Summary:

All articles in Senate section

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
(Senate - July 10, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7514-S7612] NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11:30 a.m. having arrived, the Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1745, which the clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 1745) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. The Senate resumed consideration of the bill. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from South Carolina is recognized. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Senate has completed many long hours of debate on S. 1745, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. I would like to thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, my good [[Page S7515]] friend Senator Nunn, for his insight, wisdom, and devotion to our Nation. He and I have always worked to provide our Armed Forces with the direction and resources they need to carry out their difficult responsibilities. Our future collective efforts will be diminished by his absence. Senator Nunn was named chairman of the ad hoc Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel in 1974 and he served in that capacity until 1981. In 1983, he became the ranking minority member and in 1987 he became the chairman of the committee. He served with distinction in that capacity for 8 years, and earned the respect of leaders around the globe for his wisdom, statesmanship, and insight. A hallmark of his tenure, and a basis for his effectiveness, was the trustworthy and bipartisan manner in which he conducted the committee's business. Our Nation owes Senator Nunn its deepest appreciation for his truly distinguished service. I would also like to recognize the outstanding contributions of Senators Cohen and Exon, who are departing the Senate. They have worked and fought hard to preserve our national security, and provide for the well-being of our men and women in uniform. Mr. President, I want to extend my deep appreciation also to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, who has been most helpful in every way in bringing this bill to final passage. He is a fine and able leader of whom the Senate can be proud. I also want to thank all the members from both sides of the committee, and particularly Senator Warner and Senator McCain, for their leadership and assistance on the floor. In addition, I would like to commend the entire staff of the Committee on Armed Services for their dedication and support. I would like to recognize each of them individually for their effort on this bill. I will soon ask unanimous consent that a list of the committee staff be printed in the Record. I also want to recognize and thank Greg Scott and Charlie Armstrong, the legislative counsels who crafted the language of this bill. We have achieved a number of important successes in this bill, and I commend my colleagues for their good judgment. Among these successes are: Increasing the budget request by $11.2 billion to revitalize the procurement, and research and development accounts, which form the core of future readiness; Significantly improving quality of life programs for our troops and their families, including funds for housing, facilities, and real property maintenance; Authorizing a 3-percent pay raise for military members and a 4- percent increase in the basic allowance for quarters, to arrest part of the decline in compensation; Establishing a dental health care insurance program for military retirees and their families, to keep faith with those who have kept faith with our Nation; Increasing the level of funding requested in the President's budget for Department of Defense counternarcotics activities, to combat the flow of illegal drugs; Authorizing increases for the Space and Missile Tracking System, cruise missile defense programs, and ballistic missile defense advanced technologies; Accelerating the Department of Energy's phased approach to tritium production, and upgrading tritium recycling facilities; and Providing funding for essential equipment for the Active, Guard, and Reserve components. These are important achievements that reflect significant bipartisan effort, both within the committee and on the Senate floor. I urge my colleagues to endorse this bill with a solid vote of approval, to support our men and women in uniform who go in harm's way every day to protect our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the list of staff I referred to earlier be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Armed Services Committee Staff Majority Les Brownlee, Staff Director. Charles S. Abell; Patricia L. Banks; John R. Barnes; Lucia M. Chavez; Christine K. Cimko; Kathie S. Connor; Donald A. Deline; Marie Fabrizio Dickinson; Shawn H. Edwards; Jonathan L. Etherton; Pamela L. Farrell; Cristina W. Fiori; Larry J. Hoag; Melinda M. Koutsoumpas; Lawrence J. Lanzillotta; George W. Lauffer; Paul M. Longsworth; Stephen L. Madey; John Reaves McLeod; John H. Miller; Ann Mary Mittermeyer; Bert K. Mizusawa; Lind B. Morris; Joseph G. Pallone; Cindy Pearson; Sharen E. Reaves; Steven C. Saulnier; Cord Sterling; Eric H. Thoemmes; Roslyne D. Turner; Mary Deas Boykin Wagner; Jennifer Lynn Wallace. Minority Arnold L. Punaro, Staff Director for the Minority. Christine E. Cowart; Richard D. DeBobes; Andrew S. Effron; Andrew B. Fulford; Daniel B. Ginsberg; Mickie Jan Gordon; Creighton Greene; Patrick T. Henry; William E. Hoehn, Jr.; Maurice Hutchinson; Jennifer Lambert; Michael J. McCord; Frank Norton, Jr.; Julie K. Rief; James R. Thompson III; DeNeige V. Watson. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Thurmond very much for his gracious remarks concerning my participation in this bill and also my participation over the last 24 years in the Defense authorization process and matters affecting our national security. I also say to my friend from South Carolina that I identify with and completely support his remarks about two outstanding members of our committee, Senator Exon on the Democratic side and Senator Cohen on the Republican side. These two individuals have made truly enormous contributions to our Nation's security. I have worked with Senator Exon on many different matters over the years. He has been a stalwart on strategic matters, and really has made immense contributions to our overall security. Senator Cohen and I have joined together time after time in working on matters of great importance, including the special operating forces where he truly has been an expert and a leader. Senator Cohen is an expert on Asia and also has all sorts of legislative interests beyond the Defense Committee. But he has made tremendous contributions to the men and women who serve our Nation and to the taxpayers of our Nation. These two individuals, Senator Cohen and Senator Exon, truly will be missed. In the brief time allotted to us today, I will defer my detailed expression of appreciation to members of the committee and staff for their dedicated service in securing passage of this legislation until we act on the conference report. But I would like to summarize my thoughts at this time. First and foremost, I would like to thank our distinguished chairman, Senator Thurmond. Through his leadership, his strength, and his steadfast and dedicated commitment to the national defense, this bill is about to pass. It is my honor and privilege to work with him on all of the committee matters, and indeed have had the great pleasure of working with him over the years. I know that his service will continue with the strength and leadership that he has had in the past. I am also grateful to all of the other committee members on both sides of the aisle who have dedicated themselves to this important bill. Our subcommittee staff have done yeomen service on this bill. They deserve much credit for the passage of the bill. We brought a sound, good defense bill to the floor. There were a number of concerns that have now been ironed out. I think of such as demarcation, as in the ballistic missile and theater missile defense area, and also regarding the ABM Treaty; the multilateral provision that was in the bill. Both of those have been greatly improved on the floor. It is my strong impression that this bill will be acceptable to the administration. We have a real challenge in the House-Senate conference because there are a number of provisions that clearly would not be acceptable to the administration. In the House bill, we have to prevail upon those issues if we are going to have a Defense bill signed into law this year. The Senate also adopted a provision sponsored by Senator Lugar, Senator [[Page S7516]] Domenici, and myself to bolster our defenses against weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, both at home and abroad. We need no reminder that we are in an era of terrorism now. We spent all day yesterday in the hearing regarding the tragedy that took place in Saudi Arabia. Of course, our heart goes out to all of the families and to the men and women involved in that who were serving our Nation. The provision that passed the Senate in this bill improved existing programs, such as the Nunn-Lugar program designed to stop proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons at its source, primarily the former Soviet Union. But the primary new threat is on domestic preparedness against terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological, and nuclear. It is very, very clear by the hearings that we have had in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, as well as other hearings, that we are not prepared as a nation to deal with chemical or biological attack. We have a long way to go in the overall area of getting our policemen, our firemen, and our health officials able to handle one of these threats, if it ever comes. But primarily our effort must continue to be to stop the sources of this proliferation at the very beginning before they leave the country where the weapons are, where the scientists are, and where the technology is; and also to make sure, if that does happen, that we stop those weapons at our own borders before we have to deal with the attacks. But we have to have a tiered defense against this growing threat. I think we will have an even stronger bill in conference since the Senate has taken action on the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this important defense measure. The cooperation and help exhibited by all Senators, floor staff, parliamentarians, clerks, the Reporters of Debates, attorneys, and the Legislative Counsel's Office is very much appreciated by this manager of the bill. I am sure the chairman feels likewise. Finally, Mr. President, I have to express my appreciation to the superb committee staff on both sides of the aisle, and to our two staff directors, Les Brownlee with the majority and Arnold Punaro with the minority. They have done a magnificent job of managing and motivating in order to keep this bill on track and moving. I particularly want to express my appreciation to Les Brownlee, who has just become the staff director, although he has been a stalwart both in his service to our Nation in the Army as well as his service on this committee. But he has truly done a tremendous job as staff director on this bill. We have enjoyed very much working with him in his new capacity, as we did in his former capacity. I appreciate the hard work of both of the staffs. I will have more to say about them when we get the conference report back. They are not through working yet. So I do not want to overcongratulate them until we get through with the bill and we actually have it ready for conference. I thank the chairman for his dedication. I thank all of the members of our staff for their sacrifices which they have endured, and their families, in order to bring this bill to the floor. Mr. President, as we conclude the debate on the national Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 I would like to take a moment to bring to the Senate's attention recent remarks made by a former Senate colleague and a valued friend, Alan Dixon. Last year, Alan Dixon had the difficult task of chairing the 1995 Base Closure Commission. While some may not agree with various aspects of the Commission's findings, the Commission, under the tremendous leadership of Alan Dixon, fulfilled its obligation to make fair assessments of Department of Defense recommendations for base closures and realignments, to review additional closure and realignment options, and to make final recommendations to the President on ways in which the Department of Defense must reduce its excess infrastructure. DOD and the military services are executing these final BRAC decisions and affected local communities are making, plans for reuse and economic development. Mr. President, there is no easy part to base closure--the final recommendations were not easy for the Commission, implementation of the final decisions by the services is not easy, and base reuse by local communities is not easy. Not easy, but a necessary part of the Department's ability to afford modernization and readiness in the future. Mr. President, Alan Dixon made a speech before the American Logistics Association Conference on June 18 where he summarized the 1995 Base Closure Commission's actions and commented on what should be considered in terms of a future round of base closure. In his remarks, he pointed out, as senior military and civilian defense leaders have also indicated, that excess capacity and infrastructure will remain even after all base realignment and closure actions from the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 rounds have been completed. In order to address this excess infrastructure using the same Commission-type framework, Senator Dixon recommends that Congress authorize another Commission. I believe it is important that Alan Dixon's remarks be made part of the Record for all to read and consider. Mr. President, I commend our former colleague, Alan Dixon, on his leadership and dedicated service on issues of great importance to our national security. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dixon's remarks be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Perspective on Future Base Closings Thank you for the opportunity to speak to your convention today. Throughout my career of public service I was a strong advocate for the readiness of our military services and the quality of life for our military members and their families, so it is a real pleasure for me to be addressing a group that contributes so much to these important goals. Today I am going to talk a little bit about the base closure process--both the work of the 1995 Base Closure Commission which I chaired and what I see as the future of the base closure process. Let me start just by giving a quick summary of the work of the 1995 Commission. The 1995 Commission was actually the fourth--and under current law--the final round of base closing authorized by the Congress to operate under special expedited procedures. The first base closing round was in 1988. In my view this first round was seriously flawed from a procedural point of view. I was one of the principal authors of the 1990 Base Closure legislation that set up the succeeding three base closure rounds, and I think we corrected most of the procedural shortcomings of the 1988 rounds. Altogether, the 1995 Commission recommended the closure of 79 military installations; the realignment of 26 others; and approved 27 requests from the Defense Department to change recommendations of previous Commissions. The 1995 Commission rejected only 19 of the 146 closures or realignments proposed by DOD, and we closed or realigned 9 installations not requested by the Pentagon. Like previous Commissions, the 1995 Commission made changes to the list of closures and realignments proposed by DOD only in those cases where we found that the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from the force structure plan or the selection criteria. Of the 147 recommendations on Secretary's original list, we approved 123, or 84 percent. This is almost identical to previous Commissions. The 1993 Commission accepted 83 percent of DOD's recommendations, and the 1991 Commission accepted 83 percent. The 1990 Base Closure Act anticipated that the Commission would give great deference to the Secretary of Defenses's recommendations, and you can see that all three Commissions did that. I am particularly proud of the fact that the estimated 20- year savings from the 1995 Commission recommendations of just over $19.3 billion were $323 million higher than the revised savings baseline of $19.0 billion projected by DOD. This was the only time in the three closure rounds that the Commission achieved greater savings than contemplated by the Defense Department. The 1995 Commission also included in our report a set of 20 recommendations for the President, Congress and local communities that suggested ways to improve the process of helping local communities recover from the economic consequences of a base closure. Finally, and we will talk a little more about this in a moment, the 1995 Commission recommended that Congress authorize another round of base closures in the year 2001. I think most of you are aware that President Clinton was a little upset with a couple of our recommendations-- particularly the ones to close the Air Force Logistics Centers in Sacramento, California and San Antonio, Texas--but ultimately forwarded our recommendations to the Congress. The Resolution of Disapproval introduced in the House of Representatives was defeated by a vote of 343 to 75 on last September 8. [[Page S7517]] After four separate base closure rounds, do we need to close more bases? In my view, the answer is yes. In the last 10 years, the defense budget has declined in real terms by almost 40 percent, and current plans call for the defense budget to remain essentially stable through the end of the century. Overall, DOD has reduced the size of the military services by about 30 percent--and some are saying that further reductions in force levels are likely before the end of the decade. The cumulative reduction in our domestic base structure from the 4 base closures rounds is approximately 21 percent. I am not saying that there should be a direct correlation between reductions in force levels and reductions in basing structure, but I think we can and should reduce more base structure. The senior DOD leadership also thinks we need to close more bases. Secretary of Defense Bill Perry told the Commission last year that DOD would still have excess infrastructure after the 1995 round, and suggested the need for an additional round of closures and realignments in 3 to 4 years. General Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, agreed with Secretary Perry on the need for additional base closing authority in the future. He told us that opportunities remain in DOD to increase cross-servicing, particularly in the area of joint-use bases and training facilities. Josh Gotbaum, who at the time was Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security and oversaw the base closure process for OSD, told the Commission that ``Even after BRAC 95 has been implemented we will continue to have excess infrastructure. Future base closure authority will be necessary.'' How many additional bases should be closed, and in which military services? It was painful enough last year to vote to close specific bases, so I am not about to get in the business of suggesting which ones ought to be closed in a future round. Those decisions can only be made after a thorough review and analysis by the military services and some future Commission. I will suggest some functional areas that should be looked at, based on the work that the 1995 Commission did. In general, I would put a premium on retaining operational bases that have unique strategic value or that have good training ranges and airspace that provide opportunities for realistic training. One of the keys to maintaining our qualitative edge over future potential adversaries is to provide our forces frequent, realistic opportunities to train as they would have to fight. So where we have large bases with operational units with access to good training airspace or extensive land for training ground forces, we should think long and hard before closing them. I think the greatest opportunities for future closures lie in the support infrastructure. The Defense Department's industrial facilities represent one area where I think further reductions are possible. Secretary of the Army Togo West told the Commission last year that ``our analysis tells us that the Department of Defense is bleeding depot money. We are just spending money on capacity that we simply do not need now.'' The Commission on Roles and Missions, chaired by my friend John White who subsequently became the Deputy Secretary of Defense, reached the same conclusion. Their Report in May of last year said that ``With proper oversight, private contractors could provide essentially all of the depot-level maintenance services now conducted in government facilities within the United States. . . . We recommend that the Department make the transition to a depot maintenance system relying mostly on the private sector. DOD should retain organic depot capability only where private-sector alternatives are not available and cannot be developed reasonably.'' So I think the military services can look at their industrial activities for more closures. We also found in the 1995 Commission that there was a great deal of overlap and duplication in the area of R labs and test and evaluation facilities. In preparing the 1995 recommendations, OSD set up 6 cross-service groups to look at functions across the military services, and we heard testimony from the directors of each of those cross service groups. The leaders of the Labs and Test and Evaluation Facilities Cross Service Group told us that they were frustrated by their inability to achieve any meaningful cross servicing in this area and felt that much more could be done. Military medical facilities are another area where I think the military services can make some savings without compromising care to military members and their families or to military retirees. Some of the members of the 1995 Commission looked into this, and the Commission concluded in our Report that many opportunities remain for consolidating military medical facilities across service lines and with civilian sector medical resources. what should a future base closure process look like? I have never seen a process that can't be improved on, but the fact is that the base closure process set up under the 1990 Base Closure Act worked pretty well. My friend Jim Courter, who chaired the 1991 and 1993 Commissions, deserves a lot of credit for putting in place the policies and procedures that ensured that the process was open, fair and objective. Communities might disagree with the final recommendations of the Commission, but I don't think any community ever said that they were not given an opportunity to make their case and did not receive a fair hearing. By the end of the 1995 process, President Clinton was not a big fan of the base closure process, but he said in a letter to me that ``The BRAC process is the only way that the Congress and the executive branch have found to make closure decisions with reasonable objectivity and finality.'' I think the President was right. Our Commission recommended that Congress authorize another Base Closure Commission for the year 2001 similar to the 1991, 1993 and 1995 Commissions--after the Presidential election in the year 2000. We realized that the Defense Department would have a lot of work to do to implement the closures from the 1995 and prior Commissions through the end of this decade. Since the 1990 Base Closure Act gives DOD 6 years to complete closures, the closures from the 1995 round will not be completed until 2001. is congress likely to enact legislation setting up another base closure round? When I was Deputy Majority Whip of the United States Senate I had a hard time predicting from one day to the next whether I would be able to have dinner that night with my wife, so I hesitate to predict what Congress is likely to do on this sensitive subject. There are some who say that Congress will not set up another Base Closure Commission because it is too painful a process to go through. There is no doubt that it was a painful process for members of Congress. We wrote the 1990 Base Closure Act to insulate the process from political and parochial influences as much as possible, and I think we succeeded to a large extent. Our 1995 Commission listened carefully to the view of members of Congress, but these members did not have any more influence on the votes of our Commission and the outcome of the process than the state and local officials and even the individual citizens in the communities affected by our decisions. I was a member of the United States Senate for 12 years, and I know that members of Congress don't like to be put in the position that reduces their influence over the outcome of a process that could affect the economic well-being of their constituents. In this case, however, I think history shows that the process of closing bases is so politically charged that it has to be put in the hands of an independent Commission that is insulated as much as possible from partisan and parochial influences. In my view, the defense budget is not likely to get much larger in the next five years, and we still have a requirement to maintain a ready, capable military. I am still convinced that closing military bases is one of the keys to the future readiness and modernization of our military forces. Ultimately, I think members of Congress realize this. As painful as it is, we need to close more military bases, and I think and hope that Congress will realize this and authorize another Base Closure Commission in the future. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I know Senator Pell is on the floor. I believe Senator Helms is on the floor. So at this point I yield and reserve any time I have remaining. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I share with the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] concerns with regard to section 1005 of the Defense authorization bill. Senator Helms and I had planned to offer an amendment to delete that section, but, as recess approached, were not able to find an opportunity to do so. This section of the bill would authorize spending under the Military- to-Military Program for military education and training for military personnel of foreign countries. The program would be in addition to the International Military Education and Training Program now in operation and overseen by the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Appropriations, and their appropriate subcommittees. This new program would not have the same congressional oversight. Oversight of the International Military Education and Training [IMET] Program has proved generally valuable in ensuring that the Congress is comfortable with the activities undertaken pursuant to the program. Just this year, for instance, the Department of Defense proposed a program for a troubled country that was not consistent with its needs. In consultation with two members of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I requested that the Defense Security Assistance Agency modify the program. They were quite prepared to consider our views and to [[Page S7518]] meet our request that the program be modified. I would point out that, in that particular case, there has been a continuing and productive dialog to ensure that the program for that nation does not conflict with congressional concerns, but meets the reasonable objectives of the Department of Defense. There is no reason to conclude that the IMET Program is not supported by the committees of jurisdiction. I would point out that the foreign operations appropriations bill just reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee provides a full $40 million for the IMET Program in the next fiscal year. This sum represents an increase in funding and reflects congressional willingness to back that well- established program. It makes no sense to create a duplicative military education and training program under the Military-to-Military Contacts Program. The IMET Program and the contacts program have different purposes and goals. The Congress has been very careful to separate the programs to ensure that the Military-to-Military Contacts Program would not be used to circumvent the restrictions of the IMET Program and to prevent duplication and overlaps. Three provisions were added to prohibit funding for the Military-to- Military Program from being used in countries that are ineligible for IMET to require coordination with the Secretary of State and to prevent the authorities from being used to transfer weapons. It is not at all in the interests of the Congress or the country for the distinction between these two programs to be blurred. Mr. President, it is not at all clear why this provision is being sought. It was not requested by the Department of Defense and it is opposed by the Department of Defense and it is opposed by the Department of State. I believe very much that section 1005 has no place in this bill. I hope that, with an eye both to comity and to good sense, it will be dropped in conference. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina. Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I believe there are 7\1/2\ minutes set aside for me. Is that correct? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. HELMS. We are supposed to begin voting at 12? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct. Mr. HELMS. How many votes in tandem, three? The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will have a series of five votes beginning at 12 o'clock. Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have been around this place for almost 24 years now, and I have never participated in the occasional turf battles that occur, and I do not particularly enjoy making the comments I am about to make but I feel obliged to make them for the record. Mr. President, S. 1745, as introduced and reported by the Armed Services Committee, contains, in my judgment, several significant provisions falling clearly within the primary jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee. And I have disclosed now my interest in that because I am chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I do not think there can be a clearer case of imposing upon the jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee than section 1005 of the bill, entitled ``Use of Military-to-Military Contacts Funds for Professional Military Education and Training.'' That is a lot of gobbledygook perhaps, but it is a provision that represents an obvious effort by some to commandeer a longstanding foreign policy instrument of the Department of State, that being the International Military Education and Training program known familiarly as IMET. Section 1005 of this bill does not even pretend to differ substantively from the existing IMET program. The proposed authority would allow the Department of Defense to engage in a back-door foreign assistance program without the supervision of the State Department or the oversight of the Foreign Relations Committee by conducting ``military education and training for military and civilian personnel of foreign countries.'' Mr. President, why should the United States establish this duplicative program as identical authority already exists under chapter 5 of the Foreign Assistance Act which authorizes the President of the United States to furnish ``military education and training to military and related civilian personnel of foreign countries.'' Now, again, I am not going to get into any fight about the turf, but I must point out that this is the second year that an attempt has been made to seize foreign policy tools belonging solely to the Secretary of State. At a time when we should be considering consolidating the foreign affairs apparatus of the of the United States into the Department of State, it makes no sense to me to proliferate the number of foreign assistance programs outside the control of the Secretary of State. It makes even less sense in light of the drastic budget cuts undergone by the Department of Defense to pay for foreign aid in the defense budget and from defense funds. The result will be more nondefense spending in the 050 account. This authority--and I have checked on this--was not requested by the administration. It has not been agreed to in the administration's interagency process, and I daresay that it likely is not supported by the Secretary of State. However, I have not talked with or to Warren Christopher about that. Because this provision falls within the jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee, I respectfully request that this provision be removed from the bill during conference. That action I believe would recognize appropriately the jurisdictional responsibilities of both of our committees. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield me the remainder of his time? Mr. PELL. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Maryland. Mr. HELMS. And if I have any time I yield it to the Senator from Maryland. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I join in the concerns expressed by Chairman Helms and by the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell, about section 1005 of this bill. This section would have the effect of creating a second IMET Program, a new aid program for foreign militaries. IMET, the International Military Education and Training Program, funds tuition for foreign military officers in U.S. professional military training courses, and related activities. It has traditionally been funded through the foreign aid bill. In fact, the foreign operations appropriations bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee provides a full $40 million for IMET in fiscal year 1997. It is one of the only programs in the entire foreign aid budget that is slated to get more money in fiscal year 1997 than in fiscal year 1996 or 1995. When the Military-to-Military Contacts Program was established in the Defense Department, the justification was used that this would not-- would not--be another IMET Program. It was to be something entirely separate. It was not going to duplicate IMET activities. For that reason it was spelled out exactly what the new Military-to- Military Contact Program was going to be. In the law, there are listed eight specific activities, such as exchanges of personnel, transportation for contact and liaison teams, seminars and conferences, and distribution of publications, all distinct from the IMET activities. To further ensure that the new Military-to-Military Program would not be used to circumvent the restrictions of the IMET Program, several conditions were added to ensure coordination and prevent overlap. Because of concerns about the potential for duplication in the two programs, the fiscal year 1995 foreign operations appropriations bill required a report from the Secretary of Defense addressing the future of military training of foreign armed forces. In that report, which was issued with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, the Defense Department concluded: The IMET Program and the traditional CINC military-to- military activities are distinct efforts contributing to the achievement [[Page S7519]] of common goals. From the beginning, both programs have commanded close coordination between the Defense and State Departments. Coordination between both departments ensures program uniqueness and the effective utilization of scarce resources in support of broad U.S. foreign policy and national security goals. Unfortunately, what the bill now before us would do is eliminate all distinctions between the two programs. It would create, in effect, a second IMET Program under different jurisdiction and separate funding. The Military-to-Military Contacts Program is expected to receive funding of $60 million in each of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997, out of the Services' operations and maintenance accounts. That is on top of the $40 million already going to IMET. I wish to stress, as have my colleagues, that this authority was not requested by the Defense Department. It is not something they believe is needed. Furthermore, it is opposed by the State Department as well as by the committees of jurisdiction over foreign aid funding. I very much regret that section 1005 has not been stricken from the bill. I make the observation that it plants the seeds for continuing controversy, which I think is something that is highly undesirable. I very strongly urge that it be dropped in conference. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I am puzzled concerning the objections to the use of Military-to-Military Contacts Program funds for international military education and training [IMET]. The Armed Services Committee is told each year by the commanders in chief of the combatant commands that IMET is the United States' most cost effective program in terms of fostering friendly relations with the foreign militaries. The combatant commanders routinely point out that foreign military officers who have received IMET training come to appreciate American values and the American way of life and that these foreign officers often rise to assume senior positions of leadership within their military and civilian hierarchies. Pursuant to this testimony, the Armed Services Committee in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 specifically authorized the creation of a CINC Initiative Fund to carry out eight types of activities, including military education and training to military and related civilian personnel of foreign countries. The CINC Initiative Fund is designed to provide funding for activities that were not foreseen when the budget request was submitted to Congress and that would enhance the war fighting capability, readiness, and sustainability of the forces assigned to the commander requesting the funds. In the years since this authority was created, the CINC Initiative Fund has only been used to provide IMET on a few occasions. Incidentally, the use of this authority for IMET is limited to $2 million per fiscal year. The committee's initiative this year seeks to build upon an existing program--the Military-to-Military Contacts Program which is designed to encourage a democratic orientation of defense establishments and military forces of other countries. Under existing law, this program is primarily aimed at in-theater activities and generally involves the establishment of military liaison teams and traveling contact teams in engaging democracies to seek to identify those countries' needs and then seek to design programs that are carried out by visiting experts, seminars, conferences, or exchanges of personnel. When a larger need is identified that would exceed the limited funding for this program, the in-country liaison teams seek to identify programs under the Foreign Assistance Act that can satisfy the need. When it comes to IMET, however, we have found that existing funding for the IMET Program has already been programmed and the traditional IMET Program is unable to meet the need. We have also found that the needs of emerging democracies in Eastern Europe have caused legitimate IMET needs of countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia to go unfunded. Thus, by adding IMET as one of the activities that can be carried out under the Military-to-Military Contacts Program, we are merely seeking to provide a modest supplement to the traditional IMET Program when a truly pressing need arises. We are, of course, amenable to put funding limits on the use of the military-to-military contacts programs for IMET and that has been communicated to the Foreign Relations Committee. I hasten to point out that the Secretary of State must approve the conduct of any activity--not just IMET--authorized under this program and that funds cannot be provided for any country that is not eligible for assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act. In summary, Mr. President, this is a very modest supplement to the traditional IMET Program, it has a precedent in prior congressional action relating to the CINC Initiative Fund, and we are amenable to including reasonable funding limitations to its use for IMET. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1745. Mr. President, I would simply say that the IMET Program is one of the highest priorities of the commanders in chief we hear from every year around the world. The newly emerging democracies in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have consumed a great deal of those funds, leaving almost nothing for Asia, Africa, and Latin America. We also take note of the fact that these IMET funds have been cut each and every year, so they do not seem to have a high priority by the Foreign Relations Committee but they do have an enormous priority for our military. So we will be glad to work with our friends on the Foreign Relations Committee to iron out jurisdictional problems with the hope that we can unite behind one of the most important programs we have to have contacts and influence all over the world through military-to-military contacts that can end up bringing peace in areas that otherwise would be in conflict. So I would take into account what my colleagues have said, but we do have a very high priority on this program and that has been exemplified in testimony year after year after year by all of our military commanders. Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I regret that the Senate again has produced a bill that is gravely flawed. It suffers from many of the defects associated with last year's bill. I voted to favorably report the bill out of committee in the hope that the bill would be improved when it was considered on the floor. While agreement was reached to eliminate unacceptable missile defense provisions from the bill, the bill remains fundamentally flawed. As a consequence, I will vote against its final passage. With respect to missile defense, I am pleased with the agreement announced by the majority leader on June 28th to drop sections 231 and 232 from the bill. These sections related to U.S. compliance policy for the development, testing, and deployment of theater missile defense systems, and to the demarcation between theater and strategic missile systems. I am also grateful to see that the language in the bill in section 233 with respect to the mutilateralization of the ABM Treaty has been dropped and converted into a sense of the Senate. I understand full well, however, that we will soon be back on the floor debating many of these same ill-advised proposals placed in another bill. I intend to speak in more detail about those proposals at the appropriate time. For now, I would just like to restate my conviction that it would ill serve the interests of our country--and surely not the interests of our taxpayers--to follow the misguided missile defense plan that the majority appears determined to pursue in the weeks ahead. As far as I am concerned, the missile defense language I cited above would have made for bad law if enacted on this bill-- simply moving this language into another bill will not change this basic quality of the proposal. The bill contains more than $11 billion in unrequested funding with huge increases in the procurement and research and development accounts. For the most part, these additions are based on the Services' so-called wish list--lists of programs the Services would like to see funded if additional funding were made available. I agree with some of the spending decisions, but I do not support this approach to defense budgeting. It undermines the objectives of Goldwater-Nichols by encouraging the submission of separate [[Page S7520]] spending priorities for each service that are set without regard to our unified command structure's warfighting needs. Moreover, I cannot support the magnitude of the increase in funding especially when we are spending billions of dollars on programs we do not need now and some we may not need ever. The additions in procurement include $750 million for the DDG-51 destroyer program, $701 million for the new attack submarine program, $351 million for the V-22 program, $249 million for the C-17 program, $240 million for the E8-B program, $234 million for the F/A-18 C/D program, $204 million for the C-130J program, $183 million for the Apache longbow program, $158.4 million for the Kiowa warrior program, $147 million for the MLRS program and $107 million for the F-16 program. The additions in research and development include the $885 million for missile defense programs to which I already alluded, $100 million plus-ups for the Comanche Program and Army Force XXI, $305 million for the national defense sealift fund, $147 million for the Arsenal Ship and $116 for advanced submarine technology. The bill contains more than $600 million in unrequested military construction projects, an annual temptation that Members cannot seem to resist, even though there is no compelling reason to move these projects forward. I think it is particularly damning that at least $200 million of these projects not only did not make the initial cut of the budget request but also did not make the second cut of the services' wish lists. We are authorizing an additional $600 million in military construction projects just so Members can say that they have brought home the bacon. Another rite of spring, the addition of hundreds of millions of dollars in Guard and Reserve equipment warrants mention. Some progress has been made in avoiding the earmarking problem we had last year. Only about $485 million of the $760 million in funding is earmarked. Unfortunately, no real progress has been made in eliciting a realistic budget request from the Defense Department for Guard and Reserve equipment. This failure invites earmarking funds for programs in Members' districts and as a consequence, the funding decisions that become law only bear relation to the Guard and Reserves' requirements by happenstance. We should not be spending the taxpayers' money in this way. Several amendments to eliminate some or all of this unrequested funding were offered. Unfortunately, Mr. President, these efforts were defeated. On other matters, I am concerned about the