[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10944-10975]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 397

  (Purpose: To repeal the restriction on use of Department of Defense 
               facilities for privately funded abortions)

  Mr. MURRAY. 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 Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Ms. 
     Snowe, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Kerrey, 
     Mr. Schumer, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Jeffords, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 397.

  Mrs. MURRAY. 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 VII, at the end of subtitle B, add the following:

     SEC. 717. RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS POLICY REGARDING 
                   RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   MEDICAL FACILITIES.

       Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b); and
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a) Restriction on Use 
     of Funds.--''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this is the Murray-Snowe amendment that 
concerns our brave young women who serve in the military and their 
right to pay for their own safe, reproductive health care services. I 
am here today, again joined by Senator Snowe and many others, to offer 
our amendment to protect military personnel and their dependents' 
access to safe, affordable, and legal reproductive health care 
services.
  That is exactly what this amendment is all about--access to safe, 
affordable, and legal reproductive health care services. That is why 
the Department of Defense supports this amendment, as does the American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Department of Defense 
recognizes that it has a responsibility to ensure the safety of all of 
its troops, including our women.
  Many of you may wonder why Senator Snowe and I continue to offer this 
amendment year after year. Why don't we just give up? Let me tell my 
colleagues, the reason I come to the floor every year during the 
Department of Defense authorization bill is to continue to educate in 
the hope that a majority of you will finally stand up for all military 
personnel.
  As I have in the past, I come here today to urge my colleagues to 
guarantee to all military personnel and their dependents the same 
rights and guarantees that are enjoyed by all American citizens. These 
rights should not stop at our border. We should not ask military 
service women to surrender their rights to safe, affordable, legal 
reproductive health care services because they have made a commitment 
to serve our country.
  Many of our military personnel serve in hostile areas in countries 
that do not provide safe and legal abortion services. Military 
personnel and their families should not be forced to seek back-alley 
abortions, or abortions in facilities that do not meet the same 
standards that we expect and demand in this country. In many countries, 
women who seek abortions do so at great risk of harm. It is a 
terrifying process.
  I heard from a service woman in Japan who was forced to go off base 
to seek a legal abortion. Unfortunately, there was no guarantee of the 
quality of care, and the language barrier placed her at great risk. She 
had no way of understanding questions that were asked of her, and she 
had no way of communicating her questions or concerns during the 
procedure. Is that the kind of care that we want our service personnel 
to receive? Don't they deserve better? I am convinced that they do.
  This amendment is not--let me repeat is not--about Federal funding of 
abortions. The woman herself would be responsible for the cost of her 
care, not the taxpayer. This amendment simply allows women who are in 
our services to use existing military facilities that exist already to 
provide health care to active-duty personnel and their families. These 
clinics and hospitals are already functioning. There would be no added 
burden.
  I also want to point out that this amendment would not change the 
current conscience clause for medical personnel. Health care 
professionals who object to providing safe and legal health care 
services to women could still refuse to perform them. Nobody in the 
military would be forced to perform any procedure he or she objects to 
as a matter of conscience.
  For those of you who are concerned about Federal funding, I argue 
that current practice and policy results in more direct expenditures of 
Federal funds than simply allowing a woman herself to pay for the cost 
of this service at the closest medical military facility.
  Today, when a woman in the military needs an abortion or wants an 
abortion, she first has to approach her duty officer to request from 
him or her medical leave. Then she has to ask for transport to a U.S. 
base with access to legal abortion-related services. Her duty officer 
has to grant the request, remove her from active duty, and transport 
her to the United States. This is an expensive, taxpayer-funded, and 
inefficient system. Not only is there cost of transportation, but there 
is cost to military readiness when active personnel is removed for an 
extended period of time.
  As we all know, women are no longer simply support staff in the 
military. Women command troops and are in key military readiness 
positions. Their contributions are beyond dispute. While women serve 
side by side with their male counterparts, they are subjected to 
archaic and mean-spirited health care restrictions. Women in the 
military deserve our respect and they deserve better treatment.
  In addition to the cost and the loss of personnel, we have to ask: 
What is the impact on the woman's health? A woman who is stationed 
overseas can be forced to delay the procedure for several weeks until 
she can get her travel to the United States where she can get safe, 
adequate, legal health care. For many women, every week an abortion is 
delayed is a risk to her health.
  Why should a woman who is serving our country in the military be 
placed

[[Page 10945]]

at a greater risk than a woman who is not serving in the military?
  In talking about this amendment, I am often struck by how little some 
of my colleagues know about restrictions on reproductive health care 
services in many other countries. Many of my colleagues may be 
surprised to learn that in some countries abortions are illegal, and 
punishment is swift and brutal--not just against the provider but 
against the woman as well. In these cases, a back-alley abortion can be 
deadly. Not only are they risking their own health, but they are also 
risking their own safety and well-being.
  We are talking about women who are serving us overseas in the 
military. Why should we put our military personnel in this kind of 
danger?
  We are fortunate in this country, because abortion is an extremely 
safe procedure when it is performed by trained medical professionals. 
However, in the hands of untrained medical professionals in 
unsterilized facilities abortion can be dangerous and risky to a 
woman's health. The care that we expect--actually the care that we 
demand--is simply not universal.
  Regardless of what some of my colleagues may think about the 
constitutional ruling that guarantees a woman a right to a safe 
abortion without unnecessary burdens and obstacles, it is the law of 
our land. Roe v. Wade provides women in this country with a certain 
right and a guarantee. While some may oppose this right to choose, the 
Supreme Court and a majority of Americans support this right. However, 
active-duty servicewomen who are stationed overseas today surrender 
that right when they make the decision to volunteer and to defend all 
of us.
  It is sadly ironic that we send them overseas to protect our rights, 
yet in the process we take their rights away from them.
  I urge my colleagues to simply give women in the military the same 
protection whether they serve in the United States or overseas. Please 
allow women the right to make choices without being forced to violate 
their privacy, and, worse, jeopardize their health. This is and must be 
a personal decision. Women should not be subjected to the approval or 
disapproval of their coworkers or their superiors. This decision should 
be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor.
  The amendment that is before us simply upholds the Supreme Court 
decision. It is not about Federal funding. It is not about forcing 
those who constitutionally object to providing these services. It is 
simply about the degree that we recognize the role of women in the 
military and whether we give them the respect that I argue they 
deserve.
  Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, 
what time she would like to use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Washington for, once again, providing leadership on this most 
significant issue. As she said, it is regrettable that we have to come 
back to the floor to seek support for our women in uniform who happen 
to be assigned overseas for this very basic right. I commend her for 
introducing this legislation once again to repeal the ban on privately 
funded abortions at overseas military hospitals.
  It is unfortunate that this amendment is even necessary. It is 
unfortunate that we have to be here fighting for it once again. How 
could this debate be necessary? How can it be that this blatant wrong 
still needs to be righted? Yet, here we are, once again, having to 
argue a case that basically boils down to providing women who are 
serving this country overseas with the full range of constitutional 
rights, options, and choices that would be afforded them as American 
citizens on American soil.
  We are here today because the U.S. law denies the right to choose to 
227,000 spouses and dependents stationed with our servicemen overseas, 
and denies the right to choose for more than 27,000 servicewomen who 
volunteered to serve our country. Though these women are right now 
protecting our country's interests, year after year this body denies 
them access to safe and sanitary medical care simply because they were 
assigned to duty outside the United States.
  In very simple terms, this amendment will allow women stationed 
overseas that right to privately funded abortions at their local 
American military facility. It will allow women and their spouses the 
freedom to consider the most difficult, heart-wrenching decision they 
could make without fearing the potentially substandard care they would 
be faced with in a country that does not speak their language and that 
does not train their medical personnel the way in which they are here 
in the United States.
  I don't understand why we insist in denying our service men and women 
and their families their right as Americans. We ask a great deal of our 
military personnel and their families--low pay, long separations, 
hazardous duty. When they signed up to serve their country, I don't 
believe they were told, nor do I believe they were asked, to leave 
their freedom of choice at the ocean's edge. It is ironic that we are 
denying the very people who we ask to uphold democracy and freedom the 
basic and simple right to safe medical care. The Murray-Snowe amendment 
would overturn that ban and ensure that women and military dependents 
stationed overseas would have access to safe health care.
  I want to clarify the fact that overturning this ban doesn't mean we 
will be using Federal funds to support a procedure such as abortion. 
This would allow American personnel stationed overseas to use their own 
funds for the support of an abortion in a military hospital. It is very 
important to make that distinction.
  As the Senator from Washington indicated, there is also a clause so 
that medical personnel cannot be forced to perform a procedure with 
which they disagree.
  We had this ban lifted in 1993 restoring a woman's right to pay for 
abortion services with her own money. Unfortunately, that ban was 
reinstated back in 1995. I think it is important to understand what 
choices women are left with under our current policy.
  Imagine a young servicewoman or the wife of an enlisted man living in 
a foreign country where language is a barrier. She finds herself 
pregnant and, for whatever reason, she has made a very difficult 
decision to terminate her pregnancy and she wants to have that 
procedure done in a military hospital and is willing to pay for it with 
her own funds. Under current U.S. law, she won't be able to do that. 
She won't be able to go to a base hospital near her family and friends. 
She won't be assured of the same quality care that she could receive 
here in the United States. She won't be able to even communicate under 
some circumstances because language might be a barrier.
  So what are her choices? She must either find the time and the money 
to fly back to the United States to receive the health care she seeks, 
or possibly endanger her own health by seeking one in a foreign 
hospital, or she may have to fly to a third country, again where the 
medical services may not equate to those available at the military 
base--if she can't afford to return home.
  What is the freedom to choose? It is a freedom to make a decision 
without unnecessary government interference. Denying a woman the best 
available resources for her health care simply is not right. Current 
law does not provide a woman and her family the ability to make a 
choice. It gives the woman and her family no freedom of choice. It 
makes the choice for her.
  Our men and women in uniform--and the families standing behind them--
are our country's best and most valuable assets. When people sign up 
for military service, they promise us they will do their best to 
protect our country and its ideals. We promise them we will provide for 
them and their families the necessities of life--to provide them with 
the most advanced and the safest health care available. That is the 
arrangement. This is the benefit that we make available to them in 
return for their commitment to serve our country. Our men and women and 
their spouses should not be required to give up their constitutional 
protections,

[[Page 10946]]

and the Supreme Court supported right to privacy, and our promise of 
safe health care.
  Yet, we prohibit women from using their own money--not taxpayers 
dollars--to obtain the care they need at the local base hospital.
  What we are saying to our women in uniform, or to the dependents of 
others who serve in our military, is: Sorry. You are on your own. So 
she faces a circumstance that she would not confront were she stationed 
at Fort Lewis, WA, or Brunswick Naval Air Station in Brunswick, ME, 
because she could go off base and be guaranteed safe and legal medical 
care.
  The Murray-Snowe amendment is only asking for fair and equal 
treatment. It is saying to our men and women and their families, if you 
find yourself in a difficult situation, we will provide the service of 
safe medical care if you pay for it with your own money. Is that too 
much to ask?
  We owe it to our men and women in uniform. We owe it to them so that 
they have the options to receive the care they need in a safe 
environment. They do not deserve anything less.
  I urge my colleagues to join in voting for the Murray-Snowe 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, here we go again with the 
same amendment that comes up every year. The vote is always close. 
There are a lot of very strong feelings on both sides.
  Again, as I have in the past, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment--this time the Murray-Snowe amendment-- which would allow 
U.S. military facilities to be used for the performance of abortions on 
demand.
  Under current law, no funds may be made available to the Department 
of Defense for the performance of abortions. The amendment now before 
the Senate is completely inconsistent with the Hyde amendment, which 
has been existing law for 20 years. Under the Hyde amendment, no 
taxpayer dollars may be used to pay for abortions.
  The issue here is whether or not you want to basically throw out the 
Hyde amendment and say that Members are willing to have taxpayer 
dollars used to pay for abortions in military hospitals. The Hyde 
amendment recognizes that millions of American taxpayers believe that 
abortion is the taking of an innocent life, an unborn human being. 
Those Members, myself included, who proudly call ourselves pro-life 
should not be forced to pay for a procedure with our tax money that 
violates our fundamental and deeply held belief in the sanctity of 
innocent human life. That is the issue here.
  In the 1980 case of Harris versus McRae, the Supreme Court upheld the 
constitutionality of the Hyde amendment. The Court determined that 
there is no constitutional right to a taxpayer-funded abortion, no 
matter how we feel on the issue otherwise--no constitutional right, 
according to the Harris versus McRae decision in 1980.
  Current law with respect to abortions at military facilities, then, 
is fully consistent with the Hyde amendment. This amendment by the 
Senator from Washington will overturn existing law. The proponents of 
this amendment, which would overturn current law and allow abortion on 
demand at military facilities, claim that their proposal is somehow 
consistent with Hyde. It is not. They say this because, under their 
proposal, servicewomen seeking these abortions would pay for them. That 
is true.
  This argument, however, evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of the 
nature of military medical facilities. Military clinics and military 
hospitals, unlike private clinics and private hospitals, receive not 
10, not 20, not 30, not 90, but 100 percent of their funding from the 
taxpayers of the United States. A woman cannot go into a military 
hospital and use those facilities without the taxpayers paying for the 
facility she is using to have that abortion. The clinics, the 
hospitals, the doctors, the equipment--all of it is paid for by the 
U.S. taxpayer.
  Physicians who practice in those clinics and hospitals, government 
employees whose salaries and bills are paid by the taxpayers, all of 
it, all of the operational and administrative expenses associated with 
the practice of military medicine are paid for by the taxpayers of the 
United States.
  Furthermore, equipment that would be used at these facilities to 
perform the abortions, equipment that we abhor--those of us who are 
pro-life, who find it repulsive and reprehensible, and I won't go into 
the details about what happens with the equipment that is used on these 
innocent children--that equipment will be purchased by taxpayer 
dollars. It will be purchased by dollars that I pay in taxes and that 
many of my millions of friends around the Nation who oppose abortion, 
their dollars will be used to pay for this.
  The Supreme Court of the United States has said that that is wrong 
and they ruled in the McRae case that it should not be done. In short, 
it is simply impossible to allow the performance of abortions at 
military facilities, even if the procedure itself is paid for by the 
servicewoman involved, without having the taxpayers forced to subsidize 
it. You can't have it.
  The only way to protect the integrity of the taxpayer's dollars is to 
keep the military out of the business of abortion. We could go on and 
on, on just that issue. Just what business should the military be in? 
The military has gotten into a lot of things lately under this 
administration that don't belong in the realm of the military, but do 
we have to now go to the taking of the lives of unborn children and use 
the military to now do that? Do we have to really do that? Isn't it bad 
enough that we have to see throughout America since the illustrious Roe 
versus Wade decision in 1973--I ask everyone to reflect for a moment on 
what has happened since that decision.
  In 1973, Roe versus Wade was passed. Since that date, 35 million 
babies, that we know of, have been aborted. Let's define abortion: The 
taking of the life of an unborn child. Thirty-five million. If you look 
at the statistics of how many girls are born and how many boys are 
born, that probably translates into about 18 million young girls who 
would now be as old as 30 years, perhaps, depending on when the 
abortion might have been performed. How many of those 18 million young 
women may have had the opportunity to serve in the U.S. military? They 
don't get that chance because our country, our Nation, supported a 
Supreme Court decision that said they didn't have a chance to ever have 
the opportunity to serve in the military, never have the opportunity to 
be a mother, never to have the opportunity to be a daughter, never to 
have the opportunity to live their dreams, to enjoy the liberties of 
the United States of America--never to have that opportunity. Never to 
have the opportunity to fight for the freedom of the United States as a 
member of the military because they were aborted--they were killed in 
the womb.
  This Nation, through this Supreme Court decision, allowed it to 
happen. That is beyond the dignity, to put it mildly, of a great 
nation. We let it happen.
  It is bad enough that happened, but now we have to go one step 
further with the amendment of the Senator from Washington and say that 
the taxpayers have to fund it.
  Mr. President, I wish everyone who will vote on this amendment in the 
next hour or so had had the opportunity I have had to personally meet a 
young woman who is now in her midtwenties. She could not serve in the 
military because she was not physically able to serve in the military. 
Let me tell you why she could not serve in the military. She was 
aborted, and she lived, and she is crippled. So she cannot serve in the 
military. I have met this young woman, as many have. There are many 
like her, but I use her as an example, Gianna Jessen. Who knows, maybe 
Gianna would have liked to have been a woman in the military, but she 
cannot.
  Why do we not wake up in America and understand what we are doing? 
Should we really be surprised when our children do some of the things 
they do in this country? Why should we be surprised? What is the 
underlying message? And this amendment sends the same message.
  The underlying message is: Go to school today, Johnny. Go to school

[[Page 10947]]

today, Mary. You be good kids. You do the right thing. And meanwhile, 
while you are at school, we will abort your brother or your sister.
  That is the message we are giving to our kids. That is the message 
this amendment is giving to our kids. That is the message this 
amendment is giving to all Americans--that now we are going to say the 
taxpayers can support this kind of thing.
  I wish the Senator from Washington would come down here on the floor 
with an amendment that might say we could provide a little help, a 
little counseling, a little love, a little compassion, a little 
understanding to this woman who wants this abortion, and explain to her 
the beauty of life and explain to her what a great opportunity it would 
be for her to have that child and to have that child grow up into a 
world where that child could be loved and could be understood and could 
have the opportunity to perhaps follow her mother's ambitions and serve 
in the U.S. military or perhaps to follow in her mother's wake and be a 
mother herself, to enjoy the fruits of the greatest nation in the 
world.
  Let's not agree to this amendment and violate the spirit of the Hyde 
amendment and violate more unborn children, intrude into the womb, take 
the lives of unborn children.
  When are we going to wake up? Would it not be wonderful to come down 
on the floor of the Senate just one year when we did not have to deal 
with this, when people would respect life and we would be offering 
amendments to protect life rather than to take it. That is an America I 
am dreaming of, Mr. President. That is an America I would like to see 
in the 21st century, not an America of death but an America of life, 
where we respect life.
  Allowing abortion on demand in military facilities would violate the 
moral and religious convictions of millions and millions and millions, 
tens of millions, of Americans who believe, through their own religious 
convictions, or in any other way, as I do, that the unborn child has a 
fundamental right to life, a right to life that comes from the 
Declaration of Independence, from the Constitution, and from God 
Himself. Yes, from God Himself. That is where it comes from, and we do 
not have the right to take it.
  For the sake of one or two votes on the floor of the Senate, in a 
very few minutes we are going to make that decision. Whichever way it 
goes, we are going to find out how many more children have to die. How 
many more children have to die?
  When are we going to wake up, America? How much more of this do we 
have to take? Why are you surprised when your children do something 
wrong? What kind of message do we send?
  This amendment is not about the so-called right to choose abortion 
that the Supreme Court created in 1993. I disagree with Roe v. Wade. 
Everybody knows that. I just said it. I introduced a bill, S. 907, that 
would reverse Roe v. Wade, establishing that the right to life comes 
with conception and protecting that life. I dream of the America of the 
future when we will respect it.
  But, as I said, this amendment is not about the larger issue of 
abortion; it is about taxpayer funding of abortion. Millions and 
millions of pro-life Americans, who believe to the very core of our 
being that abortion is the taking of an innocent life, should not be 
forced to pay for abortions, not directly, not indirectly, not any way 
you can define it, with taxpayer dollars.
  I urge my colleagues, no matter what their personal views are, to 
reject this amendment, to vote to preserve current law, to vote to 
protect and be consistent with the Hyde amendment. Let's get the 
military involved in protecting America and not taking innocent 
children's lives.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment Senator Smith for his 
remarks. I join him in urging our colleagues to vote ``yes'' in favor 
of the tabling motion, to vote ``no'' on the Murray amendment.
  Abortion is not a fringe benefit. People talk about a benefit that 
other people have. Abortion is the taking of a human life, so it should 
not be just a fringe benefit that is provided for at Government expense 
or provided for in Government hospitals. These are military hospitals. 
They do not have abortionists working in those hospitals. They have not 
been allowed through 1992. It was a change in the Executive order by 
the Clinton administration in 1993, saying we are going to have those. 
In 1993 and 1994, because of an Executive order--not because of a 
change in Congress--the Clinton administration said we want to provide 
abortions at military hospitals.
  Guess what. They could not find abortionists. They could not find 
doctors to perform abortions at military hospitals, because they had 
been prohibited for at least 10 years, if not 12 years before, when 
that was not the case. The Hyde amendment said we are not going to use 
Federal funds to provide abortions. We did not have abortions performed 
at military hospitals. The Clinton administration tried to change that. 
They did not have anybody to do it. They tried to recruit them.
  We changed the law in 1995. The Murray amendment would change it back 
by saying to military hospitals: You must provide abortions--a fringe 
benefit. Granted, maybe the person receiving the abortion now would 
have to pay a little bit, but the military is going to have to find 
somebody to perform them. They are going to have to make sure they have 
somebody who is trained to do it, and trained to do it right. So they 
are going to have to hire people to perform abortions, people right now 
they do not have--they have not been able to find them. Frankly, in 
1993 and 1994 we changed the law. Congress changed the law in 1995, and 
I think they were right in doing so.
  I think it would be a mistake for Congress to overrule that now and 
say we think that should be a standard benefit that is provided in 
Government military hospitals all across the world, so it could be 
basically a fringe benefit, it could be standard operating procedure--
yes, anybody can get an abortion in a military hospital. It would be a 
method of birth control. I think that would be a serious mistake.
  We have to realize, it is not a fringe benefit; it is the taking of 
an innocent human being's life. So I urge my colleagues to support 
Senator Smith in the tabling motion with respect to the Murray 
amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we all recognize that the bottom line of 
our national defense is quality of our men and women in uniform. They 
are the core of our security. They make a commitment to the defense of 
this nation, and we make a commitment to them that includes access to 
high quality health care. Women serving overseas are particularly 
reliant on this commitment, as they often have no alternative access to 
quality health care.
  The issue of abortion is a matter of individual conscience. The 
Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the decision whether to have an 
abortion belonged to the individual, not the government. Yet, for 
American servicewomen, that right to choose is effectively being taken 
away from them. They are being denied access, even at no expense to the 
Government, to a safe medical procedure. In most cases, the service 
woman does not have access to this procedure anywhere else.
  American servicewomen have agreed to put their lives on the line to 
defend this country. But yet we are denying them a basic right that all 
other women are allowed--one that could easily be granted to them at no 
expense to the federal government. The Murray-Snowe amendment provides 
that the woman involved would reimburse the government for the full 
cost of the procedure. In my mind, this is a basic matter of fairness. 
I would argue that our military women should not be singled out to be 
unjustly discriminated. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to 
table the Murray-Snowe amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment, which 
will at long last remove the unfair ban on privately-funded abortions

