The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Senate section on pages S7436-S7447 on July 15, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume consideration of S. 1005, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1005) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Stevens-Inouye Amendment No. 846, to require a report to Congress on all anticipated costs to the United States for the admission of the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary to NATO.
Harkin Amendment No. 848, to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to underwrite restructuring costs associated with a business merger.
Amendment No. 849
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mrs. Hutchison, for herself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. McCain, Mr. Warner, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 849.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) International efforts to bring indicted war criminals to justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina consistent with the 1995 Dayton Accords should be supported as an important element in creating a self-sustaining peace in the region;
(2) The Administration should consult closely with the Congress on all efforts to bring indicted war criminals to justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina consistent with the 1995 Dayton Accords; and
(3) The Administration should consult closely and in a timely manner with the Congress on the NATO-led Stabilization Force's mission concerning the apprehension of indicated war criminals, including any changes in the mission which could affect American forces.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides and is now acceptable to the managers of the bill. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Texas.
The amendment (No. 849) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 850
(Purpose: To make available funds for the payment of claims for loss and damage to personal property suffered by military personnel due to flooding in the Red River Basin)
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] for Mr. Dorgan, for himself, and Mr. Conrad, proposes an amendment numbered 850.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . Up to $4.5 million of funds available to the Department of Defense may be available for the payment of claims for loss and damage to personal property suffered as a direct result of the flooding in the Red River Basin during April and May 1997 by members of the Armed Forces residing in the vicinity of Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, without regard to the provisions of section 3721(e) of title 31, United States Code.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I offer today with my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, an amendment that would prevent unintended discrimination against Grand Forks AFB personnel as the Defense Department provides compensation for personal property losses incurred as a result of this spring's unprecedented flooding in the Red River Valley. This legislation has been requested by Air Force Secretary Sheila E. Widnall, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ronald R. Fogleman, and the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Transportation Command, Gen. Walter Kross, with the support of Gen. Howell Estes, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Space Command.
As my colleagues are aware, last week I offered this amendment to the fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization bill with Senators Dorgan, Wellstone, Johnson, and Daschle. It was accepted by the Armed Services Committee, but I look forward to its inclusion in the fiscal year 1998 Defense appropriations bill before us as well. This will ensure that both defense measures passed by the Senate this year are in agreement that disaster relief must be provided to personnel on an equitable basis.
As I have discussed on the Senate floor on several occasions, Mr. President, this winter and spring were the most severe in my State's history, culminating in a 500-year flood. Damages to property stretched into the billions, and the disruption to families and the community was incalculable.
Confronted with a disaster of almost Biblical proportions, the able men and women of Grand Forks AFB helped fight the flood. They manned
``sandbag central,'' helped evacuate the city of Grand Forks, and provided shelter, food, and comfort to thousands of flood refugees. Many Air Force officers and enlisted personnel worked tirelessly, even as their homes were washed away, resulting in almost total personal property losses.
Fortunately, current law allows the Defense Department to provide personal property compensation to personnel once personal insurance and any other Federal assistance has been exhausted. Separate compensation from the military is appropriate, Mr. President, in light of the fact that servicemembers, their families, and their property have been put in harm's way as a result of assignment orders. Those residing in Grand Forks AFB housing are currently able to benefit from this assistance.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, we have a catch 22 problem. The families that suffered the most--those living off-base in the city of Grand Forks because of on-base housing shortages--are getting no help. This is because existing law prevents ``Federal agencies from paying claims for losses incident to service which occurs at residences not provided by the United States,'' to quote an Air Force analysis.
Mr. President, the men and women of Grand Forks AFB were there when their country needed them. The amendment I have offered here again today would ensure that their country does not allow them to endure unfair and unintended discrimination in their hour of need. It would waive the provision that prevents them from receiving assistance. This action would be consistent with earlier legislation passed in 1992 on behalf of Homestead AFB personnel living off-base who had suffered as a result of Hurricane Andrew.
On behalf of the more than 700 Air Force families living in the city of Grand Forks when the levees broke, I would like to extend my thanks again to the Senate and the able leadership of the Armed Services Committee for passing this amendment last week. Today, sincere thanks should also go to the distinguished leadership of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye, for their willingness to work with Senator Dorgan and myself to bring the authorization and appropriations measures into agreement on this important matter.
Before closing, Mr. President, I would like to recognize again the exemplary work of everyone at Grand Forks AFB during this spring's flooding. In accepting thousands of flood refugees at the worst of the disaster, the base provided warm, safe housing for countless families. They also provided something else, something even more important--a sense of hope that has helped preserve Grand Forks' sense of community. At a time when nearly the entire city was submerged by the rising floodwaters and its most historic areas burned, the importance of this cannot be overstated.
Again, Mr. President, let me thank the committee and the Senate for their careful consideration of this amendment, which will ensure that all Air Force personnel in the flooded area are treated equitably. I look forward to its approval as part of the fiscal year 1998 Defense appropriations bill, retention in conference, and passage into law.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to comment briefly on my flood relief amendment, which is now pending to the defense appropriations bill.
As my colleagues know, this spring the Red River Valley suffered its worst flooding in recorded history. Personnel at Grand Forks Air Force Base pitched in to fight the flooding that everyone knew would come--
they helped operate ``Sandbag Central'' to enable volunteers to go to the front lines on the dikes.
When the water finally won, a 500-year flood emptied Grand Forks, ND, a city of 50,000 people, and sent 4,000 residents to the Grand Forks Air Force Base for shelter. Many of my colleagues saw on television the base hangar that was converted to a shelter and that provided refuge for those citizens.
What my colleagues may not know is that many of the base personnel who fought the flood for weeks were themselves victims of the flood when it came. Over 700 military personnel were forced to evacuate during this disaster. And 406 servicemembers have suffered losses to personal property, including 95 families whose homes were inside the diked area near the Red River and were extensively damaged.
However, without the flood relief authority my amendment would provide, these servicemembers will be victims of unintended discrimination.
If these servicemembers had lived on base, they would be eligible to file a claim with the Department of Defense for losses incident to service. The Air Force pays such claims pursuant to section 3721 of title 31 of the United States Code. But as the law now stands, military personnel living off base are not eligible to file such claims, even though they are stationed at Grand Forks Air Force Base as a result of their military service.
My amendment would simply permit the Air Force to reimburse these servicemembers for their losses despite the fact that they lived off base. It makes available up to $4.5 million of the funds already available to the Department of Defense for paying claims.
Let me assure my colleagues that this amendment supplements private insurance and benefits provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Air Force claims practices and FEMA regulations prohibit duplicative benefits. Military members who have private insurance will be required to file claims against that insurance before the Air Force will pay claims under this amendment.
I understand that this amendment is acceptable to the Chairman, Senator Stevens, and to the ranking member, Senator Inouye. I thank them very much for their support of this amendment, and for the work of their staffs in clearing this amendment.