criteria used in allocating an additional $200 million for DOE's environmental restoration and waste management program. I could support, and, fact, have long advocated increased funding for this program. However, rather than accept the recommendations provided by the Department of Energy which listed projects that, if given increased funding in the near term, could save substantial dollars in the out-years, the bill factors in additional criteria concerning site employment. I have grave concerns that the credibility of the entire DOE cleanup operation will be undermined if it is treated merely as a jobs program. A number of factors should be assessed when deciding to increase funding for cleanup projects such as: reducing the risk to the public, workers and the environment, lessening the long term mortgage costs of the program; mandates and the environment; lessening the long term mortgage costs of the program; mandates from Federal and State laws; and stakeholder input. I do not believe that the effect on a given site's employment should be among these factors. I disagree with the committee's report language concerning the external regulation of the Department of Energy. I believe Secretary O'Leary's Advisory Committee on External Regulation established credible reasons for moving to external regulation, and I believe that this goal can be accomplished without significant increased costs to the taxpayer and without any detrimental impact on our Nation's security. In my view, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board will continue to play a key role in ensuring the safe operation of the defense nuclear facilities. Since January of this year, the Department has been carefully reviewing the options available for transitioning to external regulation. A preferred option should be presented to the Secretary within the next several weeks. I believe that the Department should continue planning to move to external regulation for nuclear safety. It is my hope that the plan presented to the Secretary will outline the steps necessary for such a transition, recognizing that such a transition may take several years. During consideration on the floor, the committee accepted an amendment I offered regarding worker safety and health at DOE's Mound. For too long Congress has done too little to ensure that the workers in our nuclear weapons complex were adequately protected from the many hazards they face on a daily basis. While the situation has improved at many sites, it is unfortunately the case that the Mound facility is still not up to the standards of other DOE facilities, not to mention commercial nuclear facilities. This amendment requires DOE to report to Congress on progress to improve worker health and safety at the facility. On June 21, 1996, I received a letter from DOE Under Secretary Tom Grumbly. This letter clearly establishes the Department's intent and commitment to seriously and forthrightly address worker safety issues at Mound. The letter lists a series of discrete program improvements that will be taken at the mound site beginning immediately and continuing through 1997. These important upgrades should begin at the earliest possible opportunity. I remain concerned though that we may be forcing a trade off between worker safety and health improvements and the pace of cleanup at the Mound site. In order to avoid such a trade off, it may be necessary to seek an authorization for these activities during conference. Finally, I would like to mention a special retirement provision for Federal employees who happen to work at military bases where the work will be privatized as part of base closure. The Committee on Armed Services voted 11 to 9 to add nongermane legislation to the bill that appropriately is in the jurisdiction of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. This amendment also was recently introduced as a bill, S. 1686, which is pending before the Subcommittee on Post Office and Civil Service of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Its stated purpose is to make privatization more likely to succeed by giving employees an incentive to stay at the base when a private employer takes over the workload. Under the terms of the amendment, 30 percent of the Federal civilian employees at two DOD bases, one in Indianapolis and one in Louisville, would enjoy civil service retirement system [CSRS] benefits that no other Federal employee enjoys today. I believe the authors of the amendment intended for it to apply to a third base in Newark, OH, but it is unclear whether the workers at the Ohio base will be eligible for the benefit. In addition, it is unclear whether bases in Texas and California will also be covered by the amendment. Under the terms of the amendment, additional retirement system credits would be given to employees in the civil service retirement system [CSRS] whose jobs are being privatized, and who are not eligible for immediate retirement benefits. The amendment would allow these employees to count their time as a private contract employee as qualifying service toward meeting the eligibility requirements under CSRS. In addition, their current high-3 years of salary would be indexed to general increases in Federal salaries. These benefits are independent of additional subsequent retirement benefits earned by the employees following privatization. Under current law, the affected employees would be eligible for a CSRS pension at age 62 with the high 3 years based on current employment by the Federal Government. Under the terms of the amendment, these employees could retire at an earlier age and their high-3 years of salary would be at a level indexed during the years of privatization. Of course, they would not even be required to contribute toward the cost of these extra benefits, although Federal employees in CSRS must contribute toward system costs. [[Page S7521]] While the stated purpose of the amendment is to encourage Navy employees to accept contractor employment in Indianapolis and Louisville, the proposed retirement incentives do not apply to 70 percent of the work force at the two facilities. Nineteen percent of the employees at the two facilities are now eligible to retire under CSRS and therefore, are ineligible for the proposed retirement incentives. Fifty-one percent of the employees are covered under the Federal employees retirement system [FERS] and therefore, are also ineligible for the proposed retirement incentives. Therefore, in terms of increasing their Federal retirement benefits, it would be to the advantage of 70 percent of the work force at the two facilities, to relocate and seek other Federal employment. Newark Air Force Base in Ohio is privatizing in the same way that the bases in Louisville and Indianapolis are scheduled to proceed, although it is not clear from the legislation whether the employees at Newark would be included in the pilot program. The privatization at Newark has been working because employees want to remain employed and many want to stay in the Newark area. Based upon Newark's experience, it is my view that the amendment, offered by Senator Coats, proposes a solution to a problem that does not really exist. Regrettably, given the nature of the proposed solution, I believe that this legislation will create a host of problems. Problems of equity and fairness that will fall straight into the lap of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, the committee with jurisdiction over Federal employment benefits. We are in the process of downsizing the Federal Government. I note that through the efforts of the Armed Services and Governmental Affairs Committee and the administration, we have 240,000 fewer Federal employees than when President Clinton took office. Many Federal jobs are being privatized in place. Numerous Federal jobs are also being eliminated. One Ohio constituent recently wrote to me and explained that his job was being eliminated in July. He said that if we could provide him with 4 additional months of service credit, he could apply and be eligible for early retirement under the civil service retirement system. I cannot explain to this constituent why he should not be eligible for an additional 4 months of credit if we are providing years of service credit to other employees who are not even losing their jobs. They have the opportunity to continue working. They will be eligible to accrue private employer pension benefits in addition to the Federal benefits they will have already earned. Perhaps, the Congress should consider retirement inducements for all employees affected by privatization and downsizing. However, if this is to be done, it should be done in a studied fashion. Changing a system of universal retirement benefits--where everyone previously had participated under the same benefit rules--should be the subject of hearings in a bright light, where we understand exactly what equity problems are created as well as the long-term cost of providing such retirement credits. My problem with the amendment adopted by the Armed Service Committee is that it is not generous enough to discourage employees from seeking other Federal employment and this is the purported purpose of the legislation. The assumption that a majority of these employees will move onto other Federal employment also assumes that these employees will want to relocate and that they will find jobs through the priority placement program. These are two assumptions that I question. To repeat, the amendment is not generous enough to fulfill its stated purpose, while at the same time it is too generous when one considers that the Government is proposing to do nothing along these lines for other employees being separated from Government employment. It is these sorts of contradictions which should be the subject of congressional hearings before we act. western kentucky training site Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense authorization bill we will pass today contains $10.8 million in authorized funding for phase 3 construction of the Western Kentucky Training Site in Muhlenburg County, KY. I appreciated the willingness of my colleagues to secure this funding for phase 3 construction at the site and wanted to share with them a recent articles from Soldiers magazine. This article gives an excellent review of the center's training activities and its importance to our Nation's defense, calling it the training site of choice of units stationed in the Eastern United States. Again, I would like to thank my colleagues for their support of this military site, and I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From Soldiers magazine, July 1996] Kentucky's NTC East (By SSgt. David Altom) Camouflaged soldiers bustle around the airstrip while, in the distance, a formation of helicopters moves slowly across the overcast sky, slingloads of vehicles and equipment swinging beneath them. A C-130H Hercules transport lands and kicks up a cloud of dust as it taxis to the end of the strip. Turning around in preparation for takeoff, the aircraft is immediately surrounded by a team of soldiers emerging from the nearby tree line. A Humvee pulling a trailer is quickly off-loaded, the soldiers move back into the woods. The C-130 stirs up another dust storm as it roars back down the runway toward home base. The entire operation take less than five minutes. Welcome to the Western Kentucky Training Site. Owned and operated by the Kentucky National Guard, the WKYTS is proving popular with active and Reserve soldiers and airmen, making it the training site of choice for units stationed in the eastern United States. The greatest appeal of the training site is the open terrain. Occupying more than 700,000 acres of reclaimed strip mine property near the western tip of Kentucky, the facility has enough flat and rolling land to give commanders plenty of training options. While nearby Fort Campbell and Fort Knox have live-fire ranges, accommodating everything from M1 Abrams main battle tanks to Multiple Launch Rocket System, the WKYTS has shown itself to be ideal for movement-to- contact exercises and large-scale maneuvers. The expanse of the WKYTS is a tanker's dream come true, said Lt. Col. Norman Arflack, commander of the Kentucky Army Guard's 1st Battalion, 123rd Armor. ``As a maneuver unit we need to conduct force-on-force training, especially when we go to battalion-on-company tactics,'' he said. ``That's hard to do unless you go some place like Fort Hood. We feel fortunate to have a facility like this so close, especially with training dollars so tight.'' Arflack cited last summer's Advanced Warfighter Experiment as an example of the value of the WK

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
(Senate - July 10, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7514-S7612] NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11:30 a.m. having arrived, the Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1745, which the clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 1745) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. The Senate resumed consideration of the bill. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from South Carolina is recognized. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Senate has completed many long hours of debate on S. 1745, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. I would like to thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, my good [[Page S7515]] friend Senator Nunn, for his insight, wisdom, and devotion to our Nation. He and I have always worked to provide our Armed Forces with the direction and resources they need to carry out their difficult responsibilities. Our future collective efforts will be diminished by his absence. Senator Nunn was named chairman of the ad hoc Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel in 1974 and he served in that capacity until 1981. In 1983, he became the ranking minority member and in 1987 he became the chairman of the committee. He served with distinction in that capacity for 8 years, and earned the respect of leaders around the globe for his wisdom, statesmanship, and insight. A hallmark of his tenure, and a basis for his effectiveness, was the trustworthy and bipartisan manner in which he conducted the committee's business. Our Nation owes Senator Nunn its deepest appreciation for his truly distinguished service. I would also like to recognize the outstanding contributions of Senators Cohen and Exon, who are departing the Senate. They have worked and fought hard to preserve our national security, and provide for the well-being of our men and women in uniform. Mr. President, I want to extend my deep appreciation also to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, who has been most helpful in every way in bringing this bill to final passage. He is a fine and able leader of whom the Senate can be proud. I also want to thank all the members from both sides of the committee, and particularly Senator Warner and Senator McCain, for their leadership and assistance on the floor. In addition, I would like to commend the entire staff of the Committee on Armed Services for their dedication and support. I would like to recognize each of them individually for their effort on this bill. I will soon ask unanimous consent that a list of the committee staff be printed in the Record. I also want to recognize and thank Greg Scott and Charlie Armstrong, the legislative counsels who crafted the language of this bill. We have achieved a number of important successes in this bill, and I commend my