[[Page 10948]]

at U.S. military facilities overseas. This amendment will right a 
serious wrong in current policy, and ensure that women serving overseas 
in the armed forces can fairly exercise their constitutionally-
guaranteed right to choose.
  This is an issue of fundamental fairness for the large numbers of 
women who make significant sacrifices to serve our Nation. They serve 
on military bases around the world to protect our freedoms. In turn, it 
is our responsibility in Congress to protect theirs. It is wrong for us 
to deny these women who serve our country with such distinction the 
same medical care available to all women in the United States. Women 
who serve overseas should be able to depend on military base hospitals 
for their medical needs. They should not be forced to choose between 
lower quality medical care in a foreign country, or travelling back to 
the United States for the care they need. Congress has a responsibility 
to provide safe medical care for those serving our country at home and 
abroad.
  Without proper care, abortion can be a life-threatening or 
permanently disabling procedure. This danger is an unacceptable burden 
to impose on the nation's dedicated servicewomen. They should not be 
exposed to substantial risks of infection, illness, infertility, and 
even death, when appropriate care can easily be made available to them.
  This measure does not ask that these procedures be paid for with 
federal funds. It simply asks that servicewomen overseas have the same 
access to all medical services as their counterparts at home.
  In addition to the health risks imposed by the current unfair policy, 
there is also a significant financial burden on servicewomen who make 
the difficult decision to have an abortion. The cost of returning to 
the United States from far-off bases in other parts of the world can 
often result in significant financial hardship for young women. 
Servicewomen in the United States do not have to bear this burden, 
since non-military hospital facilities are readily available. It is 
unfair to ask those serving abroad to suffer this financial penalty.
  If military personnel are unable to pay for a trip to the United 
States on their own, they often face significant delays while waiting 
for available military transportation. Each week, the health risks 
faced by these women increase. If there are long delays in obtaining a 
military flight, the women may decide to rely on questionable medical 
facilities overseas. As a practical matter, these women in uniform are 
being denied their constitutionally-protected right to choose.
  A woman's decision to have an abortion is a very difficult and 
extremely personal one. It is wrong to impose an even heavier burden on 
women who serve our country overseas. Every woman in the United States 
has a constitutionally-guaranteed right to choose whether or not to 
terminate her pregnancy. It is time for Congress to stop denying this 
right to women serving abroad. It is time for Congress to stop treating 
service women as second-class citizens. I urge the Senate to support 
the Murray-Snowe amendment and end this flagrant injustice under 
current law.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by Senators Murray and Snowe. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  This amendment would repeal the current ban on privately funded 
abortions at US military facilities overseas.
  I strongly support this amendment for three reasons. First of all, 
safe and legal access to abortion is the law. Second, women serving 
overseas should have access to the same range of medical services they 
would have if they were stationed here at home. Third, this amendment 
would protect the health and well-being of military women. It would 
ensure that they are not forced to seek alternative medical care in 
foreign countries without regard to the quality and safety of those 
health care services. We should not treat US servicewomen as second-
class citizens when it comes to receiving safe and legal medical care.
  It is a matter of simple fairness that our servicewomen, as well as 
the spouses and dependents of servicemen, be able to exercise their 
right to make health care decisions when they are stationed abroad. 
Women who are stationed overseas are often totally dependent on their 
base hospitals for medical care. Most of the time, the only access to 
safe, quality medical care is in a military facility. We should not 
discriminate against female military personnel by denying safe abortion 
services just because they are stationed overseas. They should be able 
exercise the same freedoms they would enjoy at home. It is 
reprehensible to suggest that a woman should not be able use her own 
funds to pay for access to safe and quality medical care. Without this 
amendment, military women will continue to be treated like second-class 
citizens.
  The current ban on access to reproductive services is yet another 
attempt to cut away at the constitutionally protected right of women to 
choose. It strips military women of the very rights they were recruited 
to protect. Abortion is a fundamental right for women in this country. 
It has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court.
  Let's be very clear. What we're talking about here today is the right 
of women to obtain a safe and legal abortion paid for with their own 
funds. We are not talking about using any taxpayer or federal money--we 
are talking about privately funded medical care. We are not talking 
about reversing the conscience clause--no military medical personnel 
would be compelled to perform an abortion against their wishes.
  This is an issue of fairness and equality for the women who sacrifice 
every day to serve our nation. They deserve access to the same quality 
care that servicewomen stationed here at home--and every woman in 
America--has each day. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
amendment to the 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Murray amendment 
because it proposes to legalize the destruction of innocent unborn 
babies at military facilities. And Mr. President, if precious unborn 
babies are allowed to be slaughtered on military grounds, it will be a 
stark contradiction to the main purpose of our national defense--the 
defense and protection of the human lives in America.
  Small wonder that the men and women serving in the military are 
losing faith in the leadership of this country. In fact, Congress 
recently heard from members of the Air Force, Navy, Army, and Marines 
who testified about the low morale among U.S. service men and women--
which they contribute to a general loss of faith and trust.
  After all, the military establishment continues to have its moral 
walls chipped away by the immoral principles of the extreme liberal-
left. In fact, the American people would be shocked and disturbed to 
learn that our military has been pressured to accept Witchcraft as a 
recognized religion.
  Why would Congress wish to demoralize our military folks further by 
casting a dark cloud over military grounds--which is precisely what 
will happen if abortions are to be performed at these facilities.
  Let us not forget, America's military is made up of fine men and 
women possessing the highest level of integrity and pride in defending 
their country. These are men and women who have been selfless in 
dedicating their lives to a deep held belief that freedom belongs to 
all.
  Senators should not mince words in saying that military doors should 
be shut closed to abortionists. I urge Senators to vote against this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues, what this 
amendment does is simply allow a woman who is serving in the military 
overseas to use her own money to have an abortion performed in a 
military hospital at her expense.
  I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California.

[[Page 10949]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murray for yielding me 
this time. It is so hard to know where to begin to respond to the 
comments made by both of my colleagues who are the leaders in the anti-
choice movement and who are using this amendment as a reason to once 
more come to this floor and to attack a basic constitutional right, 
that women have been granted, that they do not agree with.
  So what has been their effort? It is, in essence, to take away that 
right bit by bit. I hate to say this: They have made great progress. 
They have taken away the right to choose in many ways, from poor women 
in this country, by denying them funding. A woman in D.C. cannot 
exercise that right, even if she does not use Federal funds but 
locally-raised funds. They no longer teach surgical abortion at medical 
schools as a result of the action of this anti-choice Congress.
  Women in the military, as we now know, are denied the right to go to 
a safe military hospital. Native American women who rely on Indian 
health care cannot go to that health care center and obtain a legal 
abortion.
  I want to make a statement, and I sure would like a response: Women 
in Federal prison who need to have this legal procedure get treated 
better than women in the military overseas. Let me repeat that. Under 
the laws of this Congress, women in Federal prison get treated better 
than women in the military who are stationed overseas when both need to 
have this procedure.
  Under our rules, if a woman is in a Federal prison, she cannot count 
on Medicaid, that is so. But if there is an escort committee who can 
take her to get this procedure paid for privately, she gets that escort 
committee. What happens to a woman in the military? Suppose you are 
stationed in Saudi Arabia where abortion is illegal, and you cannot go 
to your military hospital. You, obviously, cannot go to a clean health 
facility in Saudi Arabia, so you have two choices: You can go to a 
back-alley abortionist and risk your life--you are already risking your 
life in the military--but risk your life or you can go to your 
commander, who is usually a man, and confide in him as to your 
situation which, it seems to me, is a horrible thing to have to do, to 
tell such a private matter to a commander. Then, if you can get a seat 
on a C-17 cargo plane, maybe then you can go back, in a situation where 
you really need immediate attention, and figure out a way to get a 
safe, legal abortion.
  The Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Oklahoma say: 
Well, this is Federal funding.
  This is not Federal funding. Senator Murray has stated that over and 
over. I compliment her and Senator Snowe on their tenacity in bringing 
this back and forcing us to look at what we are doing to women in the 
military who risk their lives every single day, and because of this 
antichoice Senate, we are forcing them to put their lives at risk 
again. I commend them. This is not a fringe benefit. They will pay.
  Medical facilities abroad are in a state of readiness. They do not 
have to turn the lights on when someone comes in for a health care 
procedure. The lights are on, and they will pay the costs. We all know 
when we pay our doctors the overhead is put into that bill. That is 
such a bogus argument. It is amazing that it is even made.
  What you are doing in this current policy is telling women in the 
military they are lesser citizens than all the other women in the 
country when, in fact, they ought to be treated with even more dignity 
and respect perhaps than anyone else, because not many of us can say 
that we go to work every day putting our lives on the line. They can 
say that. Yet, because of this terrible way we treat these women, they 
are put in jeopardy.
  I will sum it up this way. There are people in this Senate who 
disagree with the Supreme Court decision, and I say to my friend from 
New Hampshire, he certainly does and he does not mince words about it 
and he is very straightforward about it. He says he is proud to be pro-
life.
  I ask for 1 more minute.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 30 additional seconds to the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, I am for life--lives of children, 
lives of women, and I say that this policy puts lives in jeopardy, puts 
lives on the line in a way that is arbitrary, in a way that is 
capricious, in a way that treats these women far worse than we do women 
in Federal prison. I hope the Murray-Snowe amendment will get an 
overwhelming vote today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The time of the Senator has 
expired. Who yields time? The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Washington, as well as the 
Senator from Maine, for offering this amendment, which I will support. 
I join in saying what the Senator from New Hampshire said earlier. 
Senator Smith suggested this is not a debate in which we are anxious to 
get involved. It is a very controversial issue, deeply felt on both 
sides. I respect the Senator from New Hampshire and his personal views 
on this, as I respect those who support my position in offering a vote 
in favor of this amendment.
  Let me say a few things that need to be cleared up. The Senator from 
New Hampshire said repeatedly that this process uses taxpayer dollars 
to pay for abortion. Of course, that is a flash point. When people hear 
that, they say: Wait, I don't think we ought to spend taxpayer dollars 
on that. Maybe people want to do that personally.
  Senator Murray addressed that point. Her amendment makes it clear 
that these procedures are to be paid for by the servicewoman out of her 
pocket at a cost that is assessed for the procedure itself. There are 
no taxpayer dollars involved in this. This amendment is clear.
  Secondly, the Senator from New Hampshire says this does not abide by 
the Hyde amendment. The Hyde amendment, as important as it is, does not 
override Roe v. Wade. The Hyde amendment limits abortions to those 
cases involving the life of the mother. But the procedure now on 
military bases goes beyond the Hyde amendment. The procedure on 
military bases today says if there is an endangerment of the woman's 
life, she can have the abortion performed at a military hospital at 
Government expense. If she is a victim of rape or incest, she can have 
an abortion performed at a military hospital at her own expense.
  We are talking about the other universe of possibilities out there. 
Senator Boxer of California really poses an interesting challenge to 
us: Two women, under the supervision of the Government of the United 
States of America, both of them pregnant, both of them wanting to end 
the pregnancy with a procedure. In one case, we say if you have the 
money, we will escort you to a safe and legal clinic in America for the 
performance of this procedure. In the other case, we say if you have 
the money, you have to fend for yourself; you cannot use a safe and 
legal clinic or military hospital.
  What is the difference? The first woman is a prisoner in the Federal 
Prison System. For her, we have an escort committee. But for the woman 
who has volunteered to serve the United States to defend our country 
and she is in the same circumstance, we say: You're on your own; go out 
in this country, wherever it might be, and try to find someone who will 
perform this procedure safely and legally.
  Whether you are for abortion or against it, simple justice requires 
us to apply it equally and not to discriminate against those women who 
are serving in the American military. That is what it comes down to.
  The Senator from Oklahoma said abortion is not a fringe benefit. He 
is right. But health care is a fringe benefit that most Americans 
enjoy, and many hospitalization insurance policies cover abortion 
procedures. We do not cover them when it comes to the women who serve 
in the U.S. military. Abortion is not a fringe benefit; abortion is a 
constitutional right. If that

[[Page 10950]]

constitutional right means anything, we should support the Murray-Snowe 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 4 minutes 12 
seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I retain the last minute for myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Washington.
  I support this amendment. I believe a woman should have a right to 
choose, and under the circumstances involved here, if the woman is 
going to seek an abortion, she should not be compelled to come back to 
the United States. Having an abortion in many foreign spots poses very 
material risks. This is a common sense abortion amendment which ought 
to be adopted.


          War Crimes Tribunal Indictment of Slobodan Milosevic

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to comment about another matter 
very relevant to the pending legislation, that is the dispatch from 
Reuters within the hour that the War Crimes Tribunal has issued an 
indictment for President Milosevic and that an arrest warrant has 
already been signed. I think that is very important news, because it 
not only puts Milosevic on notice but also all of his subordinates, 
that the War Crimes Tribunal means business, that those who are 
responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes will be 
prosecuted.
  I compliment Justice Louise Arbour who was in Washington on April 30, 
asking a bipartisan group of Senators, including this Senator, for 
assistance; and we appropriated some $18 million in the emergency 
supplemental last week.
  The next important point is to be sure that we do not permit a plea 
bargain to be entered into which will exonerate Milosevic as part of 
any peace settlement.
  We ought to be sure this prosecution is carried forward. There is an 
abundance of evidence apparent to the naked eye from the television 
reports on atrocities, of mass murders, which can only be carried out 
with the direction of or at least concurrence or acquiescence of 
President Milosevic. Those crimes should not go unpunished. There 
should not be a compromise or a plea bargain which would give Milosevic 
immunity.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter dated March 30 to 
the President be printed in the Record, where I ask specifically that 
the extradition of President Milosevic to face indictments ought to be 
a precondition to stopping the NATO airstrikes; and a copy of my letter 
of April 30, to the President urging that warrants be issued and 
executed for Karadzic, and that the full impact of the War Crimes 
Tribunal be carried out, that this is a very important movement, 
probably worth a great deal more than airstrikes or even ground forces, 
to indict Milosevic, let him know that indictments and warrants are 
outstanding, and that those under him who carry out war crimes will be 
prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                               Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

                                   Washington, DC, March 30, 1999.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: If today's reports are accurate, there 
     is strong evidence that Serbian forces' massacres of Kosovo's 
     ethnic Albanians constitute genocide and crimes against 
     humanity, which should be prosecuted in the War Crimes 
     Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
       There is probable cause to conclude that Serbian President 
     Slobodan Milosevic himself is a war criminal, just as former 
     Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger said as far back as 
     1992.
       I strongly urge you to:
       (1) Put President Milosevic and his co-conspirators, who 
     carried out the massacres and crimes against humanity, on 
     explicit notice that the United States will throw its full 
     weight behind criminal prosecution against all of them at The 
     Hague;
       (2) seek similar declarations from our allies;
       (3) turn over all existing evidence to Justice Arbour, the 
     Chief Prosecutor at the War Crimes Tribunal, and make it an 
     Allied priority to gather any additional evidence which can 
     be obtained against President Milosevic and his confederates, 
     so that such evidence might be evaluated at the earliest 
     possible time with a view to obtaining the appropriate 
     indictments.
       I anticipate some will say that we should not complicate 
     possible cease-fire negotiations with this focus on President 
     Milosevic and his co-conspirators.
       I believe that consideration should be given to whether our 
     goals in Kosovo should include the extradition of President 
     Milosevic to face indictments, if returned, as a precondition 
     to ending NATO air strikes.
       That is a hard judgment to make at this point. Many of us 
     in Congress believe that the United States should meet the 
     Serbian brutality with a very strong response so that future 
     tyrants will know that this type of conduct will not help 
     them personally in negotiations, but instead will be met with 
     tough criminal prosecutions in accordance with international 
     criminal law.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                               Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

                                   Washington, DC, April 30, 1999.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: This morning, I hosted a meeting with 
     several of my colleagues and Justice Louise Arbour, Chief 
     Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the 
     Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY).
       As a result of our meeting, I believe it is critical that 
     the United States take the lead in bringing indicted war 
     criminals to justice in the former Yugoslavia. Specifically, 
     I urge you in the strongest possible terms to direct United 
     States Forces, Europe, as part of UNSFOR, to apprehend 
     Radovan Karadzic and a number of other individuals in Bosnia 
     for whom open or sealed indictments have been returned by the 
     ICTY, and whose identities and locations are known to SFOR 
     Commanders.
       While many of us in Congress support the current air 
     campaign, we are concerned that not enough is being done to 
     convey to Serbian military and paramilitary commanders that 
     they will be held responsible following the conflict for any 
     war crimes they commit on the ground in Kosovo.
       Mr. Karadzic has been an indicted war criminal since 1995, 
     and his location is known to SFOR commanders. According to 
     Justice Arbour, SFOR knows the location and identity of ``a 
     handful'' of other individuals under sealed indictments for 
     war crimes. Clearly, U.S. and SFOR units in Bosnia are 
     sufficiently strong to apprehend these individuals if given 
     that mission.
       While there are always concerns of friendly casualties and 
     ethnic unrest in the surprise apprehension of indicted war 
     criminals, the signal of seriousness that such a move would 
     send to every Serbian official from President Milosevic on 
     down is important enough under present circumstances for you 
     to shift our policy accordingly.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter,
                                                         Chairman.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator has expired.


                           amendment no. 397

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 5 additional 
minutes of our time to the Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  The Senator has 6 minutes 2 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank my colleague 
from New Hampshire for his generosity. I truly appreciate it.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I commend my colleagues, the Senator from Washington and the Senator

[[Page 10951]]

from Maine, for presenting this amendment, on a very important issue, 
to the body today for us to discuss and to walk through. She has 
courageously offered this amendment for many, many years, and each year 
we seem to gain some support. I hope this year we will gain enough 
support to make this amendment part of the law of our land, because it 
makes such common sense and good sense.
  When we ask women to join our military--and we are truly recruiting 
them rather vigorously, because we need their strength and their talent 
and their abilities to help make our military be the strongest and the 
best in the world--it is just inconceivable that we would say: Come 
join the military. Put on the uniform. Put yourself in harm's way. But 
we are simply not going to extend to you all of the rights that are 
guaranteed to other Americans for medical decisions that should be 
yours to make. It just makes no sense.
  So I urge Senators, regardless of how you might feel about this 
issue--and good arguments have been made on both sides--to think about 
this as it truly is--not asking for any new privileges, not asking for 
any expansion of the law, but simply to allow the women who we are 
recruiting at this age to serve in the military, to give them the 
medical options they may need at a very tough time for them.
  One other point I want to make is, those who have opposed this 
amendment over the years have said: We most certainly would not mind 
except that we do not want this to be at Government expense. Let me 
remind everyone that this is not at Government expense, that these 
women are individuals prepared to pay whatever medical costs are 
associated with the procedures that they may need.
  But if we do not change the law to allow this to happen, the 
taxpayers have to pick up a greater burden in transporting these women, 
sometimes in transport and cargo airplanes and helicopters back to the 
United States, which takes time away from their service. I argue that 
costs substantially more, than the taxpayers are underwriting, for 
medical procedures.
  So it makes no sense from a military standpoint--for human rights, 
for civil rights, for equal rights--to just have the same laws apply. 
It really makes no sense for the taxpayers to have to pick up an 
additional expense, when every dollar is so precious that we need to 
allocate well and wisely in our military.
  So I thank the Senator from Maine, the Senator from Washington, and 
others, who have spoken. I urge my colleagues, regardless of how you 
consider yourself or label yourself on this issue, to think of this as 
the right, commonsense thing to do for women and their families, their 
dependents, and, yes, their spouses, their husbands in the military, 
for our families who are in the military, serving at our request to 
protect our flag, to protect democracy, to protect freedom around the 
world, to please consider that in their votes this afternoon.
  I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Washington 
State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 7 minutes 
30 seconds; the Senator from Washington has 2 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I just want to respond to 
one point that was made on the other side regarding the payback, if you 
will, the fact that the woman agrees to pay out of her own pocket, 
therefore, I would assume the issue is that she would reimburse the 
Government.
  But I would ask one to consider the accounting nightmare that would 
ensue as we try to figure out--we had a doctor paid for by the 
taxpayers, a clinic, a hospital paid for by the taxpayers, equipment 
paid for by the taxpayers, and supplies and special equipment involving 
abortions--how one would allocate all of this?
  We would have to figure out, how many abortions were done and how all 
the allocations would be done. It simply is not workable. It would not 
work. The bottom line, as I have been indicating, is that the taxpayers 
would be subsidizing abortions in military hospitals. I think everyone 
understands that. I do not think there should be any confusion on that, 
that those who do not support abortion would be subsidizing abortions.
  I just want to review, in closing, the current law. Just to 
summarize, no funds made available to DOD are used for abortions. Under 
current law, military facilities are prohibited, in most cases, in the 
performance of abortions. So the amendment now before the Senate is 
inconsistent with the Hyde amendment, which has been in existence for 
over 20 years, that taxpayer dollars may not be used to pay for 
abortions.
  Current law, with respect to abortions at military facilities, is 
fully consistent with the Hyde amendment. The proponents of this 
amendment, which would overturn current law and allow abortion on 
demand, claim that their proposal is somehow consistent. As I said 
before, it is not. Under their proposal, women seeking abortions would 
pay for them, but this evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of the 
nature of military medical facilities, which I pointed out.
  In conclusion, I say that it is just simply unfair, and it has been 
so ruled by the Supreme Court, that people, who, because of their own 
values and beliefs and principles, do not believe in abortion, that 
they should have to subsidize it with their tax dollars or pay for it 
with their tax dollars. That is the issue.
  We have had a vote on this issue many years in the past. I hope 
people will see the light to see that this is wrong and basically 
unfair, and that we would respect the innocence of human life, and 
perhaps encourage the young woman in trouble to talk to a chaplain. 
There are military chaplains out there, and some darn good ones, who 
are available to counsel young women in need.
  I would certainly be very excited to hear that some of these women 
went to the chaplain because this law didn't get changed and perhaps 
chose life over abortion.
  At this point, I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me conclude by letting my colleagues 
know that under current law today, a woman who volunteers to serve all 
of us, to protect all of us and our rights, when she goes overseas to 
serve us and finds herself in a situation where she requires an 
abortion, which is a legal procedure guaranteed by the Constitution in 
this country, has to go to her commanding officer and request 
permission to come home to the United States, flying home on a C-17, or 
a helicopter when one is available, to have a procedure that women here 
in this country who have not volunteered to serve overseas have at 
their disposal.
  We are asking a lot of these young women. We should at least provide 
them the opportunity, as we do under my amendment, to pay for that 
procedure in a military hospital, where it will be safe, at their own 
expense. That is the least we should be offering them.
  In a few moments we will be voting on this amendment. My colleague 
from New Hampshire has said the vote is close. Every vote will count. 
There is no doubt about it. So when you cast your vote today, ask 
yourself if women who serve us overseas to defend our rights should be 
asked to give up their rights when they get on that plane and they are 
sent overseas.
  This is an issue which sends a message to all young people today that 
when they serve us in the military to protect our rights, we are going 
to be here to defend their rights as well. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against the motion to table.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 seconds remaining.