I look forward to this amendment's approval by the Senate, and I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment is supported by the Department of the Air Force, and we are prepared to accept it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 850) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in the order pertaining to this bill that was agreed to last evening, there is a second Dorgan amendment that I am authorized to withdraw. I ask that it be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry. Is the amendment I have offered together with my friend from Hawaii, No. 846, still the pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would observe that the amendment pending before the body is amendment No. 848 offered by the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is there also pending behind that 846?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Amendment No. 851
(Purpose: To set aside $36,000,000 of O&M funds for an authorized Navy program to demonstrate expanded use of multi-technology automated reader cards throughout the Navy and the Marine Corps, including demonstration of the use of the so-called ``smartship'' technology of the ship-to-shore worked load/off load program)
Mr. STEVENS. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Robb of Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Robb, proposes an amendment numbered 851.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8099. Of the total amount appropriated under title II for the Navy, the Secretary of the Navy shall make
$36,000,000 available for a program to demonstrate expanded use of multitechnology automated reader cards throughout the Navy and the Marine Corps, including demonstration of the use of the so-called ``smartship'' technology of the ship-to-shore work load/off load program.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, last evening the Senator from Hawaii and I discussed this amendment with the Senator from Virginia. We are convinced that it will bring about savings of taxpayer funds and that it should be adopted at this time.
Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Virginia.
The amendment (No. 851) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 846
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate my amendment No. 846.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself, and Mr. Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered 846.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Alaska.
The amendment (No. 846) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have now pending, under the orders agreed to last evening, the Feinstein amendment on land transfer, a Feinstein amendment on NATO expansion cost caps, the Graham amendment on electronic combat testing, the pending Harkin merger cost amendment No. 848, a managers' amendment from Senator Inouye, and one for myself, which we will join together, and two McCain amendments, one dealing with foreign flag vessels, and one ``Buy America'' amendment.
I urge Members of the Senate to come and offer their amendments. We are asked by leadership to see if it is possible to finish this bill before the recess for the Tuesday meetings of both parties. The Senator from Hawaii and I are prepared to try to do that if Members would come and offer their amendments.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 852
(Purpose: To strike out section 8097)
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment numbered 852.
Strike out section 8097.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment strikes section 8097 from the Defense appropriations bill in its entirety.
This provision has nothing to do with national security issues. It is purely and simply an example of pork-barrel spending that has nothing to do with defense.
The provision earmarks $250,000 for the maritime technology program. Do not be deceived by the amount of money. The $250,000 is the beginning of what could turn into a multimillion-dollar bailout for a cruise ship line and ships to be constructed in a certain shipyard.
The money would be used to establish a pilot project to transfer commercial cruise shipbuilding technology to U.S. shipyards--on its face it is an innocuous idea, even though it doesn't have a lot to do with national defense or anything--utilizing the experience of U.S. flag cruise ship operators, and protecting the operation of a foreign-
built U.S. flag cruise ship and two newly constructed U.S. flag cruise ships around the Hawaiian Islands.
The last goal of the pilot project is, I suspect, the most important and most disturbing aspect of the program.
As I mentioned, this provision only earmarks $250,000. I also mentioned that money has nothing to do with defense.
The Maritech Program is a very limited program, and this $250,000 earmarked represents a large portion of available Maritech funds.
I suspect very strongly that this is not the end of the drain on defense dollars for this cruise ship program. I fully expect to see millions of dollars set aside to build these cruise ships and subsequent bills, whether it is the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill this year or in next year's defense appropriations bill.
If the past is any indicator, this is just the beginning of a multimillion-dollar waste of defense dollars.
Was the Commerce Committee asked to review this proposal? No.
Should the Commerce Committee have been asked to review this program? Yes.
This provision waives three established laws:
One, it bypasses the established process for reviewing the Jones Act, Passenger Service Vessel Act, and coast-wise endorsement waivers.
Ordinarily, the Commerce Committee considers action on each requested waiver. This legislation did not come before the Commerce Committee and effectively waives these laws for an unidentified foreign-built cruise ship.
In my view, should the Commerce Committee approve this proposal as written? No.
Frankly, that is the precise reason this provision is in this bill and not in the Commerce Committee bill.
I wonder if anyone can tell me exactly how many cruise ship operators can meet the exact criteria spelled out in the provision of the bill.
I quote:
$250,000 should be made available to assist with a pilot project that will facilitate the transfer of commercial cruise shipbuilding technology and expertise, and enable the operation of a U.S. flag foreign-built cruise ship and two newly constructed U.S. flagships.
That a person (including a related person with respect to that person) within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. Section 801, may not operate a U.S. flag foreign-built cruise ship, or any other cruise ship, in coastwise trade between or among the islands of Hawaii, upon execution of the contract referred to in this section and continuing throughout the life expectancy
. . . of a newly constructed U.S. flag cruise ship referred to in this section, unless the cruise ship is operated by a person that is . . . operating a cruise ship in coastwise trade between or among the islands of Hawaii on the date of enactment, except if any cruise ship constructed pursuant to this section operates in regular service other than between or among the islands of Hawaii.
Provided further, That for purposes of this section, the term ``cruise ship'' means a vessel that is at least 10,000 gross tons . . . and the berth or stateroom accommodations for at least 275 passengers.
Mr. President, the list goes on and on.
This is really unacceptable. This is really unacceptable.
In my view, I understand there is only one cruise ship operator in Hawaii that can meet this criteria. Only one. And that operator is being handed a 30-year to 40-year monopoly for his existing business.
How many times has the U.S. Senate so blatantly set up a monopoly set aside for any individual or business? Why would we want to start now? On the very rare occasions that Congress has permitted a monopoly operation, such as Conrail, it was to ensure availability of adequate domestic transportation in the absence of any other possible viable alternative.
I personally know of no other monopoly operation other than the Conrail example.
Many of my colleagues in this Chamber profess to be concerned about the growing consolidation in the defense industry, expressing worry that overconsolidation will lead to monopolies in the defense industry.
I have long been a free trade advocate, and I believe in our existing review. Why wouldn't that same concern about unfair anticompetitive restrictions apply in this case? Why is this legislative monopoly necessary?
The current operator of this cruise ship operation in Hawaii has operated for many years without this legislative protection. He is protected from foreign competition under existing laws and does not need the protection of Congress to replace his existing ship with new ships.
What is the urgency of including this language in this defense appropriations bill, or, for that matter, in any other bill?
Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that this provision was inserted in this bill. But it is not necessary. It wastes defense dollars, and it sets up an ill-considered monopoly for one single entity.
Mr. President, if this amendment is not stricken from the bill and it survives conference with the House, I would strongly recommend that the President of the United States, in the exercise of his line-item veto authority, eliminate this egregious example of pork-barrel spending.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, 40 years ago the United States shipping interests controlled the Mediterranean. Most of the cruise ships in the Mediterranean, if I may remind my colleagues, were made in the United States. They had crews of American sailors, and we carried passengers not only from the United States but all over the world.