colleagues for their good judgment. Among these successes are: Increasing the budget request by $11.2 billion to revitalize the procurement, and research and development accounts, which form the core of future readiness; Significantly improving quality of life programs for our troops and their families, including funds for housing, facilities, and real property maintenance; Authorizing a 3-percent pay raise for military members and a 4- percent increase in the basic allowance for quarters, to arrest part of the decline in compensation; Establishing a dental health care insurance program for military retirees and their families, to keep faith with those who have kept faith with our Nation; Increasing the level of funding requested in the President's budget for Department of Defense counternarcotics activities, to combat the flow of illegal drugs; Authorizing increases for the Space and Missile Tracking System, cruise missile defense programs, and ballistic missile defense advanced technologies; Accelerating the Department of Energy's phased approach to tritium production, and upgrading tritium recycling facilities; and Providing funding for essential equipment for the Active, Guard, and Reserve components. These are important achievements that reflect significant bipartisan effort, both within the committee and on the Senate floor. I urge my colleagues to endorse this bill with a solid vote of approval, to support our men and women in uniform who go in harm's way every day to protect our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the list of staff I referred to earlier be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Armed Services Committee Staff Majority Les Brownlee, Staff Director. Charles S. Abell; Patricia L. Banks; John R. Barnes; Lucia M. Chavez; Christine K. Cimko; Kathie S. Connor; Donald A. Deline; Marie Fabrizio Dickinson; Shawn H. Edwards; Jonathan L. Etherton; Pamela L. Farrell; Cristina W. Fiori; Larry J. Hoag; Melinda M. Koutsoumpas; Lawrence J. Lanzillotta; George W. Lauffer; Paul M. Longsworth; Stephen L. Madey; John Reaves McLeod; John H. Miller; Ann Mary Mittermeyer; Bert K. Mizusawa; Lind B. Morris; Joseph G. Pallone; Cindy Pearson; Sharen E. Reaves; Steven C. Saulnier; Cord Sterling; Eric H. Thoemmes; Roslyne D. Turner; Mary Deas Boykin Wagner; Jennifer Lynn Wallace. Minority Arnold L. Punaro, Staff Director for the Minority. Christine E. Cowart; Richard D. DeBobes; Andrew S. Effron; Andrew B. Fulford; Daniel B. Ginsberg; Mickie Jan Gordon; Creighton Greene; Patrick T. Henry; William E. Hoehn, Jr.; Maurice Hutchinson; Jennifer Lambert; Michael J. McCord; Frank Norton, Jr.; Julie K. Rief; James R. Thompson III; DeNeige V. Watson. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Thurmond very much for his gracious remarks concerning my participation in this bill and also my participation over the last 24 years in the Defense authorization process and matters affecting our national security. I also say to my friend from South Carolina that I identify with and completely support his remarks about two outstanding members of our committee, Senator Exon on the Democratic side and Senator Cohen on the Republican side. These two individuals have made truly enormous contributions to our Nation's security. I have worked with Senator Exon on many different matters over the years. He has been a stalwart on strategic matters, and really has made immense contributions to our overall security. Senator Cohen and I have joined together time after time in working on matters of great importance, including the special operating forces where he truly has been an expert and a leader. Senator Cohen is an expert on Asia and also has all sorts of legislative interests beyond the Defense Committee. But he has made tremendous contributions to the men and women who serve our Nation and to the taxpayers of our Nation. These two individuals, Senator Cohen and Senator Exon, truly will be missed. In the brief time allotted to us today, I will defer my detailed expression of appreciation to members of the committee and staff for their dedicated service in securing passage of this legislation until we act on the conference report. But I would like to summarize my thoughts at this time. First and foremost, I would like to thank our distinguished chairman, Senator Thurmond. Through his leadership, his strength, and his steadfast and dedicated commitment to the national defense, this bill is about to pass. It is my honor and privilege to work with him on all of the committee matters, and indeed have had the great pleasure of working with him over the years. I know that his service will continue with the strength and leadership that he has had in the past. I am also grateful to all of the other committee members on both sides of the aisle who have dedicated themselves to this important bill. Our subcommittee staff have done yeomen service on this bill. They deserve much credit for the passage of the bill. We brought a sound, good defense bill to the floor. There were a number of concerns that have now been ironed out. I think of such as demarcation, as in the ballistic missile and theater missile defense area, and also regarding the ABM Treaty; the multilateral provision that was in the bill. Both of those have been greatly improved on the floor. It is my strong impression that this bill will be acceptable to the administration. We have a real challenge in the House-Senate conference because there are a number of provisions that clearly would not be acceptable to the administration. In the House bill, we have to prevail upon those issues if we are going to have a Defense bill signed into law this year. The Senate also adopted a provision sponsored by Senator Lugar, Senator [[Page S7516]] Domenici, and myself to bolster our defenses against weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, both at home and abroad. We need no reminder that we are in an era of terrorism now. We spent all day yesterday in the hearing regarding the tragedy that took place in Saudi Arabia. Of course, our heart goes out to all of the families and to the men and women involved in that who were serving our Nation. The provision that passed the Senate in this bill improved existing programs, such as the Nunn-Lugar program designed to stop proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons at its source, primarily the former Soviet Union. But the primary new threat is on domestic preparedness against terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological, and nuclear. It is very, very clear by the hearings that we have had in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, as well as other hearings, that we are not prepared as a nation to deal with chemical or biological attack. We have a long way to go in the overall area of getting our policemen, our firemen, and our health officials able to handle one of these threats, if it ever comes. But primarily our effort must continue to be to stop the sources of this proliferation at the very beginning before they leave the country where the weapons are, where the scientists are, and where the technology is; and also to make sure, if that does happen, that we stop those weapons at our own borders before we have to deal with the attacks. But we have to have a tiered defense against this growing threat. I think we will have an even stronger bill in conference since the Senate has taken action on the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this important defense measure. The cooperation and help exhibited by all Senators, floor staff, parliamentarians, clerks, the Reporters of Debates, attorneys, and the Legislative Counsel's Office is very much appreciated by this manager of the bill. I am sure the chairman feels likewise. Finally, Mr. President, I have to express my appreciation to the superb committee staff on both sides of the aisle, and to our two staff directors, Les Brownlee with the majority and Arnold Punaro with the minority. They have done a magnificent job of managing and motivating in order to keep this bill on track and moving. I particularly want to express my appreciation to Les Brownlee, who has just become the staff director, although he has been a stalwart both in his service to our Nation in the Army as well as his service on this committee. But he has truly done a tremendous job as staff director on this bill. We have enjoyed very much working with him in his new capacity, as we did in his former capacity. I appreciate the hard work of both of the staffs. I will have more to say about them when we get the conference report back. They are not through working yet. So I do not want to overcongratulate them until we get through with the bill and we actually have it ready for conference. I thank the chairman for his dedication. I thank all of the members of our staff for their sacrifices which they have endured, and their families, in order to bring this bill to the floor. Mr. President, as we conclude the debate on the national Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 I would like to take a moment to bring to the Senate's attention recent remarks made by a former Senate colleague and a valued friend, Alan Dixon. Last year, Alan Dixon had the difficult task of chairing the 1995 Base Closure Commission. While some may not agree with various aspects of the Commission's findings, the Commission, under the tremendous leadership of Alan Dixon, fulfilled its obligation to make fair assessments of Department of Defense recommendations for base closures and realignments, to review additional closure and realignment options, and to make final recommendations to the President on ways in which the Department of Defense must reduce its excess infrastructure. DOD and the military services are executing these final BRAC decisions and affected local communities are making, plans for reuse and economic development. Mr. President, there is no easy part to base closure--the final recommendations were not easy for the Commission, implementation of the final decisions by the services is not easy, and base reuse by local communities is not easy. Not easy, but a necessary part of the Department's ability to afford modernization and readiness in the future. Mr. President, Alan Dixon made a speech before the American Logistics Association Conference on June 18 where he summarized the 1995 Base Closure Commission's actions and commented on what should be considered in terms of a future round of base closure. In his remarks, he pointed out, as senior military and civilian defense leaders have also indicated, that excess capacity and infrastructure will remain even after all base realignment and closure actions from the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 rounds have been completed. In order to address this excess infrastructure using the same Commission-type framework, Senator Dixon recommends that Congress authorize another Commission. I believe it is important that Alan Dixon's remarks be made part of the Record for all to read and consider. Mr. President, I commend our former colleague, Alan Dixon, on his leadership and dedicated service on issues of great importance to our national security. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dixon's remarks be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Perspective on Future Base Closings Thank you for the opportunity to speak to your convention today. Throughout my career of public service I was a strong advocate for the readiness of our military services and the quality of life for our military members and their families, so it is a real pleasure for me to be addressing a group that contributes so much to these important goals. Today I am going to talk a little bit about the base closure process--both the work of the 1995 Base Closure Commission which I chaired and what I see as the future of the base closure process. Let me start just by giving a quick summary of the work of the 1995 Commission. The 1995 Commission was actually the fourth--and under current law--the final round of base closing authorized by the Congress to operate under special expedited procedures. The first base closing round was in 1988. In my view this first round was seriously flawed from a procedural point of view. I was one of the principal authors of the 1990 Base Closure legislation that set up the succeeding three base closure rounds, and I think we corrected most of the procedural shortcomings of the 1988 rounds. Altogether, the 1995 Commission recommended the closure of 79 military installations; the realignment of 26 others; and approved 27 requests from the Defense Department to change recommendations of previous Commissions. The 1995 Commission rejected only 19 of the 146 closures or realignments proposed by DOD, and we closed or realigned 9 installations not requested by the Pentagon. Like previous Commissions, the 1995 Commission made changes to the list of closures and realignments proposed by DOD only in those cases where we found that the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from the force structure plan or the selection criteria. Of the 147 recommendations on Secretary's original list, we approved 123, or 84 percent. This is almost identical to previous Commissions. The 1993 Commission accepted 83 percent of DOD's recommendations, and the 1991 Commission accepted 83 percent. The 1990 Base Closure Act anticipated that the Commission would give great deference to the Secretary of Defenses's recommendations, and you can see that all three Commissions did that. I am particularly proud of the fact that the estimated 20- year savings from the 1995 Commission recommendations of just over $19.3 billion were $323 million higher than the revised savings baseline of $19.0 billion projected by DOD. This was the only time in the three closure rounds that the Commission achieved greater savings than contemplated by the Defense Department. The 1995 Commission also included in our report a set of 20 recommendations for the President, Congress and local communities that suggested ways to improve the process of helping local communities recover from the economic consequences of a base closure. Finally, and we will talk a little more about this in a moment, the 1995 Commission recommended that Congress authorize another round of base closures in the year 2001. I think most of you are aware that President Clinton was a little upset with a couple of our recommendations-- particularly the ones to close the Air Force Logistics Centers in Sacramento, California and San Antonio, Texas--but ultimately forwarded our recommendations to the Congress. The Resolution of Disapproval introduced in the House of Representatives was defeated by a vote of 343 to 75 on last September 8. [[Page S7517]] After four separate base closure rounds, do we need to close more bases? In my view, the answer is yes. In the last 10 years, the defense budget has declined in real terms by almost 40 percent, and current plans call for the defense budget to remain essentially stable through the end of the century. Overall, DOD has reduced the size of the military services by about 30 percent--and some are saying that further reductions in force levels are likely before the end of the decade. The cumulative reduction in our domestic base structure from the 4 base closures rounds is approximately 21 percent. I am not saying that there should be a direct correlation between reductions in force levels and reductions in basing structure, but I think we can and should reduce more base structure. The senior DOD