[[Page 10952]]


  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
motion to table and to stand with the women and men who serve us 
overseas.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to do 
just the opposite and to support a motion that I am going to make in a 
moment to table, out of respect for those of us who believe deeply in 
the sanctity of life and who also understand and are compassionate 
about young women who are in need of an abortion, or feel that they are 
in need of an abortion in some way, and who hope we could save that 
life, that innocent life, and to show compassion for the unborn, which 
I think is really the issue.
  At this point, I move to table the Murray 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. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 397. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 148 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment No. 395

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the managers are desiring to turn to the 
Senator from Nebraska who desires additional time. Can we enter into a 
colloquy on this subject?
  Mr. KERREY. I think we should be able to finish this up in an hour. I 
have four people on our side who want to speak. I don't know if they 
will all get to the floor. If they don't, they are aware of what is 
going on. I have no more than 15 or 20 minutes of closing remarks 
myself. I think we can wrap it up in an hour.
  Mr. WARNER. I realize that what I offered to the Senator is hopefully 
a reduced period of time. In return, there would be no further debate 
on this side. That is a fairly generous offer. I thought we were in the 
area of 40 minutes.
  Mr. KERREY. We can do it in 40 minutes and probably less than that.
  Mr. WARNER. With that representation, I ask unanimous consent that we 
proceed to the amendment by the Senator from Nebraska for a time not to 
exceed 40 minutes under the control of the Senator from Nebraska and, 
say, 5 minutes under the control of the Senator from Virginia, making a 
total of 45 minutes. At the conclusion of that we will proceed to a 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia did not state 
this. Does this mean there will be no amendments offered prior to the 
vote on my amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know of no amendments at this point. I 
ask unanimous consent that prior to the motion to table there be no 
amendments in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, again, this amendment strikes language 
that requires the United States of America to make its determination 
about how many strategic weapons we will have based upon a decision by 
the Russian Duma to ratify START II.
  Some have described this amendment as encouraging unilateral 
disarmament. Nothing could be further from the truth. We make 
unilateral decisions and we decide what our forces are going to look 
like. On that basis, this entire bill is a unilateral decision. We 
haven't consulted with the Russians to determine what our Army is going 
to look like, how many divisions we will have, how many wings we will 
have in our Air Force. We have not made any consultation nor have we 
given the Russians a veto over any other part of our defense except for 
strategic defenses.
  There we say that even if, as is the case, we have former STRATCOM 
commanders--in this case, Eugene Habiger--saying we would be well 
advised to go to a lower level, it would keep the United States of 
America safer than we currently are. As a consequence not only of 
measuring accurately how many nuclear weapons we needed in our triad--
the land, sea and air-based system that we developed over the years--
the greatest threat of nuclear attack to the United States of America 
is not China, is not an authorized launch by the Nation of Russia, it 
is an unauthorized launch. That risk has increased over the past few 
years as the Russian economy declines. As a consequence of that 
decline, they have decreased capacity to control their systems. This is 
not a small item. This is a significant threat to the United States of 
America.
  One of the points I have tried to make is that we have been lulled 
into a false sense of complacency as a consequence of the end of the 
cold war. Statements are made that we are no longer targeting the 
Russians, nor they us.
  In the past, I have not supported an early deployment of the 
strategic defense initiative, of missile defense. I have come to the 
conclusion as a consequence of this threat and others that the United 
States of America should. That is a unilateral decision. We made that 
decision not based upon what the Russians wanted but what we believed 
was in our best interest to keep America safe. That is how we ought to 
make our decisions about what our level is going to be of our force 
structure for nuclear weapons.
  Not only are the people of the United States of America at greater 
risk as a consequence of forcing the Russians to maintain 6,000 at the 
end of 2001, but we are laboring under the optimistic scenario that 
maybe the Russians will ratify START II, in which case we can go to 
lower levels. But even at START II levels, the Russians would not be to 
3,500 warheads until 2007.
  We have to put an awful lot of our national security chips in the 
possibility that Russia will be in better shape in 2007 than it is 
today. These weapons systems are much more dangerous than the weapons 
systems in vogue today. There are serious threats from chemical 
weapons, from biological weapons, from weapons of mass destruction in 
that category, serious threats from terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden, 
serious threats as well that come from cyberwarfare and other sorts of 
things we are having conferences on all the time. China is 
unquestionably a threat, especially in the area of proliferation. But 
none of these, or all of them taken together, combined, are as big a 
threat as unauthorized launch of Russian nuclear weapons.
  I hope, regardless of how this amendment turns out, the Senate will 
turn

[[Page 10953]]

its attention to dealing with this threat. I think we are much better 
off dealing with that threat with a different strategy than the old 
arms control strategy. This is not an amendment that says we are going 
to tie our national security to START I or START II. Quite the 
contrary, I do not expect START II to be ratified in the next couple of 
years, if that, if it ever is ratified by the Duma. We should not hold 
up our national security decisions based upon what we expect or do not 
expect the Russian Duma to do.
  I would like to describe some of these weapons systems so people can 
understand the danger of them, the kind of destruction they could do to 
the United States of America. The Russians have in their land-based 
system 3,590 warheads. They have in their sea-based system 2,424 
warheads. They have in their air-based 564.
  Just take one of these. Think, if you have a disgruntled, angry group 
of Russian soldiers or sailors or airmen who say: We have not been paid 
for a year; we are despondent; we do not think we have any future; we 
are suicidal. We are going to take over one of these sites, and we are 
going to launch. We are not going to blackmail the United States; we 
are not going to try to get them to do anything; all we are going to do 
is launch, because we are angry and we do not like the direction of our 
country and we do not like what the United States of America is doing.
  Let me just take the SS-18. I am not going to go through the details 
of where these are. I am not going to describe for colleagues a 
scenario to take one of them over. I am not going to build a case, but 
I think I could build a case, that an SS-18 site is not as secure today 
as it was 5 years ago. That lack of security should cause every 
American to be much more worried than they are about the threat of 
China or other things we talk about and put a great deal of energy into 
describing.
  The SS-18 is a MIRV'd nuclear system. It has 10 warheads on each one 
of its missiles, and each one of these warheads has 500 to 750 
kilotons. If you put one of those in the air and hit 10 American 
cities--I earlier had a chart showing what a 100-kiloton warhead would 
do to the city of Chicago. Nobody should suffer any illusion of what 
the consequences to the United States of America would be if 10 of our 
cities were hit with a 500- to 750-kiloton warhead.
  You say it is not likely to happen. Lots of things are not likely to 
happen that have happened. That is what we do with national security 
planning. We do not plan for those things that are most likely to 
happen. We plan for those things that are least likely to happen, 
because the least likely thing is apt to be the one that does the most 
damage, and that is exactly what we are talking about here.
  You do not have to kill every single American. If you put 10 nuclear 
warheads with 500 to 750 kilotons of payload on 10 American cities, I 
guarantee the United States of America is not the superpower we are 
today. Imagine the devastation it would do to our economy. Imagine the 
emergency response that is required. Imagine all sorts of things. This 
country would not be the same as it is today if that were to happen. It 
is a terrible scenario. It is one we used to talk about way back in the 
1980s.
  I remember campaigning in 1988. We had a big portion of our debate 
about nuclear weapons and the danger of nuclear weapons and what are we 
going to do to keep the United States of America safe. The most 
vulnerable of the Russian triad are their nuclear submarines. I went 
through it earlier. A Delta IV submarine has 64 100-kiloton warheads on 
it. You could put 1 in each State and have 14 left over to pick some 
States you might put 2 or 3 on top of.
  This is a real risk. Is it likely to happen? No. The likelihood is 
low. But low is not comforting when you are thinking about something 
such as that. Low should not give any American citizen comfort. I just 
heard somebody say it is not likely to happen; it is a low likelihood 
it is going to happen.
  In the State of Nebraska, it is not likely a tornado is going to hit 
tonight. But tornadoes hit there relatively frequently. We look up at 
the sky and say, ``It is blue; it does not look to me like a storm is 
coming,'' but storms hit out there just like that, and great 
destruction and devastation has occurred as a consequence. We have been 
lulled into a false sense of complacency about the Russian nuclear 
system and, as a consequence, we have not tried to figure out an 
alternative strategy. We need an alternative strategy. The Russian Duma 
is not going to ratify START II. I am here today to predict that is not 
going to happen.
  We should not in our defense authorization say we are not going to 
take any action that might make America safer because we want to wait 
for the Russians to ratify START II. This amendment is described by 
some opponents as unilateral disarmament. It is not. It is no more 
unilaterally disarming than anything else we have in our defense 
authorization. We do not make decisions about what we are going to do 
for this Nation's security based upon what Russia is going to do in any 
other area of defense.
  I cited earlier, I supported missile defense even though some said if 
we have missile defense, if we have an early deployment of missile 
defense, the Russians are going to do this, that, or the other thing, 
including maybe not ratifying START II. We did not make that decision 
based upon wondering what the Russians are going to do. We need to make 
national security decisions based upon what we think is in the best 
interests of the United States of America, to keep our people safe. 
This amendment does that.
  The President has indicated he supports this amendment. He would like 
to get this limitation taken off. He does not have any plans to take 
action. I encourage him to do so. I think it is in our interests to 
think about taking our levels lower. I think the Russians would 
reciprocate. And even if they did not, the United States of America 
would still be safer as a consequence, by measurement of people who are 
a lot smarter and a lot more knowledgeable than I am on this subject.
  For fiscal reasons, for reasons of scarce resources that need to be 
applied into our conventional readiness and things that our Air Force, 
Navy, Marines, and Army are more likely to have to be called upon to 
meet, for reasons of trying to reduce the risk of unauthorized launch 
that would be devastating to the United States of America, I hope my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will give this amendment their 
full consideration and I hope they vote for it. A vote for this 
amendment is not a vote for unilateral disarmament. A vote for this 
amendment is a vote for the United States of America deciding what we 
think is in our best interests in national security and then 
authorizing accordingly in a defense authorization bill.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from California wishes 
to speak. The Senator from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, earlier said 
he would like to be a cosponsor. I am not sure he has been listed as a 
cosponsor. Senator Kennedy as well, Senator Boxer as well, and Senator 
Biden as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. I yield to the Senator from California such time as she 
needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I say to my friend from Nebraska how 
grateful I am for taking the time that he has needed to explain this 
amendment, not only to our colleagues but to the American people. This 
amendment is a very important amendment. It will delete the provision 
in law which prevents the United States from retiring additional 
nuclear weapons delivery systems until the Russian Duma ratifies the 
START II treaty.
  The Senator from Nebraska has explained in great detail why that is 
not a prudent course for our Nation, and I agree with him. I will take 
5 or 6 minutes to explain why.
  For the last 2 years, the defense authorization bill has included a 
provision which bars reductions below 71 B-52H bombers, 18 Trident 
ballistic missile submarines, 500 Minuteman III

[[Page 10954]]

intercontinental ballistic missiles, and 50 MX Peacekeeper missiles. 
Congress has told the Pentagon that we cannot reduce below that level.
  In this year's defense authorization bill, this provision again is 
included with a revision that allows the number of Trident submarines 
to be reduced by six at the request of the Navy. This is a good step. 
It is a good first step, but more needs to be done to move in this 
direction.
  As Senator Kerrey has stated, there is no need to maintain these huge 
stockpiles of nuclear weapons. There is little doubt that Russia will 
fall well below START II levels whether or not the Duma gives its 
consents and ratifies the START II treaty. Edward Warner III, Assistant 
Secretary of Defense, Strategy and Threat Reduction testified that:

       In light of the very small modernization efforts [Russia] 
     has underway, and the obsolescence of many major components 
     of both their submarines and their strategic military forces, 
     Russia will be hard-pressed to keep a force of more than 
     about 3,500 weapons. And our intelligence analysts say in 
     light of current developments--again, we're projecting out 
     over the decade--by about the year 2010, they will be hard-
     pressed to even meet a level of about 1,500 weapons.

  If this is the case, if our own intelligence people are telling us 
that regardless of whether the Duma passes START II, the Russians are 
going to have a much lower level of capability, why do we need 6,000 
deployed nuclear weapons with thousands more in reserve? What useful 
purpose do these thousands of weapons serve?
  If we reduce our stockpiles toward START II levels of 3,500 nuclear 
weapons, we would still have the ability to obliterate any nation 
anywhere anytime.
  I will repeat that because I want the American people to understand 
that this amendment keeps us strong; it makes us safer; it makes us 
stronger. START II levels will still leave us with 3,500 nuclear 
weapons which could obliterate any nation anywhere anytime, and, I add, 
many times over.
  It is dangerous to maintain 6,000 deployed U.S. nuclear weapons, half 
of which are on hair-trigger alert. The massive U.S. deployment 
pressures Russia to deploy as many of its nuclear forces as it can 
afford--and they do it on hair-trigger alert--at a time when the 
Russian command and control is stressed and when Russian launchers are 
dangerously over age.
  What Senator Kerrey is trying to point to here is not a situation of 
panic but of truth, and the truth is the more we deploy, the more they 
are compelled to deploy, and that is at a time when the Russian 
command-and-control system is stressed and when the launchers are 
dangerously over age. This sets up a very dangerous situation.
  Certainly many of us are concerned about what we have learned about 
China's efforts to steal our nuclear secrets. This is very serious. 
Every one of us, regardless of party, is sick at heart about what has 
happened. It has happened over many, many decades, and there is blame 
to go everywhere. But the truth of the matter is, China has a few dozen 
strategic nuclear delivery vehicles and that threat is not comparable 
to the one we face in Russia, as Senator Kerrey has pointed out. That 
is the real threat we face. We need to do something to diminish that 
threat.
  There is a question of cost. There can be substantial savings from 
nuclear weapons cuts. The CBO has estimated that reducing U.S. forces 
to START II levels by 2007 could produce a savings of $570 million in 
fiscal year 2000 and a $12.7 billion savings over 10 years.
  This is not small change. This is important. We just faced a 
situation where we saw a vote in the Senate, and we lost by four votes, 
to put some afterschool programs in place across this country. When I 
talked to my friends on the other side, I received two votes on the 
other side. The others all said: We love the program, but we can't 
afford it. We were asking for essentially an authorization of $600 
million, and the money was not there.
  Why do we waste money and make a situation more dangerous when we can 
save money and make a situation less dangerous? I think that is the 
merit of the amendment that is before us. Mr. President, $12.7 billion 
over 10 years is not small change. We have lots of things we can do, 
and we can always return it to the taxpayers.
  The CBO further estimated that reductions in nuclear delivery systems 
within the overall limits of START II could produce savings of $20.9 
billion.
  There is a precedent for what we would do here.
  It is very important. The Senator from Nebraska said people call this 
unilateral disarmament. Let me prove to you that this is not the case. 
In 1991, President Bush had the courage to announce that we would 
withdraw our tactical nuclear weapons to the United States. That was 
not dependent on any action by the Soviet Union. He stood up and said 
this is in the best interest of the United States of America.
  He also ordered 1,000 U.S. warheads deployed on strategic bombers and 
ballistic missiles slated for dismantlement to be taken off alert. I 
think we all remember that day. It was a very exciting and dramatic 
day. He did those two actions because it was in the best interests of 
America.
  Do you know what happened after that? President Gorbachev responded 
in kind. He withdrew all tactical weapons from Warsaw Pact nations and 
non-Russian republics, removed most categories of tactical nuclear 
weapons from service, and designated thousands of nuclear warheads for 
dismantlement.
  The point the Senator from Nebraska is making is, sometimes it does 
take courage to stand up and say this is what is in our best interests 
and show real leadership, the way George Bush did in 1991 in these two 
examples and the way President Gorbachev followed his lead.
  I am very disappointed that the Russian Duma has not yet ratified the 
START II treaty. Again, if we follow the leadership of the Senator from 
Nebraska on this, we will be acting in our best interests, not in the 
best interests of the Russian Duma. We should lead and not wait for 
them to lead.
  In conclusion, there are very good reasons for the United States of 
America to reduce its nuclear weapons. This amendment is carefully 
drawn. It is carefully thought out. It comes from a man who put his 
life on the line in the military and would do nothing to harm our 
national security. As a matter of fact, he would do everything to make 
us stronger. I hope we follow his lead and adopt his amendment. I yield 
back my time.
  Mr. KERREY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Nebraska for his 
amendment. What he has done is to bring back before us and before the 
Nation a very important issue, which is, what is the necessary level of 
nuclear weapons in our inventory for our own security.
  Do we need as many as we have? Should we legislatively bake in that 
level if we do not need the START I level or should we at least be free 
to consider options to go to what the necessary level is for our own 
security?
  The Senator's gift to us and to the Nation here is that he is 
bringing before us an issue which the Joint Chiefs want us to consider 
but we have not yet considered, and that is, what is the level of 
nuclear weapons that we need for our own security and should that be 
determined by a legislative level, on a piece of paper, set in law, or 
should that be determined by our security needs?
  If we have a larger number of nuclear weapons than we need, we do two 
things. The Senator from California has just illuminated those two 
things. No. 1, if we have more nuclear weapons than we need for our own 
security, we are wasting valuable resources. That is No. 1. But, No. 2, 
what we are doing is we are then telling the Russians: Look, we're 
going to stay at this level, which in turn will encourage them, 
unhappily, to remain at the same level. That increases the 
proliferation threat to us because as the Senator from Nebraska has 
pointed out, the greatest threat to this Nation is the inventory of 
nuclear weapons on Russian soil. The Chinese threat does not come 
close. You are

[[Page 10955]]

talking dozens in that case and not nearly as accurate. In the case of 
the Russians, you are talking many, many thousands of nuclear weapons 
which are not only pointed at us but also the more that are there on 
Russian soil, the greater the risk that one of them might be lost or 
not counted and leave Russian soil and get into the hands of a 
terrorist state or a terrorist group.
  So both from a proliferation perspective and from the perspective of 
the wise use of our resources, we ought to at least be open to consider 
options of fewer nuclear weapons than the START I level provides for.
  We may decide we want to stay at that level. It may be determined 
that we want to stay at that level. But the Joint Chiefs say that it 
may not be necessary. They want to consider options that would go down 
to a lower level of nuclear weapons, because they may not need as many 
nuclear weapons, regardless of what the Russians do. Even if the 
Russians stay at the START I level, we may not need as many nuclear 
weapons as the START I level allows us.
  There is no point in keeping them just because the Russians have them 
if we do not need them. There is no point keeping them if that helps to 
push the Russians to keep their own, with all of the proliferation 
threats which that engenders.
  I close by reading a couple answers that we have received to 
questions that I have addressed to Secretary Cohen and to General 
Shelton.
  I asked Secretary Cohen:

       Should we maintain the requirement in law that our forces 
     be maintained at the START I level or should we now let that 
     expire and do what our military requirements indicate we 
     should do, rather than to put it in a legislative form?

  Secretary Cohen's answer:

       . . . I do not think we need to have the legislation, . . . 
     . I think it is unnecessary. . . .

  General Shelton was even more pointed. General Shelton, in answer to 
that question, said:

       I would definitely oppose inclusion of any language. . . .

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator would yield 2 additional minutes?
  Mr. KERREY. I yield the Senator 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
  General Shelton said:

       I would definitely oppose inclusion of any language that 
     mandates specific force structure levels.

  This is the highest level of uniform military leadership we have in 
this Nation. This is what he says:

       The Service Chiefs and I feel it is time to consider 
     options that will reduce our strategic forces to the levels 
     recommended by the Nuclear Posture Review. The START I 
     legislative restraint will need to be removed before we can 
     pursue these options. Major costs will be incurred if we 
     remain at START I levels.

  He went on:

       The Service Chiefs and I agree it is time to reduce the 
     number of our nuclear platforms to a level that is militarily 
     sufficient to meet our national security needs. . . .

  ``[M]ilitarily sufficient to meet our national security needs. . . 
.''
  General Shelton went on:

       The statutory provision that keeps us at the START I level 
     for both Trident SSBNs and Peacekeeper ICBMs will need to be 
     removed before we can pursue these options.

  So we have the leadership of this Nation's military--civilian and 
uniform--urging us not to have a restraint in law that will make it 
difficult for them to pursue options which they need to pursue in order 
to avoid the waste of resources, options which will allow us to be 
militarily sufficient and not to promote proliferation in Russia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair, and I again thank my colleague from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator for 
offering this amendment. I am very hopeful that the Senate will adopt 
it.
  I strongly support this amendment, and I commend Senator Kerrey's 
leadership on this important issue of nuclear arms control. His 
proposal is a significant step in moving forward on the stalled process 
of nuclear arms reductions. Now more than ever, given the present 
climate of tension in the world, it is essential for the United States 
to reactivate arms control discussions with the Russians. It is also 
critical that we demonstrate to the international community our 
willingness to engage in continued nuclear arms reductions.
  This initiative offers us a major opportunity to break the current 
impasse that is preventing significant reductions in the stockpiles of 
nuclear arms. In addition, it can help to revitalize the START II 
debate in the Russian Duma, and move us toward greater cooperation on 
this critical global security issue.
  At the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Military Readiness 
on January 5, I pressed senior military officials about spending 
priorities in the armed services, and questioned the need for 
maintaining strategic forces at the START I level. In response to my 
inquiries, the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. J.L. Johnson, agreed 
that he would prefer to reduce the number of Trident submarines from 
START I levels, and see some of the money currently used to maintain 
strategic forces at old levels reallocated to meet current and more 
critical needs. This amendment will give us the opportunity to do so in 
other parts of our strategic arsenal as well.
  As Senator Kerrey noted, history demonstrates the benefits of this 
kind of initiative in arms control, and the impact that can be made by 
a modest but significant gesture. In September 1991, President Bush 
ordered that 1,000 U.S. warheads scheduled for dismantling under START 
I be taken off alert, before that treaty was every ratified. This 
action resulted in a reciprocal response from President Gorbachev, who 
just one week later, designated thousands of Soviet nuclear warheads 
for dismantling and took several classes of strategic systems off 
alert.
  Three years after the Senate ratified START II, we still have not 
moved closer to the goals in that important treaty. Russia has yet to 
ratify this treaty, and a move by the United States toward meeting our 
START II goals may encourage the Russian Duma to take up its 
ratification, and move us closer to the creation of START III.
  This is an important time in our relationship with Russia. Earlier 
this year, we passed a bill calling for the creation of a National 
Missile Defense System, conditioned on an amended ABM treaty negotiated 
with Russia. The best way that we can more toward a new ABM treaty and 
work to improve global security is by demonstrating to our Russian 
allies that we are committed to arms control--and an effective way to 
demonstrate this commitment is by passing this amendment.
  Moving closer to implementation of START II will also provide 
significant savings for the American taxpayer. This amendment will open 
the door to savings in the cost of upkeep for many unnecessary weapons. 
In addition, the tritium in these weapons can be recycled, eliminating 
the need for production of new tritium and the associated production 
costs.
  This amendment is a constructive effort to breathe new life into the 
stalled arms control negotiations, move us closer to achieving the 
goals of START II, and send a strong signal to Russia and the 
international community about our commitment to these goals. It will 
strengthen our ability to cooperate with Russia to combat the growing 
threat of rogue nuclear states, and to build a more comprehensive 
global security system. Reducing our military stockpile, even to START 
II levels, will not impair our national security in any way. As Admiral 
Johnson explained to us last January, this amendment is in the best 
interest of the armed services, and it will help us to meet more 
critical readiness needs. I hope this amendment will be accepted. I 
commend the Senator for initiating it.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.

