Harbor.  133 Units....................     $30,168,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 414, line 6, strike ``$2,078,015,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,072,585,000''.
       On page 414, line 9, strike ``$673,960,000'' and insert 
     ``$668,530,000''.
       On page 429, line 20, strike ``$179,271,000'' and insert 
     ``$189,639,000''.
       On page 429, line 21, strike ``$115,185,000'' and insert 
     ``$104,817,000''.
       On page 429, line 23, strike ``$23,045,000'' and insert 
     ``$28,475,000''.
       On page 509, line 10, strike ``$892,629,000'' and insert 
     ``$880,629,000''.
       On page 509, line 16, strike ``$88,290,000'' and insert 
     ``$100,290,000''.
       On page 509, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Project 00-D-____, Transuranic waste treatment, Oak Ridge, 
     Tennessee, $12,000,000.
       Project 00-D-400, Site Operations Center, Idaho National 
     Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, 
     $1,306,000.
       On page 541, line 22, strike ``The'' and insert ``After 
     five members of the Commission have been appointed under 
     paragraph (1), the''.
       On page 542, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       (8) The Commission may commence its activities under this 
     section upon the designation of the chairman of the 
     Commission under paragraph (4).
       On page 546, strike lines 20 through 23.
       On page 547, line 1, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 577, line 16, strike ``PROJECT'' and insert 
     ``PLANT''.
       On page 577, line 23, strike ``Project'' and insert 
     ``Plant''.
       On page 578, line 3, strike ``Project'' and insert 
     ``Plant''.
       On page 578, line 6, strike ``Project'' and insert 
     ``Plant''.
       On page 578, line 14, strike ``Project'' and insert 
     ``Plant''.
       On page 578, strike lines 17 through 21, and insert the 
     following:
       (3) That, to the maximum extent practicable, shipments of 
     waste from the Rocky Flats Plant to the Waste Isolation Pilot 
     Plant will be carried out on an expedited schedule, but not 
     interfere with other shipments of waste to the Waste 
     Isolation Pilot Plant that are planned as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 521

(Purpose: To require a report on military-to-military contacts between 
         the United States and the People's Republic of China)

       On page 357, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 1032. REPORT ON MILITARY-TO-MILITARY CONTACTS WITH THE 
                   PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       (a) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     Congress a report on military-to-military contacts between 
     the United States and the People's Republic of China.
       (b) Report Elements.--The report shall include the 
     following:
       (1) A list of the general and flag grade officers of the 
     People's Liberation Army who have visited United States 
     military installations since January 1, 1993.
       (2) The itinerary of the visits referred to in paragraph 
     (2), including the installations visited, the duration of the 
     visits, and the activities conducted during the visits.
       (3) The involvement, if any, of the general and flag 
     officers referred to in paragraph (2) in the Tiananmen Square 
     massacre of June 1989.
       (4) A list of facilities in the People's Republic of China 
     that United States military officers have visited as a result 
     of any military-to-military contact program between the 
     United States and the People's Republic of China since 
     January 1, 1993.
       (5) A list of facilities in the People's Republic of China 
     that have been the subject of a requested visit by the 
     Department of Defense which has been denied by People's 
     Republic of China authorities.
       (6) A list of facilities in the United States that have 
     been the subject of a requested visit by the People's 
     Liberation Army which has been denied by the United States.
       (7) Any official documentation such as memoranda for the 
     record, official reports, and final itineraries, and receipts 
     for expenses over $1,000 concerning military-to-military 
     contacts or exchanges between the United States and the 
     People's Republic of China in 1999.
       (8) An assessment regarding whether or not any People's 
     Republic of China military officials have been shown 
     classified material as a result of military-to-military 
     contacts or exchanges between the United States and the 
     People's Republic of China.
       (9) The report shall be submitted no later than March 31, 
     2000 and shall be unclassified but may contain a classified 
     annex.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 522

  (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer to the 
   Attorney General quantities of lethal chemical agents required to 
   support training at the Chemical Defense Training Facility at the 
       Center for Domestic Preparedness, Fort McClellan, Alabama)

       In title X, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. 1061. CHEMICAL AGENTS USED FOR DEFENSIVE TRAINING.

       (a) Authority To Transfer Agents.--(1) The Secretary of 
     Defense may transfer to the Attorney General, in accordance 
     with the Chemical Weapons Convention, quantities of lethal 
     chemical agents required to support training at the Center 
     for Domestic Preparedness in Fort McClellan, Alabama. The 
     quantity of lethal chemical agents transferred under this 
     section may not exceed that required to support training for 
     emergency first-response personnel in addressing the health, 
     safety, and law enforcement concerns associated with 
     potential terrorist incidents that might involve the use of 
     lethal chemical weapons or agents, or other training 
     designated by the Attorney General.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 
     Attorney General, shall determine the amount of lethal 
     chemical agents that shall be transferred under this section. 
     Such amount shall be transferred from quantities of lethal 
     chemical agents that are produced, acquired, or retained by 
     the Department of Defense.
       (3) The Secretary of Defense may not transfer lethal 
     chemical agents under this section until--
       (A) the Center referred to in paragraph (1) is transferred 
     from the Department of Defense to the Department of Justice; 
     and
       (B) the Secretary determines that the Attorney General is 
     prepared to receive such agents.
       (4) To carry out the training described in paragraph (1) 
     and other defensive training not prohibited by the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention, the Secretary of Defense may transport 
     lethal chemical agents from a Department of Defense facility 
     in one State to a Department of Justice or Department of 
     Defense facility in another State.
       (5) Quantities of lethal chemical agents transferred under 
     this section shall meet all applicable requirements for 
     transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal of such 
     agents and for any resulting hazardous waste products.
       (b) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with Attorney General, shall report annually to 
     Congress regarding the disposition of lethal chemical agents 
     transferred under this section.
       (c) Non-Interference With Treaty Obligations.--Nothing in 
     this section may be construed as interfering with United 
     States treaty obligations under the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention.
       (d) Chemical Weapons Convention Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``Chemical Weapons Convention'' means the Convention 
     on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, 
     Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their 
     Destruction, opened for signature on January 13, 1993.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 523

     SEC.  . ORDNANCE MITIGATION STUDY.

       (a) The Secretary of Defense is directed to undertake a 
     study and is authorized to remove ordnance infiltrating the 
     federal navigation channel and adjacent shorelines of the 
     Toussaint River.
       (b) The Secretary shall report to the congressional defense 
     committees and the Senate Environment and Public Works on 
     long-term solutions and costs related to the removal of 
     ordnance in the Toussaint River, Ohio. The Secretary shall 
     also evaluate any ongoing use of Lake Erie as an ordnance 
     firing range and justify the need to continue such activities 
     by the Department of Defense or its contractors. The 
     Secretary shall report not later than April 1, 2000.
       (c) This provision shall not modify any responsibilities 
     and authorities provided in the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986, as amended (Public Law 99-662).
       (d) The Secretary is authorized to use any funds available 
     to the Secretary to carry out the authority provided in 
     subsection(a).
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 524

 (Purpose: To require a study and report regarding the options for Air 
                         Force cruise missiles)

       In title II, at the end of subtitle C, add the following:

     SEC. 225. OPTIONS FOR AIR FORCE CRUISE MISSILES.

       (a) Study.--(1) The Secretary of the Air Force shall 
     conduct a study of the options for meeting the requirements 
     being met as of the date of the enactment of this Act by the 
     conventional air launched cruise missile (CALCM) once the 
     inventory of that missile has been depleted. In conducting 
     the study, the Secretary shall consider the following 
     options:
       (A) Restarting of production of the conventional air 
     launched cruise missile.
       (B) Acquisition of a new type of weapon with the same 
     lethality characteristics as those of the conventional air 
     launched cruise missile or improved lethality 
     characteristics.
       (C) Utilization of current or planned munitions, with 
     upgrades as necessary.

[[Page S6248]]

       (2) The Secretary shall submit the results of this study to 
     the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate by 
     January 15, 2000, the results might be--
       (A) reflected in the budget for fiscal year 2001 submitted 
     to Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United States 
     Code; and
       (B) reported to Congress as required under subsection (b).
       (b) Report.--The report shall include a statement of how 
     the Secretary intends to meet the requirements referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) in a timely manner as described in that 
     subsection.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 525

(Purpose: To encourage reductions in Russian nonstrategic nuclear arms, 
       and to require annual reports on Russia's nuclear arsenal)

       In title X, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC. 1061. RUSSIAN NONSTRATEGIC NUCLEAR ARMS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) it is in the interest of Russia to fully implement the 
     Presidential Nuclear Initiatives announced in 1991 and 1992 
     by then-President of the Soviet Union Gorbachev and then-
     President of Russia Yeltsin;
       (2) the President of the United States should call on 
     Russia to match the unilateral reductions in the United 
     States inventory of tactical nuclear weapons, which have 
     reduced the inventory by nearly 90 percent; and
       (3) if the certification under section 1044 is made, the 
     President should emphasize the continued interest of the 
     United States in working cooperatively with Russia to reduce 
     the dangers associated with Russia's tactical nuclear 
     arsenal.
       (b) Annual Reporting Requirement.--(1) Each annual report 
     on accounting for United States assistance under Cooperative 
     Threat Reduction programs that is submitted to Congress under 
     section 1206 of Public Law 104-106 (110 Stat. 471; 22 U.S.C. 
     5955 note) after fiscal year 1999 shall include, regarding 
     Russia's arsenal of tactical nuclear warheads, the following:
       (A) Estimates regarding current types, numbers, yields, 
     viability, locations, and deployment status of the warheads.
       (B) An assessment of the strategic relevance of the 
     warheads.
       (C) An assessment of the current and projected threat of 
     theft, sale, or unauthorized use of the warheads.
       (D) A summary of past, current, and planned United States 
     efforts to work cooperatively with Russia to account for, 
     secure, and reduce Russia's stockpile of tactical nuclear 
     warheads and associated fissile material.
       (2) The Secretary shall include in the annual report, with 
     the matters included under paragraph (1), the views of the 
     Director of Central Intelligence and the views of the 
     Commander in Chief of the United States Strategic Command 
     regarding those matters.
       (c) Views of the Director of Central Intelligence.--The 
     Director of Central Intelligence shall submit to the 
     Secretary of Defense, for inclusion in the annual report 
     under subsection (b), the Director's views on the matters 
     described in paragraph (1) of that subsection regarding 
     Russia's tactical nuclear weapons.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 526

                (Purpose: To make technical corrections)

       On page 153, line 19, strike ``the United States'' and 
     insert ``such.''
       On page 356, line 7, insert after ``Secretary of Defense'' 
     the following: ``, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     State,''.
       On page 356, beginning on line 8, strike ``the Committees 
     on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives'' and insert ``the Committees on Armed 
     Services and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committees on Armed Services and International Relations of 
     the House of Representatives''.
       On page 358, strike line 21 and all that follows through 
     page 359, line 7.
       On page 359, line 8, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''.
       On page 359, line 16, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(c)''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 527

  (Purpose: To To authorize $4,000,000 for construction of a control 
 tower at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico, and $8,000,000 for runway 
       improvements at Cannon Air Force Base, and to offset such 
    authorizations by striking a military family housing project at 
    Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, and by reducing the amount 
authorized for the United States share of projects of the NATO Security 
                          Investment program)

       On page 417, in the table preceding line 1, insert after 
     the item relating to McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, the 
     following new items:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico.....................  Cannon Air Force Base..      $4,000,000
                                 Cannon Air Force Base..      $8,100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 417, in the table preceding line 1, strike 
     ``$628,133,000'' in the amount column of the item relating to 
     the total and insert ``$640,233,000''.
       On page 418, in the table following line 5, strike the item 
     relating to Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.
       On page 418, in the table following line 5, strike 
     ``$196,088,000'' in the amount column of the item relating to 
     the total and insert ``$186,248,000''.
       On page 419, line 15, strike ``$1,917,191,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,919,451,000''.
       On page 419, line 19, strike ``$628,133,000'' and insert 
     ``$640,233,000''.
       On page 420, line 7, strike ``$343,511,000'' and insert 
     ``$333,671,000''.
       On page 420, line 17, strike ``$628,133,000'' and insert 
     ``$640,233,000''.
       On page 429, line 5, strike ``$172,472,000'' and insert 
     ``$170,472,000''.
                                  ____



                            Amendment No 528

   (Purpose: To amend title XXIX, relating to renewal of public land 
 withdrawals for certain military ranges, to include a placeholder to 
 allow the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Interior the 
    opportunity to complete a comprehensive legislative withdrawal 
 proposal, and to provide an opportunity for public comment and review)

       On page 476, line 13, through page 502, line 3, strike 
     title XXIX in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:

          ``TITLE XXIX--RENEWAL OF MILITARY LAND WITHDRAWALS.

     ``SEC. 2901. FINDINGS.

       ``The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) Public Law 99-606 authorized public land withdrawals 
     for several military installations, including the Barry M. 
     Goldwater Air Force Range in Arizona, the McGregor Range in 
     New Mexico, and Fort Wainwright and Fort Greely in Alaska, 
     collectively comprising over 4 million acres of public land;
       ``(2) these military ranges provide important military 
     training opportunities and serve a critical role in the 
     national security of the United States and their use for 
     these purposes should be continued;
       ``(3) in addition to their use for military purposes, these 
     ranges contain significant natural and cultural resources, 
     and provide important wildlife habitat;
       ``(4) the future uses of these ranges is important not only 
     for the affected military branches, but also for local 
     residents and other public land users;
       ``(5) the public land withdrawals authorized in 1986 under 
     Public Law 99-606 were for a period of 15 years, and expire 
     in November, 2001; and
       ``(5) it is important that the renewal of these public land 
     withdrawals be completed in a timely manner, consistent with 
     the process established in Public Law 99-606 and other 
     applicable laws, including the completion of appropriate 
     environmental impact studies and opportunities for public 
     comment and review.

     ``SEC. 2902. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       ``It is the Sense of the Senate that the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Secretary of the Interior, consistent with 
     their responsibilities and requirements under applicable 
     laws, should jointly prepare a comprehensive legislative 
     proposal to renew the public land withdrawals for the four 
     ranges referenced in section 2901 and transmit such proposal 
     to the Congress no later than July 1, 1999.''


                           amendment no. 529

(Purpose: To authorize $3,850,000 for the construction of a Water Front 
Crane System for the Navy at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, 
                             New Hampshire)

       On page 429, line 5, strike out ``$172,473,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$168,340,000''
       On page 411, in the table below, insert after item related 
     Mississippi Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport 
     following new item:
       New Hampshire NSY Portsmouth $3,850,000
       On page 412, in the table line Total strike out 
     ``744,140,000'' and insert ``$747,990,000.''
       On page 414, line 6, strike out ``$2,078,015,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$2,081,865,000''.
       On page 414, line 9, strike out ``$673,960,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$677,810,000''.
       On page 414, line 18, strike out ``$66,299,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$66,581,000''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 530

  (Purpose: To authorize $11,600,000 for the Air Force for a military 
    construction project at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada (Project 
                              RKMF983014))

       On page 416, in the table following line 13, insert after 
     the item relating to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, the 
     following new item:

Nellis Air Force Base.......................................$11,600,000

       On page 417, in the table preceding line 1, strike 
     ``$628,133,000'' in the amount column of the item relating to 
     the total and insert ``$639,733,000''.
       On page 419, line 15, strike ``$1,917,191,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,928,791,000''.
       On page 419, line 19, strike ``$628,133,000'' and insert 
     ``$639,733,000''.
       On page 420, line 17, strike ``$628,133,000'' and insert 
     ``$639,733,000''.

[[Page S6249]]

     
                                  ____
                           Amendment No. 531

       At the end of Section E of Title XXVIII insert the 
     following:

       Sec.   . Army Reserve Relocation From Fort Douglas, Utah.-- 
     Section 2603 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     fiscal year 1998 (P.L. 105-85) is amended as follows: With 
     regard to the conveyance of a portion of Fort Douglas, Utah 
     to the University of Utah and the resulting relocation of 
     Army Reserve activities to temporary and permanent relocation 
     facilities, the Secretary of the Army may accept the funds 
     paid by the University of Utah or State of Utah to pay costs 
     associated with the conveyance and relocation. Funds received 
     under this section shall be credited to the appropriation, 
     fund or account from which the expenses are ordinarily paid. 
     Amounts so credited shall be available until expended.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 532

 (Purpose: To authorize, with an offset, an additional $59,200,000 for 
   drug interdiction and counterdrug activities of the Department of 
                                Defense)

       On page 62, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 314. ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR DRUG INTERDICTION AND 
                   COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Authorization of Additional Amount.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this Act, the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 301(a)(20) is hereby increased by 
     $59,200,000.
       (b) Use of Additional Amounts.--Of the amounts authorized 
     to be appropriated by section 301(a)(20), as increased by 
     subsection (a) of this section, funds shall be available in 
     the following amounts for the following purposes:
       (1) $6,000,000 shall be available for Operation Caper 
     Focus.
       (2) $17,500,000 shall be available for a Relocatable Over 
     the Horizon (ROTHR) capability for the Eastern Pacific based 
     in the continental United States.
       (3) $2,700,000 shall be available for forward looking 
     infrared radars for P-3 aircraft.
       (4) $8,000,000 shall be available for enhanced intelligence 
     capabilities.
       (5) $5,000,000 shall be used for Mothership Operations.
       (6) $20,000,000 shall be used for National Guard State 
     plans.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, last year the Congress provided an $800 
million down payment to restore viability to our counter drug 
eradication and interdiction strategy in the region. This funding was 
the first installment of the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, 
which was passed as part of last year's omnibus appropriations bill. 
Our goal is to reduce significantly the flow of cocaine and heroine 
flowing into the United States. This would be done by driving up drug 
trafficking costs, reducing drug availability, and ultimately keeping 
these horrendous drugs out of the reach of our children.
  We made great progress last year to secure the funds for an enhanced 
counter-drug strategy. Today, I am seeking additional resources for 
this important national security interest.
  Today, Senator Coverdell and I are offering an amendment that would 
authorize more funds for Defense counter-drug programs. This amendment 
is taken from a provision contained in S. 5, the Drug Free Century Act, 
which I introduced with seven of my Senate colleagues.
  Mr. President, since the late 1980's, the Department of Defense has 
been called upon to support counter narcotics activities in transit 
areas in the Caribbean, and these dedicated members of our armed 
services have done an extraordinary job. Unfortunately, we in the 
Congress, and those all over the United States, are keenly aware that 
the Armed Forces of the United States are being stretched too thin. 
With the ongoing hostilities against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the 
enormous air campaign against Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo, material 
and manpower dedicated to the interdiction of drugs entering our 
country have been diverted to these ``higher priority'' duties, leaving 
the drug transit areas vulnerable and unguarded.
  In addition, this year we have seen the closure of Howard Air Force 
Base in Panama, which causes the United States to lose a premier 
airfield for conducting counter-drug aerial detection and monitoring 
missions. Without this aerial surveillance of the coca fields and 
production sites in Colombia, and the major transit areas for bringing 
cocaine into the United States, timely and actionable intelligence 
cannot be relayed to the Colombian government forces in time for 
seizure and eradication actions.
  Fortunately, the current bill already would authorize $42.8 million 
for the creation of forward operating locations to replace the 
capability lost with the closure of Howard Air Force Base. These sites 
will be critical to the continuing ability of the U.S. Armed Forces and 
law enforcement agencies to effectively detect and interdict illegal 
drug traffic. However, it will take time to get these sites identified 
and operational.
  Mr. President, that is why this amendment is timely and important. 
Our amendment would shore up deficient funding in the critical areas of 
intelligence gathering, monitoring, and tracking of suspect drug 
activity heading toward the United States.
  This amendment would provide authorization for an additional $59.2 
million in counter-drug intelligence gathering and interdiction 
operations.
  We need to have a reliable and efficient means of monitoring, 
identifying, and tracking suspect traffickers before assigning 
interdiction aircraft or marine craft to intercept. The key to our 
success is accurate intelligence. Without accurate intelligence, we are 
wasting time and valuable resources.
  This amendment would enable such intelligence gathering technologies 
as a CONUS-based, over-the-horizon radar that could be used in 
detecting and tracking both air and maritime targets in the eastern 
Pacific and Mexico. This technology would greatly enhance the ability 
of law enforcement agencies of both the United States and Mexico to 
interdict and disrupt shipments of narcotics destined for the United 
States.
  This amendment also would authorize funds for enhanced intelligence 
capabilities such as signals intelligence, collections, and translation 
that would significantly improve the overall effectiveness of the 
counter drug effort.
  Mr. President, it is time to renew drug interdiction efforts, provide 
the necessary equipment to our drug-enforcement agencies, and make the 
issue a national priority once again. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment and help turn the tide of the drug crisis in our 
country.