At the same time, we also dominated and controlled the cruise ship industry in the Caribbean. The same is true in the Pacific. For that matter, 40 years ago the United States shipping interests sailed the seven seas and controlled the seven seas.
Today, we have one company that has one cruise ship. No shipyard has ever made a cruise ship since 1956. That is 40 years. For 40 years, our shipyards have not built a cruise ship. Today, we have one, an old ship.
And what is the situation? The fastest growing part of the tourist industry of the world is cruise ships. We see that on television every night, every 30 minutes on just about every channel--love boats, holiday boats, and most of the passengers are American. These cruise ships are built in foreign shipyards, and they are manned by foreign sailors.
It may interest you to know that just last week the Wall Street Journal reported that cruise ship workers on foreign flag vessels work between 16 to 18 hours a day and get paid by the cruise lines about
$1.50 a day before tips--$1.50 a day before tips. That is their take-
home pay because the cruise ship owner says, well, he has a free bunk; we give him three meals a day. This is gravy for him, $1.50 a day.
That is why we cannot compete with them. We insist that all of our ships maintain the highest health standards. Wage and hour provisions that apply here in the Nation's Capital will apply on cruise ships manned by Americans. The cruise ships operating in the Hawaiian waters today pay not minimum wage but union declared wages. They are much, much higher than union wage, and they get paid more than $1.50 an hour.
Many of us felt that the time had come to stop this, to reinvigorate the industry, and we came up with this plan. This plan reminds us of what happened to the United States in World War II--for that matter in World War I--the Korean conflict, and even in Vietnam. Since we do not have a fleet of troop carriers, we have always had to call upon private shipowners to come forth with their passenger vessels, convert them into troop carriers, and sail the seven seas.
Mr. President, as a young man of 18, I crossed the Pacific on a luxury cruise ship which was converted into a troop carrier. Going across the Atlantic, I am sorry to say, it was not a cruise ship; it was a tanker, but there were many other cruise ships in operation at that time.
This program, the Meritech Program, has been authorized. It has been operational. And up until now they have come up with plans on how to bring about the construction by private industry of passenger vessels that can be converted for defense purposes if the need should arise. This provision in this bill is to implement those plans.
I can assure you, if the Senator from Arizona wishes, we will put in clear language that says this ship will be built with private funds. I can assure one and all that if this will satisfy my friend from Arizona, I would like this language put in the appropriate place:
``Provided further, that none of the funds provided in this or any other act may be obligated for the construction of vessels addressed by this section.''
If it is appropriate, I ask that this provision be made part of the bill before us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will ask, does the Senator ask unanimous consent----
Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. To place the appropriate language in the legislation?
Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I just want to clarify, I understand that----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. My reservation is as follows. My understanding is that the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii are willing to modify the language of the bill that states that no Federal money will be spent for the construction of a cruise ship or the tooling up of a shipyard for that construction. If that is correct, then I appreciate the agreement of the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from Alaska and we will make that change and propose that change shortly.
Is that the intent of the Senator from Hawaii?
Mr. INOUYE. That is the intent of the language. I believe the language is clear.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside my amendment at this time and we will revisit it when the language, modifying language is made up, and I will at that time make a motion to modify my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have another amendment at the desk.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Does it mean that the McCain amendment is set aside?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is it the intention of the Senator from Hawaii under the UC agreement that his legislation has been modified under the previous UC request?
Mr. INOUYE. The Presiding Officer is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there is a little bit of a parliamentary situation here. It is not clear to me whether the language of the legislation will be modified--and then I would ask unanimous consent to drop my amendment--or is it language that will be added to the amendment which would then be acceptable? I would ask the President as to what the parliamentary situation is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend for a moment.
If there is no objection, the unanimous consent request by the Senator from Hawaii will be considered as an amendment to the bill by the Senator from Alaska. Upon passage, then the Senator from Arizona could be recognized to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment No. 854
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes an amendment numbered 854.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert: ``: Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this or any other Act may be obligated for the tooling to construct or the construction of vessels addressed by this section''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 854) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 852, withdrawn
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, the pending McCain amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then the amendment No. 852 is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 852) was withdrawn.
Amendment No. 853
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to waive limitations applicable to uses of funds for procurements from foreign sources as necessary to protect cooperative programs)
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have another amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment numbered 853.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8099. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall waive generally with respect to a foreign country each limitation on procurements from foreign sources provided in law if the Secretary determines that the application of the limitation with respect to that country would impede cooperative programs entered into between the Department of Defense and the foreign country, or would impede arrangements for the reciprocal procurement of defense items entered into under section 2531 of title 10, United States Code, or under any other provision of law, and the country does not discriminate against defense items produced in the United States to a greater degree than the United States discriminates against defense items produced in that country.
(b) Subsection (a) applies with respect to--
(1) contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) options for the procurement of items that are exercised after such date under contracts that are entered into before such date if the option prices are adjusted for any reason other than the application of a waiver granted under subsection (a).
(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to a limitation regarding construction of warships.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is a simple and straightforward amendment that simply levels the playing field between U.S. and foreign manufacturers. This amendment promotes U.S. products, not by enforcing restrictive barriers on open competition and free trade, but by promoting sound and beneficial economic principles.
This amendment waives restrictions on the procurement of certain defense items with respect to a foreign country if the Secretary of Defense determines they would impede cooperative programs entered into between a foreign country and the Department of Defense. Additionally, it would waive protectionist practices if it is determined it would impede the reciprocal procurement of defense items in that foreign country and that foreign country does not discriminate against defense items produced in the United States to a greater degree than the United States discriminates against defense items in that country. This amendment would apply to all contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the date of enactment, including any option for the procurement of items that are entered into before the date of enactment if those option prices are adjusted for any other reason.
I have spoken of this issue before in this Chamber and the potential impact on our bilateral trade relations with our allies because of our policy toward Buy America. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these type of protectionist trade policies because I believe free trade is an important component of improved relations among all nations and a key to major U.S. economic growth.
From a practical standpoint, adherence to Buy America restrictions seriously impairs our ability to compete freely in international markets for the best price on needed military equipment and could also result in a loss of existing business from longstanding international trading partners. While I fully understand the arguments by some to maintain certain critical industrial base capabilities, I find no reason to support domestic source restrictions for products which are widely available from many U.S. companies, that is, pumps produced by no less than 25 U.S. companies. I believe that competition and open markets among our allies on a reciprocal basis provide the best equipment at the best price for U.S. and allied militaries alike.