[[Page 10956]]


  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, does the Senator from Virginia want to 
speak?
  Mr. WARNER. I will speak whenever you have completed. I want to 
accommodate you. You can follow me, if you so desire; whatever your 
desire may be.
  Mr. KERREY. I would love to hear the Senator's remarks.
  Mr. WARNER. I beg your pardon?
  Mr. KERREY. You can go first. I would love to hear your remarks.
  Mr. WARNER. You are thoughtful to say that, because I enjoyed 
listening to yours but I, regrettably, think you are wrong in this 
instance, and I will move to table your amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to my good friend from Massachusetts, a fellow 
member of the Armed Services Committee, we have in this bill--you are 
ranking on that committee--the removal of those submarines as sought by 
the President and the administration.
  The essence of what I have to say is that Congress expressed a 
willingness to do that. Hopefully, this legislation will go through, 
become law. It seems to me, if the administration has further 
reductions in the arsenal, let it come before the Congress. That is the 
procedure that I would follow.
  So I just say, in opposition to this amendment, the amendment would 
strike section 1041. Section 1041 renews and modifies the provision 
that has been enacted in the defense authorization bill each year for 
the last 5 years. This is a measured, balanced, and needed provision 
which, in my view, all Members of the Senate should support. It simply 
prohibits the retirement of certain strategic delivery systems unless 
START II enters into force. Essentially, this provision seeks to 
prohibit unilateral compliance with the reduction of U.S. inventory 
implementation of the START II treaty and make clear to Russia that the 
benefits of our mutual arms control agreements can only be realized 
through mutual implementation of those agreements.
  This year, the Secretary of Defense and the Navy requested we modify 
the limitation to permit the retirement of four of the older Trident 
submarines. The Secretary, however, made it very clear that the 
administration was not advocating any unilateral implementation of 
START II. The Armed Services Committee reviewed the Secretary's 
recommendations to reduce the Trident force from 18 to 14 submarines 
and agreed to authorize such reduction. Section 1041 of the pending 
bill does, in fact, allow retirement or conversion of these four 
submarines.
  In keeping with the administration's policy not to unilaterally 
implement START II--and that is the policy; I assume the Senator from 
Nebraska agrees with that--the Secretary also made sure that the fiscal 
year 2000 budget request fully funded all remaining operational 
strategic nuclear delivery systems, including the 50 peacekeeper 
intercontinental ballistic missiles deployed at the F.E. Warren Air 
Force Base. The Armed Services Committee supports this decision, and 
there is nothing in this bill that prohibits the Secretary from 
implementing any planned reduction to our strategic forces.
  Section 1041, which the Kerrey amendment would strike, simply 
reinforces the administration's policy of remaining at START I force 
levels until START II enters into force. To strike this provision would 
send a signal that the Senate no longer supports this policy. This 
would be a dangerous and unnecessary signal to send, one that could 
undermine the integrity of the arms control process.
  Since section 1041 does not prohibit any planned changes to U.S. 
strategic forces, it would appear that the supporters of this amendment 
are really interested in some form of unilateral arms control or some 
other steps that go beyond the administration's policy. At a time when 
our relations with Russia and China are quite uncertain, I say to my 
dear colleagues, now is not the time to consider unilateral reductions 
in our strategic forces.
  The United States and Russia are now hopefully nearing full 
implementation of the START I agreement. The administration has worked 
very hard to get Russia to ratify START II. If the Senate votes to 
eliminate section 1041, this action could be interpreted as a sign that 
the Senate is giving up on START II. Unless my colleagues are willing 
to abandon the arms control process, I suggest that they not support 
the pending amendment. Indeed, the administration has acknowledged that 
section 1041 provides significant leverage over Russia to get them to 
ratify START II.
  Mr. President, in closing, let me simply reiterate that section 1041 
of the pending bill was crafted with the Secretary of Defense's views 
firmly in mind. Nothing in this provision prohibits the Secretary from 
undertaking any action he plans for fiscal year 2000. And, since the 
provision expires at the end of the fiscal year 2000, we will have an 
opportunity next year to review any new recommendations coming from the 
administration. For the time being, it would send a very bad message to 
strike this important provision. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Kerrey amendment and support the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I regret that Senators are on opposite 
sides of this issue, but we clearly are. I have offered this amendment 
because I believe our current strategy to deal with the threat of 
nuclear weapons is flawed in many serious ways.
  First of all, this amendment has the support of the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs and Secretary Cohen. They have not announced any intent to 
go below the START I levels, but we are not asking for unilateral 
disarmament. We make decisions about how many men and women we are 
going to have in our Armed Forces, how big our Navy is going to be, how 
big our Army is going to be, our Marine Corps, our Air Force is going 
to be. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down. Nobody accused 
President Bush of unilateral disarmament at the end of the cold war 
when he drew our defense forces down.
  I happen to believe we have gone too far. I support reinvigorating 
our Armed Forces. I don't support giving the Russian Duma a veto over 
that decision.
  That is basically what this is all about. I do not know whether the 
President would exercise the authority, but in my view this amendment 
would allow the President to make a decision independently and say, 
this is the level of nuclear weapons that we need. I have heard 
knowledgeable patriots who have served their country, who have spent a 
great deal of time on this subject, say to me that we are, as a 
consequence of this law, maintaining a level higher than we need to 
keep the people of the United States of America safe, spending money 
that is needed in other areas, especially in the conventional area, 
forcing the Russians to maintain a level of nuclear weapons higher than 
their economy gives them the capacity to control, and dramatically 
increasing the risk of an unauthorized launch as a consequence.
  That is the new risk. In the old days when we had arms control 
agreements--and I am not as optimistic about arms control agreements 
any longer. The Senator from Virginia asked if I supported the policy 
inherent in this language. Frankly, I do not believe START II is going 
to be ratified by the Duma. And even if it is, it has been overtaken by 
events, in my judgment. Even at that level, the Russians would be 
required to maintain a force structure of nuclear weapons that their 
economy does not allow them to safely maintain.
  I think we would see continued deterioration and continued increased 
risk to the people of the United States of America not from a 
hypothetical risk here. All of our armed services have been vaccinated 
now against anthrax. The Chairman knows there are conferences about all 
kinds of new threats that are very real and very present. But there is 
no threat greater than the threat of Russian nuclear weapons. There is 
no threat that would arrive here faster, that would arrive here more 
accurately and more deadly than any one of a number of weapons systems 
that I could describe in the Russian nuclear arsenal.
  In my view, what this does, quite the contrary to unilateral 
disarmament, is

[[Page 10957]]

it allows the United States of America to decide what is in our 
interests. If I had reached a conclusion that I thought we ought to 
have 10,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal, that that was in our 
interests, I would be on the floor arguing that we ought to; that 
rather than having a 6,000 floor, we ought to say that arms control is 
not going to work at all. If the Russians were doing something that 
caused me to conclude that I thought we ought to have a higher level, I 
would argue for that.
  I am arguing that the United States of America should make its own 
decisions when it comes to nuclear weapons. And right now, in my view, 
that decision would cause us to go below the statutory floor that we 
currently have and a further benefit would occur as a consequence 
enabling us to reduce the threat of an unauthorized launch.
  Again, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman and admire his 
work and agree with him on lots of things that are in this bill, but I 
come to the floor to offer this amendment because I believe very 
passionately that it will make the people of the United States of 
America safer and more secure if it is adopted.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say in reply that this section was 
crafted with the views of the Secretary of Defense firmly in mind. 
Nothing in this provision prohibits the Secretary from undertaking any 
action he plans for fiscal year 2000. And since the provision expires 
at the end of the fiscal year 2000, we will have the opportunity in the 
next year to review any new recommendations coming from the 
administration.
  A year from now we will have more clarity, hopefully, of the 
relationship with China, of the relationship with Russia and, indeed, 
this Senator's concern about North Korea and its advancements in 
missile technology. So I think we can focus on the superpowers but 
this, in my judgment, talks to the entire strategic defense of the 
United States of America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I appreciate that very much, although the 
only reason I was referencing Secretary Cohen and General Shelton's 
support, as Senator Levin indicated earlier and put in the Record, 
there has been some indication that perhaps the administration doesn't 
support eliminating this artificial floor. They do. They have no 
plans--they have not indicated that they intend to go any lower than 
this. But they have put in the record at the Armed Services Committee, 
in response to Senator Levin's question, that they support this 
amendment. They support eliminating this artificial floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will do the same.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. It has been a good, spirited debate 
on a very serious subject. I think his historical context would be very 
helpful for all Senators. The bottom line is, we tend to forget, as you 
pointed out, in 1988, it was foremost in our minds. Not so.
  Mr. President, if the Senate could now proceed to the vote with all 
time yielded back, I ask for the yeas and nays and move to table the 
Kerrey amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 395. The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 149 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion 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.


             Vote on Motion to Reconsider Amendment No. 392

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to reconsider the Gramm amendment, which 
amendment was not agreed to yesterday.
  Mr. GRAMM. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--49

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to reconsider the vote by which amendment No. 392 was 
rejected was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 
rollcall vote on the amendment, and I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 392.
  The amendment (No. 392) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, it is the desire of the managers and the leadership to 
continue to work on this bill and make good progress.
  The pending amendment is the amendment by the distinguished leader 
from Mississippi, Mr. Lott; am I not correct? I am fairly certain.

[[Page 10958]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Actually, the pending amendment is the Allard 
amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine.
  Mr. President, we are then ready to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 396

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering with Senator 
Harkin and a number of other people is now before the Senate.
  I ask unanimous consent at the start that Senator Grassley be added 
as a cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Colorado yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield for an inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado has the floor and 
has yielded to the Senator from Virginia for an inquiry.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  I am very anxious to structure this so all Senators have an 
opportunity to speak on this important amendment. I have spoken to 
Senator Harkin, and he desires 20 minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. That is the amount of time he will require. It may be 
that we have to go off this amendment for a short time, but I have 
assured him that we would not, of course, vote, and we would come back 
on the amendment to give him the 20 minutes.
  But I inquire of the Senator from Colorado the time that he desires, 
and the distinguished Senator, Senator Inhofe, the time that he 
desires.
  Mr. INHOFE. Ten minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. I would guess about 15 minutes is what I would need.
  Mr. WARNER. Why not give 15 minutes to each side; 20 minutes for 
Senator Harkin.
  Is there any other time that you know of, I ask my distinguished 
ranking member?
  Mr. LEVIN. We do not know of any other time.
  So we are clear then, we will not close off debate on this until 
Senator Harkin has an opportunity to come back and claim his 20 
minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have assured him. In order to protect 
all parties--Senator Stevens may wish to speak to this --I ask 
unanimous consent that we have 1 hour, divided 20 minutes under the 
control of the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, and 40 minutes, 
which would include the time for Senator Harkin, under the control of 
the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. That would be fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in order to protect Senator Harkin, which I 
know the Senator from Virginia is determined to do--
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. --and I am determined to do, if he is unable to be back 
here by the time the 40 minutes is utilized, we would then go to some 
other matters and protect him?
  Mr. WARNER. That is exactly right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado has the floor.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair let me know when I 
have reached the 15-minute mark.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so informed.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered, with Senator 
Harkin, and others, dealing with the Civil Air Patrol, is, in the 
greater scheme of this defense authorization, probably not that big a 
measure. But for the Civil Air Patrol, its members, an the job they do, 
it will prevent a huge and unfortunate change.
  This defense authorization contains a provision that would force the 
civilian, volunteer, locally controlled Civil Air Patrol wings into a 
more rigid and centralized Air Force command structure.
  My fellow sponsors of the current amendment and I feel this forced 
change would hamper the patrol, hinder their activities, and hurt, 
ultimately, results.
  The Air Force fights wars. Their structure and administration are 
designed for fighting wars. The Civil Air Patrol, a nonprofit civilian 
service organization, is fundamentally different.
  The Patrol was started to watch our borders during war time. But now 
their focus is search and rescue, counterdrug operations, and 
humanitarian efforts.
  Last year, the patrol saved 116 lives through their search and rescue 
operations. In 1998, they also flew 41,721 hours in support of 
counterdrug operations. Over the last 4 years, the Patrol membership 
has increased 20 percent, and the youth cadet program has increased its 
membership by 30 percent.
  Newspaper are full of stories about Patrol efforts to find downed 
planes, lost hikers, and others, or emergency flights to provide 
supplies, transport people, and shuttle other vital items.
  After the recent tornados in Oklahoma, Patrol wings flew damage 
assessment missions for relief authorities.
  In January, the Colorado wing found two missing hikers in Mesa Verde 
park in Colorado. In April, they flew search and rescue looking for the 
Miller family of Iowa. As the Omaha-World Herald said on Tuesday, May 
11, ``When a small plan goes down in the unforgiving mountains of 
southwest Colorado, the story seldom ends well.'' But the Patrol kept 
at it, doing what they have been called on to do time and time again.
  The Air Force conducted a week long review of the Patrol at national 
headquarters. They found what they deemed to be irregularities. The 
Civil Air Patrol has responded to the review, point by point. They have 
shown a willingness to deal with the Air Force by instituting some of 
the proposed measures, an by negotiating on the others. But from my 
understanding the Air Force, however, does not wish to negotiate in a 
sincere manner.
  While I understand Air Force Secretary Peters position, I do not 
believe the only option on the Civil Air Patrol was to do it the Air 
Force Way. I would prefer to do it the correct way.
  And so what is the proper congressional response now? This section of 
the defense authorization is certainly not the answer. The provision 
that we are trying to remove with this amendment could very well be a 
``fix'' for something that is not broken, or a surgical amputation 
instead of a band-aid.
  There have been allegations of financial impropriety and safety 
lapses. I am willing--in fact, I am eager--to have these fully 
investigated.
  The amendment before us mandates a Department of Defense Inspector 
General audit on the financial and management structure of the Civil 
Air Patrol, and requires them to present the report, with 
recommendations, to the congressional defense committees. The amendment 
likewise calls for the GAO to investigate and make recommendations on 
the CAP management and financial oversight structure, as well as the 
Air Force's management and financial oversight structure of the Civil 
Air Patrol and their recommendations for improvement. Both reports are 
due by February 1, 2000, so that we can consider the reports and 
recommendations for next year's authorization. But the amendment does 
not overwhelmingly change the makeup and leadership of the Patrol, 
without hearings, congressional oversight, or joint party 
consultations. It allows us to take an informed and reasoned approach 
to dealing with the allegations.
  The Civil Air Patrol is not some loose-cannon. It is not some rogue 
agency. The Patrol is already an auxiliary of the Air Force. Their 
financial practices are overseen by the Air Force. Air Force personnel 
must sign off on Patrol expenditures and billing. Air Force personnel 
work at Patrol headquarters, with daily access to financial records, 
and these records are all public information.
  I do not know the motives for this attempt to subsume the Patrol into 
the Air Force after all these years. If the desire is merely to react 
to charges of impropriety, then the language as it stands is obviously 
excessive, and our amendment is the far better approach.
  But if I don't know the reason why, I certainly know reasons why not 
to allow this language.

[[Page 10959]]

  I worry the Patrol will lose its local control.
  It is very important in States such as Colorado that we have 
immediate decisions when a plane goes down. Because we live in a State 
that has a lot of rough terrain, the weather changes quickly and 
dramatically, it is important that decisions be made quickly. With our 
local decisionmaking process, those decisions do get made properly and 
we can get out and save peoples' lives, in States such as Colorado, 
through the efforts of the Civil Air Patrol. It will sour those locally 
based volunteers who make up the overwhelming majority of the wings, 
who donate their time and energy and often equipment. Many of the 
assets of the Civil Air Patrol are gifts the Patrol received from 
donors willing to give to a charitable organization. How can we justify 
the Air Force wresting control of these items away from the local 
volunteers? How can we justify the added expense of substituting high-
ranking, paid, benefit-earning Air Force personnel for unpaid, 
volunteer Civil Air Patrol leadership? How can we justify doing it with 
so little discussion, so little oversight, so little recognition of the 
severity of the action?
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment. I want to say that there is 
no one of the 100 Members of the Senate who has been historically 
closer to the CAP, who has participated in CAP activities than I have. 
There is not a year that goes by that I do not talk to the troops and 
those who are being promoted, those who have achieved really great 
things and have made great contributions to society. I also, just 2 
weeks ago, could very well have been the product of a search by the 
CAP, had I not been able to glide my plane into an airport. So I 
understand that. I have been on various patrols where we go out. I know 
the valuable contributions that the Civil Air Patrol makes to this 
Nation every year, search and rescue, youth cadet program.
  However, we are concerned with the continuing streams of allegations 
coming from the Air Force and from members of the Civil Air Patrol that 
senior members of the CAP have engaged in inappropriate, and in some 
cases, illegal activities. I will outline a few of the allegations that 
have been brought to the committee by either the Air Force or former 
members of the CAP.
  I have some documents to include as part of the Record that I will 
want immediately following my remarks, but these are just some of the 
accusations that are out there. I know that the Senator from Colorado 
is just as concerned about these as I am.
  One individual was charging the cost of his flying hours to the Civil 
Air Patrol counterdrug account when he was actually flying to visit his 
daughter. A second accusation: One CAP wing charged both its home State 
and the CAP counterdrug budget for the same mission, essentially 
receiving double reimbursement for the same activity.
  Here is a good one: The southeast regional commanders conference was 
held on a cruise to Nassau paid for by CAP headquarters. After the 
conference, some individuals requested and received a per diem, even 
though the cost of the cruise had been paid for by the CAP and, thus, 
by the taxpayers. I have often thought--I suggested this to the Senator 
from Colorado--what kind of a position would we be in, would I be in, 
as chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee if I sat back and let these charges go unanswered? I could 
just imagine ``60 Minutes'' or some news account of this talking about 
the cruise to Nassau that was paid with taxpayers' money and then 
double dipping on top of that.
  We have numerous other types of reports concerning missing equipment. 
Seventy percent of one wing's gear, communications gear, computers, et 
cetera, cannot be accounted for; 77 percent of another wing's gear is 
missing. The most extraordinary of all, however, is a letter we 
received from one former member alleging that Federal laws and Federal 
aviation regulations relating to aircraft maintenance were being 
violated, and quoting from that letter, ``the lives of our cadet''--
these are juveniles--``members were being jeopardized.''
  We are talking about human lives here. Because of these accusations 
and because the Civil Air Patrol is an auxiliary of the Air Force, 
receiving virtually all of its funding--some 94 percent of the funding 
for the CAP comes from the Air Force and the headquarters at the Air 
Force installation--the leadership of the Air Force requested that the 
committee pass legislation to grant the Air Force the necessary 
authority to ensure responsible management of the Civil Air Patrol.
  That is exactly what this legislation does. This is in our mark that 
is before us today.
  I do urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. However, should it 
pass, I hope that the Secretary of the Air Force will refer the 
allegations to the FBI and seek to sever the Air Force's ties with the 
CAP. We can't hold the Air Force responsible for an organization that 
it doesn't have any authority to supervise. I do not know whether there 
is any other example anywhere, Mr. President, where you have the 
responsibility statutorily borne by some agency and they have no 
authority to police or discipline the behavior of that entity.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me from General Ryan, Chief 
of Staff of the Air Force, making this request be printed in the 
Record. And I ask that the internal memorandum that outlines many other 
examples, which I would be glad to share with the Senator from Colorado 
and with the Senate, should this debate pursue, be printed in the 
Record immediately after the letter from General Ryan.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      Department of the Air Force,


                                 Office of the Chief of Staff,

                                   Washington, DC, April 21, 1999.
     Hon. James M. Inhofe,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, 
         Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Air Force has a long-standing and 
     mutually beneficial relationship with the Civil Air Patrol 
     (CAP). As a former CAP cadet, I am very familiar with the 
     important role this organization plays in shaping the lives 
     of thousands of young Americans.
       However, there have been a number of recent incidents which 
     have caused us some concern about the activities of the CAP 
     headquarters. As an auxiliary of the Air Force, CAP receives 
     most of its budget and a great deal of nonappropriated 
     support, such as free use of on-base facilities, from the Air 
     Force. Yet, it is not accountable to the Air Force for how it 
     spends its budget or conducts its business. Consequently, we 
     have developed a proposal to strengthen and preserve our 
     relationship with CAP. It requires new legislation, but will 
     not affect CAP's funding levels. It will be transparent to 
     the CAP field units and will ultimately improve the level of 
     support they receive from the headquarters.
       We have briefed your personal staff and the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee staff on our proposed changes to the Air 
     Force-CAP relationship. We recently met with the CAP 
     leadership and continue to seek solutions to our concerns. 
     These efforts are ongoing and should they prove successful, 
     we will recommend withdrawing this legislation.
       I trust this information is helpful and ask for your 
     support as we work to strengthen the bond between the Air 
     Force and CAP.

                                              Michael E. Ryan,

                                                    General, USAF,
     Chief of Staff.
                                  ____

     From: AF/DXON.
     Subject: Special Project Team Assessment of Civil Air Patrol.

 Memorandum for the Special Assistant to the Secretary of The Air Force

       As you know, I traveled to Maxwell AFB, AL from 18-23 April 
     1999 as part of the Special Project Team that the Secretary 
     and Chief of Staff chartered to assess Civil Air Patrol (CAP) 
     processes. Our purpose was not to perform a full-blown 
     inspection of either CAP's administrative headquarters or the 
     units in the CAP national chain of command. Nevertheless, in 
     just a couple days time the team discovered a number of 
     practices that convinced us of the Air Force need for greater 
     oversight of CAP activities. I will cite a few examples that 
     are of particular concern:

[[Page 10960]]

       CAP recently conducted its Southeast Region Commander's 
     Conference on board a Caribbean cruise ship with the National 
     Commander and National Director in attendance. Our auditors 
     discovered that executives claimed per diem for this meeting 
     even though the cost of the cruise was inclusive of meals.
       Senior corporate leaders travel by first class, and receive 
     what could be regarded as generous salaries. Certain senior 
     corporate employees are receiving full military retirement 
     pay in addition to their salaries.
       CAP units flew over 41,000 hours on ``counter drug'' 
     missions, which were reimbursed, from appropriated funds. We 
     are aware of several irregularities where personal travel and 
     maintenance flights were charged to counter drug, as well as 
     one wing that charged several counter drug missions to both 
     the Air Force and the state.
       Several CAP wings cannot account for over 70% of the 
     communications equipment purchased for their units with funds 
     that were reimbursed with Air Force appropriated funds.
       Members and former members complain that they lack faith in 
     the independence and effectiveness of the CAP Inspector 
     General program. Members were refused membership renewal 
     coincidental to raising complaints about equipment control, 
     aircraft maintenance (safety) practices, and an assault. A 
     flight check ride pilot was ostracized from her unit for 
     restricting a CAP pilot from solo flight privileges. In each 
     case, the affected members went to their IGs who deferred to 
     command action.
       Because this assessment was never intended to be an 
     inspection, the observations made should be viewed only as 
     symptoms. The team also observed truly excellent programs at 
     certain wings and more generally at the administrative 
     headquarters. Talented and dedicated volunteers and employees 
     in many cases provide safe and valuable programs to cadets 
     and the country as a whole. The CAP National Board seemed to 
     satisfy a major concern by agreeing in principle to comply 
     with OMB Circular A-110. Nevertheless, the Air Force should 
     attempt to gain visibility through representation on an 
     overseeing Board of Directors to assure that CAP's role as a 
     civilian auxiliary to the Air Force will be a credit to the 
     Air Force and the nation. The Board of Directors would 
     operate at the macro level and provide the SECAF authority 
     commensurate with the responsibility of overseeing CAP 
     matters. This would clearly establish the auxiliary to 
     principal structure to foster a healthy relationship for the 
     future. Unless CAP CORP leadership convinces the National 
     Board to reverse itself and embrace such a structure, it is 
     regrettable that the only sure way to obtain this reasonable 
     level of oversight will likely be through legislation.