                           amendment no. 533

 (Purpose: Expressing the Sense of the Senate regarding settlement of 
 claims with respect to the deaths of members of the United States Air 
  Force resulting from the accident off Namibia on September 13, 1997)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS OF 
                   AMERICAN SERVICEMENS' FAMILIES REGARDING DEATHS 
                   RESULTING FROM THE ACCIDENT OFF THE COAST OF 
                   NAMIBIA ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1997.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) On September 13, 1997, a German Luftwaffe Tupelov TU-
     154M aircraft collided with a United States Air Force C-141 
     Starlifter aircraft off the coast of Namibia.
       (2) As a result of that collision nine members of the 
     United States Air Force were killed, namely Staff Sergeant 
     Stacey D. Bryant, 32, loadmaster, Providence, Rhode Island; 
     Staff Sergeant Gary A. Bucknam, 25, flight engineer, Oakland, 
     Maine; Captain Gregory M. Cindrich, 28, pilot, Byrans Road, 
     Maryland; Airman 1st Class Justin R. Drager, 19, loadmaster, 
     Colorado Springs, Colorado; Staff Sergeant Robert K. Evans, 
     31, flight engineer, Garrison, Kentucky; Captain Jason S. 
     Ramsey, 27, pilot, South Boston, Virginia; Staff Sergeant 
     Scott N. Roberts, 27, flight engineer, Library, Pennsylvania; 
     Captain Peter C. Vallejo, 34, aircraft commander, Crestwood, 
     New York; and Senior Airman Frankie L. Walker, 23, crew 
     chief, Windber, Pennsylvania.
       (3) The Final Report of the Ministry of Defense of the 
     Defense Committee of the German Bundestag states 
     unequivocally that, following an investigation, the 
     Directorate of Flight Safety of the German Federal Armed 
     Forces assigned responsibility for the collision to the 
     Aircraft Commander/Commandant of the Luftwaffe Tupelov TU-
     154M aircraft for flying at a flight level that did not 
     conform to international flight rules.
       (4) The United States Air Force accident investigation 
     report concluded that the primary cause of the collision was 
     the Luftwaffe Tupelov TU-154M aircraft flying at an incorrect 
     cruise altitude.
       (5) Procedures for filing claims under the Status of Forces 
     Agreement are unavailable to the families of the members of 
     the United States Air Force killed in the collision.
       (6) The families of the members of the United States Air 
     Force killed in the collision have filed claims against the 
     Government of Germany.
       (7) The Senate has adopted an amendment authorizing the 
     payment to citizens of Germany of a supplemental settlement 
     of claims arising from the deaths caused by the accident 
     involving a United States Marine Corps EA-6B aircraft on 
     February 3, 1998, near Cavalese, Italy.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the Government of Germany should promptly settle with 
     the families of the members of the United States Air Force 
     killed in a collision between a United States

[[Page S6250]]

     Air Force C-141 Starlifter aircraft and a German Luftwaffe 
     Tupelov TU-154M aircraft off the coast of Namibia on 
     September 13, 1997; and
       (2) the United States should not make any payment to 
     citizens of Germany as settlement of such citizens' claims 
     for deaths arising from the accident involving a United 
     States Marine Corps EA-6B aircraft on February 3, 1998, near 
     Cavalese, Italy, until a comparable settlement is reached 
     between the Government of Germany and the families described 
     in paragraph (1) with respect to the collision described in 
     that paragraph.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 534

    (Purpose: To commemorate the victory of freedom in the Cold War)

       On page 387, below line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 1061. COMMEMORATION OF THE VICTORY OF FREEDOM IN THE 
                   COLD WAR.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Cold War between the United States and the former 
     Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the longest and most 
     costly struggle for democracy and freedom in the history of 
     mankind.
       (2) Whether millions of people all over the world would 
     live in freedom hinged on the outcome of the Cold War.
       (3) Democratic countries bore the burden of the struggle 
     and paid the costs in order to preserve and promote democracy 
     and freedom.
       (4) The Armed Forces and the taxpayers of the United States 
     bore the greatest portion of such a burden and struggle in 
     order to protect such principles.
       (5) Tens of thousands of United States soldiers, sailors, 
     Marines, and airmen paid the ultimate price during the Cold 
     War in order to preserve the freedoms and liberties enjoyed 
     in democratic countries.
       (6) The Berlin Wall erected in Berlin, Germany, epitomized 
     the totalitarianism that the United States struggled to 
     eradicate during the Cold War.
       (7) The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, marked 
     the beginning of the end for Soviet totalitarianism, and thus 
     the end of the Cold War.
       (8) November 9, 1999, is the 10th anniversary of the fall 
     of the Berlin Wall.
       (b) Designation of Victory in the Cold War Day.--Congress 
     hereby--
       (1) designates November 9, 1999, as ``Victory in the Cold 
     War Day''; and
       (2) requests that the President issue a proclamation 
     calling on the people of the United States to observe that 
     week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
       (c) Cold War Medal.--(1) Chapter 57 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1133. Cold War medal: award

       ``(a) Award.--There is hereby authorized an award of an 
     appropriate decoration, as provided for under subsection (b), 
     to all individuals who served honorably in the United States 
     armed forces during the Cold War in order to recognize the 
     contributions of such individual to United States victory in 
     the Cold War.
       ``(b) Design.--The Joint Chiefs of Staff shall, under 
     regulations prescribed by the President, design for purposes 
     of this section a decoration called the `Victory in the Cold 
     War Medal'. The decoration shall be of appropriate design, 
     with ribbons and appurtenances.
       ``(c) Period of Cold War.--For purposes of subsection (a), 
     the term `Cold War' shall mean the period beginning on August 
     14, 1945, and ending on November 9, 1989.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1133. Cold War medal: award.''.
       (d) Participation of Armed Forces in Celebration of 
     Anniversary of End of Cold War.--(1) Subject to paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), amounts authorized to be appropriated by section 
     301(1) shall be available for the purpose of covering the 
     costs of the Armed Forces in participating in a celebration 
     of the 10th anniversary of the end of the Cold War to be held 
     in Washington, District of Columbia, on November 9, 1999.
       (2) The total amount of funds available under paragraph (1) 
     for the purpose set forth in that paragraph may not exceed 
     $15,000,000.
       (3)(A) The Secretary of Defense may accept contributions 
     from the private sector for the purpose of reducing the costs 
     of the Armed Forces described in paragraph (1).
       (B) The amount of funds available under paragraph (1) for 
     the purpose set forth in that paragraph shall be reduced by 
     an amount equal to the amount of contributions accepted by 
     the Secretary under subparagraph (A).
       (e) Commission on Victory in the Cold War.--(1) There is 
     hereby established a commission to be known as the 
     ``Commission on Victory in the Cold War'' (in this subsection 
     to be referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (2) The Commission shall be composed of twelve individuals, 
     as follows:
       (A) Two shall be appointed by the President.
       (B) Two shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate.
       (C) Two shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (D) Three shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate.
       (E) Three shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (3) The Commission shall have as its duty the review and 
     approval of the expenditure of funds by the Armed Forces 
     under subsection (d) prior to the participation of the Armed 
     Forces in the celebration referred to in paragraph (1) of 
     that subsection, whether such funds are derived from funds of 
     the United States or from amounts contributed by the private 
     sector under paragraph (3)(A) of that subsection.
       (4) In addition to the duties provided for under paragraph 
     (3), the Commission shall also have the authority to design 
     and award medals and decorations to current and former public 
     officials and other individuals whose efforts were vital to 
     United States victory in the Cold War.
       (5) The Commission shall be chaired by two individuals as 
     follows:
       (A) one selected by and from among those appointed pursuant 
     to subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2);
       (B) one selected by and from among those appointed pursuant 
     to subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (2).

  Mr. LEVIN. It is my understanding that the creation of a medal under 
this section is solely at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense.


                           amendment No. 535

 (Purpose: To require the implementation of the Department of Defense 
                 special supplemental nutrition program

       In title VI, at the end of subtitle E, add the following:

     SEC. 676. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL 
                   NUTRITION PROGRAM.

       (a) Clarification of Benefits Responsibility.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 1060a of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``may carry out a program to provide 
     special supplemental food benefits'' and inserting ``shall 
     carry out a program to provide supplemental foods and 
     nutrition education''.
       (b) Funding.--Subsection (b) of such section is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Federal Payments.--The Secretary of Defense shall use 
     funds available for the Department of Defense to provide 
     supplemental foods and nutrition education and to pay for 
     costs for nutrition services and administration under the 
     program required under subsection (a).''.
       (c) Program Administration.--Subsection (c)(1)(A) of such 
     section is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In 
     the determining of eligibility for the program benefits, a 
     person already certified for participation in the special 
     supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and 
     children under section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1996 
     (42 U.S.C. 1786) shall be considered eligible for the 
     duration of the certification period under that program.''.
       (d) Nutritional Risk Standards.--Subsection (c)(1)(B) of 
     such section is amended by inserting ``and nutritional risk 
     standards'' after ``income eligibility standards''.
       (e) Definitions.--Subsection (f) of such section is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) The terms `costs for nutrition services and 
     administration', `nutrition education' and `supplemental 
     foods' have the meanings given the terms in paragraphs (4), 
     (7), and (14), respectively, of section 17(b) of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(b)).''.


                           amendment no. 536

(Purpose: To provide $4,000,000 for testing of airblast and improvised 
 explosives (in PE 63122D), and to offset that amount by reducing the 
   amount provided for sensor and guidance technology (in PE 63762E)

       In title II, at the end of subtitle B, add the following:

     SEC. 216. TESTING OF AIRBLAST AND IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVES.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under section 
     201(4)--
       (1) $4,000,000 is available for testing of airblast and 
     improvised explosives (in PE 63122D); and
       (2) the amount provided for sensor and guidance technology 
     (in PE 63762E) is reduced by $4,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to 
en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any 
statements be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 482 through 538) were agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask all remaining amendments at the desk 
be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. It is the intention of the managers to move to third 
reading momentarily.
  Mr. LEVIN. We are ready.
  Mr. WARNER. In the moment I have here, I just want to acknowledge, 
again, the tremendous cooperation and the spirit with which my 
distinguished colleague from Michigan and I--we have worked together 
for these many years--came together. We were supported by superb 
staffs; our staff directors, I tell you, they are pretty tough.

[[Page S6251]]

 At this moment we will withhold that, but the balance of the staffs on 
both sides have done magnificent work.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join my dear friend, the chairman, in 
that sentiment about our staffs and our colleagues. This is a very 
complex bill. I think we have done it in record time, but it has taken 
the cooperation of all of our colleagues, the leadership on both sides, 
and of course our staff made it possible. We will have more to say 
about that after final passage. I think we are now waiting for the 
final high-sign from our staff that everything has been cleared.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, of course we include Les Brownlee and 
David Lyles in those accolades.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 1 minute 42 seconds.
  Mr. KYL. The minority has yielded back its time?
  Mr. REID. We have not yielded it back, but I don't think we will use 
it. We will wait and see what the Senator has to say.
  Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent Senator Domenici's time be folded in 
with my time and then I will close our side of the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator has 3 minutes 42 seconds.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me just clarify about three things that 
were said by Members of the minority a moment ago.
  Senator Bingaman said we should not be playing politics with national 
security. We could not agree more with that. He, then, began discussing 
how these problems have been around a long time, under Republican 
administrations as well as Democrat administrations. That is true. It 
is not political; it is true. Of course, that is what the Cox 
Commission report said, but that has nothing to do with whether we 
should begin to solve those problems now.
  Once this administration became aware of the espionage in about 1995, 
it was important to begin the work of cleaning up the mess at the 
Department of Energy. What we are saying is if that is not going to be 
done by the administration, we are prepared to help do that with the 
amendment we have offered.
  Second, Senator Bingaman indicated that Democrats did not object to 
the Republican security amendments in the Armed Services Committee, 
which were then included in the bill and which Members of the 
Democratic side have been talking about as a good thing in this bill.
  I just asked staff to note a couple of the specifics to which there 
was objection. The minority, for example, objected to the requirement 
that DOE employees who have access to nuclear weapons data have a full 
background investigation. They watered it down by delaying 
implementation and also requiring an analysis of costs. They weakened 
the restrictions on the lab-to-lab program, section 3156 or 3158, I 
have forgotten. There were more. Not to quibble, but the point is the 
security provisions in this bill were put there by the Members of the 
Republican side, by and large. The primary section that was discussed 
was the section put in by Senator Lott, the majority leader.

  But there is one more important piece of unfinished business and that 
is the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski amendment, and that is what the Democrats 
will not let each of us talk about let alone debate about, except for 
the unanimous consent to close the debate here this evening.
  Senator Reid concluded by saying he did not improperly hold up the 
bill. He, in fact, used the rules of the Senate to protect the 
prerogatives of one Senator and his side. That is certainly true. He 
knows the rules. He used the rules. He was able to use the rules to 
prevent us from speaking, from debating our amendment, and from voting 
on it. The only way we could bring the defense authorization bill to a 
close and conclude this very important piece of business for the 
American people was for us to withdraw this important amendment.
  I hope all of our colleagues and the American people understand what 
happened here. Because we could not discuss or vote on the Kyl-
Domenici-Murkowski amendment, and because it was important to conclude 
the work on the defense authorization bill, we were required to 
withdraw our amendment. That important piece of unfinished business to 
protect the security of the National Laboratories, therefore, remains 
unfinished business and will have to be taken up in the future.
  I do not know of a higher priority for the Senate at this time than 
trying to ensure the security of our National Laboratories and our most 
sophisticated weapons. This amendment would go a long way toward doing 
that. It is not the total answer. I am just hopeful in the days and 
weeks to come we will not hear the continuing wails that it is not 
time, we do not have time to discuss this, we should have lots of 
hearings about it.
  We are prepared to have all kinds of discussions. We need to have 
those discussions. If we are not able to have those discussions in 
future times here, then the next time it will not be withdrawn and we 
will have to deal with it one way or the other.
  I urge my colleagues to work together, try to resolve these important 
security issues for the safety and defense of the United States of 
America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. REID. I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                           amendment no. 399

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to briefly speak on an amendment I 
offered today that was accepted by unanimous consent in the Defense 
authorization bill. My amendment will address an unfulfilled obligation 
to our nation's veterans. The problem is a substantial backlog of 
requests by veterans for replacement and issuance of military medals. 
At a time when our troops are engaged overseas, and with the Memorial 
Day weekend approaching, it is all the more important to ensure we are 
recognizing the sacrifices of our veterans.
  Believe it or not, it can take years for veterans to receive medals 
earned through their service to our nation. My state offices are 
involved in a number of current cases where veterans have been waiting 
two to three years for medals they earned, but were never awarded. 
While my staff and I pursue these cases aggressively, the reality is 
that no amount of pressure and follow-through can overcome what is 
essentially a resource problem.
  The medal issue revolves around a huge backlog of requests. The 
personnel centers, which process applications for the separate services 
for never-issued awards and replacement medals, have accumulated huge 
backlogs of requests by veterans. In one personnel center alone, 98,000 
requests have been allowed to back up, resulting in years of waiting 
time. These time delays have denied veterans across the nation the 
medals and honors they have rightfully earned through heroic actions.
  Let me briefly share the story of Mr. Dale Holmes, a Korean War 
veteran. I have shared this story on the floor before, but I think it 
bears repeating. Mr. Holmes fired a mortar on the front lines of the 
Korean War. Stacy Groff, the daughter of Mr. Holmes, tried 
unsuccessfully for three years on her own, through the normal 
Department of Defense channels, to get the medals her father earned and 
deserved. Ms. Groff turned to me after her letter writing produced no 
results. My office began an inquiry in January of 1997 and we were not 
able to resolve this issue favorably until September 1997.
  Ms. Groff made a statement about the delays that sum up my sentiments 
perfectly: ``I don't think it's fair. My dad deserves, everybody 
deserves, better treatment than that.'' Ms. Groff could not be more 
correct. Our veterans deserve better from the country they served so 
courageously.
  DOD claims that it does not have the people or resources to speed up 
the process. But it would not take much to make a dent in the problem. 
For example, the Navy Liaison Office was averaging a relatively quick 
turnaround time of only four to five months when it had five personnel 
working cases. Now that it has only three people in the office, it is 
having a hard time keeping up with the crush of requests. DOD must make 
putting more resources towards this problem a priority. However, it 
seems like the same old story--our government forgets the

[[Page S6252]]

sacrifices servicemen and women have made as soon as they leave 
military duty. We can do better.
  Last year, during the debate over the FY99 Defense Appropriations 
bill, the Senate passed my amendment urging the DOD to end the backlog 
of unfulfilled military medal requests. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has 
not moved to fix the problem. In fact, according to my information, the 
problem has worsened.
  Therefore, here I am again. My amendment directs the Secretary of 
Defense to establish and carry out a plan to make available the funds 
and resources necessary to eliminate the backlog in decoration 
requests.
  Specifically, my amendment says the Secretary of Defense shall make 
available to the Army Reserve Personnel Command, the Bureau of Naval 
Personnel, the Air Force Personnel Center, the National Archives and 
Records Administration, and any other relevant office or command, the 
resources necessary to solve the problem. These resources could be in 
the form of increased personnel, equipment or whatever these offices 
need for this problem.
  My amendment also directs that funding and resources should not come 
at the expense of other personnel service and support activities within 
DOD. It is a commonsense approach which will allow DOD to structure a 
quick and direct solution to the problem.
  Our veterans are not asking for much. Their brave actions in time of 
war deserve our highest respect, recognition, and admiration. My 
amendment will help expedite the recognition they so richly deserve. 
Our veterans deserve nothing less.
  I thank the Veterans of Foreign Wars for strongly supporting this 
amendment. Their support meant a great deal to my efforts.
  I thank the managers of the Defense Authorization bill, Senator 
Warner and Senator Levin, for their cooperation and understanding in 
agreeing to accept this important amendment.
  While this is only a small change to the Defense authorization bill, 
it will send a clear message to our Nation's veterans and active duty 
personnel: we recognize and value the sacrifices you have made on our 
behalf.


                           Amendment No. 394

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the 
majority leader's amendment to the defense authorization bill. The 
amendment takes important steps to improve the monitoring of the export 
of advanced U.S. satellite technology and to strengthen security and 
counterintelligence measures at Department of Energy facilities.
  As a Senator, I have been privy to a wide range of classified and 
unclassified information relating to efforts by the People's Republic 
of China to acquire our sensitive technology and influence our 
political process. As a United States citizen, I am gravely concerned.
  As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I learned during 
the campaign finance investigation ably lead by Chairman Thompson that 
China developed and implemented a plan to influence U.S. politicians 
and elections. And from Charlie Trie and John Huang, both of whom have 
recently plead to felony offenses and agreed to cooperate with the 
Justice Department, I suspect we could learn more. More recently, I 
reviewed the Cox report, and just yesterday, listened to testimony 
concerning the report during a hearing of the Subcommittee on 
International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services. The 
evidence is clear that China stole very sensitive military secrets 
involving virtually all of our nuclear weapons. What is more, I believe 
that the lax security at our government labs is completely inexcusable 
as is the Clinton Administration's abject failure to take swift and 
strong action when it became aware of evidence of serious breaches in 
our national security.
  This administration is faced now with the opportunity to focus the 
country on constructive solutions to our problems concerning espionage 
and undue foreign influence. I fear, however, that we will be mired for 
a long time to come in the details of what happened, because those who 
know will not tell. Instead of a swift accounting of what went wrong, I 
am afraid we can expect the stonewalling and lack of cooperation we 
received during the campaign finance inquiry.
  Yet there are things Congress can do now to improve security at our 
national labs, and the majority leader's amendment is one of them. The 
Amendment increases the exchange of information between the 
Administration and the Congress and requires changes at the Departments 
of State, Energy, Defense as well as other intelligence agencies. These 
changes will help strengthen security checks, licensing procedures, and 
access to classified information. I am hopeful that these provisions 
will enhance the security and protection of our most vital 
technological secrets and ensure that if violations do occur, swift and 
decisive action is taken to correct them.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.


                    bqm-74 target drone procurement

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of 
myself, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Bingaman to engage the Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee in a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the chair. Mr. President, Senator Dorgan, Senator 
Bingaman, and I have come to the Senate floor today to discuss with the 
Armed Services Committee's able leadership how the Congress might go 
about ensuring funding for procurement in fiscal year 2000 of the BQM-
74, a Navy target drone.
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand that the Senator from New Mexico has some 
expertise on this subject.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I have been pleased to support the BQM-74. This target 
drone plays an important role in Navy air-to-air and surface warfare 
training, representing enemy fighters, bombers, and cruise missiles 
during live-fire training operations. The Chief of Naval Operations has 
a requirement that at least 240 of these drones be kept in the active 
inventory. We have maintained this number in the past, and I hope that 
the Navy will be able to continue to do so.
  Mr. CONRAD. I wonder if I could direct a question to my colleague 
from North Dakota, who also has some familiarity with this program. 
Senator Dorgan, am I correct to understand that a lack of BQM-74 
procurement in fiscal year 2000 could result in the Navy's inventory 
falling below the CNO's requirement?
  Mr. DORGAN. My colleague from North Dakota is entirely correct. I am 
informed that no production in the coming fiscal year would likely 
result in a dangerous reduction to the inventory, and could force Navy 
training operations to be curtailed as early as 2002. This would 
clearly not be in our nation's interest. I am additionally informed 
that a gap in production next year could drive up unit cost sharply.
  Mr. CONRAD. This is most distressing. I wonder, could the Senator 
from New Mexico provide some background on the BQM-74's current funding 
status?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. As my colleagues may be aware, the Navy had allocated 
435 million for procurement of 135 BQM-74 drones in fiscal year 2000. 
This funding was zeroed out by the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
prior to submission of the budget request to Congress.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Office of the Secretary of Defense clearly did not 
act prudently in this regard, and I am pleased to report that this week 
the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee--on which I serve--added 
430 million for procurement of this target drone. This move followed an 
authorization by the House Armed Services Committee of $27 million for 
BQM-74 procurement.
  Mr. CONRAD. In light of the unquestioned importance of the BQM-74 and 
the action taken by the House authorizers and Senate appropriators, I 
wonder if the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee believes that this matter can be addressed in conference.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senators for their valuable input. The BQM-74 
is one of several critical defense priorities that will be addressed in 
conference.
  Mr. DORGAN. Senator Levin, might I ask if you concur with the 
Chairman?
  Mr. LEVIN. the issue will certainly have to be addressed in 
conference. The BQM-74 target drone is important to

[[Page S6253]]

peacetime training and readiness. I know that the House Armed Services 
Committee authorized funding, and the Senate Appropriations Committee 
has recommended funding. It is my intention to work with the Chairman 
and our House counterparts in the upcoming conference to try to provide 
authorization funding for BQM-74 procurement in fiscal year 2000.
  Mr. CONRAD. On behalf of myself, Senator Dorgan, and Senator 
Bingaman, I thank the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Members for 
their important assurances.


                            wartime embargo

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this amendment imposes a straightforward 
but neglected requirement on the administration to seek multilateral 
economic embargoes as well as foreign asset seizures against 
governments with which the United States engages in armed hostilities.
  After one month of conflict in Kosovo, the Pentagon had announced 
that NATO had destroyed most of Yugoslavia's internal oil refining 
capacity.
  But the Secretary of State then acknowledged that the Serbians 
continued to fortify their hidden armored forces in the province with 
imported oil.
  And just three weeks ago, the allies first agreed to an American 
proposal to intercept petroleum exports bound for Serbia on the high 
seas but then declined to enforce the ban against their own ships!
  On May 1st, five weeks after the Kosovo operation had begun, the 
President finally signed an executive order imposing an American 
embargo against Belgrade on oil, software, and other sensitive 
products.
  Yet NATO and the United States have paid a steep price for failing to 
impose comprehensive economic sanctions on Serbia from the beginning of 
the air campaign in late March. As recently as May 13th, an anonymous 
U.S. government source told Reuters that the Yugoslavian Army continued 
to smuggle significant amounts of oil over land and water.
  At the end of April, General Wesley Clark, NATO's Supreme Commander, 
gave the alliance a plan for the interdiction of oil tankers streaming 
in the Adriatic towards Serbian ports. To justify this proposal, he 
cited the fact that through approximately 11 shipments, as this 
chronology shows, the Yugoslavians had imported 450,000 barrels 
containing 19 million gallons of petroleum vital to their war efforts. 
One Russian vessel alone deposited more than four million gallons of 
this amount.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, it has been economic business as usual 
for the Serbians as our missiles try to grind their will. The President 
declared on March 24th the beginning of the NATO campaign and set a 
goal of deterring a bloody offensive against Moslem civilians.
  Less than four weeks later, with more than 400 planes flying over 
400,000 internally displaced Kosovars, Belgrade reached the mid-point 
of receiving 11 shipments of oil from abroad.
  By the close of April, General Clark confirmed the destruction of 
Yugoslavia's oil production capacity. On the same day, however, the 
Serbs took in 165,000 barrels of imported fuel.
  And on May 1st, when the President signed the executive order banning 
U.S. trade with Yugoslavia, Milosevic had received the last of the 11 
April oil shipments for a total of 450,000 barrels.
  As of three weeks ago, the number of displaced Kosovars had topped 
one million and NATO acknowledged the continuation of energy imports by 
the enemy.
  These imported energy reserves play a significant role in supporting 
Serbian ground operations. The U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates 
that Yugoslav forces consume about four thousand barrels of oil per 
day. This fact means that if Serbian armored units in Kosovo used only 
one-half of the imported fuel just from April, they could have operated 
for nearly two months.
  It took barely one month after the start of the NATO campaign, 
however, for President Milosevic to uproot the vast majority of the 
ethnic Albanian population of the province. So by the time frame that 
NATO had claimed to destroy Serbia's oil refining capacity, mid-to-late 
April, the Yugoslavians still managed to perpetrate Europe's worst 
humanitarian crisis since World War II.
  We now face the strategic and operational challenge of uprooting 
dispersed tank, artillery, and infantry units in Kosovo. This challenge 
confounds NATO because our military campaign ignored the offshore 
economic base sustaining the aggression that we had pledged to 
overcome.
  This example, Mr. President, teaches us that military victory 
involves more than the decisive application of force. It also demands, 
as Operation Desert Storm so dramatically illustrated, a coordinated 
diplomatic and economic enemy isolation effort among the United States 
and its allies.
  Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 1, 1990. Five days later, on August 
6th, the United Nations Security Council, with only Cuba and Yemen in 
opposition, had passed a resolution directing ``all states'' to bar 
Iraqi commodity and product imports. This action first helped to freeze 
Saddam in Kuwait before he could move into Saudi Arabia. The wartime 
coalition subsequently faced the more manageable task of expelling this 
dictator from a small country rather than the entire Arabian Peninsula.
  We must always try to damage or destroy the offensive military 
apparatus of a hostile state. But as the Persian Gulf War taught us, it 
should also be starved of resources.
  Efforts to establish multilateral embargoes will always encounter 
resistance and lapses in enforcement. My amendment, however, puts the 
tyrants of the globe on notice that as a matter of policy, the United 
States will take immediate steps to deprive them of the finances and 
the imports to wage war should America and its international partners 
engage in hostilities against them.
  The language of this provision instructs the President to ``seek the 
establishment of a multinational economic embargo'' against an enemy 
government upon the engagement of our Armed Forces in hostilities. If 
the conflict continues for more than 14 days, the President must also 
report to Congress on the actions taken by the administration to 
implement the embargo and to publish any foreign sources of trade and 
revenue that sustain an adversary's war-making capabilities.
  This amendment will not constrain, but strengthen, future Presidents 
in organizing the international community against regional zealots like 
Milosevic. We must remember that the European Union states declined to 
enforce the Adriatic Sea embargo against the advice of the United 
States. But if we lend the force of law to administration's embargo 
efforts from the outset of a war, we could gain more allied partners to 
force an aggressor into military bankruptcy.
  As our Balkan campaign reveals, the foreign energy and assets at the 
disposal of dictators can provide their forgotten tools of aggression. 
But this seamless embargo amendment signals that the United States will 
not only remember these tools, but take decisive action to break them. 
It signals that we should not bomb only so the enemy can trade and 
hide.
  To enforce greater clarity in our strategies of isolating the 
nation's armed adversaries of tomorrow, Mr. President, I urge the 
Senate's unanimous support for this amendment.