There are many examples of trade imbalances resulting from unnecessary Buy America restrictions. Let me cite one case in point. Between 1991 and 1994, the Netherlands purchased $508 million in defense equipment from United States companies, including air-refueling planes, Chinook helicopters, Apache helicopters, F-16 fighter equipment, missiles, combat radios, and training equipment. During the same period, the United States purchased only $40 million of Dutch-made military equipment. In recent meetings, the Defense Ministers of the United Kingdom and Sweden have apprised me of similar situations. In every meeting, they tell me how difficult it is becoming to persuade their governments to buy American defense products, because of our protectionist policies and the growing Buy European sentiment.
Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that this amendment will end once and for all the anticompetitive, antifree trade practices that encumber our Government. I only look forward to the day when my trips to the floor to highlight Buy America provisions are no longer necessary.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial by Secretary Weinberger and Dr. Schweizer that appeared in today's USA Today be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Pentagon Lopping Off Military Muscle in Favor of Pork
(By Caspar W. Weinberger and Peter Schweizer)
In 1938, the British Royal Navy counted 308 ships on its active roster, and Great Britain ruled the waves. This massive armada required 11,270 admiralty officials and clerical staff for its management. Thirty years later, the British Navy was down to just 114 ships, a decline of more than 60%. However, the number of brass hats and administrators had increased to 33,574. At its peak, the British Navy required 37 desk sailors per ship. At its low point, 295.
C. Northcote Parkinson tracked these trends and proclaimed what eventually became known as one of Parkinson's famous laws: The number of subordinates increases at a fixed rate regardless of the amount of work produced. What was true for a declining Britain is applicable to present-day America. Fat in the military bureaucracy continues to expand at the expense of military muscle. Congressional action to limit further base closings last week and the recently released Quadrennial Defense Review does nothing to correct this dangerous reality. The Pentagon is putting the best possible light on further reductions of 60,000 active-duty troops, arguing that cuts are necessary in order to procure more advanced weapons. But choosing between force size and weaponry is a lose-lose situation. We need both large forces and advanced weapons to maintain our battlefield edge and minimize U.S. casualties. What we need to cut is fat.
Just how badly has our military ``muscle'' been affected? The stated policy of the United States is to be able to fight two wars at once. But as Professors Frederick Kagan and David Fautua of the United States Military Academy point out, we would have trouble fighting and winning one war today. Consider our victory in Desert Storm. The United States committed seven active Army divisions, three Marine Corps divisions and two additional combat brigades from other units to the ground war. Of the seven Army divisions, five were
``heavy'' units--mechanized and armor. We were able to build this force from a total of 18 Army divisions. Now we have but 10 Army divisions, and only six are ``heavy.'' Many are already committed to other overseas assignments such as Korea and, therefore, would be unavailable for a regional conflict.
Since Desert Storm, defense spending has declined 24% in constant dollars, and manpower has been cut 27%. The Navy has lost 34% of its ships. Air Force tactical squadrons have been cut by 28%. Budget cuts also have led to a reduction in our overseas presence. By 2000, about 90% of our combat power will be based in the continental United States. Lack of funds means we may not even reach the battlefield. The Army's capability to deploy forces has dropped 44% and the Navy's support ships, critical for overseas operations, have been slashed 61% since 1991.
But budget cuts not only have led to force reductions. Existing units have been dramatically hurt by serious training deficiencies. At Camp Pendleton, Marines have trekked 17 miles to training ranges to conserve truck fuel and tires. Air Force personnel are now regularly deployed overseas well beyond the recommended 120-day maximum, causing serious psychological and training problems. Some tank crews have been forced to park their tanks and conduct training dismounted, walking around pretending to be tanks, in order to cut costs.
The great paradox is that this small and grossly underfunded military has been called on to increase its overseas operations. Our two post-Cold War commanders-in-chief--Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton--have dispatched troops abroad more often than the United States did in the previous 20 years. The military has conducted expensive operations in Haiti, Rwanda, Liberia, Cuba, Panama, Southwest Asia, Iraq and Somalia. Rather than deal with this squeeze, the defense review calls for further reductions.
The military has already borne a disproportionate share of cuts and now accounts for less than 20% of the federal budget. Of the federal jobs lost since fiscal 1992, more than 89% have come from the Department of Defense. Rather than cutting forces as the defense review recommends, troop levels should be maintained at present levels. Savings should come from cuts in civilian personnel and nondefense programs, not out of the military's core competence of fighting wars. Today the Pentagon spends more than 40% of this budget on infrastructure, running cafeterias and day-care centers and paying accountants. The only portions of the budget that have grown since the end of the Cold War have been for the Defense Logistics Agency, which handles warehousing, inventory control and the transport of supplies, and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, which manages payroll and budget. Many of these functions could be privatized. The Pentagon estimates privatization could save $14 billion. Others put the savings at $30 billion.
Reductions also could come from programs that have been foisted on the Pentagon that have nothing to do with defense. About $28 billion is being spent on environmental compliance and cleanup. Millions are going to a jobs program that updates the Bay Area Rapid Transit System. These programs may be worthwhile, but they shouldn't be funded with scarce defense resources.
The defense review fails to deal with the underlying resource problems that plagues the military. Let's prove Parkinson wrong by preserving our military capability and lopping off the fat.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe that this amendment is acceptable to the managers of S. 1005. I have discussed this with the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii and both staffs. Basically, as I said, it gives discretion to the Secretary of Defense as far as restrictive Buy America provisions are concerned. This amendment gives the Secretary of Defense the kind of latitude that is necessary in order to make sure that our national security and warfighting capability is protected.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. INOUYE. We find no objection to the amendment.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding this is quite similar to a provision that is already in the armed services bill. And under those circumstances we have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 853) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from Alaska for their cooperation and assistance on both amendments.
I yield the floor.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry. It is my understanding the Harkin amendment is ready to go to a vote at any time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending question before the Senate.
Mr. STEVENS. We still have three amendments that could be offered before the lunch hour, and that is the Feinstein amendments and the Graham amendment.
Mr. President, there is in the order a managers' package that enables me to offer an amendment. I do offer the amendment. It is the only item in this managers' package. It is the amendment of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats].
Amendment No. 855
(Purpose: To set aside for the Information System Security Program
$15,708,000 of the amount provided for the Army for other procurement)
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk for Mr. Coats and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Coats, proposes an amendment numbered 855.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 24, line 6, after ``2000'' insert the following:
``: Provided, That, of the amount appropriated under this heading, $15,708,000 is available for the Information System Security Program, of which $5,500,000 is available for procurement of Airterm KY-100 devices''.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this conforms this bill to an authorized account that was added to the authorization bill when it passed the Senate, and I urge its immediate adoption.
Mr. INOUYE. We concur.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 855) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I implore Senators Feinstein and Graham to offer their amendments. We are ready to proceed. I think we could finish the bill before the lunch hour. I see the Senator from Texas is on the floor, and I yield the floor to her in the hope she will yield the floor to the others if they arrive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Amendment No. 849
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I assure the distinguished chairman, if the other two pending amendments' authors come to the floor, I will yield.