     Robert L. Smolen,
       Col., USAF, Dep. Direc. of Nuclear & Counterproliferation 
     DCS/Air and Space Operations.

  Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado has 15 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Oklahoma has 14 minutes 18 seconds.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could interrupt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. The schedule of the Senate would permit additional time, 
if you so desire, I say to my colleagues, to seek additional time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Well, I will respond to the chairman by saying that I do 
not have anyone who has requested time from me. I have pretty much 
stated the whole case. I would appreciate, of course, yielding time to 
him to hear his position on this, as chairman of the committee.
  Mr. WARNER. I will ask unanimous consent that I have about 5 minutes 
on this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  In response to comments in the cases that were presented by my 
esteemed colleague from Oklahoma--I will add at this point, it is a 
pleasure to serve with him on the Armed Services Committee; he is 
somebody that I highly regard in the Senate, a very honorable 
individual. I know that he has a love for the Civil Air Patrol and he 
wants them to be able to do their job effectively. I know that his 
concerns are out of love for that very organization, because he is a 
pilot himself. I will respond that from the information I have on the 
misallocation of the personnel uses, I understand there is a high 
probability that that occurred. But in other organizations where this 
happens, we don't go and just take away complete control of the 
organization without some hearings, without some oversight from this 
Congress.
  I understand that the Air Force has spent some time in overviewing 
it, and it has been done within the structure of the Air Force. I 
think, before we move ahead with an amendment as dramatic as what is in 
the defense authorization bill before us, that we ought to have some 
hearings, that we ought to, as Members of Congress, spend some time and 
delve into the actual facts.
  I don't think we can do this without having some agency do some 
reporting for us. That is why in the amendment that I have put forward, 
I ask the GAO to look at the financial structure--this is an area my 
colleague has suggested where there could be some problems--and report 
back to Congress whether or not there are abuses. And also in the 
amendment, I have the Inspector General, who can look at the 
administrating aspects of it, how they established policy, see if they 
are following through with their goals, if they are doing what they 
have promised to the Congress and to the Air Force, and give a report 
on those incidents. And we ask that this be given in a timely manner so 
that next year when we come back in and this bill is before us then we 
can go ahead and look over the report and, hopefully, maybe have a 
hearing or two based on the report and put something reasonable and 
responsible forward.
  I have some real concerns about saying, OK, we are going to turn over 
total control to the Civil Air Patrol, take it away from being a 
voluntary nonprofit organization. That is almost like a chapter 11 in 
the real business world. When you take over the board of directors, you 
completely change everything.
  I don't think it is that serious. I don't think we ought to put the 
Air Force in control of the board of directors. But I do think there 
are some things that we need to investigate. For example, on the cruise 
issue brought up by my colleague, my understanding is that the Air 
Force was the one that OK'd the disbursement for that cruise. So there 
might be some question of where the responsibility lies, who was 
culpable for some of these actions. I know the Air Force has some 
oversight on some of the equipment.
  Now, maybe we don't have the Air Force doing what their 
responsibility should be. So if that is the case, then there might be 
enough blame here to go around to everybody. I think the only way, as 
Members of the Senate, we can begin to sort this out is if we have 
hearings, we ask for a report from the General Accounting Office, and 
ask the inspector general to give us a report, so we have some facts on 
which we can work.
  For that reason, I am continuing to push my amendment. I hope the 
Members of the Senate will support me. A number of my colleagues also 
come from mountainous States where the Civil Air Patrol is vital and 
their response needs to be made on a local decisionmaking process. We 
can't be waiting to go out to search until after it has been filtered 
through Washington and goes back to the State. On these search efforts, 
when they come up, there is an immediate need and there has to be an 
immediate decision made locally.
  My hope is that we can adopt my amendment and take out the more 
onerous provisions that we have in the bill until we can get the facts 
before us. And then, after we have those facts, perhaps we can move 
forward in a more informed and responsible manner.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I know the Senator has the 
best interests of the CAP at heart in making his comments. But I do 
believe that he needs to read this very carefully, and if

[[Page 10961]]

any other Members want to read it, it is on pages 292, 293, and 294.
  All we are doing is saying that if the Air Force is going to continue 
to be responsible for the behavior and the actions of the CAP, they be 
given some oversight, some ability to get into the books and check 
these things out. It is my understanding that the account that the 
Senator from Colorado has is not an accurate account of the cruise. I 
will repeat the accusation.
  The Southeast Region Commanders Conference was held on a cruise to 
Nassau. Now, this is a cruise paid for by public funds, CAP funds, 
which came from the Air Force. After the conference, some individuals 
requested and received per diem, even though the cost of the cruise had 
been paid for by taxpayer money. I just think this is so outrageous. In 
fact, the Air Force personnel who was wanting to stop this from 
happening was so opposed to it that he refused to go on the trip 
himself. He canceled out.
  All we are saying is that if they are going to be responsible for 
this, we are going to have to, in some way, give them the authority to 
oversee it. After a while, I am going to be giving a talk on what I 
find to be offensive about this whole bill that we are discussing 
today. It is primarily that we are not funding adequately our whole 
military, certainly in the area of readiness. Our service Chiefs, our 
four-stars, and our CINCs all got together and said, in order to meet 
the minimum expectations of the American people, and to meet our 
national requirements, our mission requirements, we would have to have 
$17.4 billion a year more for the next 6 years, plus the amount for pay 
increases and retirement. That comes to about $24 billion. The amount 
of increase here is only $9 billion--totally inadequate.
  I am supporting this legislation because it is the very best we can 
do. I say to the Senator from Colorado, we are looking everywhere to 
pick up a million dollars here and a little bit there; we want to do 
it. In spite of that, General Ryan recommended, because of his 
affection for the CAP, an additional $7.5 million. That should 
demonstrate his feelings about the CAP. We were not able to give that 
additional amount. We kept the same levels as the previous year because 
we have problems in modernization, quality of life, force strength, and 
there is no place that isn't bleeding and hemorrhaging right now. So 
that is my concern.
  I would hate to be in a position to deny the Air Force the right to 
at least look at the books and have an opportunity to stop this type of 
abuse if they are going to be responsible for their actions. Right now, 
they are responsible. That is why I said if this should pass, I think 
the Secretary of the Air Force really needs to refer these accusations 
to the FBI and sever the ties of the Air Force. CAP doesn't want that. 
They have had a very good relationship all these years. I think there 
may be a small number of people who perhaps have not exercised the 
proper behavior and don't want the oversight. But I can't think right 
now of any example in Government where someone is responsible for 
someone else and yet has no authority over their behavior.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for yielding. In 
response to the Senator from Oklahoma, I agree that funding for our 
military has been dismal, particularly in light of the fact that this 
administration has continued to have more deployments than President 
Bush and President Reagan put together. Yet, we have cut defense from 
time to time, and I am very sympathetic to and voted for increased 
funding for the Department of Defense. I understand there are problems 
with the Air Force, but I think this is where the Civil Air Patrol, 
with their voluntary program, helps with the budget; they don't hurt 
the budget.
  If we have shortages at the Air Force, as far as adequate funding for 
oversight, it seems to me that taking over the whole program is going 
to require more personnel, more time, and it is going to cost the Air 
Force more. It seems to me that the responsible thing to do at this 
particular point is to, first of all, get our studies and facts in 
order and then find out if we can't come up with a commonsense 
resolution that has some reasonable oversight by the Air Force and 
still keep this a voluntary organization. The strength of it is the 
voluntarism. I hate to take that away from it. I think we save the Air 
Force money.
  So that is why I believe it is important that we go ahead with the 
amendment that I am proposing, because I think in the long run the Air 
Force can benefit. We just have to get the oversight problems taken 
care of. We can do that. Once we get the facts before us--and that is 
what my amendment does--then we can move forward.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Actually, the Senator from Colorado has the 
floor.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from 
Oklahoma yielded to me. What is our time limit?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma yielded the floor. 
The Senator from Colorado assumed the floor. At this time, the Senator 
from Colorado has 8 minutes and the Senator from Oklahoma has 10 
minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was going to 
ask a question of the Senator. First of all, I realize that the Senator 
from Colorado and I both are among the strongest supporters of our 
national defense. The Center for Security Policy has us both rated as 
100 percent. That is not an issue on the table. We both feel that way.
  My problem is, No. 1, they have made the specific statement that it 
is not going to cost any more to have some supervision over the CAP 
because the time they spend trying to look into these things without 
the authority to do it is more time consuming than if they had the 
legal authority that we are trying to give them with our defense 
authorization bill. If you just take the money in the examples I used 
on the trip to Nassau and all of that, I think you would have to agree 
that the money would be better spent on spare parts than it would be on 
some of the double-dipping in which they have engaged.
  I would be glad to yield to the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. I have supported Senator Allard's 
amendment, because, as I understand it, it calls for a GAO evaluation 
and an inspector general investigation for the potential wrongdoing.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will reclaim my time, and yield the 
floor so the Senator will be talking on his time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Two or 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has the floor.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think it is time to reevaluate the way 
the Civil Air Patrol is supervised. I am inclined to think that the Air 
Force justifies and makes a good case for tighter accountability and 
for maybe more direct ultimate control over how the Civil Air Patrol 
operates. But, as Senator Allard has eloquently discussed, it is a 
popular volunteer agency that we don't want to become too bureaucratic, 
else we may lose the popularity that is involved with it.
  I hope before we vote on this--I suspect the vote is set for 
tomorrow, is that correct, not tonight?
  Mr. ALLARD. I am not sure whether it is going to be scheduled for 
tonight or tomorrow. I haven't heard one comment from the floor manager 
in that regard.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I was hoping that perhaps we could get with the Air 
Force one more time, and maybe they would be amenable to improving this 
amendment to give them maybe more certainty or more prompt resolution 
of it and get this matter settled. I think that is going to be 
important.

[[Page 10962]]

  I want to maintain the vitality and the attractiveness of the Civil 
Air Patrol and the many thousands of volunteers that do so much. We 
want to increase accountability. We want to increase their 
responsibility to professionally manage every dollar. They are an 
agency that receives our funding, and we have every right to expect 
rigorous accountability. I would like to develop a system in which the 
Air Force feels comfortable. I think we are close to that. Maybe we can 
reach that.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent that my time be allocated to the 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I hope before this is over the Senator from Alabama is on 
my side. So I don't mind using my time to ask the question.
  I ask the Senator. I know there are a lot of demands on time. Was the 
Senator from Alabama in here when I made my remarks concerning the 
accusations of those things that have taken place with the CAP?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am aware of some of those allegations.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask also if he is aware of what this does. It takes an 
entity that is 94 percent paid for by taxpayers' funds and gives some 
authority of oversight as to the expenditure of that 94 percent of 
funds that are being used. That is essentially what the amendment does.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I favor that. I certainly favor full investigation of 
every allegation of wrongdoing. I believe that Senator Allard's 
amendment calls for that. I think the difference would be: Are we 
prepared tonight to make the final decision about how this 
reorganization occurs or should we get a GAO report and an IG report 
first?
  Mr. INHOFE. All right. I also want to make sure----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 7 minutes and 
the Senator from Colorado has 5 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me yield myself whatever time I may need.
  I say to the Senator that in my remarks I commented that there isn't 
a Member of the 100 Members of the Senate who has worked closer on an 
active basis, actually flying with and teaching and working with the 
CAP, than I have. I have attended every ceremony that they have had--
unless there is something I don't know about--in the State of Oklahoma, 
because of my strong support for their group.
  My problem is this wonderful group has a few bad apples in it, and 
there is no way to get at those bad apples. Here we have General Ryan 
suggesting that we increase the appropriations to them for the 
operation of their program by $7.5 million that we had to deny when the 
Senator and I were sitting in the Armed Services Committee.
  This is a time that we can't afford to be throwing away any money 
when we have all the readiness needs, when we have modernization needs, 
when we have force strength needs, and quality-of-life needs, and all 
of these things that need to be funded in this particular area. I just 
do not want to be in a position where I am passing an amendment to take 
away the authority of the Air Force in this case which is using public 
funds to fund this entity and taking away their ability to in some way 
dictate what is going on there if they are going to be responsible for 
it.
  Here they are responsible for some of this activity, such as the one 
individual that was charging the cost of his flying hours to the CAP 
counterdrug account when he was actually flying to visit his daughter, 
or one CAP person charged his time both to the home State and the CAP 
counterdrug budget. So he is double-dipping. Those are public funds 
they are getting--funds that could be used to buy spare parts, funds 
that would keep us from having to cannibalize engines, funds that would 
keep us from having to keep these guys working 16 hours a day repairing 
aircraft that are broken down.
  I think we are looking at so many issues. That is why we discussed it 
at some length in our committee, because we can't allow these abuses to 
take place and tell the Air Force, Your hands are tied; you have 
responsibility for their actions but you don't have anything to do with 
their performance.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate and respect the insight of the Senator 
from Oklahoma, because he has stood steadfastly for good defense, and 
he knows this issue exceedingly well.
  Again, I think maybe we can reach a compromise that would give us 
some opportunity to review the reorganization and the structure.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reclaiming my time, let me throw out a suggestion. We can 
go ahead and pass this as a mark that dictates at this time. If there 
is any kind of abuse, we can change it. Anything we do can be changed. 
That is what we are trying to do right now. These abuses are not things 
that just happened in the last 6 months. They have been happening over 
a long period of time.
  We talked about doing something about this in the last three 
authorization bills. We haven't done it. We put it off. Nothing has 
happened. Now we have an opportunity to do it. All we are doing here is 
allowing us to at least have some ability to monitor what is going on 
and stop some of these things.
  I just keep thinking about the ``60 Minutes'' program coming up with 
all of these abuses. What do we do? We have debated this issue. We 
turned around and said we will leave the status quo. That is what we 
are going to do if we pass the amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Some change is necessary. I certainly agree with that.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor. I yield whatever time the Senator from 
Virginia may consume.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma.
  Mr. President, the chairman of the committee sat here and listened to 
the differences of views of three of his stalwarts. But as I listened, 
I said to myself, possibly you could work it out. We are at the point 
in time where I would like to go on another amendment. Senator Harkin 
will return at circa 7 o'clock, and he desires to speak for about 15 or 
20 minutes. We made in the unanimous consent agreement that provision. 
There is time within which you might consider it, because I stand very 
firmly with the decisions of the committee. I listened to the debate. 
As a matter of fact, ironically--I hate to keep dating myself--along 
about circa 1943, or 1944, I was associated somehow with the Civil Air 
Patrol, because I always wanted to join the Army Air Corps. It was 
called the Army Air Corps in those days. Also, it gave a young person--
as I was 16--an opportunity to hop in a plane and fly. It was exciting 
to fly in those days. It was not a matter of routine in those days. It 
was a dream. So much for that trivia.
  The point is that this is a very respected and venerable organization 
that has to be preserved.
  As I listened to our colleague from Oklahoma recount the potential 
problems, ``60 Minutes'' is going to tune in on this pretty soon. There 
are just a few of us that understand the value of the Civil Air Patrol, 
and we could lose it.
  For example, the junior ROTC and the junior NROTC and other programs 
to encourage young people to direct some portion of their life devoted 
to the military, I have seen those programs scaled back, funding 
reduced, and support reduced. It concerns me that this program, 
likewise, could face those situations.
  I am going to support the Senator from Oklahoma in his position 
because it is a committee position. I listened to the debate and I 
believe some remedies have to be addressed.
  With a little luck, maybe we can work it out.
  Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. I have completed my statement. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALLARD. All Members cosponsoring this amendment recognize we have 
some oversight problems. We are struggling because we don't have the 
facts firmly before the Senate. It seems

[[Page 10963]]

to me, as with any other problem that comes before this Senate, we can 
go through the same channel as any other agency. We can have hearings--
public hearings; we can have a GAO study, and an inspector general 
study to have some basis in fact with which to work. Once we have all 
the facts, we can put together some reasonable recommendations.
  At this point, to turn total control over to the Air Force is a 
rather draconian action until we get the facts. I hope I can sit down 
with the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the 
subcommittee, whom I respect dearly, and work out a way to make it 
accountable without having to turn over total control to the Air Force.
  I am afraid we will lose the volunteer aspect. I think that is one of 
the real values of the Civil Air Patrol. The volunteer aspect used to 
go down to young students, high school age. They learn to work the 
radio; they learn to be part of a team; they get experience with 
flying, and eventually they may very well apply to the Air Force 
Academy or the Navy to fly. I think it is a great recruiting mechanism 
with lots of advantages. I think it all boils down to the volunteer 
organization.
  My hope is we can work out a plan that would bring accountability to 
this very serious problem yet maintain the volunteer aspects of the 
organization and local control.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I leave it to the experts on this.
  Mr. INHOFE. The amendment merely gives oversight.
  Here is the problem: I appreciate the voluntary aspect of it; 
unfortunately, the voluntary aspect of this only funds about 5 percent, 
and about 95 percent is public funds, for which we are responsible.
  Before the esteemed chairman of the committee arrived, I talked about 
how strapped we are. I believe the bill we are debating today is 
inadequate in terms of proper funding, but it is the best we can do, so 
we support it.
  I can think of military construction projects right now that would 
love to have a little extra funding, and it does relate to our security 
interests.
  I am happy to work with the Senator from Colorado on any kind of a 
compromise that will give oversight of the CAP to the Air Force so that 
they will have some degree of control.
  If 95 percent of the funding of the CAP is taxpayers' dollars, the 
taxpayers have to have some degree of control. We have a lot of other 
anecdotal accusations. I don't want to get into that. Things like this 
are going on and things like this will continue to go on in any entity 
in society that doesn't have any oversight. I can cite some examples in 
another committee. We served on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee where one of the agencies has had no oversight over the past 
5 or 6 years and was getting out of hand. They have to have oversight. 
Those people are dealing with public funds and the public has to have 
oversight.
  My concern is what will happen if we don't do this. If we don't do 
this, as I suggested, the Secretarys of the Air Force may decide to 
sever relations, and then we really have a serious problem with CAP. I 
think there is not a person in here who is not a strong supporter of 
the CAP --certainly these three Senators are among the strongest. We 
are attempting to save it.
  Mr. WARNER. Could I say to my colleagues, is it possible we could 
conclude this debate? We are anxious to bring up another amendment 
which we hope to vote on tonight.
  Mr. ALLARD. I will sit down with my colleagues, both of my 
colleagues, and go over some of this language. The way I read the 
language, the Air Force Secretary appoints the national board of 
directors, and they have total control over the rules and regulations. 
It looks to me as if they have total control. Maybe I am 
misinterpreting it.
  I am willing to sit down with my colleague and see if this happens or 
not, and maybe we can work out a compromise.
  With that in mind, I yield the floor so the chairman can move ahead.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. INHOFE. I make one last comment to the Senator from Colorado. The 
language where the local units would continue to be run by local 
commanders is not addressed in this. That doesn't change. That would 
remain as it is in the current law.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. President, we will ask unanimous consent that this amendment be 
laid aside until such time as I bring it up again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. At that time, we will have debate by Senator Harkin for a 
period not to exceed 15 to 20 minutes, and then we propose to vote, 
unless good fortune strikes and these able Senators are reconciled.
  The pending business now would be the amendment from the 
distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott; would that not be correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. We now turn to an amendment by the distinguished Senator 
from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, a very valued member of the Armed 
Services Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic 
Forces.
  It would be my hope we could arrive at a time agreement and possibly 
vote on the amendment tonight.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. If I may respond to the Senator from 
Virginia, how much time would the Senator like to have?
  Mr. WARNER. I want to consult with my distinguished ranking member, 
but in fairness, I advise my good friend I have looked over this 
amendment--the Senator from Virginia, as chairman of the committee--and 
certainly my own judgment is that I will have to move to table.
  I think my good friend understands that.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I say to the Senator, I understand that 
the Senator opposes it. I ask if the Senator would allow considering an 
up-or-down vote. But the Senator is the chairman, and I respect that. I 
prefer an up-or-down vote because I think it is an issue that is 
deserving of that one way or the other, no matter how we feel. It seems 
to me more appropriate to have a yes-or-no vote, but obviously I defer 
to my chairman.
  Mr. WARNER. And I thank my colleague for that understanding.
  So if the Senator will proceed and allow me to seek recognition as 
soon as the ranking member can give me advice, I will be in opposition, 
as will the ranking member.
  I hope we could have, perhaps, 50 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. My concern is the tabling motion. As the 
Senator knows, this issue is on the calendar now as a separate issue. 
My purpose in bringing it up on this bill: There are a lot of Senators 
on both sides of the aisle who support it. My assumption is there may 
be enough, but I haven't done a whip count.
  My inclination would be, if the chairman is going to move to table 
it, to not bring it up at this time, because I do have the option of 
bringing it up as a separate resolution because it is on the calendar.
  I hoped to have an up-or-down vote. I put it to the chairman this 
way: If the chairman will allow an up-or-down vote, I am happy to have 
a time limit, say, of 30 minutes, depending on what the other side 
desires. I don't need any more than 15 minutes.
  If the chairman is going to table, I think at this point I will not 
offer the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. That is a development somewhat new, as opposed to what we 
had in earlier conversations. Might I suggest the Senator lay down the 
amendment and commence and give me the opportunity to consult with the 
ranking member?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. All right.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.

[[Page 10964]]




                           Amendment No. 405

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress with respect to the court-
martial conviction of the late Rear Admiral Charles Butler McVay, III, 
and to call upon the President to award a Presidential Unit Citation to 
               the final crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis)

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 405.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. 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 D, add the following:

     SEC. 1061. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE U.S.S. 
                   INDIANAPOLIS.