                             nato's mission

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss three 
interrelated aspects of our country's security at the brink of the new 
millenium. There has already been discussion of NATO in this new world. 
We have also intermittently discussed the war in the region of Kosovo.
  It is important to reflect on NATO's mission under changed 
circumstances. It is critical to address the U.S. role as part of NATO. 
At the same time, we must evaluate threats globally, and we must be 
vigilant in safeguarding our security and defense capabilities.
  In April, we celebrated NATO's 50th Anniversary. Despite the 
circumstances, we had good reason to celebrate. After the horrors of 
World War I and II, U.S. decisionmakers sought to construct European 
structures for integration, peace, and security. U.S. policy focused on 
two tracks: the Marshall Plan for economic reconstruction and NATO for 
transatlantic security cooperation.

[[Page S6254]]

  The creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949 
acknowledged what we failed to admit after World War I. Europe was and 
is a precarious continent. Twice in the first 50 years of this century, 
America fought against tyrannical and malevolent forces in Europe.
  It is important to remember that NATO did not begin as a response to 
the Warsaw Pact. This primary objective evolved as a de facto result of 
Stalinist expansion into Central Europe.
  Fifty years later NATO remains the strategic link between the Old 
World and the New. NATO achieved its Cold War mission and even now, in 
a changed era and very different world, NATO is a vital element of 
transatlantic cooperation and security.
  We must, however, be conscious and careful in applying the lessons of 
the past to current circumstances. None of what I have just talked 
about should be interpreted as an argument for current NATO action in 
the region of Yugoslavia, Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro.
  The administration repeatedly suggests that violence in the Balkans 
ignited the First World War. This is true. A member of the Black Hand, 
a Serbian nationalist group, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. 
Serbia, at that time, was a small nation fighting for independence 
within a crumbling Austian-Hungarian Empire.
  Due to Russia's alliance with Serbia and Germany's open-ended 
military pact with Austria, both Germany and Russia mobilized 
immediately. Other than a few neutral countries--Norway, Sweden, Italy, 
Switzerland, and Spain--the rest were locked in polarized blocs that 
set the Triple Alliance against the Triple Entente.
  Such polarized blocs do not exist today. Serbai's aggression against 
Kosovar Albanians can and has created regional instabilities. But this 
would not lead to World War Three.
  This is not 1914. Only one alliance dominates Europe--NATO. NATO can 
be used as a force for peace. Acting without regard to security 
perceptions outside of NATO, however, can lead us down a very different 
and dangerous path.
  Our current actions disregarded the views others of their own 
security. Our actions in Kosovo may yet unravel any gains achieved in 
nuclear arms reductions and cooperative security alliances since the 
Soviet Union collapsed.
  Furthermore, NATO's response in Kosovo has accelerated and 
exacerbated regional instability. We have managed to create a 
humanitarian crisis, while not achieving any of our military 
objectives. Of course, any rational person could see that an air 
campaign from 20,000 feet would not prevent executions, rapes, and 
purges on the ground. This is especially true given the 5 months of 
time we gave President Milosevic to plan, prepare, and position his 
forces.
  One relevant aspect of today's world that the administration failed 
to mention in their arguments for involvement in this campaign is the 
impact this would have on U.S.-Russian relations. We have a tendency to 
believe that Russia is so weak and needs our money so bad that we can 
disregard their views or interests.
  I ask you to consider two key facts:
  as Russia's conventional military declines, reliance on their nuclear 
arsenal increases;
  global stability cannot be achieved without cooperation between the 
U.S. and Russia.
  The reciprocal unilateral withdrawal of thousands of tactical nuclear 
warheads between the U.S. and Russia may also be reversed. Russia has 
recently announced its intent to redeploy components of its tactical 
nuclear arsenal. We were on a path through arms reduction and steps 
toward increased transparency to addressing tactical weapons. These 
gains are steadily unraveling.
  The administration never suggested that NATO strikes against Serbs 
may lead to a worst-case scenario over the next few years in Russian 
politics. Russia faces Parliamentary elections this year and a 
Presidential election next.
  According to one of the most pro-American Duma members, the U.S. 
Administration picked the best route to influence the upcoming 
elections in favor of Communist and ultra-nationalist parties. In 
Russia, 90 percent of the public support the Serbs and are against 
NATO.
  This war will have profoundly negative impact on the relationship 
between Russia and the U.S. for a long time.
  The U.S. was supposedly not fighting for either side. We were trying 
to be the honest broker, at least in the beginning. Our actions have 
created enemies. These enemies have historical ties to Russia. Russia's 
economy is in tatters, but Russia still controls the only means to 
obliterate the United States.
  We feel we are in the right, because we are fighting a tyrant, one 
capable of great evil. I don't disagree with the objectives sought, but 
I do believe that the Administration should have taken into account the 
possible political consequences of our actions on Russia's political 
future, as well as our future relationship with Russia.
  There are those who suggest that NATO must be victorious in the 
Kosovo conflict. Victory in Kosovo is short-term if we do not sort out 
the broader consequences of a victory dictated on NATO's terms.
  Russia is edging closer to China, and India. Our blatant disregard of 
the security needs of others and perceptions may culminate in a 
Eurasian bloc allied against us--against NATO. And election campaigns 
in Russia will begin very soon.
  As European leaders converged to celebrate NATO's 50th birthday, they 
spent much time debating and deliberating on NATO's future. NATO's 
present reflects poor policy decisions and an ineffective military 
approach.
  I also take this opportunity to discuss the grievous situation of our 
military today. Recent actions in Kosovo underscore the self-inflicted 
damage we have done to our national security in the years since the 
Cold War.
  I was one of many Senators during the 1980's who supported seeing our 
Nation's defenses bolstered in order to bring the Soviet Union to its 
knees. We defeated them--not through hot war--but by demonstrating the 
unparalleled power of American democracy and free market dominance over 
a command economy.
  The collapse of the Soviet state was inevitable, but it would have 
taken a lot longer without the catalyst of our rapid defense buildup. 
This charge greatly accelerated the breakdown in the Soviet Union's 
economy. Their political and economic institutions unraveled in light 
of America's clear superiority.
  In 1991, after years of focus on a strong defense, when the Iraqis 
occupied Kuwait, U.S. forces were able to demonstrate their dominance. 
The U.S. military liberated Kuwait in a short, decisive campaign. The 
Gulf war was a ground and air war. It was a full blown offensive.
  And at no time during the Gulf war did anyone even so much as hint 
that U.S. forces were spread too thin. There were no reports of not 
being able to thwart an attack from North Korea due to our commitment 
in the Gulf. Never did we hear of depleted munitions stores, shortages 
in spare parts for our equipment, or waning missile supplies.
  Eight years later, the cracks in our defense capabilities emerged 
after less than 60 days of an air campaign in the Kosovo region. In 
less than forty days of what have been limited air strikes, respected 
officials reported that U.S. defenses are spread too thin. If North 
Korea or Saddam wanted to capitalize on our distraction in the Balkans, 
we currently would not have the means to defend our interests.
  We have been forced to divert resources from other regions in the 
world to meet NATO's needs in the Balkans. Our transport capabilities 
are insufficient. We evidently have too few carriers. Our munitions 
reserves are depleted. And, as ludicrous as it may sound, for years our 
military personnel have had to scramble to find spare parts.
  In the early nineties, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 
U.S. was viewed as the only remaining ``superpower.'' Our global 
economic and military dominance was unquestioned. That time was, in the 
words of respected scholars and strategists, the Unipolar Moment. There 
was no doubt that the U.S. could defend its interests in any 
situation--whether military action or political persuasion were 
necessary.
  We have squandered that moment and missed many opportunities to 
capitalize on our success. In fact, out of

[[Page S6255]]

complacency and misplaced perceptions of the post-Cold War world, our 
defense capacity today is insufficient to match the threats to our 
national interests.
  Many years of self-indulgence and inattention to our nation's defense 
cannot be corrected with a one-time boost. This is a complex and long-
term problem. But I'm committed to ensuring that our nation's defenses 
are not further eroded. I'm fed up with the complacency that has 
created our current situation.
  We must have a strong defense. We must ensure that the men and women 
in uniform have the right equipment, the best training, and are 
afforded a quality of life sufficient to keep them in the military. 
This cannot be done by sitting on our hands and hoping that the world 
remains calm.
  Additions to readiness accounts, ammunition, and missile stocks in 
the emergency supplemental for Kosovo will help ensure that our 
fighting forces are not in worse shape than before this engagement. It 
provides a small, but significant, step forward.
  The Defense authorization bill before us takes additional steps in 
the right direction. I commend Senator Warner and his diligent staff on 
the hard work they have done to balance priorities and provide for our 
men and women in uniform.
  Let me briefly outline some major provisions of this bill that I 
consider important and appropriate to address some of our military's 
most pressing needs.
  As an additional boost to problems in readiness, this bill authorizes 
an additional $1.2 billion in operations and maintenance funding.
  The bill also includes over $740 million for DoD and Department of 
Energy programs that provide assistance to Russia and other states of 
the former Soviet Union. These programs address the most prevalent 
proliferation threat in our world today.
  The $3.4 billion increase in military construction and family housing 
is an essential element of providing our armed forces with the quality 
of life they deserve. In addition, pay raises and improved retirement 
plans demonstrate our commitment to the people who serve in our 
military.
  I do not believe that increased pay and better retirement address the 
full spectrum of issues that feed into retention problems. The 
preliminary findings of a GAO study requested by myself and Senator 
Stevens indicate that the main problem is not pay, but rather working 
conditions. Lack of spare parts and deficient manning were the most 
frequent reasons offered for dissatisfaction with their current 
situation.
  These are important findings, because it is something we can address. 
As more conclusions come to light, we can do a better job in fixing the 
problems that currently contribute to recruitment and retention. We 
must pay close attention to these issues. The men and women serving in 
our military are the sole assurance of a strong, capable U.S. defense 
capability.
  A strong defense must be coupled with a consistent set of foreign 
policy objectives that strive to reduce or contain security threats. At 
present, we have neither.
  Mr. President, it seems we must focus on shifting the balance back in 
our favor. This cannot be done ad hoc. Securing U.S. interests requires 
sustained commitment and well-planned execution. First, we must provide 
the domestic means for a strong, capable armed forces. Second, we must 
be calculated and careful in the application of force as a fix to 
failed diplomacy.


                     the nuclear cities initiative

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to clarify a provision, 
section 3136(b), of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 
Year 2000, concerning the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI). The Nuclear 
Cities Initiative is a Department of Energy cooperative effort with 
Russia to assist Russia in downsizing its nuclear weapons complex. The 
report accompanying the Defense Bill, Senate Report 106-50, states that 
Russia has not agreed to close or dismantle weapons-related facilities 
at the nuclear complexes receiving U.S. technical and financial 
assistance. As a result, Section 3136 of the Defense Authorization bill 
contains a provision the would prohibit the obligation or expenditure 
of funding until the Secretary of Energy certifies to the Congress that 
Russia has agreed to close some of its facilities engaged in work on 
weapons of mass destruction.
  Because of several past interpretations by the Department of Defense 
of the wording similar to that in section 3136(b), I believe that the 
wording of this provision would effectively prevent the implementation 
of the Nuclear Cities Initiative.
  While I share the goal of Senator Roberts, to ensure that the Russian 
weapons complex is downsized, I am concerned that the specific 
certification is unachievable. Russia has publicly committed to shut 
down or downsize some of its nuclear weapons complexes or related 
facilities. Even if the certification is achievable, the logistics of 
the required certification process could delay the program for a very 
long time.
  The Nuclear Cities program is just getting started, but has already 
made some real progress. To stop the funding in fiscal year 2000, 
particularly since Russian officials have already announced their 
intent to close some facilities seems to me to be counterproductive. If 
funding were suspended, program activities would be halted and the 
cooperative program itself placed in jeopardy. Given the shared 
concerns that Senator Roberts and I have with respect to prevention of 
the spread of nuclear weapons technology and information, I would like 
to ask my esteemed colleague whether that is the intent behind this 
provision in the bill.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator. The NCI was intended to be a joint 
program with the Russian government. At one point the Russians said 
that they would provide $30 million to the NCI. Due to the current 
economic crisis in Russia, any Russian assistance to the NCI program 
will be in the form of in-kind contributions, such as labor and 
buildings. The NCI has the potential to provide the Russian government 
with significant economic benefit. According to the Department of 
Energy, the benefit to the United States is to have the Russian 
government close or dismantle the nuclear weapons complexes in those 
ten cities. However, the Russian government has not agreed to close or 
dismantle weapons-related facilities in these cities in exchange for 
United States' assistance. In the absence of such a Russian agreement, 
this initiative could result in great financial benefit for the 
Russians without any reduction in Russian weapons capability. The 
provision in question requires that, as a prerequisite for U.S. funding 
for the Nuclear Cities Initiative, the Russian government agree to 
close facilities engaged in work on weapons of mass destruction.
  I assure the Senator from New Mexico that it is not the intention 
behind this provision to result in the termination of this program. 
Rather, it is to secure a commitment from the Russian government to do 
more to support the nonproliferation goals of the NCI effort. It is 
important to ensure that the Russians participate in the implementation 
of this program in an equitable way. I believe that the requirement for 
an agreement will ensure that the Russians participate equitably 
through in-kind contributions and through the closure of weapons of 
mass destruction facilities. I believe the provision contained in this 
bill will afford benefits to the U.S. national security and will assure 
that the program is on firm footing in the foreseeable future. I look 
forward to working with Senator Bingaman in overseeing the 
implementation of the Nuclear Cities Initiative.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from Kansas for that assurance, and 
promise to work closely with you and the Department of Energy to see 
that the Nuclear Cities Initiative continues to move forward.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I too wish to thank the Senator from Kansas 
for clarifying his intentions with regard to the language in this bill 
as it relates to funding for the Department of Energy's Nuclear Cities 
Initiative.
  There is no more important national security issue facing America 
today than preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. 
Through the Nuclear Cities Initiative, the United States and Russia are 
working together to downsize Russia's nuclear weapons complex and 
prevent the dispersal of the scientific and technical legacy that 
remains in Russia today. In the short term, this will require the 
creation of alternate industries and

[[Page S6256]]

new employment for as many as 50,000 scientists and technicians who are 
under tremendous financial burdens and might be tempted to offer their 
nuclear expertise to rogue governments and others who are all too 
willing to pay top dollar for that information. Over the long run, it 
will require sustainable economic development to allow Russia's 
scientific and technological assets to be put to peaceful, prosperous 
use. Mr. President, the Nuclear Cities Initiative is an integral part 
of our ongoing counterproliferation efforts. I join my colleague from 
New Mexico in pledging to continue to work with the Senator from Kansas 
and the Department of Energy in support of this program. I yield the 
floor.


                Health Care Choice for Military Retirees

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman, Mr. Warner, for 
including an amendment that directs a demonstration project for TRICARE 
Designated Providers to enroll new military beneficiaries on a 12-month 
continuous basis.
  This is a compromise amendment sponsored by Senator Snowe, which I 
have agreed to cosponsor. I personally would have preferred a straight-
forward amendment that would have permitted beneficiaries the same 
opportunities to enroll in the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan 
provided by Designated Providers as is currently available for TRICARE 
Prime. For the sake of providing fairness to the beneficiaries and 
affording more health care choices, beneficiaries should be able to 
enroll at a Designated Provider at anytime during the year. I note that 
eleven groups representing military retirees recently wrote the 
Chairman in support of this proposal for open continuous enrollment for 
the Designated Providers.
  My preferred amendment, however, was not acceptable to the Committee. 
However, I am pleased that a compromise advanced by my colleague from 
Maine was agreeable, which directs a two-year demonstration of 
continuous open enrollment for the Designated Providers. I urge the 
Department of Defense to faithfully carry out this demonstration by 
including as many of the TRICARE Designated Providers in the 
demonstration as possible. The agreed-to amendment does not restrict 
the size of the demonstration. Since the seven Designated Providers run 
the same Uniformed Services Family Health Program, I believe it makes 
sense to include all of them in the demonstration.
  At a minimum, I urge the Department to include the PacMed Clinics in 
my state in this demonstration. The PacMed Clinics pioneered managed 
health care for military beneficiaries and have provided quality care 
to military families for a generation. Beneficiaries should have the 
opportunity to enroll at PacMed during any time of the year, just like 
TRICARE Prime. Accordingly, the demonstration mandated by this 
amendment should include the PacMed clinics and as many of the other 
Designated Provider as possible.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to express my 
strong support for S. 1059, the National Defense Authorization Bill for 
Fiscal Year 2000. As Chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, I want to 
briefly summarize the Strategic Subcommittee portion of the Armed 
Services Committee markup and the philosophy that it is based on. As in 
the past, the Strategic Subcommittee has reviewed the adequacy of 
programs and policies in five key areas: (1) ballistic and cruise 
missile defense; (2) national security space programs; (3) strategic 
nuclear delivery systems; (4) military intelligence; and (5) Department 
of Energy activities regarding the nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear 
waste cleanup, and other defense activities.
  This year, the subcommittee's review included two field hearings--one 
at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on DOE weapons programs, 
and one at U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs on U.S. national 
security space programs. In addition, the subcommittee visited the U.S. 
Army Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville Alabama, Barksdale 
Air Force Base in Louisiana, the Capistrano High Energy Laser Test 
facility in California, Beale Air Force Base in California, and a 
variety of military facilities in the Denver and Colorado Springs area. 
These visits greatly enhanced my understanding of the issues under the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction and significantly influenced the bill 
before us today.
  The Strategic Subcommittee recommended funding increases for critical 
programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction by approximately $850 
million, including an increase of $500 million for Ballistic Missile 
Defense programs, $220 million for national security space programs, 
$110 million for strategic forces, and $50 million for military 
intelligence.
  The Strategic Subcommittee also supported the full amount requested 
by the Department of Energy with the exception of the Formerly Utilized 
Sites Remedial Action Program. Let me highlight the key funding and 
legislative issues.
  In the area of missile defense the Strategic Subcommittee included 
the following funding: An increase of $120 million to accelerate the 
Navy Upper Tier program and provide for continued development of 
advanced radar concepts. An increase of $212 million to fix the Patriot 
PAC-3 funding shortfall so the program can begin production during 
fiscal year 2000. An increase of $60 million to begin production of the 
Patriot Anti-Cruise missile program, which will provide an upgraded 
seeker for older Patriot missiles.
  In the area of space programs and technologies, the Strategic 
Subcommittee included the following funding: An increase of $92 
million, which the Administration requested, to fully fund the revised 
Space Based Infrared System (High) program. An increase of $111 million 
for advanced space technology development, including funds for space 
control technology, micro-satellite technology, and space maneuver 
vehicle development.
  In the area of strategic nuclear delivery systems, the Strategic 
Subcommittee included the following funding: An increase of $40 million 
for the Minuteman III Guidance Replacement Program to put the program 
on a more efficient production schedule. An increase of $52.4 million 
for bomber upgrades based on the Air Force's unfunded priorities list, 
including funding for the B-2 Link-16 program and B-52 radar upgrades.
  In the area of military intelligence programs the Strategic 
Subcommittee included a number of funding increases, including an 
increase of $25 million for U-2 cockpit and defensive system upgrades. 
I would note that the Strategic Subcommittee toured the U-2 base at 
Beale Air Force base and witnessed first hand the serious deficiencies 
associated with the U-2.
  In the area of DOD legislative provisions, the Strategic Subcommittee 
included the following: A provision addressing DOD's proposed TMD Upper 
Tier strategy, which reverses DOD's decision to compete Navy Upper Tier 
and THAAD. A provision establishing a commission to assess U.S. 
national security space organization and management, which is modeled 
after the Rumsfeld Commission. A provision limiting the Retirement of 
strategic nuclear delivery systems, which extends last year's law on 
this matter, but also allows the Navy to retire 4 older Trident 
submarines while modernizing the remaining fleet to carry the D-5 
missile. A provision regarding the Airborne Laser program, which 
requires a number of tests, certifications, and acquisition strategy 
modifications before the program can move into successive phases of its 
development. A provision regarding the Space Based Laser program, which 
requires near-term focus on an Integrated Flight Experiment.

  In the Department of Energy section of the markup, the Strategic 
Subcommittee provided the full amount of the Administration's request 
with the exception of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
Program. I took great pains to examine the budget request and eliminate 
those funding items that do not support organizational mission 
requirements. In the weapons program, my goal was to ensure DOE has a 
well planned and funded stockpile life extension program that is 
capable to remanufacturing and certifying every warhead in the enduring 
U.S. nuclear stockpile. My goal in the cleanup program was to maintain 
the pace of clean-up at DOE facilities and continue to press for 
earlier deployment of innovative technologies to lower out-year costs.