leadership also thinks we need to close more bases. Secretary of Defense Bill Perry told the Commission last year that DOD would still have excess infrastructure after the 1995 round, and suggested the need for an additional round of closures and realignments in 3 to 4 years. General Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, agreed with Secretary Perry on the need for additional base closing authority in the future. He told us that opportunities remain in DOD to increase cross-servicing, particularly in the area of joint-use bases and training facilities. Josh Gotbaum, who at the time was Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security and oversaw the base closure process for OSD, told the Commission that ``Even after BRAC 95 has been implemented we will continue to have excess infrastructure. Future base closure authority will be necessary.'' How many additional bases should be closed, and in which military services? It was painful enough last year to vote to close specific bases, so I am not about to get in the business of suggesting which ones ought to be closed in a future round. Those decisions can only be made after a thorough review and analysis by the military services and some future Commission. I will suggest some functional areas that should be looked at, based on the work that the 1995 Commission did. In general, I would put a premium on retaining operational bases that have unique strategic value or that have good training ranges and airspace that provide opportunities for realistic training. One of the keys to maintaining our qualitative edge over future potential adversaries is to provide our forces frequent, realistic opportunities to train as they would have to fight. So where we have large bases with operational units with access to good training airspace or extensive land for training ground forces, we should think long and hard before closing them. I think the greatest opportunities for future closures lie in the support infrastructure. The Defense Department's industrial facilities represent one area where I think further reductions are possible. Secretary of the Army Togo West told the Commission last year that ``our analysis tells us that the Department of Defense is bleeding depot money. We are just spending money on capacity that we simply do not need now.'' The Commission on Roles and Missions, chaired by my friend John White who subsequently became the Deputy Secretary of Defense, reached the same conclusion. Their Report in May of last year said that ``With proper oversight, private contractors could provide essentially all of the depot-level maintenance services now conducted in government facilities within the United States. . . . We recommend that the Department make the transition to a depot maintenance system relying mostly on the private sector. DOD should retain organic depot capability only where private-sector alternatives are not available and cannot be developed reasonably.'' So I think the military services can look at their industrial activities for more closures. We also found in the 1995 Commission that there was a great deal of overlap and duplication in the area of R labs and test and evaluation facilities. In preparing the 1995 recommendations, OSD set up 6 cross-service groups to look at functions across the military services, and we heard testimony from the directors of each of those cross service groups. The leaders of the Labs and Test and Evaluation Facilities Cross Service Group told us that they were frustrated by their inability to achieve any meaningful cross servicing in this area and felt that much more could be done. Military medical facilities are another area where I think the military services can make some savings without compromising care to military members and their families or to military retirees. Some of the members of the 1995 Commission looked into this, and the Commission concluded in our Report that many opportunities remain for consolidating military medical facilities across service lines and with civilian sector medical resources. what should a future base closure process look like? I have never seen a process that can't be improved on, but the fact is that the base closure process set up under the 1990 Base Closure Act worked pretty well. My friend Jim Courter, who chaired the 1991 and 1993 Commissions, deserves a lot of credit for putting in place the policies and procedures that ensured that the process was open, fair and objective. Communities might disagree with the final recommendations of the Commission, but I don't think any community ever said that they were not given an opportunity to make their case and did not receive a fair hearing. By the end of the 1995 process, President Clinton was not a big fan of the base closure process, but he said in a letter to me that ``The BRAC process is the only way that the Congress and the executive branch have found to make closure decisions with reasonable objectivity and finality.'' I think the President was right. Our Commission recommended that Congress authorize another Base Closure Commission for the year 2001 similar to the 1991, 1993 and 1995 Commissions--after the Presidential election in the year 2000. We realized that the Defense Department would have a lot of work to do to implement the closures from the 1995 and prior Commissions through the end of this decade. Since the 1990 Base Closure Act gives DOD 6 years to complete closures, the closures from the 1995 round will not be completed until 2001. is congress likely to enact legislation setting up another base closure round? When I was Deputy Majority Whip of the United States Senate I had a hard time predicting from one day to the next whether I would be able to have dinner that night with my wife, so I hesitate to predict what Congress is likely to do on this sensitive subject. There are some who say that Congress will not set up another Base Closure Commission because it is too painful a process to go through. There is no doubt that it was a painful process for members of Congress. We wrote the 1990 Base Closure Act to insulate the process from political and parochial influences as much as possible, and I think we succeeded to a large extent. Our 1995 Commission listened carefully to the view of members of Congress, but these members did not have any more influence on the votes of our Commission and the outcome of the process than the state and local officials and even the individual citizens in the communities affected by our decisions. I was a member of the United States Senate for 12 years, and I know that members of Congress don't like to be put in the position that reduces their influence over the outcome of a process that could affect the economic well-being of their constituents. In this case, however, I think history shows that the process of closing bases is so politically charged that it has to be put in the hands of an independent Commission that is insulated as much as possible from partisan and parochial influences. In my view, the defense budget is not likely to get much larger in the next five years, and we still have a requirement to maintain a ready, capable military. I am still convinced that closing military bases is one of the keys to the future readiness and modernization of our military forces. Ultimately, I think members of Congress realize this. As painful as it is, we need to close more military bases, and I think and hope that Congress will realize this and authorize another Base Closure Commission in the future. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I know Senator Pell is on the floor. I believe Senator Helms is on the floor. So at this point I yield and reserve any time I have remaining. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I share with the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] concerns with regard to section 1005 of the Defense authorization bill. Senator Helms and I had planned to offer an amendment to delete that section, but, as recess approached, were not able to find an opportunity to do so. This section of the bill would authorize spending under the Military- to-Military Program for military education and training for military personnel of foreign countries. The program would be in addition to the International Military Education and Training Program now in operation and overseen by the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Appropriations, and their appropriate subcommittees. This new program would not have the same congressional oversight. Oversight of the International Military Education and Training [IMET] Program has proved generally valuable in ensuring that the Congress is comfortable with the activities undertaken pursuant to the program. Just this year, for instance, the Department of Defense proposed a program for a troubled country that was not consistent with its needs. In consultation with two members of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I requested that the Defense Security Assistance Agency modify the program. They were quite prepared to consider our views and to [[Page S7518]] meet our request that the program be modified. I would point out that, in that particular case, there has been a continuing and productive dialog to ensure that the program for that nation does not conflict with congressional concerns, but meets the reasonable objectives of the Department of Defense. There is no reason to conclude that the IMET Program is not supported by the committees of jurisdiction. I would point out that the foreign operations appropriations bill just reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee provides a full $40 million for the IMET Program in the next fiscal year. This sum represents an increase in funding and reflects congressional willingness to back that well- established program. It makes no sense to create a duplicative military education and training program under the Military-to-Military Contacts Program. The IMET Program and the contacts program have different purposes and goals. The Congress has been very careful to separate the programs to ensure that the Military-to-Military Contacts Program would not be used to circumvent the restrictions of the IMET Program and to prevent duplication and overlaps. Three provisions were added to prohibit funding for the Military-to- Military Program from being used in countries that are ineligible for IMET to require coordination with the Secretary of State and to prevent the authorities from being used to transfer weapons. It is not at all in the interests of the Congress or the country for the distinction between these two programs to be blurred. Mr. President, it is not at all clear why this provision is being sought. It was not requested by the Department of Defense and it is opposed by the Department of Defense and it is opposed by the Department of State. I believe very much that section 1005 has no place in this bill. I hope that, with an eye both to comity and to good sense, it will be dropped in conference. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina. Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I believe there are 7\1/2\ minutes set aside for me. Is that correct? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. HELMS. We are supposed to begin voting at 12? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct. Mr. HELMS. How many votes in tandem, three? The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will have a series of five votes beginning at 12 o'clock. Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have been around this place for almost 24 years now, and I have never participated in the occasional turf battles that occur, and I do not particularly enjoy making the comments I am about to make but I feel obliged to make them for the record. Mr. President, S. 1745, as introduced and reported by the Armed Services Committee, contains, in my judgment, several significant provisions falling clearly within the primary jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee. And I have disclosed now my interest in that because I am chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I do not think there can be a clearer case of imposing upon the jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee than section 1005 of the bill, entitled ``Use of Military-to-Military Contacts Funds for Professional Military Education and Training.'' That is a lot of gobbledygook perhaps, but it is a provision that represents an obvious effort by some to commandeer a longstanding foreign policy instrument of the Department of State, that being the International Military Education and Training program known familiarly as IMET. Section 1005 of this bill does not even pretend to differ substantively from the existing IMET program. The proposed authority would allow the Department of Defense to engage in a back-door foreign assistance program without the supervision of the State Department or the oversight of the Foreign Relations Committee by conducting ``military education and training for military and civilian personnel of foreign countries.'' Mr. President, why should the United States establish this duplicative program as identical authority already exists under chapter 5 of the Foreign Assistance Act which authorizes the President of the United States to furnish ``military education and training to military and related civilian personnel of foreign countries.'' Now, again, I am not going to get into any fight about the turf, but I must point out that this is the second year that an attempt has been made to seize foreign policy tools belonging solely to the Secretary of State. At a time when we should be considering consolidating the foreign affairs apparatus of the of the United States into the Department of State, it makes no sense to me to proliferate the number of foreign assistance programs outside the control of the Secretary of State. It makes even less sense in light of the drastic budget cuts undergone by the Department of Defense to pay for foreign aid in the defense budget and from defense funds. The result will be more nondefense spending in the 050 account. This authority--and I have checked on this--was not requested by the administration. It has not been agreed to in the administration's interagency process, and I daresay that it likely is not supported by the Secretary of State. However, I have not talked with or to Warren Christopher about that. Because this provision falls within the jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee, I respectfully request that this provision be removed from the bill during conference. That action I believe would recognize appropriately the jurisdictional responsibilities of both of our committees. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield me the remainder of his time? Mr. PELL. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Maryland. Mr. HELMS. And if I have any time I yield it to the Senator from Maryland. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I join in the concerns expressed by Chairman Helms and by the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell, about section 1005 of this bill. This section would have the effect of creating a second IMET Program, a new aid program for foreign militaries. IMET, the International Military Education and Training Program, funds tuition for foreign military officers in U.S. professional military training courses, and related activities. It has traditionally been funded through the foreign aid bill. In fact, the foreign operations appropriations bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee provides a full $40 million for IMET in fiscal year 1997. It is one of the only programs in the entire foreign aid budget that is slated to get more money in fiscal year 1997 than in fiscal year 1996 or 1995. When the Military-to-Military Contacts Program was established in the Defense Department, the justification was used that this would not-- would not--be another IMET Program. It was to be something entirely separate. It was not going to duplicate IMET activities. For that reason it was spelled out exactly what the new Military-to- Military Contact Program was going to be. In the law, there are listed eight specific activities, such as exchanges of personnel, transportation for contact and liaison teams, seminars and conferences, and distribution of publications, all distinct from the IMET activities. To further ensure that the new Military-to-Military Program would not be used to circumvent the restrictions of the IMET Program, several conditions were added to ensure coordination and prevent overlap. Because of concerns about the potential for duplication in the two programs, the fiscal year 1995 foreign operations appropriations bill required a report from the Secretary of Defense addressing the future of military training of foreign armed forces. In that report, which was issued with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, the Defense Department concluded: The IMET Program and the traditional CINC military-to- military activities are distinct efforts contributing to the achievement [[Page S7519]] of common goals. From the beginning, both programs have commanded close coordination between the Defense and State Departments. Coordination between both departments ensures program uniqueness and the effective utilization of scarce resources in support of broad U.S. foreign policy and national security goals. Unfortunately, what the bill now before us would do is eliminate all distinctions between the two programs. It would create, in effect, a second IMET Program under different jurisdiction and separate funding. The Military-to-Military Contacts Program is expected to receive funding of $60 million in each of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997, out of the Services' operations and maintenance accounts. That is on top of the $40 million already going to IMET. I wish to stress, as have my colleagues, that this authority was not requested by the Defense Department. It is not something they believe is needed. Furthermore, it is opposed by the State Department as well as by the committees of jurisdiction over foreign aid funding. I very much regret that section 1005 has not been stricken from the bill. I make the observation that it plants the seeds for continuing controversy, which I think is something that is highly undesirable. I very strongly urge that it be dropped in conference. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I am puzzled concerning the objections to the use of Military-to-Military Contacts Program funds for international military education and training [IMET]. The Armed Services Committee is told each year by the commanders in chief of the combatant commands that IMET is the United States' most cost effective program in terms of fostering friendly relations with the foreign militaries. The combatant commanders routinely point out that foreign military officers who have received IMET training come to appreciate American values and the American way of life and that these foreign officers often rise to assume senior positions of leadership within their military and civilian hierarchies. Pursuant to this testimony, the Armed Services Committee in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 specifically authorized the creation of a CINC Initiative Fund to carry out eight types of activities, including military education and training to military and related civilian personnel of foreign countries. The CINC Initiative Fund is designed to provide funding for activities that were not foreseen when the budget request was submitted to Congress and that would enhance the war fighting capability, readiness, and sustainability of the forces assigned to the commander requesting the funds. In the years since this authority was created, the CINC Initiative Fund has only been used to provide IMET on a few occasions. Incidentally, the use of this authority for IMET is limited to $2 million per fiscal year. The committee's initiative this year seeks to build upon an existing program--the Military-to-Military Contacts Program which is designed to encourage a democratic orientation of defense establishments and military forces of other countries. Under existing law, this program is primarily aimed at in-theater activities and generally involves the establishment of military liaison teams and traveling contact teams in engaging democracies to seek to identify those countries' needs and then seek to design programs that are carried out by visiting experts, seminars, conferences, or exchanges of personnel. When a larger need is identified that would exceed the limited funding for this program, the in-country liaison teams seek to identify programs under the Foreign Assistance Act that can satisfy the need. When it comes to IMET, however, we have found that existing funding for the IMET Program has already been programmed and the traditional IMET Program is unable to meet the need. We have also found that the needs of emerging democracies in Eastern Europe have caused legitimate IMET needs of countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia to go unfunded. Thus, by adding IMET as one of the activities that can be carried out under the Military-to-Military Contacts Program, we are merely seeking to provide a modest supplement to the traditional IMET Program when a truly pressing need arises. We are, of course, amenable to put funding limits on the use of the military-to-military contacts programs for IMET and that has been communicated to the Foreign Relations Committee. I hasten to point out that the Secretary of State must approve the conduct of any activity--not just IMET--authorized under this program and that funds cannot be provided for any country that is not eligible for assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act. In summary, Mr. President, this is a very modest supplement to the traditional IMET Program, it has a precedent in prior congressional action relating to the CINC Initiative Fund, and we are amenable to including reasonable funding limitations to its use for IMET. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1745. Mr. President, I would simply say that the IMET Program is one of the highest priorities of the commanders in chief we hear from every year around the world. The newly emerging democracies in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have consumed a great deal of those funds, leaving almost nothing for Asia, Africa, and Latin America. We also take note of the fact that these IMET funds have been cut each and every year, so they do not seem to have a high priority by the Foreign Relations Committee but they do have an enormous priority for our military. So we will be glad to work with our friends on the Foreign Relations Committee to iron out jurisdictional problems with the hope that we can unite behind one of the most important programs we have to have contacts and influence all over the world through military-to-military contacts that can end up bringing peace in areas that otherwise would be in conflict. So I would take into account what my colleagues have said, but we do have a very high priority on this program and that has been exemplified in testimony year after year after year by all of our military commanders. Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I regret that the Senate again has produced a bill that is gravely flawed. It suffers from many of the defects associated with last year's bill. I voted to favorably report the bill out of committee in the hope that the bill would be improved when it was considered on the floor. While agreement was reached to eliminate unacceptable missile defense provisions from the bill, the bill remains fundamentally flawed. As a consequence, I will vote against its final passage. With respect to missile defense, I am pleased with the agreement announced by the majority leader on June 28th to drop sections 231 and 232 from the bill. These sections related to U.S. compliance policy for the development, testing, and deployment of theater missile defense systems, and to the demarcation between theater and strategic missile systems. I am also grateful to see that the language in the bill in section 233 with respect to the mutilateralization of the ABM Treaty has been dropped and converted into a sense of the Senate. I understand full well, however, that we will soon be back on the floor debating many of these same ill-advised proposals placed in another bill. I intend to speak in more detail about those proposals at the appropriate time. For now, I would just like to restate my conviction that it would ill serve the interests of our country--and surely not the interests of our taxpayers--to follow the misguided missile defense plan that the majority appears determined to pursue in the weeks ahead. As far as I am concerned, the missile defense language I cited above would have made for bad law if enacted on this bill-- simply moving this language into another bill will not change this basic quality of the proposal. The bill contains more than $11 billion in unrequested funding with huge increases in the procurement and research and development accounts. For the most part, these additions are based on the Services' so-called wish list--lists of programs the Services would like to see funded if additional funding were made available. I agree with some of the spending decisions, but I do not support this approach to defense budgeting. It undermines the objectives of Goldwater-Nichols by encouraging the submission of separate [[Page S7520]] spending priorities for each service that are set without regard to our unified command structure's warfighting needs. Moreover, I cannot support the magnitude of the increase in funding especially when we are spending billions of dollars on programs we do not need now and some we may not need ever. The additions in procurement include $750 million for the DDG-51 destroyer program, $701 million for the new attack submarine program, $351 million for the V-22 program, $249 million for the C-17 program, $240 million for the E8-B program, $234 million for the F/A-18 C/D program, $204 million for the C-130J program, $183 million for the Apache longbow program, $158.4 million for the Kiowa warrior program, $147 million for the MLRS program and $107 million for the F-16 program. The additions in research and development include the $885 million for missile defense programs to which I already alluded, $100 million plus-ups for the Comanche Program and Army Force XXI, $305 million for the national defense sealift fund, $147 million for the Arsenal Ship and $116 for advanced submarine technology. The bill contains more than $600 million in unrequested military construction projects, an annual temptation that Members cannot seem to resist, even though there is no compelling reason to move these projects forward. I think it is particularly damning that at least $200 million of these projects not only did not make the initial cut of the budget request but also did not make the second cut of the services' wish lists. We are authorizing an additional $600 million in military construction projects just so Members can say that they have brought home the bacon. Another rite of spring, the addition of hundreds of millions of dollars in Guard and Reserve equipment warrants mention. Some progress has been made in avoiding the earmarking problem we had last year. Only about $485 million of the $760 million in funding is earmarked. Unfortunately, no real progress has been made in eliciting a realistic budget request from the Defense Department for Guard and Reserve equipment. This failure invites earmarking funds for programs in Members' districts and as a consequence, the funding decisions that become law only bear relation to the Guard and Reserves' requirements by happenstance. We should not be spending the taxpayers' money in this way. Several amendments to eliminate some or all of this unrequested funding were offered. Unfortunately, Mr. President, these efforts were defeated. On other matters, I am concerned about the criteria used in allocating an additional $200 million for DOE's environmental restoration and waste management program. I could support, and, fact, have long advocated increased funding for this program. However, rather than accept the recommendations provided by the Department of Energy which listed projects that, if given increased funding in the near term, could save substantial dollars in the out-years, the bill factors in additional criteria concerning site employment. I have grave concerns that the credibility of the entire DOE cleanup operation will be undermined if it is treated merely as a jobs program. A number of factors should be assessed when deciding to increase funding for cleanup projects such as: reducing the risk to the public, workers and the environment, lessening the long term mortgage costs of the program; mandates and the environment; lessening the long term mortgage costs of the program; mandates from Federal and State laws; and stakeholder input. I do not believe that the effect on a given site's employment should be among these factors. I disagree with the committee's report language concerning the external regulation of the Department of Energy. I believe Secretary O'Leary's Advisory Committee on External Regulation established credible reasons for moving to external regulation, and I believe that this goal can be accomplished without significant increased costs to the taxpayer and without any detrimental impact on our Nation's security. In my view, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board will continue to play a key role in ensuring the safe operation of the defense nuclear facilities. Since January of this year, the Department has been carefully reviewing the options available for transitioning to external regulation. A preferred option should be presented to the Secretary within the next several weeks. I believe that the Department should continue planning to move to external regulation for nuclear safety. It is my hope that the plan presented to the Secretary will outline the steps necessary for such a transition, recognizing that such a transition may take several years. During consideration on the floor, the committee accepted an amendment I offered regarding worker safety and health at DOE's Mound. For too long Congress has done too little to ensure that the workers in our nuclear weapons complex were adequately protected from the many hazards they face on a daily basis. While the situation has improved at many sites, it is unfortunately the case that the Mound facility is still not up to the standards of other DOE facilities, not to mention commercial nuclear facilities. This amendment requires DOE to report to Congress on progress to improve worker health and safety at the facility. On June 21, 1996, I received a letter from DOE Under Secretary Tom Grumbly. This letter clearly establishes the Department's intent and commitment to seriously and forthrightly address worker