       (a) Court-Martial Conviction of Last Commander.--It is the 
     sense of Congress that--
       (1) the court-martial charges against then-Captain Charles 
     Butler McVay III, United States Navy, arising from the 
     sinking of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS (CA-35) on July 30, 1945, 
     while under his command were not morally sustainable;
       (2) Captain McVay's conviction was a miscarriage of justice 
     that led to his unjust humiliation and damage to his naval 
     career; and
       (3) the American people should now recognize Captain 
     McVay's lack of culpability for the tragic loss of the U.S.S. 
     INDIANAPOLIS and the lives of the men who died as a result of 
     her sinking.
       (b) Presidential Unit Citation for Final Crew.--(1) It is 
     the sense of Congress that the President should award a 
     Presidential Unit Citation to the final crew of the U.S.S. 
     INDIANAPOLIS (CA-35) in recognition of the courage and 
     fortitude displayed by the members of that crew in the face 
     of tremendous hardship and adversity after their ship was 
     torpedoed and sunk on July 30, 1945.
       (2) A citation described in paragraph (1) may be awarded 
     without regard to any provision of law or regulation 
     prescribing a time limitation that is otherwise applicable 
     with respect to recommendation for, or the award of, such a 
     citation.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I spoke in morning 
business on this issue a couple of days ago, to call it to the 
attention of my colleagues, because I believe it is one that is very 
important and very relevant to this bill. I wanted my colleagues to be 
aware that I would probably be bringing it up at some point in the near 
future. I did not expect it to be quite this soon.
  A lot of individuals who have expressed an interest in my bringing it 
up earlier rather than later, are not only my colleagues but many 
aboard the U.S.S. Indianapolis who survived this great tragedy at sea. 
In deference to them, I felt it would be appropriate to try to get a 
vote on this. I want to emphasize to my colleagues, I hope my 
colleagues are paying attention out there, watching on TV. Because if 
there is any doubt or concern about whether or not this should be 
supported, I urge Senators to listen to me for a few minutes as I try 
to explain why I believe this amendment should be agreed to.
  First of all, I have a number of cosponsors who came in as original 
cosponsors. Not only myself, but Senator Frist, Senator Bond, Senator 
Landrieu, Senator Robb, Senator Hagel, Senator Breaux, Senator 
Torricelli, Senator Helms, Senator Inhofe, Senator Durbin and Senator 
Edwards. It is a joint resolution. I also, subsequent to that, received 
cosponsorship from Senator Boxer and from Senator Inouye.
  We can see it represents all regions of the country and both sides of 
the political spectrum. It is not in any way, shape, or form a 
political issue. It simply expresses the sense of Congress with respect 
to the court-martial conviction of the late Rear Adm. Charles Butler 
McVay, III. It calls upon the President to award a Presidential Unit 
Citation to the final crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis.
  This is an incredible story of incredible bravery and at the same 
time it is a story of incredible prejudice to an individual with a 
great, distinguished record as a captain, as an officer in the U.S. 
Navy.
  I want to share with my colleagues this brief story from the closing 
days of World War II, the war in the Pacific. I know as we debate the 
issues of the day, and believe me I have been involved in them all 
week, and there are some huge issues--the China issue and so many 
others. But I think it is important to understand. I just spoke a few 
moments ago to new flag officers who were just getting their stars. It 
was quite an honor to do that. But I think it is important, if we are 
going to ask people such as these new flag officers to come on board to 
serve and continue to serve in the military, not to leave after their 
enlistment is up, but to become those flag officers, they need to 
understand if there is some type of inequity or something that has 
happened that causes an injustice, we need to look at it in a way so we 
can make a wrong right. I think they need to know that. If something 
was wrong and the military did something wrong, we need to be big 
enough to admit it and to correct it. That is what this story is about.
  This is a harrowing story. It has a lot of bad elements--It has bad 
timing; it has bad weather. It has heroism and fortitude, but it also 
has negligence and shame. It has good luck and bad luck. And above all, 
it is a story of some very special men whose will to survive shines 
like a beacon even today, many decades later.
  We have the opportunity, right now, perhaps as soon as an hour, to 
redeem the reputation of a fine man--a wronged man, in my view--and 
salute the indomitable will of a very fine crew of the U.S.S. 
Indianapolis. I had the privilege of hosting two--actually more than 
two, several survivors of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, a couple here 
yesterday or the day before that, and several before that at a meeting. 
The bill I offer today will honor all these men and their shipmates of 
the U.S.S. Indianapolis and redeem their captain, in my view--Capt. 
Charles McVay.
  Captain McVay graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1920. He was a 
career naval officer. He had an exemplary record in the military that 
included participation in the landings in North Africa, award of a 
Silver Star for courage under fire earned during the Solomon Islands 
campaign. Before taking command of the Indianapolis in November of 
1944, Captain McVay chaired the Joint Intelligence Committee of the 
Combined Chiefs of Staff in Washington. That is the highest 
intelligence unit of the Allies during the war.
  McVay led the ship through the invasion of Iwo Jima, then bombardment 
of Okinawa in the spring of 1945, during which Indianapolis 
antiaircraft guns shot down seven enemy planes before the ship was 
severely damaged. Captain McVay returned his ship safely to Mare Island 
in California for much-needed repairs.
  Another great story about the Indianapolis which is not well known. 
In 1945, the Indianapolis delivered to the island of Tinian the world's 
first operational atomic bomb, which would later be dropped on 
Hiroshima by the Enola Gay on August 6. After delivering her fateful 
cargo, she then reported to the naval station at Guam for further 
orders. She was ordered to join the U.S.S. Idaho in the Philippines to 
prepare for the invasion of Japan.
  It was at Guam that the series of events ultimately leading to the 
sinking of the Indianapolis began to unfold. It is quite a story.
  There were hostilities in this part of the Pacific, but they had long 
since ceased. This is 1945. The war is almost over. The Japanese 
surface fleet is no longer considered a threat and attention instead 
had turned 1,000 miles to the north where preparations were underway 
for the invasion of the Japanese mainland.
  So we have a picture here of very little Japanese activity in the 
Pacific. These conditions led to a relaxed state of alert on the part 
of those who decided to send the Indianapolis across the Philippine Sea 
unescorted, and consequently Captain McVay was randomly told, just 
zigzag at your discretion.
  So the higher-ups were in a relaxed state. We were going into the 
Japanese

[[Page 10965]]

homeland. There was little presence, Captain McVay was told. So we will 
send you out across the Philippine Sea unescorted. The Indianapolis, 
unescorted, departed Guam for the Philippines on July 28, 1945. Think 
about how close we are now to the end of the war. Just after midnight, 
on 30 July 1945, midway between Guam and the Leyte Gulf, the U.S.S. 
Indianapolis was hit by two torpedoes fired by the ``I-58'', the 
Japanese submarine that was not supposed to be there according to the 
higher-ups.
  The first torpedo blew the bow off the ship. The second hit the 
Indianapolis at midship on the starboard side adjacent to a fuel tank 
and a powder magazine. You cannot imagine--no one could--the resulting 
explosion, but it split the ship completely in two.
  There were 1,196 men aboard the U.S.S. Indianapolis on that fateful 
night. Mr. President, 900 escaped the ship before it sunk in 12 
minutes. In 12 minutes, the naval ship went to the bottom and 900 men 
were able to get off that ship before it sank. Few liferafts were 
released, and at sunrise on the first day of those 900 men being in the 
water, they were attacked by sharks. The attacks continued until the 
remaining men were physically removed from the water almost 5 days 
later.
  If you can imagine in the middle of the night aboard ship: It is hit 
by two torpedoes and sinks in 12 minutes, very few liferafts; you are 
in the water. The men were in the water for 5 days and the sharks began 
immediately to circle and attack and pick these men off, literally, one 
by one, as wolves might pick off a weakened antelope or some other 
animal they were pursuing.
  Shortly after 11 a.m. on the fourth day, the survivors were 
accidentally discovered by an American bomber on a routine 
antisubmarine patrol. This is important for my colleagues to understand 
this--accidentally discovered.
  A patrolling seaplane was dispatched to lend assistance and report. 
En route to the scene, it overflew the destroyer Cecil Doyle DD-368, 
and alerted her captain to this emergency. The captain of the Cecil 
Doyle, on his own authority--no orders--decided to divert from his 
mission and go to the scene of the Indianapolis sinking.
  Arriving there hours ahead of the Cecil Doyle, the seaplane's crew--
the seaplane's crew had called the Cecil Doyle; the Cecil Doyle is en 
route and the seaplane, in the meantime, began dropping rubber rafts 
and supplies to these men who had been in the water for 5 days. While 
doing so, they observed the shark attacks. They literally saw men who 
were moments from rescue dragged under by attacking sharks. These men 
were so overcome by this that, disregarding standing orders not to land 
at sea, the plane landed and taxied to the stragglers and lone swimmers 
who were at greatest risk of shark attacks, as the sharks would pick 
off those who were not able to stay up with the rest of the group. It 
was an act of extreme bravery on the part of the seaplane crew.
  As darkness fell, the crew of the seaplane waited for help, all the 
while continuing to seek out and pull nearly dead men from the water. 
When the fuselage of the plane was full, the survivors were tied to the 
wing with a parachute cord. That plane rescued 56 men from the water on 
that particular day, just literally sitting in the water allowing these 
men to cling to that plane.
  Then came the Cecil Doyle. This was the first vessel on the scene, 
and it began taking survivors aboard. Again, disregarding the safety of 
his own vessel, the Doyle's captain pointed his largest searchlight 
into the night sky to serve as a beacon so other rescue vessels might 
catch it. This was the first indication to the survivors that their 
prayers had been answered. Help at last had arrived.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have, I think, news that will be 
received as good news. The distinguished Senator from Colorado and the 
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, at the suggestion of the chairman, 
got together and they resolved the amendment; am I not correct in that?
  Mr. ALLARD. I think we are getting some common ground worked out. I 
am hopeful we can get something put on paper.
  Mr. WARNER. The purpose of interrupting our distinguished colleague 
is to advise the Senate, because many Senators are engaged in other 
activities right now and the sooner we let them know there will or will 
not be a vote, it will be helpful to them and the chairman. I 
understood the Senator just now to indicate this thing was settled.
  Mr. ALLARD. We think we have reached agreement. We are getting it put 
down on paper. We can put this vote off until tomorrow, if that is the 
Senator's question.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tim Coy, a 
staff person, be granted the privilege of the floor for the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was engaged in conversation with Senator 
Sessions, and he told me it was an absolute. I spoke with the Senator 
from Colorado just now and I felt I got an absolute answer.
  Mr. ALLARD. When we get it down in writing, that is when we will have 
an absolute answer. We made a vocal agreement. I think we are there. I 
do not want to sign off completely.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am a moment premature.
  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. WARNER. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I have listened very intently to my 
colleague from New Hampshire, and I have studied the history of the 
Indianapolis. His opening statement I found persuasive to the point 
where I would like to go back to neutral on any question of tabling and 
offer to my good friend the opportunity for the Senate Armed Services 
Committee to have a hearing, because, as you recall yesterday--I 
certainly do vividly, because I spent hours in the debate--our 
distinguished colleague, Senator Roth of Delaware, brought in a most 
significant record, and I think the Senate would likewise want a live 
record on this critical issue that you bring before the Senate.
  Therefore, a hearing would avail you--and I hope you would avail 
yourself to chair that hearing--of the opportunity to develop a record 
to bring to the Senate so Senators would have the benefit of that 
record to make this important vote.
  For that reason--perhaps you would like to finish your presentation 
tonight so it is there in the Record--perhaps you will consider that, 
and we will not proceed with the amendment further, that you will take 
it down.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments 
the Senator has made. I think clearly it would be in the best interests 
of the Senate, and certainly of the Indianapolis, to not have the 
amendment tabled. I believe you bring up some very valid points. There 
may be some Senators who have not had a chance to digest this.
  I did send out a significant amount of information over the past 
several days, but we have been busy. So in deference to the chairman, 
as long as my rights are protected--I would like to complete 5 or 6 
minutes to just finish the statement I was making, to finish the story, 
if you will, as to what happened--I will, with the chairman's 
commitment to a hearing, withdraw the amendment. We will have the 
hearing at some point, whenever is appropriate, where we can both 
convene it. Then perhaps we can bring it back after that hearing to the 
floor as a separate piece of freestanding legislation, which I have on 
the calendar, as is, anyway.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my good friend for his cooperation and 
understanding. This is an important chapter

[[Page 10966]]

of naval history. Some of our colleagues have not had the opportunity 
to look at it as extensively as has the Senator, plus I think the 
record of some live testimony will be helpful.
  So to inform Senators, the Senator from New Hampshire will proceed 
for such time as he desires to conclude his opening statement. Then 
following that, the Senator from New Hampshire will send to the desk an 
amendment relating to funding on the Kosovo operations; am I not 
correct on that, I ask the Senator?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That is correct. I will be happy to offer 
that amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I think we can agree now that the time agreement on that 
would be, why don't we say, 40 minutes. At the conclusion of that, 
again, I have to advise my good friend I will move to table. So I ask 
unanimous consent that there be 40 minutes to be equally divided 
between the Senator from New Hampshire and the two managers of the 
bill, and then we will have a vote.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, just reserving the right 
to object, I do have six or seven cosponsors. I did not realize this 
was going to come at this point. I would just like to be able to 
protect their rights to speak. My intention would be not to go beyond 
the 40 minutes, if they did not show up. I ask you to amend the UC to 
60 minutes. If we do not need it, I would be more than happy to yield 
it back.
  Mr. LEVIN. About how much longer will you be taking?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Starting at 7:00.
  Mr. WARNER. So, Mr. President, we would start at 7:00. All debate 
would be concluded at 8:00. The Senator from Virginia will move to 
table, at which time we will have a record vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to be certain that the chairman is 
in agreement with my understanding of what this would be. At 8:00, the 
chairman would move to table, and if in fact it is tabled, that would 
end it. But if it is not tabled, there will be then no limitation as 
part of this unanimous consent agreement on time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is quite clear. I will read the UC 
and incorporate that in it. This gives an opportunity for Senators to 
plan the balance of the evening. I now ask unanimous consent that when 
Senator Smith from New Hampshire offers an amendment regarding Kosovo, 
which will take place not later than the hour of 7:00, there be 60 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on 
or in relation to the amendment. I finally ask consent that no 
amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I still 
have that standing.
  Mr. WARNER. I think it is gone, but what is on your mind?
  Mr. LEVIN. Senator Harkin was informed that at 7:15 he would be 
granted, how many minutes?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct. But I am advised by the 
principal sponsor, Senator Allard, that the matter has been settled. It 
is being written up. Of course, Senator Harkin would be consulted. If 
for any reason that writing fails to resolve it, then we will have to 
revisit this amendment tomorrow at a time that you and I will discuss 
to accommodate Senator Harkin and other Senators.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is my understanding that it is the intent, at least of 
the chairman, that this would then be the last vote?
  Mr. WARNER. That is the prerogative of the leader, but I have reason 
to believe that you are correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. That that is the intent?
  Mr. WARNER. That is the intent.
  Mr. LEVIN. I know that is not the decision until the leader --
  Mr. WARNER. I am 99.99 percent certain that this would be the last 
vote at 8:00.
  Mr. LEVIN. I add my thanks to the Senator from New Hampshire. As 
always, he is very cooperative with attempting to resolve issues. I 
didn't have a chance to thank him earlier today for his willingness to 
address the Trident submarine issue, even though he took a different 
position on the amendment of Senator Kerrey, that part of that 
amendment really had been addressed, at least in committee, with the 
Trident reduction. While I very much supported Senator Kerrey's 
amendment for the reasons that I gave, I didn't have an opportunity 
during that debate to thank Senator Smith for his participation in 
addressing one part of that issue which the Defense Department was most 
anxious to address. I thank him for that as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank my colleague from Michigan for 
his comments.
  Just finishing the story briefly, in 5 or 6 minutes, so we can go 
ahead to the next issue, there were 900 men who made it into the water 
and only 317 remained alive at the end of those 5 days. If you can 
imagine 5 days of shark attacks, starvation, thirst with only salt 
water, suffering from exposure. The men from the U.S.S. Indianapolis 
were finally rescued. Curiously enough, the Navy withheld the news of 
the sunken ship from the American people for 2 weeks until the day the 
Japanese surrendered, on August 15, 1945. So the press coverage was 
minimal. Also, it was somewhat suspicious that they started the 
proceedings without having all the available data that was necessary. 
And less than 2 weeks after the sinking of the Indianapolis, before the 
sinking of the ship had even been announced to the public, the Navy 
opened an official board of inquiry to investigate Captain McVay, the 
captain of the ship, and his actions. The board, strangely enough, 
recommended a general court-martial for Captain McVay 2 weeks after the 
incident before it had even been made public. Indeed, many of the 
survivors' families were not even made aware that the ship had gone 
down.
  Admiral Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Command, didn't 
agree. He wrote the Navy's judge advocate general that at worst, McVay 
was guilty of an error in judgment, but not gross negligence worthy of 
a court-martial. Nimitz later recommended a reprimand. Nimitz and 
Admiral Spruance later were overridden by the Fifth Fleet, Secretary of 
the Navy James Forrestal and Adm. Ernest King, Chief of Naval 
Operations. They directed that the court-martial would go on and 
proceed.
  It is pretty difficult to understand why the Navy brought the charge 
in the first place.
  Explosions from torpedoes, as I said before, had knocked out the ship 
completely, knocked out its communication system so he was unable to 
give an abandon ship order except by word of mouth, which all of the 
crew said McVay had done. So he was ultimately found not guilty on that 
count.
  Then the second count was not zigzagging, and it goes on to talk 
about that.
  The bottom line, Captain McVay was ultimately found guilty on the 
charge of failing to zigzag and was discharged from the Navy with a 
ruined career. And in 1946, at the request of Admiral Nimitz, who had 
now become the CNO, Chief of Naval Operations, in a partial admission 
of injustice, Secretary Forrestal remitted McVay's sentence and 
restored him to duty. But Captain McVay's court-martial and personal 
culpability for the sinking of the Indianapolis continued to stain his 
Navy records. The stigma of this conviction remained with him always. 
And as sometimes happens in these kind of tragedies, in 1968, he took 
his own life. To this day, Captain McVay is recorded in naval history 
as negligent in the deaths of 870 sailors. Not one sailor said that he 
was negligent, yet it still continues to be on the record.
  This is an injustice. I look forward to having the hearing and 
hearing from these sailors who will tell us publicly how they feel 
about this.
  We need to restore the reputation of an honorable officer. In the 
decade

[[Page 10967]]

since World War II, the crew of the Indianapolis, to their everlasting 
credit, has worked tirelessly in defending their captain. Captain McVay 
could be and would be, if he were here, very proud of his men who are 
trying to see that his memory is properly honored.
  We can do that. We can help the crew do just that right here in the 
Senate. It is at the request of the survivors that I introduce this 
resolution.
  Since McVay's court-martial, a number of other things have come up. I 
will not get into those now because of time, but we will get into them 
in the hearing.
  Let me conclude on this point: Many of the survivors of the 
Indianapolis believe that a decision to convict Captain McVay was made 
before the court-martial. That is a very serious charge. They are 
convinced that McVay was made a scapegoat to hide the mistakes of 
others higher up. McVay was court-martialed and convicted of hazarding 
his ship by failing to zigzag despite overwhelming evidence that the 
Navy itself had placed the ship in harm's way, not Captain McVay, 
despite testimony from the Japanese submarine commander that zigzagging 
would have made no difference, despite the fact that although 700 Navy 
ships were lost in combat in World War II, McVay was the only Navy 
captain, ship captain, to be court-martialed, and despite the fact that 
the Navy did not notice when the Indianapolis failed to arrive on 
schedule. In spite of that, he was court-martialed, thus costing 
hundreds of lives unnecessarily and creating the greatest sea disaster 
in the history of the United States.


                      Amendment No. 405, Withdrawn

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, at Chairman Warner's 
request, I will withdraw my amendment at this time and look forward to 
the hearing.
  The amendment (No. 405) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 406

(Purpose: To prohibit, effective October 1, 1999, the use of funds for 
 military operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and 
 Montenegro) unless Congress enacts specific authorization in law for 
                    the conduct of those operations)

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I will now proceed to the next issue at 
hand, my amendment on Kosovo, which I send 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 New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself, 
     Mr. Sessions, Mr. Allard, Mr. Craig, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. 
     Hutchinson, proposes an amendment numbered 406.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. 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 D, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. __. RESTRICTION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS 
                   IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA (SERBIA 
                   AND MONTENEGRO).