[[Page S6257]]

  The Strategic Subcommittee included the following recommendations 
regarding DOE funding: An increase of $55 million for the four 
traditional weapons production plants. An increase of $15 million for 
the tritium production program. A reduction of $30.0 million to the 
Advanced Strategic Computing Initiative. An increase of $35 million to 
support security and counter-intelligence activities. An increase of 
$17 million to increase security investigations in support of security 
clearances at DOE.
  In the area of DOE legislative provisions, the Strategic Subcommittee 
included the following: A substantial package of legislation dealing 
with security and counter-intelligence at DOE. A provision regarding 
tritium production, which would require DOE to implement the 
Secretary's tritium production decision.
  Mr. President, in closing let me reiterate my strong support for S. 
1059. This is a good bill that deserves strong bipartisan support.


 property conveyance at nike batter base 80 in east hanover, new jersey

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to call up my amendment regarding 
property conveyance at Nike Battery Base 80 Family Housing Site in East 
Hanover Township, New Jersey. This provision would convey roughly 14 
acres to the Township of East Hanover for the development of low and 
moderate income housing, senior housing, and parkland. Using this land 
for these purposes is consistent with the 1994 Base Closure and 
Community Redevelopment Homeless Assistance Act. The Township needs 
this land to fulfill its obligation to provide such housing under New 
Jersey state law. I understand a similar provision exists in the bill 
reported from the House Armed Service Committee. In the interest of 
expediting the Senate's consideration of this bill, I am willing to 
withdraw my amendment contingent upon a commitment from the managers of 
the bill that they will give the House position full consideration in 
conference.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the senior Senator from New Jersey for his 
willingness to expedite our consideration of this bill. We understand 
the House has a similar provision. During conference, we will give full 
consideration to the project as the Senator from New Jersey has 
recommended.
  Mr. WARNER. I concur with my distinguished colleague from Michigan.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss several provisions 
within the FY2000 Defense Authorization Act. These provisions can be 
found in Title II, Subtitle D, Sections 231-239 within the FY2000 
Defense Authorization Act. The provisions are intended to stimulate 
intense technical innovation within our military research and 
development (R&D) enterprise and hence lay the foundation for 
revolutionary changes in future warfare concepts. Before giving an 
extended introduction to these defense innovation provisions, I would 
like to thank Senator Roberts and Senator Bingaman and the staff who 
have worked on this subtitle--particularly Pamela Farrell, Peter 
Levine, John Jennings, Frederick Downey, Merrilea Mayo, and William 
Bonvillian--for their hard and thoughtful work on this legislation. The 
technical superiority of our military is something we have come to take 
for granted, yet it is founded in an R&D system that has seen little 
change since the cold war era. These defense innovation provisions 
attempt to reposition our R&D system so that it can keep up with the 
pace of technological change in the very different world we are in 
today.
  It is my belief that the explosive advances in technology may provide 
the basis for not just a ``revolution in military affairs,'' but a 
complete paradigm shift. With advanced communication and information 
systems, it may become possible to fight a war without concentrating 
forces, making force organizations impossible to kill. With advances in 
robotics and miniaturization, it may become possible to fight a ground 
war with far fewer people. With advances in nuclear power, hydrolysis, 
and hydrogen storage, it may be possible to create virtually unlimited 
sources of on-site power. These opportunities are complemented by 
numerous challenges, also brought forth by technology: urban warfare, 
space warfare, electronic/information warfare, chemical, nuclear, and 
biological warfare, and warfare relying on underground storage centers 
and facilities. As the variety of opportunities and threats continues 
to climb, and as increasing numbers of nations emerge into the high 
tech arena, I believe the military arms race of the past will be 
replaced by a military technology race. Instead of simply accumulating 
ever greater numbers of conventional armaments against a well-
established foe, as we did in the Cold War era, we will have to 
concentrate on producing fewer, but ever more rapidly evolving, and 
ever more specialized weapons systems to counter specific asymmetric 
threats.
  To meet these new challenges, we need to transform our R&D enterprise 
from its antiquated Cold War structure to a fast-moving, well-
integrated R&D machine that can seize the leading edge of techno-
warfare. For this reason Senator Roberts, Senator Bingaman and I have 
inserted provisions within Title II, Subtitle D of the FY2000 Defense 
Authorization Act whose purpose is to stimulate a much greater and 
faster degree of technical innovation within the military.
  The defense innovation provisions address three goals--establishing a 
new vision for military R&D, changing the structure of the military R&D 
enterprise, and correcting the driving forces for R&D in our current 
system. For the first task, establishing a new vision, Section 231 of 
the FY2000 Defense Authorization Act requires DoD to determine the most 
dangerous adversarial threats we will likely face two to three decades 
from now, and what technologies will be needed on our part to prevail 
against those threats. Given that it takes 20-30 years to translate 
basic science to fielded application, our R&D vision needs to be 
founded on a set of required operational capabilities that is equally 
distant in time, and far beyond the 5 year vision of our current 
Program Objective Memorandums (POM's). We need not strive for perfect 
clairvoyance in this exercise; however, we should be able to create an 
open conceptual architecture which successfully frames the many 
potential future opportunities and threats. Once the far future threats 
and hence far future operational capabilities are outlined, Section 231 
asks DOD to give Congress a roadmap of future systems hardware and 
technologies our services will have to deploy within two to three 
decades to assure US military dominance in that time frame. From the 
first roadmap, we are requesting DOD derive a second roadmap--the R&D 
path that DOD, in cooperation with the private sector, will have to 
follow to obtain these new defense technologies and systems. To add 
depth and perspective to the results, I encourage the Secretary of 
Defense to utilize an independent review panel of outside experts in 
these exercises, to complement the work done by in-house personnel. The 
broader our vision, the more likely it is to be inclusive of whatever 
surprises the actual future may bring.
  A second goal of the defense innovation provisions, Subtitle D, is to 
lay the groundwork for a new organizational structure for R&D. Unless 
we fix the innovation structure, we will be unable to deliver to DOD 
the rapid technological advances it will need to secure and maintain 
world dominance. To meet the challenges of the upcoming decades, the 
Defense Science Board has recommended that at least one third of the 
technologies pursued by DoD be ones that offer 5 to 10 fold 
improvements in military capabilities. However, the current structure, 
which was founded on Cold War realities, will require large 
organizational change to enable it to pursue revolutionary, rather than 
evolutionary, technology goals. The segregated and insulated components 
of the military R&D system will need to be seamlessly interwoven, and 
the system as a whole will need to be much more flexible in its 
interactions with the outside world. We can learn from the success of 
the commercial sector, which takes advantage of temporary alliances 
between competitors and peers to develop technologies at a breathtaking 
pace.
  The defense innovation provisions ask DoD to formulate a modern 
blueprint for the structure, of not only its laboratories, but of the 
extended set of policies, institutions, and organizations which 
together make up its entire innovation system. As noted earlier, the 
Defense Science Board has

[[Page S6258]]

called for the military R&D system to increase its focus on 
revolutionary new technologies. The overarching goal of the new 
structural plan requested by Section 233 is to deliver the conceptual 
architecture for an innovation system that is capable of routinely 
providing such revolutionary advances. Section 239 requests an analysis 
by the Defense Science Board of overlaps and gaps within the current 
system. Section 233 asks the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 
to develop the plan for the future innovation system, one which ensures 
that joint technologies, technologies developed in other government 
laboratories, and technologies developed in the private sector can 
readily flow into and across the military R&D labs and the broader 
innovation structure as a whole. Section 233 emphasizes the need to 
develop better processes for identifying private sector technologies of 
military value, and military technologies of commercial value. Once 
identified, there also need to be efficient processes in place for 
transfer of those technologies, so that the military may reap the 
respective military and economic gains. Also in Section 233, the Under 
Secretary is requested to deliver a solution to the major structural 
gap which currently exists between the R&D pipeline and the acquisition 
pipeline. Development of the best technologies in the world will not 
help our future military posture if those technologies are never 
adopted, or even seen, by the acquisition arms of our services. 
Finally, to better merge the strategic and technological threads within 
the military's decision making process, Section 233 in the FY2000 
Defense Authorization Act requests a DoD plan for modifying the ongoing 
education of its future military leadership (i.e., its uniformed 
officers) so they may better understand the technological opportunities 
and threats they face.

  The laboratories themselves could and should play a crucial role in 
our future military. Ideally, the military laboratories are the place 
where the minds of the brightest scientists meet the demands of the 
most experienced warfighters. Out of this intense dialogue would then 
come a clearer understanding of future warfare possibilities, as well 
as the technological breakthroughs critical to changing the face of 
warfare as we know it. For various reasons, however, that vision is in 
danger of becoming lost. One specific problem is DoD's rigid personnel 
system and the corresponding lack of performance-based compensation, 
which is causing the labs to rapidly hemorrhage talent to the more 
competitive and less bureaucratic private sector. To address these 
issues, a defense innovation provision within the FY2000 Defense 
Authorization Act--specifically, Section 237--repeals several of the 
labs' restrictive personnel regulations. The intent of this Section is 
to drastically reduce hiring times and eliminate artificial salary 
constraints to the point where defense laboratories can hire new talent 
in a time frame and at a salary level that is similar to that offered 
by the private and university sectors. Currently, the two processes are 
not even close to competitive: the military R&D labs take several 
months to over a year to extend an offer, with the result that the 
laboratories, over and over again, lose the hiring race to private 
sector interests which can hire top-notch talent in one or two weeks. 
As noted by the Defense Science Board report, the salaries which can be 
offered by the laboratories are also about 50 percent lower (for higher 
grade new hires), compared to the salaries those same new hires could 
obtain in the private sector. It is significant that the hiring time 
problem, as well as the high grade caps problem, were universally cited 
by laboratory managers as the key obstacles in upgrading their 
laboratory talent.
  In addition to improving the quality of the laboratories' effort by 
attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel, the defense 
innovation provisions ask the Secretary of Defense to improve the 
quality of work itself by developing a system of modern business 
performance metrics which can be implemented within and across all 
military laboratories (Section 239(b)). Such metrics can help ensure 
that the best work and the best talent are identified, so that they may 
be rewarded, nurtured and used accordingly. As a word of caution, the 
ultimate impact of science and technology innovation is very hard to 
measure, especially in the early stages. Overly mechanical assessments 
inevitably do much more harm than good. Nevertheless, advanced 
technology companies have been making great strides in better assessing 
(and assisting) their innovation efforts, and DOD is encouraged to work 
with industry R&D leaders in implementing this section. Examples of 
metrics which may be useful for DOD labs include measurement of lab 
quality through formal annual peer reviews of its divisions, 
measurement of technical relevance through required customer approval/
evaluation of R&D projects both before and after they are undertaken, 
and measurement of organizational relevance through annual board 
meetings of senior military with the heads of the R&D laboratories. The 
first of these metrics can help capture and bring attention to 
promising work in its earliest stages, while the last two can help 
bridge the gap between later stage innovation and new products.
  The need for structural reform within the laboratories is a pressing 
one. The above-mentioned reforms are intended to be jump started with a 
pilot program, found in Section 236 of the Defense Authorization 
Provisions. This pilot program may address any of the issues mentioned 
above but is particularly focused on the problem of attracting and 
retaining the best possible talent for the laboratories. To be more 
competitive with working conditions in the commercial sector, this 
pilot program may include such innovations as pay for performance, 
starting bonuses (e.g., in the form of equipment start-up funds) for 
attracting key scientists, ability to alter reduction in force (RIF) 
retention rules to favor high performers, broadbanding of pay grades, 
simplified employee classification, educational programs which allow 
employees to receive advanced degrees while still employed, 
modification of priority placement procedures, and creation of employee 
participation and reward programs.
  To attract the best possible outside talent for collaborations with 
the laboratories, Section 236 also encourages expansion of exchange 
programs at both the personal and institutional level. Programs for 
exchanges within DoD, with the private sector, and with academic 
institutions are all encouraged. Examples of such programs include the 
sponsorship of talented students through college or graduate school in 
exchange for later work commitments to the laboratories, expansion of 
the federated laboratory concept, increased exchanges between the 
defense laboratories and the war colleges, training programs, and 
extension of IPA authority to hire commercial sector employees. The 
Defense Science Board has strongly recommended that the laboratories 
emulate DARPA in its mix of temporary and permanent workers in order to 
be able to quickly bring in relevant talent when needs shift. Section 
236(a)(2) creates this option and can be used in conjunction with other 
provisions in Subtitle D.
  A new structure and a new vision are all well and good, but if there 
is no motivation for the new structure to proceed towards the new 
vision, nothing is gained. Consequently, the third goal of the defense 
innovation provisions is to correct current forces which tend to drive 
DoD away from technical innovation. Three of these driving forces are 
described below.
  The first ``counter-innovation'' driving force is the lack of a well-
defined customer within the military for far future military 
technologies. Ideally, this customer would be at the Joint Chiefs 
level, so that broadly sweeping strategies which capitalize on novel 
technologies can be rapidly incorporated into our existing military 
structure, doctrine, and systems. Unfortunately, there is little 
connection at present between that level and the service laboratories. 
Section 239(b) should be used to improve this situation. Furthermore, 
as part of the legislation's mandated study on improving the structure 
of our R&D system (Section 233), we also request the Under Secretary of 
Defense to address the issue of a suitable internal customer for truly 
long range R&D. For maximum impact and credibility, this customer--
whether it be a person, position, or organization--should be a bona

[[Page S6259]]

fide paying customer who has responsibility not just for the long range 
technology itself, but for the unconventional military options such 
technology provides.
  The lack of an internal customer for long range R&D is one driving 
force pulling the military away from technical innovation. The second 
is the vacuum-like force created by the absence of an intimate 
connection between the R&D customers and producers within the later 
stages of R&D. Specifically, there is an insufficient connection 
between the program managers who sponsor product development and the 
R&D workforce performing later stage R&D. In contrast, the industrial 
experience has shown that if the customer, researchers, and designers 
share in all product development decisions from the very initial stages 
of concept design, the degree of innovation is much higher, the product 
acceptance rate is much higher, and, ultimately, the pace of 
technological change is dramatically accelerated. Section 233(b)(5) 
directs the Under Secretary of Defense to identify how new technologies 
can be rapidly transi-
tioned from late stage R&D to product development and prepare an 
appropriate plan for doing so. One sub-issue within this larger problem 
is this need to create a DoD customer--DoD researcher--DoD designer 
interaction that is early enough and robust enough to ensure that 
maturing innovations can be drawn into product lines on a time scale 
similar to that experienced in the commercial sector. This sub-issue 
should be addressed in the Under Secretary's plan under Section 
233(b)(5).
  The third force which drives the military away from technological 
innovation is the lack of a customer outside the military for 
innovative military technologies. Were such a customer present, it 
might partially make up for the lack of the other two drivers in terms 
of motivating innovation. Currently, the most important external 
customer for military R&D is the industrial half of the military-
industrial complex. However, the structure of our procurement 
regulations give virtually identical profit margins to these companies 
no matter how difficult the technical path or how many risks are 
undertaken in the process of producing a military system. Therefore, 
the continued production of legacy systems is guaranteed to be 
profitable, while gambling with innovative new systems is not. 
Essentially, our procurement regulations are a direct disincentive to 
innovation, giving the defense industry a strong vested interest in 
adhering to incremental change. The resulting lobbying by industry, 
aimed squarely at preserving the ``state-of-yesterday's-art,'' then 
significantly slows the rate at which the military can innovate. 
Accordingly, one of the defense innovation provisions, specifically 
Section 234, Subtitle D, Title II of the FY 2000 Defense Authorization 
Act, calls for DoD to change its profit margins for acquisitions in 
order to alter the innovation incentives for industry. Given 
substantially higher profit levels for the development of innovative 
systems, than for the continued production of legacy systems, industry 
could become much more receptive to the idea of cultivating innovation 
in fielded hardware. Substantive, consistent economic rewards are 
critical to incentivizing companies to take the necessary and serious 
technological risks required to produce the innovations DOD must have.
  In closing, I thank my colleagues Senators Roberts and Bingaman for 
joining me in develoing a set of stimulating and thought-provoking 
defense innovation provisions within Subtitle D, Title II of the FY2000 
Defense Authorization bill. These provisions should launch us towards a 
new vision, a new structure, and a new set of driving forces for 
military R&D. In the past 48 years, DoD has funded the pre-award 
research of 58 percent of this country's Nobel laureates in Chemistry, 
and 43 percent of this country's Nobel laureates in Physics. This is a 
phenomenal base on which to build. However, the Cold War structure and 
rationale for our R&D enterprise needs to be shed so that leading edge 
techno-warfare can emerge. The time to do this is now, because, in many 
senses, the future is already here. The military systems of 2020 and 
2030 will be founded on the science of the year 2000.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to draw the 
Senate's attention to the CBO cost estimate on the Defense 
Authorization bill. In the Budget Resolution Congress agreed that the 
national defense account would have $288 billion in Budget authority 
and $276 in outlays for fiscal year 2000.
  The CBO estimates that the Defense Authorization bill as it currently 
stands in the Senate, would exceed the outlay level by almost $7 
billion. The Budget Committees of the House and Senate have told CBO to 
reduce their score of the outlays by $10 billion in order that the bill 
fit under the caps. While this changes the scoring number, it does not 
change the fact that the bill still authorizes the Department of 
Defense to spend $284 billion next year, $7 billion over the caps.
  Whether someone agrees with the Budget Resolution or not, these sorts 
of end runs are destructive to the process by undermining popular 
confidence in the institution.
  If there is not enough money for Defense in the Budget Resolution, 
then members should not have supported it back in March. If there was 
enough in March, nothing has changed, and it should be enough now. The 
Congress recently passed a Supplemental Appropriations bill that 
include $11 billion for funding for the Kosovo operation, almost $5 
billion over the President's request, so there should be plenty of 
money for our operation in Europe. Now, if members grudgingly supported 
the Resolution because of the assurances of the Budget Committee 
Chairman that he would ``fix the outlay problem'' I ask them to show me 
the fix. It looks as thought the Budget Committee did nothing but allow 
Defense spending to exceed the budget caps without letting any other 
program do the same.
  Congress should own up to the fact that the Budget caps are being 
exceeded. They are being quietly raised by hiding the increase in a 
scoring gimmick. Members should take notice that the way to get more 
money for your appropriations priorities is to petition the Budget 
Committee for an ``outlay fix''.
  There is going to be a train wreck at the end of this year, and we 
all know it. There is going to be a train wreck, and it will happen 
because no one is driving the train, we are all just nervously looking 
out the window admiring the scenery and trying not to think of our 
impending doom.
  I have faith that the American people will eventually figure out how 
much we are going to spend next year. The increases in Defense spending 
will no doubt be joined by a tremendous amount of last minute spending 
at the end of the year. The American people will look at what Congress 
told them we would spend at the beginning of the year, and what we will 
eventually agree to at the close of the year and they will be very 
surprised at the difference. I hope they hold us accountable.
  It is worth noting that we do not have to be in this situation. 
Congress could take action to cut unnecessary spending in the defense 
account. This would reduce the pressure on the discretionary budget, 
and free up resources for other needs around the country.
  Another two rounds of base closures for example, while increasing 
outlays in the short run, would yield savings of $4 billion over ten 
years according to the Congressional Budget Office. I co-sponsored 
Senator McCain's legislation on this matter, and I co-sponsored the 
McCain-Levin amendment, which would only authorize one additional 
round. I was disappointed the Senate refused to support this worthy 
alternative. The military has come to the Senate time and again 
pleading with us to give them the authority to close bases through the 
Commission process in a manner isolated from political pressures. Had 
we supported base closure rounds when they were initially requested we 
might not now be pushing so tightly against the budget caps, while 
straining under draconian cuts in the non-defense accounts.
  Senator Kerrey has also offered an amendment that could help reduce 
the need to rely on budget gimmickry without reducing our capacity 
overseas. He would simply allow the Department of Defense to reduce our 
nuclear forces below the START I levels