I wanted to speak about an amendment that has just been agreed to. The chairman offered the Hutchison-Lott-Lieberman-McCain-Warner amendment earlier. It is something we have been working on, actually, for the last few days, trying to come up with language that everyone could support. In fact, everyone has now agreed to support it, so it is a sense of the Senate with 100 percent approval of language that says we are very concerned about the situation in Bosnia, we are concerned about the indicted war criminals not being brought to justice. All of us are concerned about that, because, under the Dayton accords, the three parties to the agreement, the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Muslims, and the Croats, were supposed to do that and it has not happened.
At the same time, our amendment states that the administration should consult closely and in a timely manner with the Congress on the NATO-
led Stabilization Force's mission concerning the apprehension of indicted war criminals, including any changes in the mission which could affect American forces. I think this is a very responsible statement for the Senate to make because it is very important if there is a change in mission with regard to the apprehension of war criminals and if American forces are going to be involved, that the Congress understand that fully because that is not our understanding today nor is it part of the Dayton accords.
So, having been burned in Somalia when there was mission creep without the complete accord of Congress, I think it is important that we learn from history and take the responsible role that Congress should take.
I am concerned that we do this in a very, very clear thinking, responsible way. I look at the Washington Times from this morning where the headline is, ``Serbs Threaten End Of Dayton Pact.'' It has a quote from an ex-teacher--an ex-teacher. He says: ``I used to wave to them, the NATO troops, and had my little daughter wave when they pass by. But now I told her to spit at them.''
I think we have to understand that what we do has consequences. I hope NATO will carefully look at how we go about changing any kind of mission. Certainly we expect, in Congress, to have a role in that. But I also think it is important that we go back to the Dayton accords. The Dayton accords provide the three parties will apprehend war criminals. I hope that is what happens, because there were heinous crimes committed--heinous crimes. No civilized nation, no civilized person could look at what happened in Srebrenica--it was clearly an assassination of men and boys. It was ethnic cleansing. That's what it actually was. We ought to stand against that. We do stand against it.
But, let's make sure that as we go forward we do it in a measured, responsible way so what we do is helpful, that we keep the Dayton accords, and that we do not have mission creep with American troops that would put them in harm's way, or in a combat situation if they are not prepared--if we are not prepared--for that eventuality.
So I think we have taken a responsible step. I appreciate the work of the chairman. I appreciate the work of the Democrats and Republicans on this issue where we do want to speak with a unified voice. It is important that we do. That is what we have done today.
passenger safety modifications
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to commend the chairman and the committee for adding funds for passenger safety modifications for the Air Force. The committee's initiative is both timely and appropriate and recognizes the need to provide the most up-to-date available safety equipment to aircraft transporting our military personnel. I would like to clarify a point with the chairman. Mr. Chairman, is the $75 million added by the committee for aircraft passenger safety modifications to be sent on the acquisition of navigation and safety equipment to initiate phase II of the Defense Department's initiative to modify military passenger aircraft? Is it the intent of the committee that this additional funding be spent on the following equipment and technologies: enhanced Ground Proximity warning Systems [EGPWS] with a digital terrain data base, Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems [TCAS], predictive windshear radar, cockpit voice recorders, and flight data recorders?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. The Air Force has indicated specifically that EGPWS and TCAS for selected aircraft are part of the phase II modifications. The Air Force also has unfunded requirements for flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders. The committee appreciates the Senator's interest and leadership on this issue.
UH-60L BLACK HAWK IN THE NATIONAL GUARD
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would greatly appreciate it if my colleagues, the chairman of the appropriations Committee and the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee would join with me in a colloquy regarding the committee's support for a firefighting demonstrator kit for the UH-60L Black Hawk helicopter for the Army National Guard. It is my understanding that the Army National Guard needs and wants improved capability on its UH-60L Black Hawk helicopter to enable them to more effectively augment the firefighting capabilities of State and local government other Federal agencies.
To this end, the Army is pursuing a cooperative research and development agreement or CRADA with Sikorsky Aircraft to obtain this demonstrator aircraft. Once received, this modified Black Hawk will be used in a 3-month, National Guard, operational suitability test with the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
Mr. STEVENS. I am aware of this firefighting demonstration kit for the Black Hawk helicopter. I agree that this program should be treated as any other item of special interest in the National Guard and Reserve Miscellaneous Equipment account, and am happy to support the Senator regarding this issue.
Mr. INOUYE. I, too, am a strong supporter of this firefighting kit. California is especially hard hit, each year, by wildfires and I fully understand the great resources necessary to battle these fires. I am happy to join with the chairman of the committee in urging that this program be given high priority in the National Guard and Reserve miscellaneous equipment account.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank both the Chairman and the ranking member for their interest in this program and their support.
Amendment No. 856
(Purpose: To express the Sense of Congress regarding cost-sharing for
NATO enlargement)
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 856:
At the appropriate place, insert:
SEC. . SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the Sense of Congress that should the Senate ratify NATO enlargement, current proportional cost-sharing arrangements will remain in place and that the proportional cost of the U.S. share of the NATO common budget should not increase.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill which expresses the Sense of Congress that U.S. payment for the cost of NATO enlargement is contingent on our NATO allies' willingness to pay their fair share of the costs of NATO enlargement as well.
I was concerned and surprised to read French President Chirac's statement last week that ``France does not intend to raise its contribution to NATO because of the cost of enlargement.''
Mr. President, we all know that NATO enlargement will cost money. And those costs must be borne fairly by all members.
If France or Germany or any other member of NATO is unwilling to pay its fair share, then this seems to me to be a faulty foundation for the expansion of NATO.
Indeed, as an article in the July 14-20 issue of Defense News stated:
Its decision to admit new members threatens to tear the Western alliance asunder if the European allies fail to shoulder a larger proportion of NATO's future security costs, according to U.S. and European diplomats and analysts.
The purpose of this amendment is to make clear that the United States is willing to pay its share of the cost of NATO enlargement. No more. No less.
But this amendment also makes clear that if the Europeans are unwilling to pay their share of the costs, then the United States will not pay either.
The bottom line is that the costs should be fairly met and paid for by all Alliance members. The United States can not and should not pick up the share of European countries unwilling to do their part.
This amendment, I believe, sends a strong message to our European allies as we enter into the NATO enlargement process that if we are to enlarge the alliance it must be done fairly, and it must be done right.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the pending Feinstein amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Rescinding Action on Amendment 856
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I find I acted prematurely. I ask the past action be rescinded and the Feinstein amendment remain the pending measure before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will take that under consideration.
Upon considering the request by the distinguished Senator from Alaska, without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1005, the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. The pending bill provides $247.2 billion in total budget authority and $244.4 billion in total outlays for the Department of Defense. There are some major elements to this bill that are important programs for the Senate to review.