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), none 
     of the funds available to the Department of Defense 
     (including prior appropriations) may be used for the purpose 
     of conducting military operations by the Armed Forces of the 
     United States in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia 
     and Montenegro) unless Congress first enacts a law containing 
     specific authorization for the conduct of those operations.
       (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
       (1) any intelligence or intelligence-related activity or 
     surveillance or the provision of logistical support; or
       (2) any measure necessary to defend the Armed Forces of the 
     United States against an immediate threat.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     October 1, 1999.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this is an amendment I 
regret very much that I have to offer. I cannot express in words how 
strongly I am opposed to the war in Yugoslavia and the conduct of that 
war. I have to say that the only weapon in the arsenal of a Congressman 
or a Senator is funding.
  Cutting off funding is the only way you can stop an administration 
policy that you do not approve of. It is the only instrument we have at 
our disposal under the Constitution. And I will be the first to admit 
that it is a blunt instrument, but it is the only weapon I have in my 
arsenal to stop a policy that I think is very dangerous, one which is 
going to cost us dearly if we continue.
  So with great reluctance, I am offering this amendment, not because I 
want to but because I have to. As we deliberate funding the Department 
of Defense for the next fiscal year, I think the Senate of the United 
States should go on record as to whether or not we ought to be expected 
to vote on funding this operation in Kosovo.
  We have been warned many times against interventions like the one in 
Yugoslavia. Our Founding Fathers themselves implored us in written 
statement after written statement, in speech after speech--George 
Washington comes to mind in his Farewell Address--not to meddle in the 
affairs of sovereign nations. He took care to warn us against the 
mischiefs of foreign intrigue. We would do well to heed his words.
  But we did not heed his words when we attacked Yugoslavia. It is not 
the first time in American history, but we did not heed those words. We 
started the war in Yugoslavia. We attacked a sovereign nation in the 
midst of a civil war. The Founding Fathers explicitly gave the 
responsibility to Congress to approve or disapprove acts of war, and we 
cannot and we must not abdicate that.
  We have already authorized airstrikes. We did that, regrettably, in a 
vote that I lost earlier this spring. But the issue here is: Are we 
going to have an operation of possible ground forces and a possible 
continuation of airstrikes in a sovereign nation in the midst of a 
civil war, without any statement from Congress other than one that was 
to fund an air war, which kept the ground troops out, which allowed 
Milosevic to take over Kosovo? This policy has not worked. We are being 
dragged into a ground war. Believe me, there are plans on the table, 
and everybody in America should know it, right now as we speak, to put 
ground forces into Kosovo.
  When a superpower uses military force against another nation, it has 
to do it with an intensity and ferocity that shows purpose and 
decisiveness. I do not want any more Vietnams. I served in Vietnam. I 
watched the politicians debate the war, and the people in the streets 
protest the war while the rest of us fought the war, and then were not 
treated very well when we came home. I have had enough of that. It has 
been said many times: ``No more Vietnams.'' Well, to do anything less 
than to go in with absolute purpose and absolute decisiveness and end 
the war that you began--to do less than that is another Vietnam.
  Somalia comes to mind. People lost their lives. We did not have a 
clear purpose there either. We just went in. And here, in Kosovo, we 
just went in. Yes, Milosevic is a terrible person and he has done 
terrible things to innocent people. The question is, though: Was 
bombing Milosevic the way to end it?
  Well, apparently not, since there were 2,000 people dead and 50,000 
refugees when we went in, and now there are 150,000 dead and a million 
refugees. Apparently, the policy that 58 senators supported in here two 
months ago is not working.
  I have been on this floor repeatedly arguing against this war. I do 
not like doing so. But we are attacking a sovereign nation, and our 
national interests are not at stake. Humanitarian problems in 
Yugoslavia are serious problems, but are they national security 
interests of the United States of America? Every single person out 
there who has a son or daughter old enough to serve in the military 
should ask themselves: Is it worth my son's or daughter's life to die 
in Yugoslavia for a humanitarian crisis that does not involve the 
national security of the United States?
  If the answer is yes, then you ought to tell all your Senators to 
vote against me. Call them up tonight and tell them that. I, for one, 
have two sons and a daughter, and I do not want any of them in 
Yugoslavia.
  As the sole remaining superpower, we have a special obligation and 
responsibility. We have to be committed to democracy, we have to keep 
our markets

[[Page 10968]]

open, and we have to have the finest military in the world. And we do. 
But most importantly, we have to act clearly, decisively, and within 
our explicit national interests. We have not done that here in 
Yugoslavia.
  Some people have said: Let's go win the war. Maybe somebody can 
explain to me what ``win'' means. Does it mean that we occupy 
Yugoslavia for the next hundred years? That we put a partition up 
between Kosovo and the rest of Yugoslavia, or barbed wire, and keep 
50,000, or 60,000, or 200,000 troops there for a hundred years? Perhaps 
we should just bomb every bridge, every building, every oil refinery, 
every railroad, flatten it to the ground, kill every Serb. Maybe that 
is how we win. Somebody tell me. I have been waiting. I have offered 
this challenge on broadcast after broadcast, in interview after 
interview, in conversation after conversation with administration 
officials, Senators, Congressmen, people on the street, people in the 
military. Nobody has given me the answer yet. How do we win? I have not 
heard the answer.
  Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Recruiting is down. 
There are chronic spare part shortages. Deployments continue to 
increase. And now we are hearing reports about shortages of cruise 
missiles and other smart weapons. Over 30,000 reservists are being 
called up.
  Let me ask my colleagues to reflect on something. God forbid, but 
what if North Korea were to attack the South tomorrow morning; or Iraq 
decided to invade Kuwait; or the Iranians, or the Libyans, or anybody 
else caused some problems somewhere in their part of the world? Are we 
ready to meet those threats? Could we meet those threats all at once, 
or any of them, and keep all of the commitments--including that in 
Kosovo--that we have now? If you have a son or daughter in the 
military, ask them. They will tell you that they cannot. Ask a general 
or an admiral in private, I say to my colleagues, and they will tell 
you that we cannot. If we cannot, then we ought not to be doing this.
  Let me tell you something. If we get into a ground war in Yugoslavia, 
we are going to be there for a long, long time. I do not want that to 
happen. I do not want to be proven right. But we are at a turning 
point. If we continue to increase our intervention in Yugoslavia--which 
ground forces will certainly do--we are in fact committing ourselves to 
the Balkans, not for a day, not for a week, not for a month, not for a 
year, but for decades. Mark my words: we will be in the Balkans for 
decades.
  We went into Vietnam in 1965. Thirteen years later and after 58,000 
Americans were dead, when we tried to defeat and conquer an indigenous 
people who were dug in in their country, in their homeland, we still 
had not gotten it done.
  These people are going to fight for their homeland, and we are going 
to have to be prepared to take heavy casualties to move them out.
  Again, I will be blunt about it. If you think it acceptable to put 
your son or your daughter into Kosovo, then you ought to vote against 
me. But you ought to be prepared to put your son or daughter in there 
at the same time you put somebody else's son or daughter in there.
  This region of the Balkans has been inflamed for centuries. If they 
attacked the United States, or if they threatened the national security 
of the United States anywhere in the world, I would lead the charge 
here in the Senate for a declaration of war. But they have not done 
that.
  I am hearing a lot of pious arguments about this humanitarian crisis. 
But the question we have to ask: ``Will our grandchildren be patrolling 
the streets of Kosovo?''
  Think about it--not you, not your son, but your grandson, and maybe 
his grandson. Are they going to be patrolling the streets of Kosovo to 
keep the Serbians from coming across their border and killing more 
ethnic Albanians? That is what you had better ask yourself.
  There are those who say that the integrity of NATO is at stake. I 
hear that all the time--if we do not go to war in Kosovo, NATO will 
fall apart. Look-- NATO survived the Soviet Union. It survived Joseph 
Stalin. It survived Khrushchev and Brezhnev. But it is not going to 
survive Slobodan Milosevic?
  For goodness' sake. This alliance has stood for decades for all of 
these great powers, and has stood well. I supported NATO in those 
years. The administration would almost laughingly tell us that Slobodan 
Milosevic has the power to do what Stalin, Khrushchev, and Andropov 
could not do--destroy the NATO alliance. If the alliance is that 
fragile, maybe it is time to shut the door on NATO. Surely it is not 
that fragile.
  The key for NATO's success has been that it is a defensive alliance. 
But it must stay true to its core mission--which it is not doing now; 
we are seeing tremendous broadening of the scope of NATO here, under 
this President--the collective defense of its members. If we use this 
as the overriding principle of NATO, that it should be there for the 
collective defense of its members, not only will the cohesion of the 
alliance not be in question, but we would never have gotten involved in 
the swamp in the Balkans. That is exactly what it is. It is a swamp. 
And we are going to get stuck in it.
  Let me assure you of one thing. If this war against Yugoslavia 
continues to escalate, then NATO truly is finished, because NATO will 
disgrace itself. Even today on the news we have our commander, General 
Clark, saying we need to hit more targets, we need to hit more specific 
targets in Belgrade, we have to come closer to those embassies, closer 
to those populations, take more risks, take out more facilities, risk 
more collateral damage, because, if we do not, we will never win--or, 
if we do not, we are going to have to put in ground troops.
  Should ground troops be introduced? Should we be forced to attack and 
occupy Yugoslavia? This will certainly be the end of NATO. This 
alliance is not an offensive force. It never has been. The greatness of 
NATO is the fact that it is defensive--that is what allows it to 
function by consensus.
  Already our allies have tried to find a way to end the airstrikes. 
Anybody who tells you that there are no cracks in NATO and that NATO is 
solidly behind this is not telling you the truth. Who can blame those 
in NATO who are taking a different position now? They joined NATO to 
prevent a European war. Now they find that the U.S. has led them into 
one--in the Balkans, of all places.
  One of the main reasons I do not support this war is because I want 
to preserve our standing in the world. It is because I believe our 
relationship with Russia is on the line. It is because I believe that 
we should not draw precious military resources from our overseas 
commitments. It is because I care about the stability in Bosnia. It is 
because I believe in the sovereignty of other nations that I am against 
the escalation of this conflict. Some call that isolationism. It is not 
isolationism, and I resent that reference. It is actually realism.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes, I yield to my friend from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. First of all, I don't want the Senator to get the 
impression that he is alone in his feelings. I agree with everything 
the Senator said.
  I would like to ask the Senator if he didn't leave out one very 
significant reason why we should not be involved in that war --or that 
civil war within a sovereign nation--is that in our state of readiness 
right now we cannot carry out the national military strategy in 
defending America's regional fronts. In fact, it is even questionable, 
according to our air combat commander, that we could defend America on 
one front, with all the allocations of our scarce assets that are going 
into Bosnia, Haiti, and Kosovo.
  Right now my major concern, with 5,000 of our troops already over 
there in Albania, is that they are virtually naked; they have no force 
protection, no infrastructure.
  I hope the Senator will add to his list of reasoning why we shouldn't 
be there is because it is draining our ability to defend America on 
such fronts as North Korea or the Middle East.

[[Page 10969]]


  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I certainly will add that to the list. I 
referred to that a few moments ago. But it is a point well taken.
  Mr. President, great powers use discretion. They do not allow 
themselves to be bogged down in places where their interests are not at 
stake. They use their power judiciously.
  When do we use force? When do we use diplomacy? We have made 
commitments around the world in places like Korea and the Middle East. 
The United States has shown resolve. We place American lives at risk 
when our vital interests are the stake. We have done it all over the 
world. Americans have died in places all over the world that some 
cannot pronounce and never heard of. It has been happening for decades. 
There is no question about it. But our vital interests are not 
threatened in Yugoslavia.
  We have troops in warships across the world. Every year we send 
billions of Americans' tax dollars overseas in foreign aid. The 
American people are the most generous in the world. Private citizens, 
corporations, and charitable organizations send hundreds of millions of 
dollars every year to help needy people throughout the world. If we 
have a flood, or an earthquake, or a tornado in America, how many times 
do you hear about all of these other countries pouring in money to help 
the people in Des Moines, or to help the people someplace else where a 
tornado or a flood occurs?
  To somehow say now that we have to get into this conflict when we 
have countries in Europe who can, and should, deal with it--how much 
more blood do we need to shed in Europe for Europe? It is about time 
Europe stepped up to the plate.
  The United States does not need to resort to airstrikes to show we 
are not isolationist, and we certainly should not put our troops at 
risk. And we do not need somebody who has never been a strong military 
leader--indeed, who has never been in the military--to be the macho man 
who drags us into a war where we do not belong in.
  With this legislation, I am just trying to keep the administration 
from throwing money and forces at Kosovo without regular 
accountability. If Congress wants operations after 1 October, all we 
have to do is authorize them. This vote tonight will not be the 
mission. We have made that vote. This vote is going to be on whether or 
not we want to have another opportunity fund this operation after 
October 1.
  I respect my colleagues on both sides of this question. I respect 
immensely the thought that they put into it. I respect their 
convictions. Again, the only instrument I have as a Member of Congress, 
blunt as it may be, if I disapprove of this policy, is to cut off the 
funding. That is the reason I offer this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question on my time?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield.
  Mr. WARNER. Senator, we have had many debates on the floor of the 
Senate about this very divisive war. The Senator from New Hampshire, 
from the very beginning, has been absolutely clear as to his views, and 
I respect them. I differ with them, but I respect them.
  I will not go over the entire history of what I and other Senators 
have said about this. These are those Members who believed that once 
the commitment was made by this Nation as an integral part, as a full 
partner, of NATO, to the other 18 nations, that was it; it was to 
support our troops and to do what we can.
  What worries me about the amendment is that it would send a signal to 
Milosevic: Hang tough.
  This is the man who, as just clearly stated, has divided the whole 
world, has divided every precedent of human rights. Would it not send a 
message to him to hang in there? No matter what we are able to inflict, 
hang in there, because on October 1 the United States pulls out of NATO 
and leaves it to the other 18 nations if they wish to carry on?
  That is my first question.
  The second question: What do we say to the men and women of the 
United States Armed Forces and the other nations flying missions, some 
eight or nine nations flying missions? What do we say to them? They are 
in the cockpit right now, taking risks, risking life and limb. Did the 
Senator think about stopping it as of tonight? That was an option I am 
sure the Senator considered.
  Those are the two questions I pose to my good friend.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Responding to the leader on his time, I 
lost that vote earlier, regrettably. I lost that vote on the floor.
  What I am trying to do now is to not authorize any funds for 
operations in Yugoslavia beyond the October 1, the beginning of the 
next fiscal year, unless we again authorize those operations.
  Mr. WARNER. What do we say to the young men and women flying these 
missions? Their mission tonight, tomorrow night, and into the 
indefinite future is to carry out the orders of the Commander in Chief 
of the United States and the guiding military group in NATO. They 
salute, march off, get in the cockpit, fly off, and take risks. In my 
judgment, they are making some slow but, nevertheless, steady progress 
in degrading the military machine of Milosevic. When they fly home, 
they drop their orders, and they can at least say it was another chip 
away toward the end result and the five basic points that NATO has laid 
down to resolve this conflict.
  If we are to pass this and they fly the mission, they will wonder: Am 
I going to be the last person to die on the last day of this war, which 
would be September 30, 1999?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. What do we say? First, we tell them that 
we are ensuring that the American people, through their representatives 
in Congress, should either support it, if it is to continue, or not.
  If my amendment were to prevail and I were one of those pilots, I 
would hope that my Commander in Chief, after this amendment did 
prevail, would begin to make a compelling case for our actions against 
Yugoslavia, and would bring that case before the American people for a 
vote in Congress. That is all this amendment requires. It is the only 
way to ensure that the American people are behind their troops in the 
field.
  Mr. WARNER. The first part of my question was, Does this not send a 
signal to Milosevic to just hang tough and disrupt every effort being 
made, whether by the United States, Germany or, indeed, Russia, in 
trying to negotiate some diplomatic resolution?
  I understand that the Russian delegation could be arriving within the 
next 48-72 hours. The Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott, is 
finishing--if he hasn't already today--some discussions in Russia 
relating to that mission. It seems to me that the diplomatic process 
would come to a standstill.
  Milosevic will say to his people, we have stayed this long, stay the 
course. If the United States pulls out, I think Milosevic could go to 
his people and say there is little likelihood that the other nations 
might continue on. And, furthermore, look who is flying the missions. 
Over 50 percent of the tactical missions are by U.S. pilots. Over 70 
percent of the support aircraft, the tanker aircraft, the intelligence 
aircraft, are all flown by the United States.
  It would have the effect of disabling NATO from carrying on if it so 
desired.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I think that if we were to 
look at the resolve of Mr. Milosevic, he has done pretty well for 
himself, considering after 60-some days of bombing he has cleared out 
Kosovo of just about every ethnic Albanian he can clear out, with the 
exception of those who can serve him as human shields to protect his 
army and tanks.
  That is despicable. I am not going to stand on the floor of the 
Senate and defend Slobodan Milosevic. I am concerned about the long-
range situation and what our objective is. We can bomb and bomb and 
bomb. We have been doing that. How long that goes on, I do not know. 
The bottom line is: he has achieved what he wanted to achieve,

[[Page 10970]]

which is to get the ethnic Albanians out of Kosovo. He has accomplished 
what he wanted to accomplish in spite of the bombing--and maybe because 
of the bombing.
  I do not know what we are gaining by continuing. But I do think that, 
as a minimum, the President must get Congressional authorization to 
continue the war.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague for taking questions. I did not mean 
to importune the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. I inquire of the Presiding Officer how much time remains 
on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Smith controls 8 minutes 30 seconds, 
and the Senator from Virginia, the manager, controls 23 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  I am not going to take that long, only because I don't want the 
Senator to be left with no time to respond to what I think we will be 
hearing in the next 22 minutes. I want to make sure the Senator has 
adequate time.
  Let me take a minute and say that I don't like the amendment but I 
don't know any other choice. I wish there were other choices out there.
  We got involved in this. I am sure I can visualize what was happening 
when they made the decision to invade a sovereign nation, sitting 
around a table saying, we will send bombs out there for a couple of 
days and that will take care of him and everything will be fine.
  That was not the plan. We heard the plan criticized by the very best 
people out there. I will be in the region again this weekend.
  My concern, as I voiced several times, without a well laid out plan 
in a war we shouldn't be involved in--we have troops out there, as I 
said before, who are virtually naked and have no protection right now.
  I am concerned about Albania and the threat to our lives there as 
much as I am crossing that line into Kosovo. Because right now there is 
no force protection over there.
  As far as the pilots are concerned, I don't think there is a person 
in this U.S. Senate who has visited with the pilots more than I have, 
because as chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee I go around to all 
these places. I take journalists with me, frankly, so these people will 
realize why we are only retaining 19 percent of our Navy pilots, 27 
percent of our Air Force pilots. It is not just the attractive economy 
on the outside. It is not just the fact our mechanics are overworked 
and they are not sure the spare parts are going to be there. As they 
said in one of the places, with witnesses there, our problem is we have 
lost our sense of mission. They are sending us in places without 
adequate training. With all the money we are spending in these 
contingency operations where we do not have strategic interests, it is 
draining us from our ability to properly train should we have to meet a 
contingency where our national strategic interests are at stake.
  Our time that we are training these guys in red flag exercises in 
Nellis is cut way down; the National Training Center out in the desert, 
cutting down Twenty-nine Palms for the marines; they are not getting 
adequate training because we are busy deploying our troops in places 
where we do not have a national strategic interest. So I just look upon 
this as a way out. We have been looking for a way out of Bosnia since 
1995. Now there is no end in sight there. I do not want to get 
ourselves in that position, so I see the only way out right now is what 
the Senator from New Hampshire is suggesting. I do support his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, this amendment contains a funding cutoff that is far 
broader than the one that was contained in the Specter amendment that 
the Senate tabled yesterday. This would cut off funding effective 
October 1 for U.S. air or ground operations, including peacekeeping 
operations. So the Senator from New Hampshire has in no way stated 
inaccurately what this amendment does. It is his intention, and he said 
so quite clearly, that this amendment leads to the withdrawal of our 
effort, the termination, the ending of our effort in Serbia, including 
the air campaign.
  The Senate voted just a few months ago, 58-to-41, to support that air 
campaign. What this amendment says is we want to terminate the air 
campaign. This would have the Senate blow hot and blow cold on the same 
issue, whether or not we want to support an air campaign which is 
presently going on.
  At the same time, it tells Milosevic all you have to do is hang in 
there until October 1 and you will not even face an air campaign. You 
will not face any kind of campaign. You will have succeeded in Kosovo.
  Milosevic has not accomplished what he set out to accomplish because 
he is under severe attack in Kosovo and in Serbia. He will accomplish 
what he set out to accomplish if this amendment passes. That will be 
the victory. That will seal the success for Milosevic if this amendment 
is agreed to, because this amendment cuts off all funds, including 
those for the air campaign to attempt to reduce Milosevic's military 
capability, which is our military mission, and our broader mission will 
then be totally impossible. The broader mission is to return over 1 
million refugees who have been burned out, who have been raped, whose 
villages have been destroyed--500 villages. Those refugees, then, will 
have no hope of returning. Whereas now they have, indeed, a very real 
hope of returning because Milosevic is gradually being weakened and his 
forces are under tremendous stress. There is great evidence of that all 
over.
  The KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army, is beginning to move back in to 
their villages and into their homes. Nothing will scare Milosevic much 
more than having to face the KLA again, which will be the result of his 
failure to negotiate a settlement which provides for the return of 
these refugees in safety with protection.
  We cannot allow Milosevic to succeed, which is what this amendment 
hands to him. We cannot allow Milosevic to shape the future of Europe. 
That is what his success would do. His ethnic cleansing, if not 
reversed, will shape Europe for the next century.
  This century began with a genocide against the Armenians. It is 
ending with an ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars. And in between was a 
Holocaust. If we do not want the next century to be a repeat of this 
century, Milosevic cannot succeed. Europe's future is on the line and 
that means our own security is on the line. NATO's future is on the 
line. The adoption of this amendment will tell NATO they have failed. 
The adoption of this amendment will be the statement to Milosevic: You 
have succeeded. We are pulling out.
  That is what the intention of this amendment is, according to its 
sponsor. This amendment will tell our 19 allies in NATO: Forget NATO. 
Forget NATO cohesion. Forget NATO unity. We are pulling out.
  And this amendment will send the worst possible message to the most 
important of all the people, the men and women who wear our uniform who 
are out there in harm's way now, who would then be told by this 
amendment we are pulling out.
  This Senate must send a very different message than that. I hope this 
amendment is tabled by an overwhelming vote.
  I will be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I think we owe a debt of gratitude to our 
colleague from Oklahoma and our colleague from New Hampshire. They are 
among only a few who will bluntly state why they want out. They are 
straightforward. The Senator from Oklahoma says this is a way out of 
Kosovo, just like we should find a way

[[Page 10971]]

out of Bosnia. They say we have no interest in Yugoslavia. We have no 
ability to do anything about it. And we have no right.
  I find this absolutely fascinating. We talk about a sovereign nation 
being invaded by a horde of 19 democracies who are doing such an 
injustice to them.
  Then I hear that one of the reasons we should not be involved is 
because Yugoslavia is a sovereign country. I cannot remember what their 
explanation was as to why we should not be involved in Bosnia, where 
Slobodan Milosevic was crossing the Drina River with these very forces 
that are cutting off the noses, ears and then cutting the throats of 
captured men in Kosovo, who are taking their women to the third floor 
of army barracks for the pleasure of the troops and picking what they 
believe to be the most attractive of the women who happen to be 
Moslems. These are the same fellows that crossed the Drina River and 
invaded another country. I heard the same arguments from you all about 
how we should not be involved there. So do not let anybody fool you, 
this is not about sovereignty.
  The second point I would make is that we have reached the conclusion, 
straightforwardly, that Slobodan Milosevic's business is his business. 
What do we have to do with that? Let them work it out.
  I never thought I would live to see the day when a European leader 
was herding masses of women and children onto boxcars and trains in the 
sight of all the world, shipping them off to another border, 
destroying, as they crossed the border, their licenses, taking their 
birth certificates, going into the town halls and destroying the 
property records of those very people. And it is so convenient to say 
that is not our business.
  Then I hear another argument. You know, we have commitments around 
the world. We will not be able to fight a two-front war. But what is 
the threat to America beyond the nuclear one? And that will not be 
deterred by American ground forces. I hear my friend from New Hampshire 
say: Let the Europeans take care of this. Have we not shed enough blood 
in Europe?
  But we have to worry about Korea? Why not say let the Asians take 
care of Korea? There are more of them than us. We have shed enough 
blood in Asia.
  Are we protecting the use of American force in Europe so we can use 
it in Korea?
  If that is the logic, explain to me why the Japanese and the South 
Koreans cannot take care of themselves. I find this incredibly 
selective logic.
  And, by the way, this so-called failure in Bosnia--what a fascinating 
notion. Nobody is being killed there now; the raping, the rape camps, 
the ethnic cleansing have stopped; people are actually living next door 
to one another again. There are 6,800 American forces there, and that 
is supposedly too high a price to pay without, thank God--as my mother 
would say, knock on wood--one American being killed? I am sure glad you 
guys were not around in 1955 and 1956 and 1957 to say: By the way, all 
those forces we have in Germany, they are sitting there occupying a 
country and protecting a country, but their mission must be a failure 
because if they left, there would be war.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have not been a cheerleader for our 
participation in this conflict. I supported it, but I am nervous about 
it. But I must say, this is wrong. At 7 o'clock this evening, with no 
notice, we have an amendment that suggests we shall terminate our 
participation in the NATO campaign to stop the ethnic cleansing and the 
massacre in Kosovo. At 7 o'clock tonight, with no notice, we are going 
to have this debate probably for an hour?
  I just heard one of the sponsors of this amendment talk about what 
Mr. Milosevic has achieved. He is right about that, Mr. Milosevic has 
achieved the following: massacre, we don't know how many; troops 
burning villages; raping people; killing innocent men, women and 
children; hauling people like cattle in train cars or herding them in 
groups to the border; displacing 1 million to 1.5 million people from 
their homeland.
  Yes, he has achieved that. What hasn't he achieved? What he has not 
achieved he is about to achieve if the Senate adopts this amendment. He 
wants to achieve an end to the airstrikes that cause him great 
inconvenience and a great threat to his movement in this massacre and 
in this ethnic cleansing. Does the Senate want to allow him to achieve 
that goal? I do not think so.
  Five or 10 years from now we will look in our rear-view mirror and 
see that on our watch ethnic cleansing and massacre occurred and we 
said: Gee, that didn't matter; it wasn't our business.
  We have already decided that is not the position we will take. It is 
our business. It does matter. Do you want to know what ethnic cleansing 
is? Do you want to know what are the horrors of this kind of action 
visited upon those men, women, and children? Go to the museum not many 
blocks from here and see the train cars where they hauled people in 
Europe before, see the shoes of the people who died in the gas ovens, 
and then ask yourself: Does this kind of behavior matter? It does 
matter, and this country, with our allies, is trying to do something 
about it.
  Imperfect? Is this operation in Kosovo with us and our NATO allies 
imperfect? Yes, it is imperfect, but are we trying? Is this country, 
with our allies, saying this does matter? Yes. That is exactly what we 
are doing.
  Do we really want to say to Mr. Milosevic tonight: You can achieve 
the rest of your goals through the help of the Senate. You can do all 
this--rape, burn, massacre, move people out of their homeland, clean 
out a country, engage in ethnic cleansing--and when this country and 
others stand up to say we will not allow that on our time and our 
watch, you can achieve your objective and remove that nuisance called 
airstrikes and bombing campaigns and the Senate will help you do that? 
I do not think so. I certainly hope not, not this Senate.
  My hope is that history will record this effort as a noble effort 
that said when this kind of behavior exists, we will do what we can 
with our allies to stop it. I do not know how this ends, but I know it 
should not end tonight on a Wednesday night vote by the Senate to say 
to Mr. Milosevic: This country will no longer continue to be a problem 
for you.
  The rape, the burning, the massacres, the ethnic cleansing will not 
stop, but the airstrikes should? I do not think that is a decision this 
Senate will make. It is not a decision the Senate should make, and I 
hope in a short time, with an amendment that should not be offered in 
this kind of circumstance, the Senate will say: No, this effort by this 
country at this point in time is important. This is not about us alone. 
It is about this country with NATO, with our allies attempting to stop 
this man, Slobodan Milosevic, from the kind of behavior we would not 
accept from anyone in the world. I hope when this vote is cast, we will 
not achieve the objective Mr. Milosevic wants most, and that is a 
cessation of the bombing and the airstrikes. That is the price this man 
is paying for his behavior, and he must pay that price until he stops.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of 
Senator Bingaman, that Dr. Michael Cieslak, a fellow, be granted the 
privilege of the floor during the pendency of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time do the opponents have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 5 minutes 39 seconds; the 
opponents have 7 minutes 11 seconds.