[[Page S6260]]

of 6,500 warheads. According to CBO, if we reduce our warheads to the 
START II level of 3,500 the Department of Defense could save $12.7 
billion by 2009. All that savings would come without reducing our 
conventional capability one iota. While nuclear deterrence is still 
important, it can be accomplished with many fewer missiles, and at less 
cost.
  My point, Mr. President, is defense spending does not have to be this 
high. It is only this high because Congress and the Department of 
Defense are unwilling to make the tough choices to bring the cost of 
defending our nation and international interests down to a sustainable 
level. When our troops are deployed overseas, and in harms way, it is 
hard to critically look at the defense budget for unnecessary or unwise 
spending. Our instinct is to give our brave men and women whatever they 
need and then some to get the job done. I would argue, however, that it 
is even more important now than ever to closely examine our spending 
priorities. We need to stretch every defense dollar as far as it can 
go, and to do that we need to look for efficiencies and cut wasteful 
projects and items that contribute little to our defense.
  Careful spending is the way to reduce outlays, not budget gimmicks. 
Congress needs to be more critical, not more clever.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a few moments 
about the F-15 Eagle, the finest fighter plane in the world. The F-15 
arguably has been the most successful fighter in the history of U.S. 
aviation warfare. Unfortunately, the United States is in danger of 
losing this aircraft. The Administration is well aware of the 
performance record of the F-15, but in not taking the steps necessary 
to save the line.
  The Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, and I had a debate this 
morning on congressional oversight of the Department of Defense. I 
agreed with the Senator from Wisconsin that Congress has oversight 
responsibilities for the Pentagon, but disagreed with abdicating that 
responsibility to GAO.
  In the case of the F/A-18E/F, Congress has exercised its oversight 
responsibilities. Three of the four oversight committees already have 
approved the multiyear contract for the E/F, and the House 
appropriators are expected to next month.
  But Congress does have a responsibility to address deficiencies in 
judgment within the Defense Department when it sees them. The loss of 
the F-15 is just such a case. General Richard Hawley, Commander of the 
Air Force's Combat Command, stated just this month that ``. . . the F-
15 is the most stressed fighter in Air Combat Command's inventory right 
now in terms of its use in engagements and the operational tempo of the 
aircrews.''
  Given the nature of the threats we face today, which require the 
strike, range, and versatility of the F-15, it is easy to see why this 
fighter is the most tasked plane in the Air Force. The loss of the F-15 
will harm national security and harm my home state of Missouri. Seven 
thousand highly skilled aerospace workers will lose their jobs if the 
F-15 line closes. Those workers and their knowledge is a national 
security asset that must not be lost.
  On almost every front, the arguments are compelling for maintaining 
this national security asset. There is plenty of work for the F-15 to 
do. Purchasing more planes provides a critical fighter to the Air 
Force. Purchasing more planes would preserve the production capability 
of this critical national security asset. Finally, Congress wants to 
encourage budgetary discipline in other tactical fighter programs. 
Purchasing more F-15s would encourage budgetary discipline in the F-22 
program.
  I and many of the members from the Missouri and Illinois delegations 
have written to the President requesting a meeting regarding the F-15. 
We have not received a reply. We have asked the President that he take 
the steps necessary to keep the F-15 line open. Unfortunately, the 
Clinton administration has blocked efforts to do so.
  The F-15 program was initiated with a Request for Proposal in 
December 1968. The first model, the F-15A, entered operational service 
in 1976. The F-15A was a single mission, air superiority fighter with a 
maximum gross weight of 56,000 pounds.
  The F-15 entered the world stage as the dominant air superiority 
fighter in 1976, and the evolution of the program demonstrates just how 
much this great fighter improved over the years. After twelve years and 
subsequent models of the F-15 were developed, the latest model, the F-
15E, was delivered to the Air Force in 1988.
  The F-15E's gross weight was 45 percent greater than the A model. 
Engineers increased fuel capacity over 50 percent to 34,000 pounds, 
giving the aircraft record range. Payload was enhanced and the dominant 
air-to-air platform was given critical air-to-ground capabilities. 
Avionics, engine, and weapons technology were also upgraded.
  The F-15 is arguably the most versatile and effective fighter in the 
history of the U.S. Air Force. The F-15 has never lost in air-to-air 
combat. It has the best air-to-air kill ratio of any fighter in the 
history of U.S. aviation warfare: 96.5 to 0. That was certainly the 
case in Desert Storm, where F-15s destroyed 33 of the 35 fixed-wing 
aircraft Iraq lost in air combat. The F-15E maintained a 95.5 percent 
average mission capable rate, the highest of any fighter in the war. 
The F-15's stellar performance also has been on display in Kosovo. 
General Johnny Jumper, Commander of U.S. Air Forces Europe, has lauded 
the performance of the F-15 as the workhorse of the operation.
  In addition, the F-15 has the best safety record of any Air Force 
fighter: 2.42 losses per 100,000 flying hours. With a record like 
that--the best safety record, the most successful air-to-air combat 
record, the most versatile aircraft in the Air Force inventory--it is 
not difficult to see why the plane is in such demand.
  One of the major concerns about the F-15 is the cost of the airplane. 
When you compare a $50 million F-15 to an F-22 that costs over $100 
million, the F-15 doesn't look so bad. But even against the cheaper F-
16, the cost differential is not as great as it appears.
  The greater capabilities of the F-15 over the F-16 negate much of the 
cost differential. RAND completed a study for the Air Force entitled 
``Measuring Effects of Payload and Radius Differences of Fighter 
Aircraft.'' Let me mention several of the major conclusions of the 
report which were made in light of the nature of future conflicts.
  First, increasing the use of inertially/GPS-aided weapons could 
exploit the inherent payload carriage advantage of the F-15E. Second, 
most regional conflict scenarios involve long distances from bases to 
targets, favoring aircraft having greater combat radius. Third, as the 
fighter force structure contracts, higher quality systems can help 
maintain force capability.
  Each of those conclusions point to the desirability of the F-15. A 
major conclusion of the report was that ``Over a wide spectrum of 
cases, our analysis suggests that an equal cost but smaller force of F-
15s is a more cost effective carrier of weapons to the target area than 
an alternative larger force of F-15Cs. Looking to the future, the 
employment characteristics of future precision weapons, the size of 
many potential regional conflict theaters, and the reality of expected 
force structure contractions seem consistent with the capabilities 
offered by large payload, long radius vehicles such as the F-15E.''
  Another reason to maintain the production capability of the F-15 is 
uncertainty over the future of the F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter. These 
fighter programs may have additional developmental difficulties. The F-
22 is not expected to be in operational service until 2005. The Joint 
Strike Fighter will not be in service until 2010 or later. Remember, 
these are the best case scenarios.
  Since its inception, the F-22 program has been restructured three 
times, with a 50 percent reduction in the number of planes to be 
procured. The F-22 is up against a budget cap and has run out of 
political capital in Congress. Additional, significant increases in 
cost could jeopardize the program, which still has five years to go to 
Initial Operational Capability.
  Because the Air Force has had to reduce the number of F-22s it will 
buy, it will need to rely more on the F-15. Colonel Frederick 
Richardson, chief of F-22 requirements at Air Combat Command, states 
``From a pure numbers standpoint, we're clearly not going to

[[Page S6261]]

be able to replace the F-15 with F-22s on a one-to-one basis, which 
means we'll have to assume some more risks and probably keep the F-15 
around for longer than 23 planned.'' But if the F-15 line is shut down, 
there won't be the production capabilities to fill the gap.
  To conclude, Mr. President, the F-15 is the best fighter in the 
world. Its unique capabilities have made it the most heavily tasked 
aircraft in the force today, according to General Hawley, Commander of 
the Air Force's Combat Command.
  The RAND study concludes that the F-15E is the kind of airplane we 
need to meet the security threats of the future. The Air Force is not 
infallible. The RAND study itself encourages the Air Force to pursue a 
better mix of fighter aircraft, stating that ``To maintain force 
capability as its force structure contracts, the Air Force may need to 
strive for a higher quality mix of forces. The Air Force should be 
alert to opportunities for maintaining and in some cases enhancing 
overall force effectiveness despite cuts in force structure'' (From the 
report ``Measuring Effects of Payload and Radius Differences of Fighter 
Aircraft).
  By purchasing additional F-15Es, not only are we taking appropriate 
steps to meet our current force needs, we are preserving a critical 
national security asset for an uncertain future. I reiterate my call on 
the President to take the necessary steps to keep the F-15 line open.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the FY 2000 
defense authorization bill. As the challenges facing us today 
demonstrate, the effectiveness of our military, and its readiness to 
act immediately to protect our national interests, must always be a 
priority concern for Congress. The $288.8 billion proposed in this bill 
is a 2 percent real increase over last year's budget and is the first 
real increase in topline defense funding since FY 1985, the middle of 
the Reagan administration. After fourteen years of declining, or flat 
defense spending, we increased authorization for readiness programs by 
$1.1 billion, we increased authorizations for procurement by $2.9 
billion, and we increased authorizations for reasearch and development 
by $1.5 billion. I firmly believe this bill makes an important 
statement at a critical time, affirming our commitment to having the 
best trained, best equipped, and most effective military in the world, 
both today and tomorrow.
  Under the excellent leadership of our colleagues, Senator John 
Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the 
ranking Democrat, Senator Carl Levin, we stepped up to our 
responsibility to provide what our soldiers, sailors, and airmen need 
today, and we took some very important steps to move toward the 
military that will protect our nation in the next century.
  The past 14 years of inadequate defense spending has taken a toll on 
the readiness of our force today. We simply were not able to keep our 
training and maintenance at the levels that our role as a superpower 
demands. The struggle to do so, and the increasing need to use our 
forces to meet the many challenges of the post cold war world has taken 
its toll not just on equipment, but on our people in uniform. Simply 
put, the morale of our forces is suffering. This past year, we not only 
sought out and listened to our nation's top military leaders as they 
outlined the problems facing our military, but in this bill we 
addressed the most critical of those problems, including falling 
recruitment and retention in critical skill areas; aging equipment that 
costs more to keep operating at acceptable levels of reliability; a 
need for more support services for a force with a high percentage of 
married personnel.
  So I am pleased and proud that we reversed the 14 years of declining 
defense dollars and added the money to readiness and procurement to fix 
the most urgent near-term readiness problems. But many of these 
problems are not simple to address, and simply adding money to budget 
lines will not fix them any more than adding money to welfare programs 
fixed the underlying welfare problem in America. Adding money was 
necessary, but it won't be enough. How we spend the money we spend is 
as important as how much money we spend. We will have to be sure that 
we are alert to how well the provisions we have included here are 
working to have a positive effect on those critical problems we must 
solve.
  This will be more difficult than it has been in the past. We are now 
in an era of fundamental change for our security and our military. The 
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the unprecedented explosion in 
technology are now redefining what it is we are asking our military to 
do, the threats that it must overcome to do what we ask of it, and the 
capabilities that our military will bring to bear to successfully 
accomplish its mission. This body has been in the forefront of 
demanding rigorous assessments about our needs and our potential. We 
directed, in the Military Force Structure Review Act of 1996, the 
Secretary of Defense to complete a comprehensive assessment of the 
defense strategy, force structure, force modernization plans, 
infrastructure, and other elements of the defense policies and programs 
with a view toward determining and expressing the defense strategy of 
the United States and establishing a revised program. This assessment, 
completed by the Secretary of Defense in 1997, declared that our future 
force will be different in character than our current force, and placed 
great emphasis on the need to prepare now for an uncertain future by 
exploiting the revolution in technology and transforming the force 
toward that envisioned in Joint Vision 2010. The independent National 
Defense Panel report published in December 1997 concluded ``the 
Department of Defense should accord the highest priority to executing a 
transformation strategy for the U.S. military, starting now.'' These 
assessments, and others that have come to our attention, have 
reinforced the wisdom of Congress in passing in 1986, over the 
Pentagon's strenuous objections, the Goldwater-Nichols act and have 
provided us here with a compelling argument that the future security 
environment will be different and that environment requires new 
capabilities. In last year's defense authorization bill we sent a 
strong signal to the Pentagon that we must begin to build the 
fundamentally different military by including a provision strongly 
supporting Joint Experimentation to objectively examine our future 
needs and how we can best fulfill them.
  This year, once again, Congress is stepping up to the responsibility 
to ensure our future security. By establishing this year the Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, Senator Warner addressed the 
growing consensus that transformation of our military to deal with the 
uncertain future we face is one of our most important objectives and 
that promoting innovation is among our greatest challenges. Under the 
leadership of the subcommittee chairman, Senator Roberts and the 
Ranking Member, Senator Bingaman, we focused on the critical threats 
facing our nation and the emerging capabilities to deal with these 
threats. I would like to highlight what I think are important 
legislative provisions that this new subcommittee placed in this bill 
that further both transformation and innovation. An ongoing initiative 
of transformation supported by this bill is joint experimentation. The 
committee recognized the program's progress in developing joint service 
warfighting requirements, doctrinal improvements, and in promoting the 
values and benefits of joint operations for future wars and contingency 
operations. We need to continue to identify and assess interdependent 
areas of joint warfare which will be key in transforming the conduct of 
future U.S. military operations, and expanding projected joint 
experimentation activities this year will be a strong base for future 
efforts. To this end the committee approved provisions that built on 
its previous support for Joint Experimentation by adding $10 million to 
accelerate the establishment of the organization responsible for joint 
experimentation, and to accelerate the conduct of the initial joint 
experiments. The committee also modified the reporting requirements of 
the commander responsible for joint experimentation to send a strong 
signal that we expect him to make important and difficult 
recommendations about future requirements for forces, organizations, 
and doctrine and that we expect the Secretary of Defense fully inform 
us about what action he takes as a result of these recommendations. The 
bill also includes very important provisions to stimulate a greater 
degree of

[[Page S6262]]

technical innovation faster within the military. It is my belief that 
the explosive advances in technology provide the basis for not just a 
``revolution in military affairs,'' but ultimately a complete paradigm 
shift. The opportunities provided by technology give us the promise of 
achieving an order of magnitude increase in military capability over 
that which we have today. The U.S. military of 2020 and 2030 will be 
based on the science we begin to develop in the year 2000. But to take 
advantage of this promise and defend ourselves against its use against 
us by future adversaries, we need to transform our R&D enterprise from 
its antiquated cold war structure to a fast-moving, better-integrated 
structure and a process that can seize the leading edge of techno-
warfare. The Defense Innovation provisions in this bill establish a new 
vision for military R&D that is based more on how we want to fight in 
the future, and begin to change the structure of the military R&D 
enterprise to achieve that objective through better integration and 
less inefficiency.

  To help establish a new vision, the provisions require the Secretary 
of Defense to determine the most dangerous adversarial threats we will 
likely face two to three decades from now and what technologies will be 
needed on our part to prevail against those threats, and merge the 
strategic and technological decision-making processes. To help lay the 
groundwork for a new organizational structure for R&D, the Department 
of Defense is to develop a plan which ensures the crossflow of 
technologies into and across R&D labs, and close the gap between the 
R&D pipeline and the acquisition pipeline, to ensure the customer is 
involved in the entire R&D process. Our R&D structure needs to be 
revamped now so that leading edge techno-warfare can emerge.
  Along the same lines as innovation, this bill has provisions that 
ensure we continue to step up to our responsibility to oversee the 
transformation of our military to the future force that will protect 
our security in the 21st century. We need a permanent requirement that 
the Secretary of Defense conduct a Quadrennial Defense Review at the 
beginning of each new administration to determine and express the 
defense strategy of our nation, and establish a revised defense plan 
for the next 10 to 20 years. Complementing the QDR will be a National 
Defense Panel that would conduct an assessment of the defense strategy, 
force structure, force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget 
plan, and other elements of the defense program and policies 
established under the previous quadrennial defense review. Based on our 
previous experiences with the QDR and NDP, and the debate they raised, 
it is obvious that any one time assessment is not going to provide all 
the answers we need. Periodic assessments as prescribed by this 
legislation will continue to provide Congress with a compelling 
forecast of the future security environment and the military challenges 
we will face.
  The requirement for the provisions I have mentioned is paramount. The 
need for renewed emphasis on innovation and transformation has never 
been more apparent to me than after my time this year as the Ranking 
Member on the AirLand Subcommittee. That committee, under the excellent 
leadership of Senator Rick Santorum, examined many modernization issues 
affecting the Army and the Air Force. Some of the findings were 
disturbing, and reinforce the fact that despite the widespread and 
growing consensus that transformation is essential to our military, our 
budgets continue to look much as they have for a decade, focused on 
today's force at the expense of tomorrow. I would like to discuss some 
of the disturbing findings, and some of the important provisions we 
included in the bill to begin to address these concerns.
  We found that some responsible voices are concerned that the United 
States Army is facing a condition of deteriorating strategic relevance. 
The Army force structure is essentially still a cold war force 
structure built around very heavy weapons systems. The Army 
modernization program is based on incremental improvements to this 
force and is largely unfunded due to hard choices made in the past. 
This has resulted in inefficient programs and extended program 
timelines. Consequently we have a force that looks essentially the same 
today as it did yesterday, and that doesn't have enough money to 
maintain an increasingly expensive current force and invest in the Army 
After Next which is the future. Kosovo is an example of the future the 
Army will surely face; operations that are increasingly urbanized, with 
growing deployment and access problems, and the need for lighter 
weight, self-deployable systems becomes compelling. We reviewed the 
Army's modernization plan to understand the relationship between the 
current service modernization program and projected land force 
challenges. The Army's modernization plans do not appear adequately 
address these issues. So we have required the Army to take a renewed 
look at its modernization plans generally, and its armor and aviation 
modernization programs specifically, to address these challenges and to 
provide us with modernization plans that are complete and that will be 
fully funded in future budgets. We direct this analysis include the 
operational capabilities that are necessary for the Army to prevail 
against the future land force challenges, including asymetrical 
threats, and the key capabilities and characteristics of of the future 
Army systems needed to achieve these operational capabilities. We are 
especially concerned about the ability of the Army to maintain the 
current fleet of helicopters that is rapidly aging and we have included 
a provision to require them to provide a complete and funded program 
that would upgrade, modernize, or retire the entire range of aircraft 
currently in the fleet, or provide an alternative that is sufficient 
and affordable. Similarly, the Army's armor modernization plan seems to 
be inadequate to modernize the current armor force while designing the 
tank of the future, and leads me to believe that the Army must reassess 
armor system plans and provide us with the most appropriate path to 
accelerate the development of the future combat vehicle.
  The Air Force has fewer apparent modernization problems than the 
Army, but I wonder if their modernization plan is on the right track. 
Our hearings strongly suggest that the Department of Defense needs to 
answer several questions about our tactical air requirements, not the 
least of which is the characteristics, mix, and numbers of aircraft 
best suited for future conflicts. Kosovo is an example of how important 
the right mix of platforms and weapons really is to success on the 
battlefields of the future. We are embarked on three new TAC air 
programs which may report increasing costs coming dangerously close to 
the cost caps we have established, and in the case of the F-22 we must 
be alert to the danger that we will delay critical testing in order to 
not exceed the caps. And in the out years, the combined costs of these 
programs will consume a very large share of the overall procurement 
budget. We must make sure that we are not sacrificing other leading-
edge capabilities, like unmanned aerial vehicles, information 
technology, or space technology. The specific aircraft programs will 
require close scrutiny as will the strategy for their use as we attempt 
to decide on the right course in future authorization bills.
  We must overcome our cold war mentality and further examine and 
direct our trek into the 21st century. The provisions in this bill 
concerning innovation and transformation lay the foundation for the 
required changes in our defense mind set that will become mandatory as 
we face far different conflicts in the future--and, as we see on CNN 
everyday, much of that future is already here.
  In closing, I express my appreciation to the committee for agreeing 
to include in the bill a provision to extend and expand the highly 
successful Troops to Teachers program, which I joined Senators McCain 
and Robb in sponsoring.
  As my colleagues may know, this program was initially authorized by 
Congress several years ago to help transition retiring and downsized 
military personnel into jobs where they could continue their commitment 
to public service and bring their valuable skills to bear for the 
benefit of America's students.
  To date Troops to Teachers has placed more than 3,000 retired or

[[Page S6263]]

downsized service members in public schools in 48 different states, 
providing participants with assistance in obtaining the proper 
certification or licensing and matching them up with prospective 
employers. In return, these new teachers bring to the classroom what 
educators say our schools need most: mature and disciplined role 
models, most of them male and many of them minorities, well-trained in 
math and science and high tech fields, highly motivated, and highly 
capable of working in challenging environments.
  The legislation we introduced earlier in the year, and which the 
President has endorsed, aims to build on this success by encouraging 
more military retirees to move into teaching. It would do so by 
offering those departing troops new incentives to enter the teaching 
profession, particularly for those who are willing to serve in areas 
with large concentrations of at-risk children and severe shortages of 
qualified teaching candidates.
  Even with the new incentives we are creating, which we hope will 
recruit as many as 3,000 new teachers each year, we recognize that 
Troops to Teachers will still only make a modest dent in solving the 
national teacher shortage. The Department of Education estimates that 
America's public schools will need to hire more than two million new 
teachers over the next decade.
  But we are confident that, with an extremely modest investment, we 
will make a substantial contribution to our common goals of not just 
filling classroom slots, but doing so in way that raises teaching 
standards and helping our children realize their potential. I can't 
think of a better source of teaching candidates than the pool of smart, 
disciplined and dedicated men and women who retire from the military 
every year.
  What's more, with this bill, we may well galvanize support for a 
recruitment method that, as Education Secretary Richard Riley has 
suggested, could serve as a model for bringing many more bright, 
talented people from different professions to serve in our public 
schools. This really is an ingenious idea, helping us to harness a 
unique national resource to meet a pressing national need, and I think 
we would be well served as country to build on it.
  In putting together this bill, once again hard choices had to be 
made. We closely examined and analyzed the critical defense issues, and 
we ended up with are effective and affordable defense authorization 
bill which meets the growing readiness and retention challenges facing 
our armed forces, and augments our investment in the research, 
development, and procurement of the weapon systems necessary to 
maintain our military superiority well into the 21st Century. This bill 
compensates our most valuable resource, our service men and women, plus 
lays the groundwork for a sensible and executable programs for our 
military. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and 
send an unequivocal message of support to our troops and their 
families.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill before us.
  In this bill the Armed Service Committee has done a good job of 
reconciling important yet competing needs for defense funding under 
daunting fiscal constraints. This bill will be an important 
contribution to our efforts to strengthen our already first-class 
military, and enhance important benefits for American military 
personnel, their dependents, retirees, and veterans.
  I am especially pleased that this legislation includes my amendments 
concerning Russia's tactical nuclear stockpile, National Missile 
Defense, and Air Force cruise missiles. I would offer to the 
distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member my most sincere thanks for 
working with me on these important amendments, as I would for the 
assurances they offered regarding the Navy's BQM-74 in a colloquy with 
Senator Dorgan, Senator Bingaman, and myself.
  Before reviewing several of the bill's provisions, I would like to 
reflect for a moment on the context in which the Senate is considering 
this year's defense authorization bill.
  Mr. President, I have had the honor and privilege of serving the 
people of North Dakota and the nation in the United States Senate for 
13 years. However, this is the first time during my tenure that the 
Senate has taken up a defense authorization bill while our forces are 
engaged in hostilities. I know I am not alone in being especially 
mindful of the fact that the provisions we approve here today will have 
a significant impact on our brave men and women in uniform as they do 
their jobs in Balkans and over Iraq. I am pleased that several sections 
of this bill address concerns and needs that have been identified 
during Operation Desert Fox and the current air campaign against 
Yugoslavia.
  Now, Mr. President, allow me to highlight several particularly good 
provisions of this bill, for which Chairman Warner and Senator Levin 
should be congratulated.
  First, this measure wisely provides full funding for vital missile 
defense programs. National Missile Defense that is affordable, makes 
sense in the context of our arms control agreements, and utilizes 
proven technology has always had my support, and it is encouraging to 
see that it has been fully funded for fiscal year 2000. After damaging 
cuts in recent years, the revolutionary Airborne Laser program has also 
been fully supported this year by the Committee.
  Chairman Warner and Senator Levin must also be praised for including 
many of the provisions passed earlier this year by the Senate as part 
of S. 4, the Soldier's Sailor's, Airmen's, and Marine's Bill of Rights. 
Several of the most beneficial include a base COLA of 4.8 percent for 
all personnel, coupled with reform of the pay tables. Servicemembers 
will also now be able to participate in a Thrift Savings Plan.
  Third, the bill recommends significant funding boosts for vital 
strategic forces. The Minuteman III Guidance Replacement Program will 
be kept on schedule with a $40 million hike, and $41.4 million has been 
wisely added for B-52 upgrades identified as top unfunded priorities by 
the Air Force.
  Additionally, the Committee has also supported important housing 
improvement projects at Minot and Grand Forks Air Force Bases in North 
Dakota, and acted to accelerate construction of a $9.5 million apron 
extension at Grand Forks.
  Finally, I am pleased that the Strategic Forces Subcommittee has 
recommended a reduction in the minimum START I Trident submarine force 
level that must be maintained until START II is ratified by the Russian 
Duma. The Commander in Chief of the U.S. Strategic Command has assured 
me that we can meet our deterrence needs with 14 Trident boats, and 
that retirement of four submarines will not adversely affect our 
nation's security.
  All of these provisions are steps in the right direction, but there 
are a number of matters in this bill of great concern.
  First, the Committee yet again did not provide adequate funding for 
the B-52H bomber force. Today, part of the fleet is deployed to keep an 
eye on Saddam, and 15 B-52s are participating in Operation Allied 
Force. The B-52 is the backbone of the long range bomber force, and it 
is my hope that the Committee will review its decision not the fund the 
entire force during conference. As I have said many times before, no 
airborne platform can deliver a greater quantity or quality of nuclear 
and conventional munitions as far without refueling at as little cost 
to taxpayers than today's thoroughly modernized, battle-tested B-52. I 
applaud Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye--the distinguish leadership 
of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee--for acting to fund all 94 
B-52s in the fiscal year 2000 defense appropriations bill.
  Additionally, the bill unnecessarily increases spending on the Space 
Based Laser by $25 million. One day we will likely do the NMD mission 
from space. But that time is not now, when ground-based NMD will soon 
be available. Today, the SBL is unaffordable, a clear violation of the 
ABM Treaty, and simply not feasible. I hope the extra funding is 
reallocated in conference.
  Despite these drawbacks, this is a good bill. But it is a better bill 
in light of the addition of the amendments I offered today. Briefly, I 
would like to summarize each in turn.
  First, the 1999 Conrad Russian tactical nuclear weapons amendment 
responds to Russia's extremely disturbing announcement last month that 
it will not reduce its massive tactical