According to preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, the bill, as reported, is within the Defense Subcommittee's section 602(b) allocation and, thus, complies with the requirements of the Budget Act.
The bill is fully consistent with the bipartisan balanced budget agreement. Senators may have heard or read statements to the contrary, but I can assure them that the bill in no way transgresses the agreement. I can also assure Senators that any misunderstanding in the administration about this matter is in the process of being clarified.
The bill fully funds certain important initiatives that were requested by the President, including a 2.8 percent pay raise for all military personnel and the end strengths for all of the active and reserve military services. The bill also funds needed increases in each of the major accounts of the defense budget.
The Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, and the Subcommittee staff deserve the thanks of the Senate for their extremely skillful crafting of this bill. It makes the best possible use of the defense funds available and sustains our national defense posture consistent with the Defense Department's new roadmap, the Quadrennial Defense Review.
I strongly support this bill, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Senate Budget Committee table displaying the budget impact of this bill be placed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1005, DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 1998--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 1998, $ millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority......................................... 246,981 .......... ........ 197 247,178
Outlays.................................................. 244,202 7 ........ 197 244,406
Senate 602(b) allocation:
Budget authority......................................... 246,988 .......... ........ 197 247,185
Outlays.................................................. 244,232 7 ........ 197 244,436
President's request:
Budget authority......................................... 243,698 27 ........ 197 243,922
Outlays.................................................. 243,409 31 ........ 197 243,637
House-passed bill:
Budget authority......................................... ........ .......... ........ ......... ........
Outlays.................................................. ........ .......... ........ ......... ........
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
Senate 602(b) allocation:
Budget authority......................................... (7) .......... ........ ......... (7)
Outlays.................................................. (30) .......... ........ ......... (30)
President's request:
Budget authority......................................... 3,283 (27) ........ ......... 3,256
Outlays.................................................. 793 (24) ........ ......... 769
House-passed bill:
Budget authority......................................... 246,981 .......... ........ 197 247,178
Outlays.................................................. 244,202 7 ........ 197 244,406
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Pilot Program Tagging Hydrocarbon Fuels
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to enter a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens. As the chairman knows, title III, subtitle C, section 339 of the recently adopted Defense authorization bill provides for the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program to determine if hydrocarbon fuels used by the Department of Defense can be tagged for analysis and identification. Mr. President, $5 million was authorized to conduct this program.
Mr. STEVENS. My distinguished colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison, who ably serves on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, is correct.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is anticipated that this program will deter theft, aid in the investigation of fuel theft, and facilitate determining the source of surface and underground pollution in locations where the Department and civilian companies maintain separate fuel storage facilities.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct in her description of this program as approved by the authorizing committee and the full Senate.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is my understanding that this pilot program could also be funded through title IV of the pending bill, research, development, test, and evaluation, particularly the Defense-wide funding provisions.
Mr. STEVENS. Again, the Senator is correct on the likely source of funding for this pilot program.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I look forward to learning the results of this pilot program and thank my distinguished chairman for his able assistance. I yield the floor.
Vote on Amendment No. 848
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair place before the Senate the Harkin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The pending question is the Harkin amendment No. 848. It is not necessary for the clerk to report the amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the rollcall vote that was agreed to last evening take place now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 848. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 15, nays 83, as follows:
YEAS--15
BoxerBumpersByrdDorganDurbinFeingoldGlennGrassleyHarkinKohlMoynihanThompsonTorricelliWellstoneWyden
NAYS--83
AbrahamAkakaAllardAshcroftBaucusBennettBidenBingamanBondBreauxBrownbackBryanCampbellClelandCoatsCochranCollinsConradCoverdellCraigD'AmatoDaschleDeWineDoddDomeniciEnziFairclothFeinsteinFordFristGortonGrahamGrammGramsGreggHagelHatchHelmsHollingsHutchinsonHutchisonInhofeInouyeJeffordsJohnsonKempthorneKennedyKerreyKerryKylLandrieuLautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanLottLugarMackMcCainMcConnellMikulskiMoseley-BraunMurkowskiMurrayNicklesReedReidRobbRobertsRockefellerRothSantorumSarbanesSessionsShelbySmith (NH)Smith (OR)SnoweSpecterStevensThomasThurmondWarner
NOT VOTING--2
BurnsChafee
The amendment (No. 848) was rejected.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we continue for another 5 minutes on a matter of total agreement here and that we then have a vote on final passage on this bill at 2:15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 857
(Purpose: To limit the use of funds to transfer more than 10 electro-
magnetic test environment systems from Eglin Air Force Base, FL)
Mr. STEVENS. 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 Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Graham, for himself and Mr. Mack, proposes an amendment numbered 857.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8099. (a) Congress finds that the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission directed the transfer of only 10 electro-magnetic test environment systems from Elgin Air Force Base, Florida, to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment also has the cosponsorship of Senator Mack. It has our approval.
Mr. INOUYE. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 857) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 856, As Modified
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send a modification of amendment No. 856 to the desk.
This is a modification of an amendment by Senator Feinstein that was previously adopted, and that action was rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 856 is so modified.
The amendment (No. 856), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert:
``It is the Sense of Congress that should the Senate ratify NATO enlargement, that the proportional cost of the U.S. share of the NATO common budget should not increase, and that if any NATO Member does not pay its share, the United States shall not either.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. STEVENS. The amendment now has our approval. It is a sense-of-
the-Senate amendment concerning payment of NATO costs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 856), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 858
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding DOD printing costs)
Mr. STEVENS. 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 Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 858.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section:
SEC. . FINDINGS.
(a) the Department of Defense budget is insufficient to fulfill all the requirements on the unfunded priorities lists of the military services and defense agencies;
(b) the documented printing expenses of the Department of Defense amount to several hundred million dollars per year, and a similar amount of undocumented printing expenses may be included in external defense contracts;
(c) printing in two or more colors generally increases costs;
(d) the Joint Committee on Printing of the Congress of the United States has established regulations intended to protect taxpayers from extravagant government printing expenses;
(e) the Government Printing and Binding Regulations published by the Joint Committee on Printing direct that,
``... it is the responsibility of the head of any department, independent office or establishment of the Government to assure that all multicolor printing shall contribute demonstrable value toward achieving a greater fulfillment of the ultimate end-purpose of whatever printed item in which it is included.''
(f) the Department of Defense publishes a large number of brochures, calendars, and other products in which the use of multicolor printing does not appear to meet the demonstrably valuable contribution requirement of the Joint Committee on Printing, but instead appears to be used primarily for decorative effect; and
(g) the Department of Defense could save resources for higher priority needs by reducing printing expenses:
Therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that:
(1) the Secretary of Defense should ensure that the printing costs of the Department of Defense and military services are the lowest amount possible;
(2) the Department of Defense should strictly comply with the Printing and Binding Regulations published by the Joint Committee on Printing of the Congress of the United States.