[[Page 10972]]


  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, my framework is a little different. Murder is never 
legitimate, and we have tried to do the right thing to stop the 
slaughter of people, albeit we have not been anywhere close to 100 
percent successful. I have deep concerns about the conduct of this war 
and where it is heading.
  On May 3, I called for a temporary pause in the bombing for a focus 
on diplomacy. I wished we had done that. I wished we had not seen the 
bombing of the Chinese Embassy. I think we had momentum for a 
diplomatic solution consistent with our objectives: That the Kosovars 
go back home, that there be a force there to give them protection, that 
they be able to rebuild their lives.
  I say to colleagues tonight that I do have serious reservations about 
part of the direction in which we are heading. The airstrikes have gone 
beyond degrading the military, which was to be our objective, and I 
really worry that we begin to undercut our own moral claim when we 
begin to affect innocent people with our airstrikes, when we begin to 
kill innocent people, albeit that is not the intention.
  I focus on diplomacy. I still believe we need to have a pause in the 
bombing. We have to have a diplomatic solution. That is the only option 
that I see available to bring this conflict to an end and to enable the 
Kosovars to go back home, which is our objective.
  Once again, I worry about these airstrikes when we go after power 
grids and it affects hospitals and it affects innocent civilians. That 
goes beyond just degrading the military. I sharply call that into 
question.
  I say to my colleague from New Hampshire, I believe this amendment is 
profoundly mistaken. It takes Milosevic completely off the hook. This 
amendment takes us in the opposite direction of where we need to go 
toward a diplomatic solution to end this conflict.
  This is the wrong amendment. This is the wrong statement. This is at 
the wrong time. Therefore, I rise to speak against it. But I will 
continue to speak out and raise questions. I will continue to talk 
about the need to move away from the bombing and to focus more 
seriously, and in a more concentrated and focused way, on a diplomatic 
solution and an end to this conflict on honorable terms.
  I hope my colleagues tonight, however, will vote against this 
amendment. I hope it will be a strong vote against this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the debate on 
this amendment, and I appreciate the wrenching emotion that has 
motivated those on both sides of this issue.
  The NATO operation in Kosovo is a difficult issue for many of us to 
come to terms with. Our hearts ache for the suffering of the Kosovar 
Albanians who have been banished from their homeland by the forces of 
Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. At the same time, we fear for 
the safety of U.S. and NATO military forces who are engaged in a 
perilous mission in a corner of the world that has been torn by ethnic 
conflict for centuries.
  We cannot foresee the outcome of this operation. We have a duty to 
watch it carefully, to debate it fully on the floor of this Senate. But 
in our concern to do what is right, we should not act in so much haste 
that we run the risk of making a fatal mistake.
  There may come a day when I will stand on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate with the Senator from New Hampshire and call for a cutoff to the 
funding of U.S. operations in Kosovo. But that day is not today. That 
time is not now. A decision of that magnitude must not be taken on the 
run, after a hastily called 60-minute debate among a handful of 
Senators.
  Mr. President, this amendment sends the wrong message at the wrong 
time. By all means, let us debate the U.S. involvement in Kosovo. But 
let us do it with deliberation and forethought. I urge the Senate to 
table this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. As I said when we began the debate, I respect the views 
of my long-time friend. He comes from a distinguished military family. 
He served, himself, in the uniform of the United States. We have a very 
diverse group in the Senate with regard to their views on this 
conflict.
  There is not a one of us who was not deeply concerned before we 
became involved in this conflict. We are in it now. I salute here 
tonight the professionalism that has been shown by the men and women of 
the Armed Forces of the United States, in particular, and joined by 
their counterparts from some eight other nations in the air, and the 
other NATO nations in one way or another that have participated in this 
conflict.
  We are in it because our generation cannot tolerate what we have seen 
Milosevic do to human beings. To do so would be to reject, indeed, what 
other men and women have done in previous generations to bring about 
freedom for others: World War II, followed by Korea, followed by 
Vietnam. We are there to protect freedom. We are there to protect the 
rights of human beings to have some basic quality of life and ability 
to exist.
  I remember the peak of this event. When we got started, it was just 
before Easter. I went back to my constituents and, indeed, they asked 
me: Why should we be there? I said: Could you be at home on Easter 
Sunday, sharing with millions and millions of Americans the experience 
of your respected place of religion, sharing with your family a 
bountiful meal, and watch the pictures of the deprivation, the murder, 
the rape, the mayhem inflicted by Milosevic and his lieutenants on 
fellow human beings?
  Yes, they are Kosovars; yes, they are far away; yes, they speak a 
different language. I was there in September. I traveled in Kosovo, in 
Pristina, in Macedonia. At that time, I saw these people being driven 
from their homes. Not distant from where we were driving--we were 
permitted by the Yugoslav Army to take certain roads--we could see the 
burning houses; we could hear the shells. The war was in full progress 
in other areas several miles distant from the route that we took.
  We could not stand by, as a free people, and see in Europe a 
repetition of the horrors that visited Europe in World War II. So we 
are there. My vote tonight in opposition to my good friend is because I 
am pledged and committed to the men and women of the United States 
Armed Forces and the other nations. I am pledged and committed to the 
survival of NATO, not just as a political entity but for what NATO 
stands for, the principles for which it stands. I encourage my 
colleagues to do likewise.
  We will somehow, as a collection of free nations, bring this tragic 
conflict to a halt. When and exactly how, none of us knows.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the opponents has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand my time has concluded. I say 
to my friend, I respect you, but I vote against you. I shall move to 
table at the appropriate time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The respect is mutual, as my friend 
knows.
  Mr. President, there have been a few misstatements about my amendment 
that I would like to clarify, as Senators now begin to make their way 
to the floor. I will only be a few minutes in closing.
  All this amendment requires is that the President make the case and 
get congressional approval to go forward with this war after October 1. 
No funds are cut off until October 1, and unless Congress chooses not 
to authorize the President to continue. That is what this amendment 
requires.
  I heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the issue say a few 
moments ago that this is coming at the

[[Page 10973]]

last minute and that we do not have time to deliberate. I will tell you 
how much time you have to deliberate. You have the rest of this month, 
you have June, July, August, and September. You have 4 months to think 
about whether or not you want this war to continue and whether or not 
you want to authorize more funding. It does not send any message to 
Milosevic other than the fact that Congress intends to exercise its 
constitutional authority. That is all.
  I could probably give emotional speeches about a number of human 
tragedies around the world. My colleague from Delaware got very 
emotional; and that is a good quality when you believe in something. 
But this decision should not be based on emotions. This is a decision 
about how we should use our finite power. We should make the decision 
on how we use our power on the basis of American interests. No American 
life should be risked based on any Senator's emotions, for goodness' 
sake.
  In 1995, 500,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in six weeks--most of them 
hacked to death by machetes--in tribal warfare in the nation of Rwanda. 
Maybe I am mistaken--and if I am, I will apologize to any Senator who 
says he came down here and said that we should enter the war in Rwanda, 
enter that civil war, fire cruise missiles, bomb the blazes out of all 
the cities, bring those tribes back to their knees to stop the 
hacking--but I did not hear it. That was a humanitarian crisis of the 
highest magnitude, and we did not enter it. And we should not have 
entered it.
  Those 500,000 people are just as precious under the eyes of God as 
anybody else in the world, and we said nothing. We did not fire cruise 
missiles, we did not drop smart bombs, and we did not talk about ground 
forces, we did not talk about NATO forces, or any other forces of the 
world going in and setting up a partition to keep two warring tribes 
apart. Why? Because, as in Kosovo, the conflict posed no threat to the 
United States. No American lives were worth risking.
  This is not about tying the President's hands as he tries to defend 
America. It is about guiding and restraining an incompetent 
administration as it muddles around in a place where U.S. interests 
are, at best, peripheral.
  There are terrible humanitarian situations that Mr. Milosevic has 
created. I will be the first to admit it. The question is, as I said at 
the outset of this debate, How do we resolve it? Do we resolve it with 
more bombs? By bombing and causing collateral damage to innocent 
people? Or do we do it through diplomacy?
  I am not trying to send a message one way or the other to Milosevic 
with this amendment. I am trying to send a message to the American 
people and to the Senate to say, if we are going to put Americans at 
war in a sovereign nation in a civil war, the least the Senate can do 
is have the intestinal fortitude to say yes or no, rather than to let 
this thing string on like Vietnam did and then, after 58,000 people are 
dead, we say, oh, my goodness, if we had just stopped this war a little 
bit earlier--or perhaps, as Senator Goldwater said, we had fought it to 
win a little bit sooner. Meanwhile, there are 58,000-plus people on the 
Vietnam Wall.
  Now is the time to speak, not 5 years from now. All I am asking in 
this amendment is that we have from now until October 1 to decide 
whether or not we want to fund this war any further. That is the 
message I am sending. I am sending that to my colleagues who represent 
the people of the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes to address the Senate with regard to tomorrow's schedule prior 
to the vote so Senators coming to vote can depart and know what will 
take place tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. The order was to be handed to me. We were not able to 
resolve the Allard amendment, so that will be the recurring order of 
business tomorrow morning. Of course, the Lott amendment is still in 
place; am I not correct, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. So we will endeavor tomorrow morning, without specifying 
exactly how and when we will do it, to bring up the Allard amendment. 
Senator Harkin has 20 minutes, and we will divide, say, another 20 
minutes between the distinguished ranking member and myself, should we 
need it. That would be a total of 40 minutes on the debate. I think 
maybe I will say 15 minutes between the two of us and 15 minutes to 
Senator Allard, 20 minutes for Senator Harkin. I think that should do 
it.
  We will just have to establish the time that we will vote on the 
Allard amendment tomorrow morning.
  This will be the last vote for tonight, and Senators can expect early 
on in the morning that we will address the Allard amendment.
  Mr. President, I move to table the 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 406. The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--21

     Allard
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cleland
     Craig
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bond
     Moynihan
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:30 a.m. 
on Thursday, the Senate resume the DOD authorization bill, and that the 
Allard amendment No. 396 be the pending business, and that there be 30 
minutes remaining on the amendment with 20 minutes under the control of 
Senator Harkin and 10 minutes equally divided between Senator Allard 
and myself, with a vote occurring at 10 a.m. on or in relation to the 
amendment, with no amendments in order prior to the vote.
  Mr. REID. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in light of that agreement, there will be 
no further votes this evening. The next vote will be at 10 a.m. on 
Thursday relative to the Allard amendment.

[[Page 10974]]

  Mr. President, at this time there will be no further action on the 
DOD bill.


                       FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the amendment 
to strike Section 806 of S. 1059, the Defense Authorization Act.
  Many of us, including Senator Gramm, Senator Hatch, and Senator Byrd, 
discussed the importance of Federal Prison Industries on the floor 
yesterday when this amendment was first considered. I would like to 
speak for a moment on a few issues that have been raised in this 
debate.
  Some have argued that the taxpayers would save money if Federal 
agencies were not required to use FPI because FPI prices are not 
competitive. However, studies from the General Accounting Office and 
the Department of Defense Inspector General show that FPI prices are 
generally within the market range. Indeed, the DoD IG report found that 
FPI prices were generally lower than the private sector for the 
products reviewed.
  Moreover, it is important to note that Prison Industries is a self-
sufficient corporation. As we discussed at my Judiciary hearing on this 
issue, if Prison Industries did not exist, it would cost taxpayers 
millions of dollars per year to fund inmate programs that would provide 
similar security to prison facilities and similar benefits to 
prisoners. FPI is the most successful inmate program. We should support 
it strongly and not pass legislation that could undermine it.
  The April 1999 study between DoD and BoP discusses the relations 
between the two agencies in great detail. The study concludes that no 
legislative changes are warranted in Defense purchases from FPI. It 
made some recommendations for improvements that are currently being 
implemented. We should give the study time to work.
  This joint study shows that Defense customers are generally satisfied 
with FPI. Although some concerns remain such as timeliness of delivery, 
these issues are being addressed. It is best to allow the joint study 
to speak for itself. The Executive Summary states: ``In response to 
questions regarding the price, quality, delivery, and service of 
specific products purchased in the last 12 months, FPI generally rated 
in the good to excellent or average ranges in all categories. On the 
whole, respondents seem to be very satisfied with quality and service, 
mostly satisfied with price, and least satisfied with delivery. * * * 
Most respondents rated FPI either good or average, as an overall 
supplier, in efficiency, timeliness, and best value. FPI was rated 
highest as an overall supplier in the area of quality.'' The survey 
generally shows a positive, productive relationship. It is clear that 
drastic changes are not warranted in the relations between DoD and BoP.
  Indeed, the Administration strongly opposes Section 806. The 
Statement of Administration Policy on S. 1059 explains that this 
provision ``would essentially eliminate the Federal Prison Industries 
mandatory source with the Defense Department. Such action could harm 
the FPI program which is fundamental to the security in Federal 
prisons.''
  FPI is a correctional program that is essential to the safe and 
efficient operation of our increasingly overcrowded Federal prisons. 
While we are putting more and more criminals in prison, we must 
maintain the program that keeps them occupied and working.


                         defense production act

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I commend the manager of the bill, the 
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, 
for including in this legislation a one-year extension of the Defense 
Production Act. As the Senator knows, the Defense Production Act falls 
under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  The Defense Production Act is due to expire on September 30, 1999. 
The Banking Committee has a great interest in the Defense Production 
Act and we intend to conduct a thorough review when we consider its 
reauthorization. However, due to the press of other business, 
specifically the time-consuming task of passing the first modernization 
of our financial services laws in sixty years, the Banking Committee is 
unable to conduct such a thorough review at this time.
  Therefore, I requested that Senator Warner include a provision in the 
Department of Defense authorization bill to extend the Defense 
Production Act until September 30, 2000. This extension will allow the 
Banking Committee the time to give the reauthorization of the Defense 
Production Act the attention it deserves. Senator Warner was kind 
enough to include this provision at my request.
  Mr. WARNER. We understand that the Banking Committee intends to take 
a close look at the Defense Production Act, but may not be able to do 
so prior to the September 30, 1999 deadline. The Armed Services 
Committee is happy to accommodate the Banking Committee, as we did last 
year, and include a one-year extension of the Defense Production Act in 
the DOD authorization bill.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee for his courtesy and assistance on this issue. I ask 
unanimous consent that a letter I wrote to Senator Warner on this issue 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                             Committee on Banking,


                                   Housing, and Urban Affairs,

                                     Washington, DC, May 25, 1999.
     Hon. John Warner,
     U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: I am writing to request that the Armed 
     Services Committee include a one-year authorization of the 
     Defense Production Act in S. 1059, the Department of Defense 
     authorization bill. As you know, pursuant to the Standing 
     Rules of the Senate, the Committee on Banking, Housing and 
     Urban Affairs has jurisdiction over the Defense Production 
     Act. This Act is due to expire on September 30, 1999.
       While it is the Banking Committee's intention to give more 
     thorough attention to the Defense Production Act in the 
     future, other issues such as financial services modernization 
     have taken priority this year. As a result, it would be of 
     great assistance if you would include in the upcoming defense 
     authorization bill a provision to renew the Defense 
     Production Act through September 30, 2000.
       Thank you for your assistance in extending the Defense 
     Production Act for another year.
           Yours respectfully,
                                                       Phil Gramm,
                                                         Chairman.


                           164th airlift wing

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Warner, for coming to the Senate floor today to 
discuss the follow-on aircraft designation for the 164th Airlift Wing 
of the Tennessee National Guard.
  Mr. WARNER. As the Senator from Tennessee is aware the C-141 aircraft 
has served this nation well but its useful life is coming to an end. In 
the report to accompany the Defense Authorization Act, the Committee 
urges the Secretary of the Air Force to designate a follow-on aircraft 
for those Air Force Reserve units affected by the retirement of the C-
141, and notify the relevant congressional committees as soon as the 
new mission assignments are available.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding the 164th Air Wing is 
the only Air Guard C-141 unit in the country not to have a follow-on 
mission designated.
  Mr. WARNER. The Committee's urging of the Secretary of the Air Force 
to designate a new mission for the C-141s of the Air Force Reserve was 
in no way meant to neglect the similar urgency in the Tennessee Air 
Guard. Moreover, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the 
importance of strategic airlift to our ability to project force 
globally. the Guard and Reserve are a critical part of the total force 
equation. Let me assure the Senator from Tennessee that I strongly 
support his efforts to have a follow-on mission designated for the 
164th Air Wing in Memphis.
  Mr. FRIST. I thank the Chairman for his strong words of support. At a 
time when our nation considers the possibility of sending ground troops 
to

[[Page 10975]]

Kosovo it is clear to me that we must support strategic airlift. 
Airlift remains one the largest challenges our forces face. It is my 
desire to see the Air Force act to resolve this issue with expediency 
and consider designating the C-5 or the C-17 airframe for the future of 
the Tennessee Air Guard.
  Mr. WARNER. Again, let me assure the Senator from Tennessee that I am 
confident working with the Armed Services Committee and the Air Force 
that this issue will be resolved soon.


                  MEDAL OF HONOR TO ALFRED RASCON 1999

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor 
of the amendment which recommends the Congressional Medal of Honor be 
awarded to Mr. Alfred P. Rascon. I would like to take just a moment and 
introduce you to Mr. Rascon.
  Alfred Rascon was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and emigrated to the 
United States with his parents in the 1950's. He served two tours in 
Vietnam, one as a medic. When Rascon volunteered for the service, he 
was not yet a citizen but was a lawful permanent resident, and he was 
only 17 years of age but convinced his mother to sign his papers so he 
could enlist.
  On March 16, 1966, then Specialist Alfred Rascon, while serving in 
Vietnam, performed a series of heroic acts that words simply cannot 
describe. For Rascon and the seven soldiers he aided while under direct 
gunfire, that day will long be remembered. Rascon's platoon found 
itself in a desperate situation under heavy fire by a powerful North 
Vietnamese force. When an American machine gunner went down and a medic 
was called for, Rascon, 20 at the time, ignored his orders to remain 
under cover and rushed down the trail amid an onslaught of enemy 
gunfire and grenades. To better protect the wounded soldier, Rascon 
placed his body between the enemy machine gun fire and this soldier. 
Rascon jolted as he was shot in the hip. Although wounded, he managed 
to drag this 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 lay dead, and Gibson had no 
ammunition with which to defend the platoon. Rascon grabbed the dead 
soldier's ammunition and gave it to Gibson. Then, amid relentless enemy 
fire and grenades, Rascon hobbled back up the trail and snared the dead 
soldier's machine gun and, most important, 400 rounds of additional 
ammunition. Eyewitnesses state that this act alone saved the entire 
platoon from annihilation.
  The pace quickened and grenades continued to fall. One ripped open 
Rascon's face, but this did not 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 provided aid. A few minutes later, Rascon witnessed Sergeant Ray 
Compton being hit by gunfire. As Rascon moved toward him, another 
grenade dropped. Instead of seeking cover, Rascon dove on top of the 
wounded sergeant and again absorbed the blow. This time the explosion 
smashed through Rascon's helmet and ripped into his scalp. Compton's 
life was spared.
  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. 
He was so severely wounded that it was necessary to medically discharge 
him from the Army.
  The soldiers who witnessed Rascon's deeds that day recommended him in 
writing for the Medal of Honor. Years later, these soldiers were 
shocked to discover that he had not received it. It appears their 
recommendations did not go up the chain of command beyond the platoon 
leader who did not personally witness the events. Rascon was instead 
awarded the Silver Star. Rascon's Silver Star citation details only a 
portion of his heroic actions on March 16, 1966.
  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 Rascon 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 battle 
field even though he was an immigrant and not yet a citizen. Rascon 
replied, ``I was always an American in my heart.''
  Mr. President, these actions speak for themselves. I first met Mr. 
Rascon in 1995. He came to see me as the Inspector General of the 
Selective Service System, where he continues to serve his nation today. 
In the course of our conversation I learned of his amazing story, and 
as the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee at that time, I 
realized I had to act.
  I contacted a number of officials at the Department of Defense and 
learned that his case could not even be examined because the law said 
time to consider those awards had expired. So, in the 1996 Defense 
Authorization Bill, we changed the law. Four years have passed since 
then; however, the Secretary of the Army and the Chairman of Joint 
Chiefs of Staff now agree and have recommended that Alfred Rascon be 
awarded the Medal of Honor, the Nation's highest award for valor. You 
have heard this story. The legislation authorizes the President to 
award the Medal of Honor to Alfred Rascon. If ever there was a case to 
recognize heroism and bravery far above and beyond the call of duty, 
this is it.

                          ____________________