[[Page S6264]]

nuclear stockpile, but rather will retain and redeploy many of these 
ill-secured thermonuclear weapons.
  My amendment includes a Sense of the Senate calling on the President 
to urge the Russians to match U.S. tactical nuclear cuts. Additionally, 
my amendment requires regular reports on Russia's tactical arsenal, 
which could be larger than ours by a factor of eight to one, and is not 
covered by any arms control treaty. My amendment builds on the 
bipartisan amendment I authored last year, and supports the related 
provisions in the bill before us.
  I thank the able leadership of the Armed Services Committee for 
supporting this amendment, as I do for accepting my amendment 
concerning NMD. As a result of this measure, the Secretary of Defense 
will be required to study the advantages of a two-site NMD system, as 
opposed to a single site, as is now being considered by the 
Administration.
  Although we may be able to defend all 50 states from a single site, 
there may be advantages from a two-site system related to defensive 
coverage, system security, and economies of scale. My amendment will 
make sure these are fully explored. Two sites are also not incompatible 
with arms control. In fact, the ABM Treaty as originally drafted 
included two sites, and it may be appropriate to go back to such an 
idea.
  The third amendment I offered here today responds to growing concern 
on the part of our military commanders about the rapidly diminishing 
supply of conventional air launched cruise missiles, or CALCMs.
  Simply put, the CALCM has performed brilliantly in Operation Allied 
Force. Its range of more than 1,500 miles, ability to carry a 3,000 
pound warhead, and dead-on accuracy are unmatched by any other air-
delivered cruise missile in the world. It represents a capability we 
will continue to need, long after the 60 or so left in the inventory, 
and the 320 now being converted from nuclear missions, have been 
expended.
  My amendment will require the Secretary of the AF to report to 
Congress on how the Air Force plans to meet the long-range, large 
warhead, high accuracy cruise missile requirement once the CALCMs are 
expended.
  In particular, three options will be reviewed: restarting the CALCM 
line, developing and acquiring a new variety of cruise missile with the 
same or better performance characteristics, and upgrading planned 
munitions. The time to start planning on this matter is now, and again 
I thank Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for working with me on this 
amendment.
  In closing, Mr. President, I would reiterate that the bill before us 
is a good one, and deserves the support of every Senator.
  No bill is perfect in every respect, but I am confident that this 
defense authorization bill will strengthen our armed forces and require 
studies that will enhance our national security. At a time when we are 
at war in the Balkans, ready for another on the Korean Peninsula, and 
continue an open-ended air campaign against Iraq, we owe our brave men 
and women in uniform no less.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voice my strong opposition to the 
fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense Authorization Act.
  It is with disgust and sorrow that we are forced to bear witness to a 
defense bill that fails, once again, to understand the 21st century 
reality of national defense. So we set the foundation for our national 
defense in the new millennium to serve the needs of the Cold War era.
  Mr. President, this bill exemplifies the Pentagon's utter failure to 
adapt its priorities to the post-Cold War era. It promotes a pervasive 
Pentagon mind set that sacrifices the interests of our men and women in 
uniform to the assumption that bigger and more expensive weapons 
systems are always better. And even then, the prohibitive cost of the 
new weapons systems necessary means that we can't replace, on a one-to-
one basis, old weapons for newer replacements. No matter how much money 
we throw at this problem, we won't find a solution. Short of a true 
shift in the paradigm at the heart of our national defense strategy, 
this problem will continue unabated.
  Mr. President, I start with a perennial culprit of misguided defense 
strategy; that is the continued spending of billions of dollars on 
wasteful and unnecessary programs. But this year, it's been taken a 
step further.
  For the past year, Mr. President, we've heard the call to address our 
military's readiness crisis from virtually all quarters. We were told 
that foremost among the readiness shortfalls were operations and 
maintenance as well as pay and allowances accounts. This 288.8 billion 
dollar bill would have us increase O&M by all of $1.1 billion, with 
$1.8 billion for a pay raise and a retirement benefit change. That 
works out to about 1 percent. I'm sure that our men and women in 
uniform are not impressed.
  Mr. President, even the pay raise and retirement change is fraught 
with uncertainty and was addressed in a less than proper manner. In 
February, this body passed the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and 
Marines' Bill of Rights. We did so without benefit of hearings, prior 
to the budget resolution, and prior to the issuance of three reports on 
whether such changes would improve recruitment and retention in our 
armed forces.
  Then, this month, we paid for the entire $1.8 billion price tag for 
the pay raise and benefit reform in the emergency supplemental bill. 
Yet we still await reports from the General Accounting Office, the 
Congressional Budget Office, and the Department of Defense on the 
efficacy of that action. Earlier this year, GAO offered preliminary 
data on a study showing that money has been overstated as a factor 
affecting decisions to stay in or leave the military.
  Instead, GAO found that issues like a lack of spare parts; concerns 
with the health care system; increased deployments; and dissatisfaction 
with military leaders have at least as much effect on retention, if not 
more, then pay issues. These are the same concerns that I have heard 
from the men and women out on the front lines.
  Mr. President, there's no question that certain services have a 
recruiting and retention problem. For a variety of reasons, officers 
and enlisted members are leaving the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and 
these services are having problems bringing enough new people on board. 
Serious questions remain unresolved about the cause of this problem, or 
its best solution, yet we will authorize and appropriate the entire 
$1.8 billion in an extraordinary and inappropriate manner. This is a 
quick fix that fails to address the recruitment and retention problem 
in a comprehensive and thoughtful manner.
  I agree that many service members need a raise. These men and women 
have chosen to represent our country. They deserve to be paid 
adequately.
  Meanwhile, in this bill, Mr. President, programs that didn't even 
warrant DoD's request will receive $3.3 billion. Additionally, weapons 
procurement is up $2.9 billion beyond DoD's request. Missile defense 
programs, that paragon of efficiency and effectiveness, is up $509 
million. These and other provisions raise the question, just how 
important does the Pentagon think our men and women in uniform are?
  Mr. President, the bill authorizes 2.9 billion dollars for the Navy's 
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet program. It also authorizes the Navy to enter 
into a five-year $9 billion multi-year procurement contract for the 
Super Hornet. It's no secret that I have numerous concerns about the 
program, but I am also troubled by the manner in which the Pentagon and 
the Navy have moved the Super Hornet forward. And my concerns are not 
addressed in the least by this bill. In fact, this bill makes them 
worse.
  The Super Hornet program hasn't even begun its Operational Test and 
Evaluation, yet we're ready to authorize a five-year, $9 billion 
procurement contract. The program has 29 unresolved, major 
deficiencies, yet we're ready to authorize a five-year, $9 billion 
procurement contract. The program still fails significantly to improve 
on the existing F/A-18C aircraft, yet we're poised to blindly authorize 
a five-year, $9 billion procurement contract. Mr. President, the logic 
is baffling.

  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?

[[Page S6265]]

  Mr. President, this bill has some remarkable budgetary issues. 
Essentially, we can't pay for what this bill authorizes, and remain 
under the budget caps. The bill meets the fiscal year 2000 Budget 
Resolution target for budget authority, but current estimates state 
that the bill exceeds the outlay target in the Budget Resolution by $2 
to $3 billion. Even by Washington standards, that is real money.
  Mr. President, one concern goes to the heart of the entire debate on 
our national defense. The underlying question is this: Why should the 
Pentagon receive billions dollars more in funding when it has failed 
utterly to manage its budget?
  In a 1998 audit of the Department of Defense, GAO, the official 
auditors for the U.S. Congress, could not match more than $22 billion 
in DoD expenditures with obligations; it could not find over $9 billion 
in inventory; and it documented millions in overpayments to contracts. 
GAO concluded that ``no major part of DoD has been able to pass the 
test of an independent audit.'' Throwing good money after bad without 
accountability is not the answer.
  Instead, Mr. President, we will sharply increase defense spending. 
The fiscal year 1999 DoD authorization bill assumed a budget of $250.6 
billion. Since that time, the Congress has added $17 billion in 
emergency spending for defense. That spending boost is not offset and 
takes money directly from the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Mr. President, we have done a tremendous job of eliminating our 
budget deficit. We're staring a huge budget surplus in the face, but we 
can't seem to handle the temptation to spend it. To spend it before we 
address Social Security and Medicare is irresponsible, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, a large part of that success has been due to the 
willingness of both the Congress and the President to do more with 
less, to trim excessive spending wherever possible and maintain 
important services with fewer resources. We have begun to succeed in 
many areas of government--education, health care, veterans' care, 
welfare benefits, environmental programs--but not in defense spending, 
where we continue to build destroyers the Navy does not ask for and 
continue to build bombers the Air Force does not want. This bill 
continues this sad tradition.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the National Defense 
Authorization bill for fiscal year 2000. This past year has 
demonstrated once again how important it is for the nation to maintain 
a well-prepared military. There is no doubt that the Nation's armed 
forces are more active today than they were during cold war. Our 
servicemen and women are currently conducting combat operations in 
Kosovo and Iraq. They are serving as peacekeepers in Bosnia, and as 
humanitarian support personnel in Central America. All of this is 
taking place in addition to the day-to-day routine operations and 
exercises in which the military participates throughout the year in 
this country and in many other parts of the globe.
  The Nation is also calling on its National Guard and Reserve units at 
an increased rate. This past year, Guard and Reserve units from 
Massachusetts were deployed in support of operation Northern Watch in 
Iraq, Hurricane Mitch relief in Central America, and most recently 
Operation Allied Force in the Balkans. Our country is proud of their 
service and grateful for the sacrifices that they, their families and 
their civilian employers are making for all of us.
  Our armed forces continue to do all that is asked of them. This year, 
many of us in Congress have been concerned about the effects that these 
increased operations tempo are having on our service personnel and 
equipment. We have no doubt about the dedication and skills of our .14 
million men and women in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps who 
make our military the most capable fighting force in the world today. 
But there are increasing questions about whether they are receiving the 
full support they need to do their job well.
  This bill addresses many of the current concerns about declining 
readiness, insufficient equipment, and inadequate recruitment and 
retention. It provides greater support for our military forces, while 
maintaining a realistic balance between readiness to take care of 
immediate needs, and the investments needed to develop and procure the 
best systems for the future.
  The cornerstone of the Nation's military preeminence rests on many 
factors, but the most critical is its people. Without men and women 
willing to volunteer for military duty, the Nation would not be able to 
respond to crises around the globe as it does today. We need to have 
cutting-edge weapon systems, but we also need dedicated service members 
to operate these systems. It is imperative for us to provide 
effectively for our troops and their families.
  Today's force is truly an all volunteer force. Its ranks contain 
well-educated professionals who have chosen to serve their country in 
the armed forces. We must treat them as professionals or we will lose 
them.
  The bill provides a fully-funded and well-deserved 4.8% pay raise for 
military personnel, as well as expanded authority to offer additional 
pay and other incentives to critical military specialities. The bill 
also improves retirements benefits for those who are serving by 
addressing concerns with the current system and allowing servicemen and 
women to participate in a Thrift Savings Plan.
  The bill also enhances the very successful Troops-to-Teachers 
Program. Troops-to-Teachers was established by Congress in 1993 and has 
enabled over 3,000 service men and women to go into the teaching 
profession. These teachers have filled positions in high-need schools 
in 48 states. The bill shifts the responsibility for this program to 
the Department of Education in order to see that it is coordinated as 
effectively as possible with our overall education reform initiatives.
  Well over half of today's military is married. In many cases both 
parent are employed. The military also contains many single mothers and 
fathers. Each of these constituencies has unique characteristic and 
need that must be recognized so that we can encourage continued service 
and careers in the Nation's armed forces.
  The bill contains a provision which I strongly support to authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to provide financial assistance for child care 
services and youth programs for members of the armed services. These 
expanded provisions will ensure that many more military families have 
access to adequate child care and worthwhile activities for their 
children.
  The Nation's service men and women operate in a demanding and 
stressful environment that is being exacerbated by the increased 
operations of the last decade. One unfortunate result has been an 
increase in domestic violence involving military families. We have a 
responsibility to these families to help them cope more effectively 
with this problem. An important provision in this year's bill require 
the Secretary of Defense to appoint a military-civilian task force to 
review domestic violence in the military. In addition, the bill takes 
other steps to guarantee that the Services are more sensitive to this 
problem and take steps to prevent it.
  This bill also moves on many fronts to address modernization 
requirements that have been deferred for too long. As the ranking 
member on the Seapower Subcommittee, I am pleased that this bill takes 
needed steps to ensure that the Nation's naval forces have the vessels 
and equipment they need to sustain naval operations throughout the 
world.
  The bill authorizes the extension of the DDG-51 destroyer procurement 
for fiscal year 2002 and 2003 and increases multiyear procurement from 
12 to 18 ships. The bill also authorizes the Navy to enter into a 5-
year multiyear procurement contract for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. In 
addition, it increases the budget request for the Marine Corps' MV-22 
Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft from 10 to 12. These are all strong steps in 
strengthening the readiness of the Nation's Navy-Marine Corps team.
  Last year, the Defense authorization bill called for a 2 percent 
annual increase in military spending on science and technology from 
2000 to 2008. Unfortunately, the Department's proposed Fiscal Year 2000 
budget reduced spending on science and technology programs. The Air 
Force, alone, was slated for $95 million in cuts in science and 
technology funding. Such a decline would be detrimental to national 
defense, particularly when the battlefield

[[Page S6266]]

environment is becoming more and more reliant on technology. 
Fortunately, under the leadership of the Chairman of the Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities Committee, Senator Roberts, this bill restores 
$70 million in Air Force Science and Technology funding, to ensure that 
sufficient scientists and engineers are available to conduct research 
to address the Defense Department's technology needs for the future.
  One of the most important technology fields is in the area of cyber-
security. The growing frequency and sophistication of attacks on the 
Department of Defense's computer systems are cause for concern, and 
they highlight the need for improved protection of the Nation's 
critical defense networks. This bill includes a substantial increase in 
research and development on defenses against cyber attacks. This 
increase will greatly improve the Department's focus on this emerging 
threat.
  Existing threats from the cold war are also addressed in this 
legislation. The efforts to provide financial assistance to the former 
Soviet Union for nonproliferation programs such as the Nunn-Lugar 
Comprehensive Threat Reduction programs are essential for our national 
security. I commend the administration's plans to continue funding 
these valuable initiatives and the committee's support for them.
  One of the greatest threats to our national security is the danger of 
terrorism, particularly using weapons of mass destruction. We must do 
all we can to prevent our enemies from acquiring these devastating 
weapons and from being able to conduct successful terrorist attacks on 
the Nation. Significant progress has been made toward strengthening the 
Nation's response to such attacks, but more must be done. This bill 
strengthens counter-terrorism activities and increases support for the 
National Guard teams that are part of this important effort.
  I commend my colleagues on the committee for their leadership in 
dealing with the many challenges facing us on national defense. This 
measure is important to our national security in the years ahead and I 
urge the Senate to approve it.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their hard work 
over the last few days on this very important bill. The events in 
Kosovo underscore the importance of the work that we are doing here.
  I think that we have worked to put together a good bill. It doesn't 
satisfy everyone, I myself have some concerns about some parts of it, 
but overall I think that it is a good bill.
  I want to make a brief statement clarifying the substance of one of 
the amendments in the manager's package that we passed today.
  I want to make it clear that the amendment relating to the 
authorization of $4,500,000 for the procurement and development of a 
hot gas decontamination facility, is directed to the development of 
such a facility at Hawthorne Army Depot in Hawthorne, Nevada. That 
reflects the prior agreement of the managers. The text of the amendment 
does not specify the location of the facility, and I want to make it 
clear in the record of the proceedings associated with this bill where 
that facility is to be located and how that money is intended by this 
Congress to be appropriated and spent.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, 
concerning his amendment, No. 439, on radio frequency spectrums.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to enter into this colloquy 
with the distinguished President Pro Tempore and former Chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is important and I support the 
Chairman's efforts to protect critical DOD systems from harmful 
interference. Some concerns have been raised whether the amendment is 
intended to have an adverse impact on cellular, PCS, and other wireless 
systems that millions of Americans rely upon. I ask the Chairman 
whether I am correct in my understanding that that is not his intended 
effort.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the gentleman from South Carolina is 
correct in his assessment.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the 
distinguished Chairman during Conference with the House to ensure the 
successful use of radio frequency spectrum by the military, appropriate 
government agencies, and the private sector.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will be pleased to work with my friend 
from South Carolina to ensure that this important amendment has its 
intended affect.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 461

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered today is about 
accepting responsibility. On February 3, 1998, a United States Marine 
Corps EA-6B Prowler severed a ski gondola cable near Cavalese, Italy, 
plummeting twenty people nearly 400 feet to their deaths. We later 
learned, to our great disappointment, that the pilot and the navigator 
conspired to destroy evidence of the circumstances leading to the 
accident.
  This amendment, cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Bingaman, Leahy and 
Kerrey, upholds the honor of the United States Marine Corps and our 
military both here and abroad, permits the United States to accept 
responsibility for this tragic accident, and sends an unambiguous 
message that we will not tolerate efforts to cover-up our mistakes.
  The Congress has already authorized payment to rebuild the gondola we 
destroyed. We have not yet authorized payment to help rebuild the lives 
of the families we destroyed. This amendment allows the Secretary of 
Defense to compensate the victims' families both for the accident and 
the effort to hide evidence of the accident.
  A similar amendment was passed by the Senate during consideration of 
the Emergency Supplemental. The amendment passed unanimously, but was 
dropped during Conference consideration. I urge the Senate to adopt the 
amendment and allow the families of the victims to begin healing.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Virginia. I understand his desire to settle 
claims resulting from the accident involving a Marine Corps aircraft, 
which resulted in the unfortunate deaths of civilians in Italy. I note, 
Mr. President, that this case is covered by the Status of Forces 
Agreement or SOFA, which provides a mechanism for the settlement of 
claims. The Robb amendment would provide additional compensation, above 
and beyond that which might be provided by a SOFA settlement.
  While, I have sympathy for the families of the victims of that 
tragedy, I must bring to the attention of my colleagues another tragic 
occurrence which took the lives of nine American servicemen. I spoke in 
some detail on this matter last month, when I introduced Senate 
Resolution 83. Let me summarize the facts of this accident.
  On September 13, 1997, a German Luftwaffe Tupelov TU-154M collided 
with a U.S. Air Force C-141 Starlifter off the coast of Namibia, 
Africa. As a result of that mid-air collision nine United States Air 
Force Servicemen were killed. Accident investigations conducted by the 
United States and Germany both assigned responsibility for the 
collision and deaths to the German crew, who not only filed an 
inaccurate flight plan, but were flying at the wrong altitude.
  The families of the nine victims, having endured tremendous suffering 
and significant financial losses, are seeking compensation from the 
German government. Sadly, the German government has not been fully 
cooperative. Because these claims do not fall under the Status of 
Forces Agreement, the families were instructed to file their claims 
with Germany and wait for German adjudication.
  The German government has an obligation to these American families 
who lost loved ones because of negligence and fault of the German Air 
Force. This is a simple matter of fairness.
  To address this matter, I introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution 
calling upon the German government to make quick and generous 
compensation to the families of the U.S. Servicemen. In addition, it 
prohibits payment to the families of any German national killed in the 
gondola accident caused by the United States Marine Corps aircraft 
until the German government has

[[Page S6267]]

made comparable restitution to the families of the U.S. air crew killed 
in September 1997. My Resolution will not block payment to the families 
of any victim who is not a German national.
  Mr. President, I addressed my concerns on this matter to the 
Secretary of Defense. I requested that he give this matter his 
attention and raise this issue with the German Ministry of Defense. In 
addition, I have invited the German Ambassador to meet with me and 
family members of those killed in the air collision. To date, the 
Ambassador has not accepted my invitation.
  Mr. President, the Robb amendment is unnecessary at this time. The 
claims of family members of those killed in the ski gondola accident 
should first go through the SOFA process. In the meantime, the German 
government should quickly and fairly settle the claims of Americans 
killed as a result of the negligence of the German Air crew. I 
reiterate that the American claims do not fall under SOFA.
  My amendment expresses the Sense of the Senate that the Government of 
Germany should promptly settle with the families of members of the 
United States Air Force killed in a collision between a United States 
C-141 Starlifter aircraft and a German Luftwaffe Tupelov TU-154M 
aircraft off the coast of Namibia on September 12, 1997. My amendment 
also states the Sense of the Senate that the United States should not 
make any payment to citizens of Germany as settlement of such citizens 
claims for deaths arising from the accident involving the United States 
Marine Corps EA-6B aircraft on February 3, 1998, near Cavalese, Italy, 
until a comparable settlement is reached between the German Government 
and the American service members' families.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss three 
interrelated aspects of our country's security at the brink of the new 
millennium. There has already been discussion of NATO in this new 
world. We have also intermittently discussed the war in the region of 
Kosovo.
  It's important to reflect on NATO's mission under changed 
circumstances. It is critical to address the U.S. role as part of NATO. 
At the same time, we must evaluate threats globally, and we must be 
vigilant in safeguarding our security and defense capabilities.
  In April we celebrated NATO's 50th Anniversary. Despite the 
circumstances, we had good reason to celebrate. After the horrors of 
World War I and II, U.S. decision makers sought to construct European 
structures for integration, peace, and security. U.S. policy focused on 
two tracks: the Marshall Plan for economic reconstruction and NATO for 
transatlantic security cooperation.
  The creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949 
acknowledged what we failed to admit after World War I. Europe was and 
is a precarious continent. Twice in the first fifty years of this 
century America fought against tyrannical and malevolent forces in 
Europe.
  It is important to remember that NATO did not begin as a response to 
the Warsaw Pact. This primary objective evolved as a de facto result of 
Stalinist expansion into Central Europe.
  Fifty years later NATO remains the strategic link between the Old 
World and the New. NATO achieved its Cold War mission and even now, in 
a changed era and very different world, NATO is a vital element of 
transatlantic cooperation and security.
  We must, however, be conscious and careful in applying the lessons of 
the past to current circumstances. None of what I've just talked about 
should be interpreted as an argument for current NATO action in the 
region of Yugoslavia, Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro.
  The Administration repeatedly suggests that violence in the Balkans 
ignited the First World War. This is true. A member of the Black Hand, 
A Serbian nationalist group, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. 
Serbia, at that time was a small nation fighting for independence 
within a crumbling Austrian-Hungarian Empire.
  Due to Russia's alliance with Serbia and Germany's open-ended 
military pact with Austria, both Germany and Russia mobilized 
immediately. Other than a few neutral countries--Norway, Sweden, Italy, 
Switzerland, and Spain--the rest were locked in polarized blocs that 
set the Triple Alliance against the Triple Entente.
  Such polarized blocks do not exist today. Serbia's aggression against 
Kosovar Albanians can and has created regional instabilities. But this 
would not lead to World War Three.
  This is not 1914. Only one alliance dominates Europe--NATO. NATO can 
be used as a force for peace. Acting without regard to security 
perceptions outside of NATO, however, can lead us down a very different 
and dangerous path.
  Our current actions disregarded others' views of their own security. 
Our actions in Kosovo may yet unravel any gains achieved in nuclear 
arms reductions and cooperative security alliances since the Soviet 
Union collapsed.
  Furthermore, NATO's response in Kosovo has accelerated and 
exacerbated regional instability. We've managed to create a 
humanitarian crisis, while not achieving any of our military 
objectives. Of course, any rational person could see that an air 
campaign from 20,000 feet would not prevent executions, rapes, and 
purges on the ground. This is especially true given the five months of 
time we gave President Milosevic to plan, prepare, and position his 
forces.
  One relevant aspect of today's world that the Administration failed 
to mention in their arguments for involvement in this campaign is the 
impact this would have on U.S.-Russian relations. We have a tendency to 
believe that Russia is so weak and needs our money so bad that we can 
disregard their views or interests.
  I ask you to consider two key facts: as Russia's conventional 
military declines, reliance on their nuclear arsenal increases; global 
stability cannot be achieved without cooperation between the U.S. and 
Russia.
  The reciprocal unilateral withdrawal of thousands of tactical nuclear 
warheads between the U.S. and Russia may also be reversed. Russia has 
recently announced its intent to redeploy components of its tactical 
nuclear arsenal. We were on a path through arms reduction and steps 
toward increased transparency to addressing tactical weapons. These 
gains are steadily unraveling.
  The Administration never suggested that NATO strikes against Serbs 
may lead to a worst-case scenario over the next five years in Russian 
politics. Russia faces Parliamentary elections this year and a 
Presidential election next.
  According to one of the most pro-American Duma members, the U.S. 
Administration picked the best route to influence the upcoming 
elections in favor of Communist and ultra-nationalist parties. In 
Russia, 90 percent of the public support the Serbs and are against 
NATO.
  This war will have profoundly negative impact on the relationship 
between Russia and the U.S. for a long time.
  The U.S. was supposedly not fighting for either side. We were trying 
to be the honest broker, at least in the beginning. Now, our actions 
have created enemies. These enemies have historical ties to Russia. 
Russia's economy is in tatters, but Russia still controls the only 
means to obliterate the United States.
  We feel we're in the right, because we are fighting a tyrant, one 
capable of great evil. I don't disagree with the objectives sought, but 
I do believe that the Administration should have taken into account the 
possible political consequences of our actions on Russia's political 
future, as well as our future relationship with Russia.
  There are those who suggest that NATO must be victorious in the 
Kosovo conflict. Victory in Kosovo is short-term if we do not sort out 
the broader consequences of a victory dictated on NATO's terms.
  Russia is edging closer to China, and India. Our blatant disregard of 
other's security needs and perceptions may culminate in a Eurasian bloc 
allied against us--against NATO. And election campaigns in Russia will 
begin very soon.
  As European leaders converged to celebrate NATO's 50th birthday, they 
spent much time debating and deliberating on NATO's future. NATO's 
present reflects poor policy decisions and an ineffective military 
approach.
  Mr. President, I'd also like to take this opportunity to discuss the 
grievous situation of our military today.