(3) that the Department of Defense budget submission for FY 1999 should reflect the savings that will result from the stricter printing guidelines in (1) and (2).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Bumpers amendment?
If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 858) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that all of the amendments that were ordered to be called up, or had the right to be called up under order 108 entered into last night have now been disposed of. Is that the opinion of the Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It appears that the amendments on that list have been offered.
Mr. STEVENS. I know of no further amendments.
United States Military Presence in Bermuda
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last week I had worked out an amendment with the managers of the national defense authorization bill that provided for the Secretary of Defense to study and report on the status of environmental problems in Bermuda associated with the United States military presence on that island for more than 50 years. Senator Inhofe, the subcommittee chairman was particularly helpful in working with me.
Inadvertently that amendment was not included in the managers en bloc amendment package on Friday afternoon. However, I am very grateful to the chairman and ranking member of the Arms Services Committee that, by unanimous consent, they have agreed to include this amendment in the authorization bill.
Mr. President, for more than 50 years, United States military personnel were deployed to bases on the Island of Bermuda. In fact, United States bases occupied approximately one-tenth of Bermuda's land area. The 1941 Leased Bases Agreement formalized the conditions under which the United States military remained in Bermuda until 1995. The United States was not charged a penny in rent for its use of these properties during all of that period.
I know that the distinguished ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Inouye, is fully aware of the questions that have been raised related to the United States military presence in Bermuda. I would ask him whether he believes that this is something that the Secretary of Defense should look into?
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague from Connecticut that I am aware of matters related to the bases in Bermuda. I know, for example, that the bases in Bermuda very effectively contributed to United States. national security during World War II and throughout the cold war. I am also aware that with changed world circumstances, it became clear during the 1990's, that it was no longer necessary for the U.S. military to continue to maintain bases there. And, on September 1, 1995, U.S. military forces formally withdrew from the island.
Certainly it seems very logicial for the Secretary of Defense to be asked to look into matters related to our presence there.
Mr. DODD. Mr President, I know that my distinguished colleague from Hawaii knows well that Bermuda is actually a tiny group of islands, 21 square miles in land area. Its environmental situation is unique in many respects--land is obviously scarce, fresh water resources are very limited, and storage capacity for hazardous waste disposal doesn't exist. It is also one of the most northerly coral reef areas, making the marine environment surrounding the island extremely fragile as well.
Mr. President, I call to the attention of my distinguished colleague from Hawaii that it would appear that the formerly United States occupied properties that have now reverted back to Bermudian authorities could pose a number of problems for that Government--
problems that they are now seeking our help in ameliorating. These problems include soil and ground water pollution and asbestos hazards contained in now deserted U.S. military installations on the bases.
For example, most of the buildings on the bases will require demolition, if this property is to be useable again. That means that the hazardous asbestos must also be removed and appropriately stored. In addition, industrial wastes and raw sewage that were disposed of in Bassett's Cave over time will pose a threat to parts of the island's water system unless they are removed. Underground and above-ground petroleum storage tanks--many in poor condition--are leaking into surrounding soils and ground water. Left behind landfills are also causing environmental problems.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Connecticut that I believe that President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and others in this administration care deeply about environmental issues. Clearly the United States cannot resolve every environmental problem that exists in every part of the globe. However, under the circumstances, given the special relationship between the United States and Bermuda, it is particularly appropriate for the Secretary of Defense to study this problem and report back to the relevant committees. I will look forward to reading that report.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii for his interest in this matter. I too look forward to being kept informed about progress on this issue.
QDR IMPLEMENTATION
Mr. BENNETT. The Quadrennial Defense Review [QDR] outlined a direction for the Air Force to consolidate force structure and reduce manpower. Included in the QDR is a proposal to transfer one active duty fighter wing to the reserve forces. General Fogleman recently informed me that the Air Force was specifically exploring a number of options to accomplish this directive.
Because of the changes that may occur as the Department of Defense downsizes, I would expect the Air Force to alert Congress as important decisions are made, and will outline the rationale behind their conclusions. Is it the chairman's expectation that this will be the case?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator raises a good point. I would expect the Air Force to inform Congress of major decisions, such as the one to which the Senator was referring. I would also expect the Air Force to be able to outline sound reasons for their actions.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, as the Air Force determines where fighter units will be located, these decisions will inevitably impact how our test and training ranges are utilized. Consequently, I believe it would also be reasonable for the Air Force to outline how changes in force structure will impact the use of test and training ranges.
Mr. STEVENS. I believe this is a reasonable request, and I expect the Air Force to outline impacts of test and training range utilization as a result of changes in force structure to the Congress.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LEGACY PROGRAM
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Members of the Senate may have read in the papers a few weeks ago about the discovery of a Revolutionary War gunboat found in the waters of Lake Champlain, bordering my home State of Vermont. There, perfectly preserved in the cold, fresh, dark water, lying upright on the bottom, is a 54-foot gunboat, its mast still standing and its bow cannon in place.
This gunboat is one of eight led by Benedict Arnold against the British in the Battle of Valcour Island on October 11, 1776. Only four vessels survived the battle, but the British were forced to delay their invasion from Canada for an extra year, giving the Americans critical time to prepare defenses.
Mr. President, this historic find led the former curator of naval history at the Smithsonian's American History Museum, Mr. Philip Lundeberg, to say, ``This could prove to be the most significant maritime discovery in American history in the last half century.''
The exact location of the ship is a secret, and it will not be touched until maritime archeologists, working with the Navy and local authorities, develop a comprehensive management plan to preserve and protect this amazing discovery. The ship may be left as an underwater museum, or it may be feasible to raise and preserve it. We will not know until the management plan is completed.
In the bill before the Senate today, the Appropriations Committee funded a modest program called Legacy, which coordinates cultural resource management efforts among the four military services. I ask my friend from Alaska, will the Senator support my effort in conference with the other body to designate a small amount of Legacy funding to develop the management plan that will preserve and protect this important historical find?
Mr. STEVENS. This discovery is one of the great military history finds in memory, and I believe that we have an obligation to ensure that this ship is properly preserved. This type of discovery is why the committee created the Legacy Program in 1991, under the leadership of the senior Senator from Hawaii. I strongly support the proposal of the Senator from Vermont, and I am hopeful that his view will prevail in conference.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator for his consideration.
Operation and Maintenance Account
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished manager of this bill, Senator Stevens, in a colloquy concerning the funding of the operation and maintenance account for the Department of the Army.
For some time, I have been concerned about the deteriorating conditions of the historic buildings at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center Annex at Forest Glen, MD. In response to my amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act last year, the Department of the Army recently submitted a Comprehensive Plan for the Basic Repair and Stabilization for the Historic District of the Forest Glen Annex. This plan identified the need for $9.8 million in fiscal 1998 to take care of the critical needs for stabilization of the historic buildings at the Forest Glen Annex.