[[Page S6268]]

Recent actions in Kosovo underscore the self-inflicted damage we have 
done to our national security in the years since the Cold War.
  I was one of many Senators during the 1980s who supported seeing our  
nation's defenses bolstered in order to bring the Soviet Union to its 
knees. We defeated them--not through hot war--but by demonstrating the 
unparalleled power of American democracy and free market dominance over 
a command economy.

  The collapse of the Soviet state was inevitable, but it would have 
taken a lot longer without the catalyst of our rapid defense buildup. 
This charge greatly accelerated the breakdown in the Soviet Union's 
economy. Their political and economic institutions unraveled in light 
of America's clear superiority.
  In 1991, after years of focus on a strong defense, when the Iraqis 
occupied Kuwait, U.S. forces were able to demonstrate their dominance. 
The U.S. military liberated Kuwait in a short, decisive campaign. The 
Gulf war was a ground and air war. It was a full blown offensive.
  And at no time during the Gulf war did anyone even so much as hint 
that U.S. forces were spread too thin. There were no reports of not 
being able to thwart an attack from North Korea due to our commitment 
in the Gulf. Never did we hear of depleted munitions stores, shortages 
in spare parts for our equipment, or waning missile supplies.
  Eight years later, the cracks in our defense capabilities emerged 
after less than 60 days of an air campaign in the Kosovo region. In 
less than forty days of what have been limited air strikes, respected 
officials reported that U.S. defenses are spread too thin. If North 
Korea or Saddam wanted to capitalize on our distraction in the Balkans, 
we currently would not have the means to defend our interests.
  We've been forced to divert resources from other regions in the world 
to meet NATO's needs in the Balkans. Our transport capabilities are 
insufficient. We evidently have too few carriers. Our munitions 
reserves are depleted. And, as ludicrous as it may sound, for years our 
military personnel have had to scramble to find spare parts.
  In the early nineties, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 
U.S. was viewed as the only remaining ``Superpower.'' Our global 
economic and military dominance was unquestioned. That time was, in the 
words of respected scholars and strategists, the Unipolar Moment. There 
was no doubt that the U.S. could defend its interests in any 
situation--whether military action or political persuasion were 
necessary.
  We have squandered that moment and missed many opportunities to 
capitalize on our success. In fact, out of complacency and misplaced 
perceptions of the post-Cold War world, our defense capacity today is 
insufficient to match the threats to our national interests.
  Many years of self-indulgence and inattention to our nation's defense 
cannot be corrected with a one-time boost. This is a complex and long-
term problem. But I'm committed to ensuring that our nation's defenses 
are not further eroded. I'm fed up with the complacency that has 
created our current situation.
  We must have a strong defense. We must ensure that the men and women 
in uniform have the right equipment, the best training, and are 
afforded a quality of life sufficient to keep them in the military. 
This cannot be done by sitting on our hands and hoping that the world 
remains calm.
  Additions to readiness accounts, ammunition, and missile stocks in 
the emergency supplemental for Kosovo will help ensure that our 
fighting forces are not in worse shape than before this engagement. It 
provides a small, but significant, step forward.
  The Defense Authorization bill before us takes additional steps in 
the right direction. I commend Senator Warner and his diligent staff on 
the hard work they've done to balance priorities and provide for our 
men and women in uniform.
  Let me briefly outline some major provisions of this bill that I 
consider important and appropriate to address some of our military's 
most pressing needs.
  As an additional boost to problems in readiness, this bill authorizes 
an additional $1.2 billion in operations and maintenance funding.
  The bill also includes over $740 million for DoD and Department of 
Energy (DoE) programs that provide assistance to Russia and other 
states of the former Soviet Union. These programs address the most 
prevalent proliferation threat in our world today.
  The $3.4 billion increase in military construction and family housing 
is an essential element of providing our armed forces with the quality 
of life they deserve. In addition, pay raises and improved retirement 
plans demonstrate our commitment to the people who serve in our 
military.
  I do not believe that increased pay and better retirement address the 
full spectrum of issues that feed into retention problems. The 
preliminary findings of a GAO study requested by myself and Senator 
Stevens indicate that the main problem is not pay, but rather working 
conditions. Lack of spare parts and deficient manning were the most 
frequent reasons offered for dissatisfaction with their current 
situation.
  These are important findings, because it's something we can address. 
As more conclusions come to light, we can do a better job in fixing the 
problems that currently contribute to recruitment and retention. We 
must pay close attention to these issues. The men and women serving in 
our military are the sole assurance of a strong, capable U.S. defense 
capability.
  A strong defense must be coupled with a consistent set of foreign 
policy objectives that strive to reduce or contain security threats. At 
present, we have neither.
  Mr. President, it seems we must focus on shifting the balance back in 
our favor. This cannot be done ad hoc. Securing U.S. interests requires 
sustained commitment and well-planned execution. First, we must provide 
the domestic means for strong, capable armed forces. Second, we must be 
calculated and careful in the application of force as a fix to failed 
diplomacy.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to state my views on the Fiscal Year 
2000 Defense Authorization bill. First, I congratulate the Chairman, 
Senator Warner, and the Ranking Member, Senator Levin, for their work 
on this bill. Together they helped move this bill through the Senate in 
record time. The broad support for this bill provides a promising 
beginning to Senator Warner's tenure as Chairman of the committee, and 
it is a tribute to Senator Levin's ability to work with members from 
both parties on matters of national defense.
  This bill provides an increase in defense spending that will maintain 
this nation's superpower status as we enter the 21st Century. As 
always, this defense bill relies heavily on Connecticut--the Provisions 
State. In procurement and modernization, Blackhawk helicopters, 
Comanche helicopters, the F-22 program, the Joint Strike Fighter 
program, Joint STARS aircraft, and submarine programs were all funded 
at or above the President's request. For our military personnel, this 
bill authorizes much deserved pay and pension increases. Other 
important programs that this bill funds include: military construction, 
cooperative threat reduction and ballistic missile defense.
  I commend the Senate Armed Services Committee for increasing the 
number of H-60 helicopters requested in this bill from 21 to 33. The 
Committee added nine UH-60L Blackhawk helicopters for a total of 15 
that will begin to fill the Guard's requirement for 90 Blackhawks. I 
feel strongly that it is important to fill this requirement, especially 
as we continue to call up our Guard and Reserve forces to serve in the 
Balkans. Those forces deserve to have the most modern equipment that 
this country can provide. The Committee also added three CH-60 
helicopters, the Navy version of the Blackhawk. The CH-60 will replace 
several models of the Navy's helicopter fleet and will perform all the 
missions for which those models were responsible.
  The committee gave a vote of confidence to the Comanche helicopter 
program by adding over $56 million in research and development funding 
to the Administration's request. Likewise, it supported the purchase of 
a fifteenth Joint STARS aircraft. Those aircraft are performing 
magnificently

[[Page S6269]]

in the Balkans, and I feel that this nation should continue to build 
these aircraft until the Air Force has the 19 aircraft it needs.
  The guided missile submarine concept received a boost by this 
committee in the form of $13 million in needed research and development 
funding. The concept proposes converting four Trident submarines into 
guided missile submarines which would be capable of launching more 
tomahawk missiles than any ship afloat today. As important as the 
funding authorization was the provision the committee included in the 
bill to reduce the lower threshold of our Trident submarine force. That 
action will allow the Navy to reduce the number of Trident submarines 
from 18 to 14, an adjustment to the fleet that the Chief of Naval 
Operations has requested. By including the provision, the committee 
surmounted an obstacle to implementing the submarine concept and saved 
taxpayers billions of dollars which would have gone towards upgrading 
Trident missiles.
  This bill authorizes important increases in military pay and pensions 
that this nation's servicemen and servicewomen deserve. I note that 
this bill not only calls for more pay and higher pensions, but it also 
identifies how this nation will pay for those important increases. 
Furthermore, through the regular hearings with Defense Department 
officials over the last few months, the Department has had ample 
opportunity to air its views with respect to provisions of this bill 
that address pay and pension issues. I am proud to support these 
provisions.
  As for the prospect of additional military base closures, a minority 
of the Senate once again sought to mandate another Base Realignment and 
Closure round in 2001. I opposed that amendment for a few reasons. Even 
after a Defense Department report and a General Accounting Office 
report, there is no clear accounting of how much this nation saves from 
base closure rounds. Furthermore, the long-term environmental clean-up 
costs are virtually impossible to estimate. I think that before we put 
communities across the country through the wrenching experience of 
another base closure round, we must better understand the costs and 
benefits of another round. Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that 
some of the bases ordered to be closed under previous rounds have yet 
to be closed. Of those that have been closed, some have not yet been 
turned over to the surrounding communities. I would like to know the 
full impact of the previous rounds, and I will not put communities in 
my state at risk by rushing into another round without being absolutely 
certain that this nation is ready.
  The Senate wisely voted to table an amendment offered by Senator 
Specter which would have sent a dangerous signal to Slobodan Milosevic 
that the United States is not committed to ending his horrific campaign 
of genocide. As we debate these issues, we must be cognizant of the 
fact that our men and women in uniform are risking their lives in the 
Balkans. They deserve to know that our Nation's leaders, including the 
Senate, stand firmly behind them. An amendment which limits our 
Commander-in-Chief's ability to act sends exactly the opposite message. 
It tells every soldier, sailor and airman and woman that the United 
States Senate is wavering in our support for their efforts and 
sacrifices. That is a statement we must never send.
  Similarly, we must remember that there are innocent men, women and 
children, desperately looking to the United States and NATO for relief 
from Slobodan Milosevic's hateful campaign of genocide. Approval of the 
ill-advised amendment would have likewise sent a signal to the 1.4 
million ethnic-Albanians who have been displaced from their homes that 
we were wavering at the moment they needed us most.
  As I have said time and time again, we must be mindful of the United 
States role as a world leader and the degree to which our NATO allies 
look to us for guidance. The Specter amendment would have precluded the 
President and our military from effectively responding to urgent 
military requirements and putting an end to Slobodan Milosevic's 
murderous campaign as expeditiously as possible. It would also have 
precluded the United States from taking the lead on an important 
potential avenue to bringing a lasting peace to the Balkans.
  In closing, I again commend the managers of this bill for their 
efforts. This legislation is a fitting tribute to our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen and marines who protect this Nation's freedom and 
liberty. It comes at an appropriate time--just before Memorial Day when 
we will honor the sacrifices that the members of our armed forces have 
made.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as my colleagues in the Senate know, I 
make a point of going through spending bills very carefully and 
compiling lists of programs added at the request of individual members 
that were not included in the Defense Department's budget request. I 
should state at the outset that I believe Chairman Warner and Senator 
Levin, the ranking member, should be commended for their efforts at 
producing a bill that addresses a number of very serious readiness 
problems. As American pilots continue to fly missions over Yugoslavia 
and Iraq while maintaining commitments in virtually every part of the 
globe, the care and maintenance of the armed forces cannot be taken for 
granted--not if we wish to avoid imperiling our vital national 
interests.
  I would be remiss in my responsibilities, however, were I not to 
illuminate the large number of programs that were added primarily for 
parochial reasons. With our military stretched perilously thin after 
more than a decade of declining budgets and expanding commitments, we 
can ill afford the business-as-usual practice of adding programs not 
requested by the military. It is for that reason that the list of 
unrequested programs that I would like to submit for the record, 
totaling more than $4 billion, is so troubling.
  While I continue to have concerns about the integrity of the process 
by which the service unfunded priorities lists are produced, I have 
this year chosen to respect their legitimacy and have excluded from the 
compilation of unrequested projects I am submitting for the Record 
those items added by members that are reflected on the unfunded 
priority lists.
  To wit, while I have to question the reverse economies of scale 
achieved on the C-40 program--in effect, why do two aircraft cost more 
on a unit cost basis than did the one aircraft included in the budget 
submission--I have not included the second aircraft, added by the 
committee, on this list because of its inclusion on the Navy's unfunded 
priority list. Similarly, I have omitted from my list two KC-130J 
aircraft because they are on the Marine Corps unfunded priority list 
despite the incredible surplus in C-130 frames already in the U.S. 
inventory. I will mention these programs no more today.
  Let me be very clear, however, that the process by which budgets are 
put together is seriously flawed and both fiscal responsibility and 
national security dictate that we strive to improve it. After so many 
years of going through this exercise, though, I find it difficult to be 
optimistic.
  I am, for instance, bewildered by the continued annual addition to 
the budget request of $18 million for MK-19 automatic grenade 
launchers. The repeated addition by Congress of the MK-19 to the 
defense budget forces to me to wonder whether someone hasn't stockpiled 
these things out of some psychological need to accumulate grenade 
launchers as a substitute for balls of string. What on earth does 
someone think the Marines are doing with its automatic grenade 
launchers that compels this body to repeatedly add them to the budget? 
How do we justify continuing to allocate significant amounts of money 
for a program that the Corps does not even include on its unfunded 
priorities list?
  Every single year we add funding--this year, $15 million--for the 
NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system. An Israeli destroyer during the 
Six Day War, a British destroyer during the battle for the Falklands, 
and the USS Stark incident are all testimony to the threat of anti-ship 
missiles. That only one U.S. ship has been so targeted since World War 
II, however, and under rather unique circumstances at that, makes it 
difficult to understand why we spend so much money every year for 
decoys.
  I have been critical in the past about earmarking funds for the 
National Automotive Center, an odd member-

[[Page S6270]]

created entity that has taken on a life of its own. The bill includes 
$6.5 million for development of a Smart Truck, with half of the money 
earmarked for the National Automotive Center. Presumably, this will be 
a really smart truck, inasmuch as it is taking us for over $6 million. 
I can only hope it will be able to change its own oil.
  The Administration's military construction request was a true 
exercise in Byzantine budgeting. Incrementally funding the entire 
military construction program was not somebody's better idea, and I 
applaud the committee's rejection of that proposal. I must condemn, 
however, that same committee's decision to add $923 million in projects 
not requested by the services. A new $3.6 million C-17 simulator 
building at Jackson Airport; a new $8.9 million C-130J simulator 
building at Keesler Air Force Base; a new $6 million visiting officers' 
quarters at Niagara Falls; $17 million to replace family housing at the 
Marine Corps Air Station at Yuma; and an addition of $10 million for a 
new education center and library at Ellsworth are just a few of the 
items added to the budget by members for parochial reasons.
  Let me note at this junction that many of these projects may very 
well be meritorious upon further review. For example, I know there is a 
dire need for new family housing at the Marine base in Yuma, Arizona. 
But is that need greater than exists at some other base? The method by 
which that project was added does not allow for the kind of comparative 
analysis that should be an integral part of the process by which these 
budgets are drafted.
  Of particular interest is the $241 million for ammunition 
demilitarization facilities, none of which was requested by the 
military. I recognize the legitimate need to expeditiously dismantle 
aging chemical weapons and deal with the environmental contamination 
resulting from their construction and storage over many years. My 
concern lies in the perpetually uncertain environment in which spending 
bills are prepared. Are each of these facilities necessary, and does 
each one need to be funded during a fiscal year for which funding for 
it was not requested? Chemical demilitarization has been an important 
priority for the Armed Services Committee, but the case has not been 
made that these programs had to be added to this bill.

  Mr. President, I may make light of some of these programs, but the 
issue is deadly serious. Our armed forces are stretched perilously thin 
as global commitments grow and operations like those in Kosovo and the 
continuing operation in Bosnia continue to take their devastating toll 
on our ability to remain prepared for the major regional contingencies 
that are inarguably tied to our vital national interests. Not every 
program on the list that I am submitting for the Record is impractical 
or worthy of ridicule. But to argue their worth individually and in a 
vacuum is to miss the point.
  I do not include on these lists most programs related to defense 
against weapons of mass destruction, and generally give classified 
programs a free ride. The nature of the process, however, is such that 
a certain amount of skepticism is warranted. It is too much a matter of 
routine practice that items are added for primarily parochial reasons 
under headings that sound logical and yet which are low or no priority 
for the services. As absolutely important as areas like chemical and 
biological defense are, it is equally important that funds allocated to 
deal with those threats are not wasted on programs added to the budget 
solely because a contractor convinced his or her senator that they 
deserve $2 million to investigate that program's potential when other 
higher priority programs already exist to fulfill the requirement.
  I have respected the unfunded priority lists this year because they 
provide the only roadmap as to where the services would allocate 
additional dollars if such funding were made available. It is far from 
a perfect process, but it is all we have. That there are still over $4 
billion in member adds in this bill is testament to the indomitable 
will of members of this body to force projects into a strained defense 
budget in defiance of fiscal prudence and operational requirements. 
That is not intended as a compliment; it is simple acknowledgment that 
there is still ample room for improvement.
  Finally, let me also note for the record my concerns regarding the 
amendment offered by Senator Lott to narrow the scope of the Pilot 
Program for Commercial Services. I believe the amendment will restrict 
the ability of the Secretary of Defense to explore all options for fair 
and reasonable procurement of transportation services. This will 
continue to artificially inflate the Defense Department's 
transportation cost and will directly impact the findings of the 
program.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 MEMBER ADD-ONS, 
                          INCREASES & EARMARKS

                            Army Procurement

Aircraft Procurement, Army (page 25):
  LONGBOW.........................................................$45.0
  UH-1 Mods........................................................72.5
  ASE Mods (ATIRCM).................................................8.1
  ASE Infrared CM...................................................6.6
Missile Procurement, Army (page 27):
  PATRIOT mods.....................................................60.0
Procurement of W&TCV, Army (page 29):
  M109A6 155mm Howitzer mods.......................................20.0
  Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle PIP...................20.0
  M88 Improved Recovery Vehicle....................................72.0
  Heavy Assault Bridge mod.........................................14.0
  MK-19 40mm Grenade Launcher......................................18.3
Procurement of Ammunition, Army (page 31):
  40mm, all types...................................................8.0
  60mm mortar, all types............................................9.0
  102mm HE M934 w/mo fuse...........................................4.0
  105mm ARTY DPICM.................................................10.0
  Wide Area Munitions..............................................10.0
  Arms Initiative..................................................14.0
Other Procurement, Army (page 35):
  High Mobility Multi-Purpose Vehicle..............................17.0
  Army Data Distribution System....................................25.9
  SINGCARS Family..................................................70.0
  ACUS mod program.................................................50.0
  Standard Integrated CMD Post System...............................9.2
  Lightweight Maintenance Enclosure.................................3.2
  Combat Training Centers Support...................................7.0
  Modification of In-Service Equipment..............................8.1
  Acquisition Stability Reserve Construction Equip.................29.6

                                Army RDT

  Basic Research in Counter-Terrorism..............................15.0
  AAN Materials.....................................................2.5
  Scramjet Technologies.............................................2.0
  Smart Truck.......................................................6.5
  Medteams..........................................................1.8
  PEPS..............................................................8.0
  Virtual Retinal Eye Display Technology............................5.0
  Future Combat Vehicle Development................................10.0
  Digital Situation Mapboard........................................2.0
  Accoustic Technology Research.....................................4.0
  Radar Power Technology............................................4.0
  OICW.............................................................14.8
  FIREFINDER Accel. TBM Cueing Requirement..........................7.9
  Directed Energy Testbed (HELTF)...................................5.0
  HIMARS...........................................................30.6
  Space Control Technology.........................................41.0

                            Navy Procurement

Aircraft Procurement, Navy (page 61):
  UC-35 (3)........................................................18.0
  EA-6 Series......................................................25.0
  H-1 Series.......................................................15.0
  Common ECM Equipment.............................................16.0
Weapons Procurement, Navy (page 64):
  Drones and Decoys................................................10.0
  Weapons Industrial Facilities.....................................7.7
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy:
  LPD-17 (1)......................................................375.0
Other Procurement, Navy (page 71):
  WSN-7 Ring Laser Inertial Navigation Gear........................15.0
  Items less than $5 million.......................................30.9
  Radar Support AN/BPS-15/16H ECDIS-N...............................8.0
  Integrated Combat System Test Facility............................5.0
  JEDMICS...........................................................9.0
  Navy Shore Communications........................................30.7
  Info Systems Security Program (ISSP).............................12.0
  Aviation Life Support............................................18.1
  NULKA Anti-Ship Missile Decoy System.............................15.3
Procurement, Marine Corps (page 83):
  Comm and Elec. Infrastructure Support............................54.5
  5/4T Truck HMMWV (MYP) (668).....................................40.0