I want to inquire whether there is sufficient funding within the Army's real property maintenance account to implement this plan.
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, the committee has provided additional funding in the amount of $87.5 million to address the funding shortfall in the Army's real property mainenance account. Recognizing that the Army has prioritized its real property maintenance shortfalls, I am confident that the Department will work with you to address your concerns regarding the Annex.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support the recommendations of the defense subcommittee for the Department of Defense Appropriations measure for FY 1998. The $247.2 billion recommended for the programs under the jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee is within the subcommittee's allocation in both budget authority and outlays, and is $1.2 billion below the amount authorized by the Senate for these programs in the Authorization bill which was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate last week. The recommendations have been unanimously supported by all members of the Defense Subcommittee, an event which is noteworthy, and is a reflection on the judgment, experience and abilities of the distinguished leadership of the subcommittee, my friend, the Chairman, the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and the senior Senator from Hawaii, the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Inouye.
The bill is noteworthy for the consensus that underlies it, and the Senate is fortunate to have these two senior Senators, with vast experience in defense matters, at the helm of our post-war defense spending. Central elements of American leadership in the post-cold-war world are the readiness, capabilities and further development of our military forces, present in all major regions of the world, exercising leadership in Europe, the Middle East, and the Pacific. While the agenda for American leadership will change, and is changing, we have witnessed, several times in this century, the risk that abdicating such a leadership role can entail. The need for such leadership is a jointly held responsibility of the Administration and the Congress. It is clear that America is not retrenching radically from its commitments and its far-flung presence as a result of the end of the cold war, in some historical variance with the practice of our nation in times of peace in the past.
Mr. President, the quality of life and the need to attract excellent, motivated people for the armed forces is a critical ingredient of our long-term success in carrying out our commitments. I note that the Subcommittee has produced recommendations with a top priority of fully supporting our men and women in uniform, including funding for a 2.8 percent pay raise for military personnel.
Mr. President, this is a good bill, worthy of the strong support of the Senate. It is the product of a truly bi-partisan process, and comes with the unanimous support of the members of the Appropriations Committee. I commend the leadership of that Committee, and the capable staff of Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye in putting this bill together.
allowability of esop costs
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished Senator from Alaska in a brief colloquy, not just in his capacity as floor manager of the fiscal year 1998 Defense appropriations bill, but also as a leading proponent of the legislation that created employee stock ownership plans [ESOP's].
Mr. President, the Defense Contract Audit Agency [DCAA] is threatening the viability of ESOP defense contractors by applying different determinations of ESOP costs than the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor. It is my understanding that Congress intended that ESOP cost issues be governed by the tax and pension laws and regulations administered by those offices, not DCAA. If this matter is not resolved when the defense appropriations conference committee meets, would the distinguished chairman be willing to try to assist in resolving it at that point?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania for recalling that I was an original sponsor of the legislation that encouraged companies to become employee-owned by establishing ESOP's. I will certainly try to do what I can to help solve the situation the Senator has described.
research and development
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for the purpose of engaging my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the distinguished ranking minority member, in a colloquy regarding support for evolving telemedicine technologies, research and development on an advanced double hull ship design and research and development of the helicopter vectored trust ducted propeller.
Mr. President, we all recognize the need to continue efforts to develop telemedicine services for our Armed Forces. I note in particular, efforts by institutions in the Northeast to design a telemedicine trauma/emergency medical services system to provide necessary diagnostic and treatment interventions and improve medical outcomes.
Advanced research and development for the Navy is vital to ensure force readiness and capability for our Navy well into the future. The Navy is currently facing a technical challenge in design and manufacture of very large and complex structural systems that have historically been made of traditional steel materials but are now incorporating the use of more advanced materials like non-magnetic steels. Currently, there is no comprehensive initiative in the Navy to develop the most promising application of these new materials--a nonmagnetic, stainless steel advanced double hull warship design. The marriage of the advanced double hull concept with nonmagnetic steels offers the potential to reduce acquisition costs and improve survivability. I support a development program for the stainless steel advanced double hull concept that combines numerical analysis techniques with large-scale representative testing.
Mr. President, in another area of military research and development, I point out the survivability and cost-effectiveness benefits from use of vectored ducted propeller helicopter technology. Research and development of this design will ensure that our Armed Forces are prepared for the next century. I look forward to working with my two colleagues during conference to address these programs.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. These are three very important and valuable programs for the readiness and capability of our Armed Forces. I have long been a supporter of telemedicine initiatives and its application to military objectives. In addition, I recognize the need to continue research and development of advanced technology for hull and aircraft design. I believe these programs deserve a thorough review and look forward to working with the Senator from Pennsylvania in conference.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I also thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. Telemedicine, particularly those initiatives focused on emergency and trauma care are essential for the highest quality medical care for our troops. I too look forward to working with the Senator from Pennsylvania in conference.
PERSIAN GULF WAR ILLNESSES AMENDMENT
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, for their work on this appropriations bill and the bipartisan spirit in which it was crafted.
I wish to speak for a moment on the amendment I offered on Persian Gulf war illnesses that was accepted by the chairman and ranking member.
The amendment will provide $4.5 million for the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration to determine what treatments are working for those who are afflicted with Persian Gulf war illnesses.
The reasonableness and necessity for action along these lines seem so obvious that many of my colleagues probably find it difficult to believe that such action has not already been taken. To allay their doubts, let me quote directly from a GAO report released just last month: ``There is an absence of efforts to measure Gulf War veterans clinical progress. This leaves the government unable to promptly determine the quality and effectiveness of treatments currently being provided to Gulf War veterans.''
That's not an angry Senator making unsupported allegations. That's the objective, nonpartisan view of the General Accounting Office.
Mr. President, at this point, it seems to me that we've left our ailing troops on the battlefield. Here we are, 6 years after the end of the Persian Gulf war and it takes an act of Congress to begin an effective examination of which treatments are most effective in caring for our veterans with Persian Gulf war illnesses.
While I am heartened by the fact that we're offering examinations to those who served in the Persian Gulf War, I feel it's important to take the next step to determine what happens after that initial examination. Often I hear stories of families being forced to look outside the government agencies to get the care and compensation their Persian Gulf war veterans deserve.
So those are the reasons that I offered the amendments to the Defense authorization bill and the Defense appropriations bill. Mr. President, nearly 700,000 men and women served in our Armed Forces in the Persian Gulf war. Five thousand of them were constituents of mine. Depending on what reports you read, as many as 10 percent of those who served are today ailing from some form or another of these Persian Gulf war illnesses. That's far too many to be left out on the battlefield. One ailing veteran forgotten by this country is too many. I expect to see some progress now on finding and employing effective treatments for those with Persian Gulf war illnesses.
Let me again express my gratitude to the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii for approving of this funding and accepting the amendment. I'm sure they feel equally compelled by the issues raised here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rollcall vote will occur at 2:15.
____________________