                                Navy RDT

  Non-Traditional Warfare Initiatives...............................5.0
  Hyperspectral Research............................................3.0
  Heatshield Research...............................................2.0
  Free Electron Laser..............................................10.0
  Waveform Generator................................................3.0

[[Page S6271]]

  Power Node Control Centers........................................3.0
  Composite Helicopter Hangar.......................................5.0
  Virtual Testbed for Advanced Electrical Systems...................5.0
  BURRO.............................................................5.0
  Advanced Lightweight Grenade Launcher.............................1.0
  Vehicle Tech Demo.................................................0.5
  Ocean Modeling for Mine and Submarine Warfare.....................9.0
  Low Observable Stack..............................................5.0
  Vector Thrust Ducted Propeller....................................4.0
  Integrated Combat Weapons Systems for CM Ships...................18.0
  Advanced Water-Jet Technology.....................................2.0
  Enhanced Performance Motor Brush..................................2.3
  Standard for the Exchange for Product Model Data..................3.0
  Trident SSGN Design..............................................13.0
  Common Command and Decision Systems...............................5.0
  Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle..............................26.4
  Non-lethal Weapons--Innovation Initiative.........................3.0
  NAVCIITI..........................................................4.0
  Parametric Airborne Dipping Sonar................................15.0
  H-1 Upgrades, 4BN/4BW Helicopter Upgrade Program.................26.6
  Multi-Purpose Processor..........................................11.0
  Non-Propulsion Electronic Systems................................10.0
  Smart Propulsor Product Model.....................................2.0
  NULKA Anti-Ship Missile Decoy System..............................4.4
  Advanced Deployable System.......................................22.0
  Battle Force Tactical Training....................................7.5

                         Air Force Procurement

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (page 100):
  EC-130J..........................................................30.0
  E-8C.............................................................46.0
  F-15.............................................................20.0
  T-43..............................................................3.1
  C-20 Mods........................................................12.2
  DARP.............................................................82.0
  E-4...............................................................6.9
Missile Procurement, Air Force (page 107):
  MM III Modifications.............................................40.0
Other Procurement, Air Force (page 110):
  Truck Tank Fuel R-11.............................................18.0
  Items less than $5 million........................................2.4

                             Air Force RDT

  Materials--Resin Systems..........................................3.0
  Materials--Titanium Matrix........................................2.2
  Materials--Friction Welding.......................................2.0
  Aerospace Propulsion--Science and Engineering...................0.775
  Solid State Electrolyte Oxygen Generator..........................2.0
  Variable Displacement Vane Pump...................................4.0
  Multi-spectral Battlespace Simulation.............................5.0
  Hypersonic Technology Programs...................................16.6
  Post-boost Control Systems........................................2.9
  Missile Propulsion Technology.....................................1.7
  Tactical Missile Propulsion.......................................3.0
  Orbit Transfer Propulsion.........................................3.0
  Tropo-Weather.....................................................2.5
  Space Survivability...............................................0.6
  HIS Spectral Sensing..............................................0.8
  HAARP............................................................10.0
  Lidar for Standoff/Detection for Chem Weapons.....................5.0
  Electro-Magnetic Technology.......................................9.3
  Polymeric Foam Technology.........................................3.0
  Panoramic Night Vision Goggles....................................2.0
  Advanced Spacecraft Technology--SMV..............................35.0
  Advanced Spacecraft Technology--MSTRS.............................5.0
  Standard Protocol Interpreter.....................................2.0
  Space-Board Laser................................................25.0
  Space Control Technology--Program Increase.......................10.0
  Joint Strike Fighter--Alternative Engine.........................15.0
  ICBM Dem/Val RSLP................................................19.2
  EW Development--PLAID.............................................7.0
  EW Development--DIRCM.............................................7.0
  SBIRS--High EMD..................................................92.0
  Correction of WCMD Testing Problems...............................3.9
  Aircrew Laser Eye Protection......................................0.4
  Inflatable Restraints.............................................2.5
  EELV Composite Payload Dispenser..................................4.5
  Big Crow..........................................................5.0
  Micro Satellite Technology.......................................25.0
  B-52 Radar Warning Upgrades......................................15.4
  COMPASS CALL TRACS................................................8.0
  JSTARS--Radar Technology Insertion Program.......................48.0
  Advanced Program Evaluation......................................18.0
  Theater Missile Defenses--TAWS...................................17.3
  Airborne Recon. Systems--JSAF-LBSS...............................17.4
  Manned Recon. Systems--SYERS Polarization.........................5.0
  Distributed Common Ground Systems--Eagle Vision..................21.0

                        Defense-Wide Procurement

Procurement, Defense-Wide (page 124):
  Information Systems Security.....................................20.0
  PATRIOT PAC-3....................................................60.0
  SOF Ordnance Replenishment........................................6.0
  SOF Small Arms and Weapons......................................15.75
  Chem/Bio Individual Protection...................................18.9
  Chem/Bio Decontamination..........................................1.5
  Chem/Bio Contamination Avoidance.................................10.0
National Guard & Reserve Equipment (page 128):
  Chem Agents & Munitions Destruction--RDT........................334.0
  Chem Agents & Munitions Destruction--Procurement................241.5
  Chem Agents & Munitions Destruction--O&M........................595.5

                              Defense RDT

  Applied Research--HFSWR...........................................5.0
  Applied Research--Wide Band Gap Technologies.....................14.0
  Medical Free Electron Laser Research..............................4.0
  Computer Security.................................................1.0
  Chem/Bio Defense Program--Safeguard...............................5.0
  WMD Related technology--Deep Digger...............................5.0
  Advanced Technology--Atmospheric Interceptor Tech................30.0
  Scorpius..........................................................5.0
  Excalibur.........................................................5.0
  Special Technical Support--Complex Systems Dev....................5.0
  Product Data Engineering Tools....................................5.0
  Joint Warfighting Program--Joint Experimentation.................10.0
  High Performance Computing--Visualization Research................3.0
  Joint Robotics Program............................................3.0
  CALS Intitiative--Integrated Data Environment.....................2.0
  NTW--Acceleration................................................70.0
  NTW--Radar Development...........................................50.0
  Liquid Target Development.........................................5.0
  BMD Technical Ops--Advanced Research Center.......................3.0
  Chem/Bio--CBIRF...................................................9.2
  PATRIOT PAC-3--EMD..............................................152.0
  Foreign Material Acquisition and Exploitation....................40.0
  C3I--Information Assurance Test Bed...............................5.0
  Joint Mapping Tool Kit............................................8.0
  C3I--Strategic Technology Assessment..............................5.0
Maxwell AFB--Off. Transient Student Dormitory......................10.6
Anniston AD--Ammo Demilitarization Facility.........................7.0
Redstone Aresenal--Unit Training Equip. Site........................8.9
Dannelly Field--Med. Training & Dining Facility.....................6.0
Fort Wainright--Ammo Surveillance Facility..........................2.3
Fort Wainright--MOUT Collective Trng. Facility.....................17.0
Elmendorf AFB--Alter Roadway, Davis Highway.........................9.5
Pine Bluff Arsenal--Ammo. Demilitarization Facility................61.8
Pueblo AD--Ammo. Demilitarization Facility.........................11.8
West Hartford--ADAL Reserve Center...............................17.525
Orange ANGS--Air Control Squadron Complex..........................11.0
Dover AFB--Visitor's Quarters......................................12.0
Smyrna--Readiness Center..........................................4.381
Pensacola--Readiness Center.......................................4.628
Fort Stewart--Contingency Logistics Facility.......................19.0
NAS Atlanta--BEQ-A.................................................5.43
Bellows AFS--Regional Training Institute.........................12.105
Gowen Field--Fuel Cell & Corrosion Control Hgr......................2.3
Newport AD--Ammo. Demilitarization Facility........................61.2
Fort Wayne--Med. Training & Dining Facility.........................7.2
Sioux City IAP--Vehicle Maintenance Facility........................3.6
Fort Riley--Whole Barracks Renovation..............................27.0
McConnell AFB--Improve Family Housing Area Safety.................1.363
Fort Campbell--Vehicle Maintenance Facility........................17.0
Blue Grass AD--Ammo. Demilitarization Facility.....................11.8
Fort Polk.--Organization Maintenance Shop.........................4.309
Lafayette--Marine Corps Reserve Center.............................3.33
NAS Belle Chase--Ammunition Storage Igloo..........................1.35
Andrews AFB--Squadron Operations Facility...........................9.9
Aberdeen P.G--Ammo. Demilitarization Facility......................66.6
Hanscom AFB--Acquisition Man. Fac. Renovation......................16.0
Camp Grayling--Air Ground Range Support Facility....................5.8
Camp Ripley--Combined Support Maintenance Shop...................10.368
Columbus AFB--Add to T-1A Hangar....................................2.6
Keesler AFB--C-130J Simulator Facility..............................8.9
Miss. Army Ammo Pl.--Land/Water Ranges..............................3.3
Camp Shelby--Multi-purpose Range...................................14.9
Vicksburg--Readiness Center.......................................5.914
Jackson Airport--C-17 Simulator Building............................3.6
Rosencrans Mem APT--Upgrade Aircraft Parking Apron..................9.0
Malmstrom AFB--Dormitory...........................................11.6
Great Falls IAP--Base Supply Complex................................1.4
Hawthorne Army Dep.--Container Repair Facility......................1.7
Fort Monmouth--Barracks Improvement................................11.8
Kirtland AFB--Composite Support Complex.............................9.7
Niagara Falls--Visiting Officer's Quarters..........................6.3

[[Page S6272]]

Fort Bragg--Upgrade Barracks D-Area................................14.4
Grand Forks AFB--Parking Apron Extension............................9.5
Wright Patterson--Convert to Physical Fitness Ctr...................4.6
Columbus AFB--Reserve Center Addition.............................3.541
Springfield--Complex...............................................1.77
Tinker AFB--Repair and Upgrade Runway..............................11.0
Vance AFB--Upgrade Center Runway...................................12.6
Tulsa IAP--Composite Support Complex...............................10.8
Umatilla DA--Ammo. Demilitarization Facility.......................35.9
Salem--Armed Forces Reserve Center...............................15.255
NFPC Philadelphia--Cating Pits Modification......................13.320
NAS Willow Grove--Ground Equipment Shop.............................0.6
Johnstown Cambria--Air Traffic Control Facility.....................6.2
Quonset--Maintenance Hangar and Shops..............................16.5
McEntire ANGB--Replace Control Tower................................8.0
Ellsworth AFB--Education/library Center............................10.2
Henderson--Organization Maintenance Shop..........................1.976
Dyess AFB--Child Development Center.................................5.5
Lackland AFB--F-16 Squadron Ops Flight Complex......................9.7
Salt Lake City IAP--Upgrade Aircraft Main. Complex..................9.7
Northfield--Multi-purpose Training Facility.......................8.652
Fort Pickett--Multi-purpose Training Range.........................13.5
Fairchild AFB--Flight Line Support Facility.........................9.1
Fairchild AFB--Composite Support complex............................9.8
Eleanor--Maintenance Complex.....................................18.521
Eleanor--Readiness Center.........................................9.583
Forward Deployment--Facilities Upgrade.............................4.88
Forward Deployment--Facilities Upgrade............................6.726
Forward Deployment--Facilities Upgrade...........................31.229
MCAS Yuma--Replace Family Housing (100 units)......................17.0
MCB Hawaii--Replace Family Housing (84 units)....................22.639
Holloman AFB--Replace Family Housing (76 units)....................9.84

                       chemical demilitarization

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. On behalf of the Senior Senator from Oregon and 
myself, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the Honorable Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services on the issue of Chemical 
Demilitarization,
  Oregon is one of the eight states with chemical weapons stored and 
awaiting destruction required by the Chemical Weapons Convention.
  Our local communities surrounding the Umatilla depot have serious 
concerns about the pending demilitarization program. These concerns 
include the safety of the local population and the impact on the local 
communities of undertaking a huge demilitarization effort to destroy 
3700 tons of chemical agent.
  This effort will require the influx of nearly one thousand workers to 
build and operate the destruction facility over a period of eight 
years. These workers will require the communities to provide 
facilities, infrastructure and services to accommodate them. These 
efforts will cost money, and we are concerned that the economic impact 
of this effort will be a huge drain on the local communities. We are 
concerned that, while there may be a considerable impact on the local 
communities, there has not been adequate attention given this issue by 
the Department of Defense.
  Would the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee 
agree to work with us to look into this situation so we can better 
understand the problem, and in so doing, find a solution?
  Finally, I mentioned my concerns to the Secretary of Defense. He 
expressed his willingness to work with us. I would ask that the 
Chairman and Ranking Member discuss this problem with the Secretary of 
Defense and consider including language in the Conference Report on the 
issue of impact. I understand from the Office of the Secretary that the 
Army will work with us to include some acceptable report language. We 
want to make it clear that any discussion of impact would be restricted 
to the chemical demilitarization program and account. Again, I thank 
the honorable Chairman and Ranking Member.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President. I thank Senators Smith and Wyden for 
raising this issue and bringing it to our attention.
  I understand that Senators Smith and Wyden have serious concerns 
about this situation, and that the local communities are worried about 
the impact that this process may have on them. I would be happy to work 
with the Senators in looking into this situation and helping to obtain 
information that will provide us with a fuller understanding of the 
issues relating to chemical demilitarization.
  Mr. WYDEN. I want to thank you on behalf of the people of Oregon for 
your willingness to work with us on this very important issue. There 
are indeed serious concerns surrounding chemical demilitarization, but 
Oregonians are committed to working with the Army and the Chemical 
Demilitarization Program to meet the obligations under the Chemical 
Weapons Convention. The future and success of the Chemical 
Demilitarization program will depend on the communication we enter 
into, and the cooperative solutions that we produce. This is a very 
challenging program for both the Army and the good people of the depot 
states. We acknowledge and appreciate all the hard work that has been 
done thus far, and very much look forward to the completion of the 
chemical demilitarization project in Oregon.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the United States is engaged in a dangerous 
air war against Yugoslavia. More than 30,000 members of the U.S. 
military have been deployed to the Balkans to prosecute this campaign. 
While we read the latest news from the front every morning in the 
comfort of our homes and offices, American men and women in uniform are 
living the harrowing details day in and day out.
  It is fitting that the Senate, in the midst of this conflict, enact 
without delay the National Defense Authorization Bill. This bill-- 
which includes a significant pay raise for the military as well as a 
healthy increase in funding intended to improve military readiness--
sends a strong signal of support to the men and women of the United 
States military, and to their families.
  I commend Senator Warner, the new and capable Chairman of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, and Senator Levin, the able ranking minority 
member, for their leadership in producing an excellent bill. This 
legislation bears testament to the skills and willingness of both of 
these distinguished Senators to craft meaningful policy decisions in 
the context of bipartisan consensus.
  Earlier this week, the Senate Appropriations Committee, of which I am 
the ranking member, approved a Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal 
Year 2000 that goes hand-in-glove with this measure. Last week, 
Congress sent to the President an emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill to fund the Kosovo operation. Together, these bills take great 
strides toward giving our military forces the tools that they need and 
the support that they deserve to protect the national security of the 
United States and to execute the military's many critical missions both 
at home and overseas.
  While the air war over Yugoslavia is on the front pages of the 
newspapers every day, we must never forget that behind the headlines, 
scores of other U.S. forces are engaged in difficult, and often 
dangerous, missions around the globe. From the peacekeeping patrols in 
Bosnia to the dangerous skies over Iraq to the tense border between 
North and South Korea, U.S. military personnel face the potential peril 
of combat every day. Resources have been stretched thin while operating 
tempos are constantly being accelerated. These are difficult times for 
the military, and I salute the dedication of the men and women who 
serve their nation so diligently. These are the individuals who stake 
their very lives on the policies and programs that we debate here in 
the Senate. These are the individuals to whom we must dedicate our best 
legislative efforts.
  Mr. President, this bill delivers the goods. It includes a 4.8 
percent pay raise for the military, and it restores full retirement 
benefits to service members. It adds more than $1.2 billion to the 
nuts-and-bolts readiness accounts--base operations, infrastructure 
repairs, training, and ammunition--that are so vitally needed to 
improve the long term readiness of the armed forces. It funds the 
purchase of essential equipment and weapons systems. And, through the 
efforts of the newly

[[Page S6273]]

established and forward looking Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
Subcommittee, on which I am pleased to serve, it invests in programs to 
combat the ever increasing threat to the United States of terrorist 
attack, information warfare, and chemical and biological weapons.
  Mr. President, we cannot put a price on the sacrifices and 
contributions of our military, but we can make sure that the best 
fighting forces in the world have the necessary tools of their trade. 
That is the purpose of this bill. We are sending a message to the 
troops that we have heard their concerns and we have responded to them. 
I urge the Senate to move quickly to pass this legislation.
  I yield the floor.


                                  BRAC

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, when Congress enacted the BRAC legislation, 
it left little doubt that the local community was intended to be the 
prime beneficiary of surplused facilities. Agencies were designed and 
created to determine the best use of the facilities deemed surplus by 
BRAC. In many cases, it has been determined that local school districts 
are the best recipient for use of these facilities.
  Unfortunately, local school districts and other public education 
entities today face a barrier in acquiring the surplused facility.
  This barrier is a highly punitive fee established by the Department 
of Education that can actually discourage local education entities from 
acquiring surplus defense facilities.
  ED has determined that certain non-instructional uses of these 
facilities, such as the vaguely defined ``research'' disqualify the 
district for a 100 percent exemption from the costs of acquiring the 
surplus facility. Similarly, ED has determined that certain other uses 
of these facilities, such as storage, even if directly related to 
instruction, warrants payment of a fee.
  For example, if a school district wants to use 70% of a facility for 
instructional purposes and 30% for storage of teaching related 
supplies, this district could be charged upwards of $300,000.
  Additionally, Mr. President, I find it somewhat ironic that, when the 
President's own education agenda calls for another federal program and 
more federal funding to provide school construction funds, the Clinton 
administration's Department of Education has concocted this schedule of 
fees to charge local school districts who wish to use surplus military 
property.
  I know that in my state of Utah, we have a great need for additional 
facilities. For example, of Utah's 461,000 students, 22,255 of them--or 
nearly 5% take classes in portable classrooms. That is unacceptable and 
the arbitrary requirements that the Department of Education has set for 
districts to acquire disposed defense facilities are onerous and should 
be corrected.
  I believe every public education entity ought to be eligible for a 
100% exception from the payment of costs to acquire the facility when 
the surplus defense facility is used for instruction or other 
educational purposes.
  I understand that the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee does not have jurisdiction over the Education Department. He 
does, however, have jurisdiction over the underlying statute that the 
Department of Education has a role in carrying out.
  Mr. WARNER. I agree with my good friend from Utah that BRAC 
procedures should produce reasonable opportunities for communities to 
turn facilities into productive use. I believe the Defense Base Closure 
and Realignment Act of 1990 provision does that, by allowing a cost-
free transfer for economic development. I don't believe anything in the 
provision's language poses an obstacle to what the Senator from Utah 
wishes to accomplish.
  Mr. HATCH. The problem with the language is that it's too vague. For 
the past two days, I have asked OSD, the Army General Counsel, and the 
real Property Administrator at the Department of Education to tell me 
how a local school district could benefit from the President's proposal 
that is in this provision of the bill. They could not explain it to me. 
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of my 
letter to the Army General Counsel.

  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         United States Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 26, 1999.
     Mr. Earl Stockdale,
     Office of General Counsel, Department of the Army, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Stockdale: Your assistance is requested in 
     clarifying the intent of the President's recent request to 
     amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 
     (P.L. 101-510, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) as it relates to a filing 
     made by the Ogden-Weber School District [``District''] for a 
     warehouse facility on the former Defense Depot Ogden 
     [``DDO''], a Utah military installation closed under a prior 
     BRAC action.
       In amending sec. 2905(b)(4), the President would 
     ``authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer property to 
     the local redevelopment authority, without consideration, 
     provided that LRAs reuse plan provides for the property to be 
     used for job creation and the LRA uses the economic benefits 
     from the property to reinvest in the economic redevelopment 
     of the installation and the surrounding community.'' The 
     change does not appear to remove the LRA's decisional 
     authority from compliance with other statutes or regulations 
     by which DOD overseas and approves the actions of the LRA.
       My interest in this matter extends to the Ogden-Weber 
     School District which was granted eligibility by the Ogden 
     LRA to acquire a DDO warehouse. The District applied for a 
     public benefit allowance [``PBA''] to the Department of 
     Education [``ED''] under the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act (40 U.S.C. 484(k)(1)(A)); in 
     applying 34 CFR 12.15, ED allotted a 70 percent PBA, 
     asserting that the balance of the intended use did not serve 
     an educational purpose. I believe that ED misapplied the rule 
     in failing to realize that the balance of the facility, in 
     fact, intended an education-related use by storing materials 
     directly related to education.
       The principal use of the facility was clearly educational 
     in nature but involved a complex vocational program to train 
     automated material handling equipment operators. This 
     function required shelving, bins, conveyors, and warehouse 
     vehicles that consumed great amounts of space.
       My question, therefore, is twofold. First, can the District 
     make a ``split'' request for an educational PBA, with a 
     second PBA sought under the economic development category for 
     the balance of the space that did not qualify for the 
     education PBA? Second, whether the split filing procedure is 
     allowable or not, will the application for the PBA under the 
     economic development category, for whole or for part of the 
     facility, remain subject to the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act, in that the appropriate Federal 
     agency with jurisdiction rather than the Secretary of Defense 
     will determine the PBA? Or does the LRA make that 
     determination with final approval authority resting with the 
     Secretary of the Army?
       Your reply is requested at the earliest possible time so 
     that I may advise the District accordingly.
       I send my high regards.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Orrin G. Hatch.

  Mr. HATCH. What I'm saying, and I know the Senator from Virginia 
agrees, is that public education is no less important than economic 
development. And, when it comes to pushing the desperately underfunded 
school district to a position where it must purchase its facility, 
while some undefined economic development function gets a free 
conveyance, I can only conclude that the President has his priorities 
badly reversed, despite his rhetoric on the importance of education.
  At a time when we all seem to agree that we should do everything we 
can to help our state and local education agencies, we ought to be 
eliminating the requirement that local school districts jump through 
hoops just to be able to use surplus property--surplus because the 
community has already been hit by an economically devastating base 
closing.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the third reading of this 
historic bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will conduct a third reading.
  The bill (S. 1059) was read the third time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this 
historic piece of legislation. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back. The question 
is, Shall the bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) and 
the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Hollings), the Senator from New Jersey

[[Page S6274]]

(Mr. Lautenberg) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan), would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 154 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Feingold
     Kohl
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hollings
     Lautenberg
     Lugar
     Mack
     Moynihan
  The bill (S. 1059) as amended, was passed.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the bill was passed.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of S. 1060 through S. 
1062--that is Calendar Order Nos. 115, 116, and 117--that all after the 
enacting clause be stricken and the appropriate portion of S. 1059, as 
amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, according to the schedule which I 
send to the desk; that these bills be advanced to third reading and 
passed; that the motion to reconsider en bloc be laid upon the table; 
and that the above actions occur without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________