safety issues at Mound. The letter lists a series of discrete program improvements that will be taken at the mound site beginning immediately and continuing through 1997. These important upgrades should begin at the earliest possible opportunity. I remain concerned though that we may be forcing a trade off between worker safety and health improvements and the pace of cleanup at the Mound site. In order to avoid such a trade off, it may be necessary to seek an authorization for these activities during conference. Finally, I would like to mention a special retirement provision for Federal employees who happen to work at military bases where the work will be privatized as part of base closure. The Committee on Armed Services voted 11 to 9 to add nongermane legislation to the bill that appropriately is in the jurisdiction of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. This amendment also was recently introduced as a bill, S. 1686, which is pending before the Subcommittee on Post Office and Civil Service of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Its stated purpose is to make privatization more likely to succeed by giving employees an incentive to stay at the base when a private employer takes over the workload. Under the terms of the amendment, 30 percent of the Federal civilian employees at two DOD bases, one in Indianapolis and one in Louisville, would enjoy civil service retirement system [CSRS] benefits that no other Federal employee enjoys today. I believe the authors of the amendment intended for it to apply to a third base in Newark, OH, but it is unclear whether the workers at the Ohio base will be eligible for the benefit. In addition, it is unclear whether bases in Texas and California will also be covered by the amendment. Under the terms of the amendment, additional retirement system credits would be given to employees in the civil service retirement system [CSRS] whose jobs are being privatized, and who are not eligible for immediate retirement benefits. The amendment would allow these employees to count their time as a private contract employee as qualifying service toward meeting the eligibility requirements under CSRS. In addition, their current high-3 years of salary would be indexed to general increases in Federal salaries. These benefits are independent of additional subsequent retirement benefits earned by the employees following privatization. Under current law, the affected employees would be eligible for a CSRS pension at age 62 with the high 3 years based on current employment by the Federal Government. Under the terms of the amendment, these employees could retire at an earlier age and their high-3 years of salary would be at a level indexed during the years of privatization. Of course, they would not even be required to contribute toward the cost of these extra benefits, although Federal employees in CSRS must contribute toward system costs. [[Page S7521]] While the stated purpose of the amendment is to encourage Navy employees to accept contractor employment in Indianapolis and Louisville, the proposed retirement incentives do not apply to 70 percent of the work force at the two facilities. Nineteen percent of the employees at the two facilities are now eligible to retire under CSRS and therefore, are ineligible for the proposed retirement incentives. Fifty-one percent of the employees are covered under the Federal employees retirement system [FERS] and therefore, are also ineligible for the proposed retirement incentives. Therefore, in terms of increasing their Federal retirement benefits, it would be to the advantage of 70 percent of the work force at the two facilities, to relocate and seek other Federal employment. Newark Air Force Base in Ohio is privatizing in the same way that the bases in Louisville and Indianapolis are scheduled to proceed, although it is not clear from the legislation whether the employees at Newark would be included in the pilot program. The privatization at Newark has been working because employees want to remain employed and many want to stay in the Newark area. Based upon Newark's experience, it is my view that the amendment, offered by Senator Coats, proposes a solution to a problem that does not really exist. Regrettably, given the nature of the proposed solution, I believe that this legislation will create a host of problems. Problems of equity and fairness that will fall straight into the lap of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, the committee with jurisdiction over Federal employment benefits. We are in the process of downsizing the Federal Government. I note that through the efforts of the Armed Services and Governmental Affairs Committee and the administration, we have 240,000 fewer Federal employees than when President Clinton took office. Many Federal jobs are being privatized in place. Numerous Federal jobs are also being eliminated. One Ohio constituent recently wrote to me and explained that his job was being eliminated in July. He said that if we could provide him with 4 additional months of service credit, he could apply and be eligible for early retirement under the civil service retirement system. I cannot explain to this constituent why he should not be eligible for an additional 4 months of credit if we are providing years of service credit to other employees who are not even losing their jobs. They have the opportunity to continue working. They will be eligible to accrue private employer pension benefits in addition to the Federal benefits they will have already earned. Perhaps, the Congress should consider retirement inducements for all employees affected by privatization and downsizing. However, if this is to be done, it should be done in a studied fashion. Changing a system of universal retirement benefits--where everyone previously had participated under the same benefit rules--should be the subject of hearings in a bright light, where we understand exactly what equity problems are created as well as the long-term cost of providing such retirement credits. My problem with the amendment adopted by the Armed Service Committee is that it is not generous enough to discourage employees from seeking other Federal employment and this is the purported purpose of the legislation. The assumption that a majority of these employees will move onto other Federal employment also assumes that these employees will want to relocate and that they will find jobs through the priority placement program. These are two assumptions that I question. To repeat, the amendment is not generous enough to fulfill its stated purpose, while at the same time it is too generous when one considers that the Government is proposing to do nothing along these lines for other employees being separated from Government employment. It is these sorts of contradictions which should be the subject of congressional hearings before we act. western kentucky training site Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense authorization bill we will pass today contains $10.8 million in authorized funding for phase 3 construction of the Western Kentucky Training Site in Muhlenburg County, KY. I appreciated the willingness of my colleagues to secure this funding for phase 3 construction at the site and wanted to share with them a recent articles from Soldiers magazine. This article gives an excellent review of the center's training activities and its importance to our Nation's defense, calling it the training site of choice of units stationed in the Eastern United States. Again, I would like to thank my colleagues for their support of this military site, and I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From Soldiers magazine, July 1996] Kentucky's NTC East (By SSgt. David Altom) Camouflaged soldiers bustle around the airstrip while, in the distance, a formation of helicopters moves slowly across the overcast sky, slingloads of vehicles and equipment swinging beneath them. A C-130H Hercules transport lands and kicks up a cloud of dust as it taxis to the end of the strip. Turning around in preparation for takeoff, the aircraft is immediately surrounded by a team of soldiers emerging from the nearby tree line. A Humvee pulling a trailer is quickly off-loaded, the soldiers move back into the woods. The C-130 stirs up another dust storm as it roars back down the runway toward home base. The entire operation take less than five minutes. Welcome to the Western Kentucky Training Site. Owned and operated by the Kentucky National Guard, the WKYTS is proving popular with active and Reserve soldiers and airmen, making it the training site of choice for units stationed in the eastern United States. The greatest appeal of the training site is the open terrain. Occupying more than 700,000 acres of reclaimed strip mine property near the western tip of Kentucky, the facility has enough flat and rolling land to give commanders plenty of training options. While nearby Fort Campbell and Fort Knox have live-fire ranges, accommodating everything from M1 Abrams main battle tanks to Multiple Launch Rocket System, the WKYTS has shown itself to be ideal for movement-to- contact exercises and large-scale maneuvers. The expanse of the WKYTS is a tanker's dream come true, said Lt. Col. Norman Arflack, commander of the Kentucky Army Guard's 1st Battalion, 123rd Armor. ``As a maneuver unit we need to conduct force-on-force training, especially when we go to battalion-on-company tactics,'' he said. ``That's hard to do unless you go some place like Fort Hood. We feel fortunate to have a facility like this so close, especially with training dollars so tight.'' Arflack cited last summer's Advanced Warfighter Experiment as an example of the value

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
(Senate - July 10, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7514-S7612] NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11:30 a.m. having arrived, the Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1745, which the clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 1745) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. The Senate resumed consideration of the bill. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from South Carolina is recognized. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Senate has completed many long hours of debate on S. 1745, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. I would like to thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, my good [[Page S7515]] friend Senator Nunn, for his insight, wisdom, and devotion to our Nation. He and I have always worked to provide our Armed Forces with the direction and resources they need to carry out their difficult responsibilities. Our future collective efforts will be diminished by his absence. Senator Nunn was named chairman of the ad hoc Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel in 1974 and he served in that capacity until 1981. In 1983, he became the ranking minority member and in 1987 he became the chairman of the committee. He served with distinction in that capacity for 8 years, and earned the respect of leaders around the globe for his wisdom, statesmanship, and insight. A hallmark of his tenure, and a basis for his effectiveness, was the trustworthy and bipartisan manner in which he conducted the committee's business. Our Nation owes Senator Nunn its deepest appreciation for his truly distinguished service. I would also like to recognize the outstanding contributions of Senators Cohen and Exon, who are departing the Senate. They have worked and fought hard to preserve our national security, and provide for the well-being of our men and women in uniform. Mr. President, I want to extend my deep appreciation also to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, who has been most helpful in every way in bringing this bill to final passage. He is a fine and able leader of whom the Senate can be proud. I also want to thank all the members from both sides of the committee, and particularly Senator Warner and Senator McCain, for their leadership and assistance on the floor. In addition, I would like to commend the entire staff of the Committee on Armed Services for their dedication and support. I would like to recognize each of them individually for their effort on this bill. I will soon ask unanimous consent that a list of the committee staff be printed in the Record. I also want to recognize and thank Greg Scott and Charlie Armstrong, the legislative counsels who crafted the language of this bill. We have achieved a number of important successes in this bill, and I commend my colleagues for their good judgment. Among these successes are: Increasing the budget request by $11.2 billion to revitalize the procurement, and research and development accounts, which form the core of future readiness; Significantly improving quality of life programs for our troops and their families, including funds for housing, facilities, and real property maintenance; Authorizing a 3-percent pay raise for military members and a 4- percent increase in the basic allowance for quarters, to arrest part of the decline in compensation; Establishing a dental health care insurance program for military retirees and their families, to keep faith with those who have kept faith with our Nation; Increasing the level of funding requested in the President's budget for Department of Defense counternarcotics activities, to combat the flow of illegal drugs; Authorizing increases for the Space and Missile Tracking System, cruise missile defense programs, and ballistic missile defense advanced technologies; Accelerating the Department of Energy's phased approach to tritium production, and upgrading tritium recycling facilities; and Providing funding for essential equipment for the Active, Guard, and Reserve components. These are important achievements that reflect significant bipartisan effort, both within the committee and on the Senate floor. I urge my colleagues to endorse this bill with a solid vote of approval, to support our men and women in uniform who go in harm's way every day to protect our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the list of staff I referred to earlier be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Armed Services Committee Staff Majority Les Brownlee, Staff Director. Charles S. Abell; Patricia L. Banks; John R. Barnes; Lucia M. Chavez; Christine K. Cimko; Kathie S. Connor; Donald A. Deline; Marie Fabrizio Dickinson; Shawn H. Edwards; Jonathan L. Etherton; Pamela L. Farrell; Cristina W. Fiori; Larry J. Hoag; Melinda M. Koutsoumpas; Lawrence J. Lanzillotta; George W. Lauffer; Paul M. Longsworth; Stephen L. Madey; John Reaves McLeod; John H. Miller; Ann Mary Mittermeyer; Bert K. Mizusawa; Lind B. Morris; Joseph G. Pallone; Cindy Pearson; Sharen E. Reaves; Steven C. Saulnier; Cord Sterling; Eric H. Thoemmes; Roslyne D. Turner; Mary Deas Boykin Wagner; Jennifer Lynn Wallace. Minority Arnold L. Punaro, Staff Director for the Minority. Christine E. Cowart; Richard D. DeBobes; Andrew S. Effron; Andrew B. Fulford; Daniel B. Ginsberg; Mickie Jan Gordon; Creighton Greene; Patrick T. Henry; William E. Hoehn, Jr.; Maurice Hutchinson; Jennifer Lambert; Michael J. McCord; Frank Norton, Jr.; Julie K. Rief; James R. Thompson III; DeNeige V. Watson. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Thurmond very much for his gracious remarks concerning my participation in this bill and also my participation over the last 24 years in the Defense authorization process and matters affecting our national security. I also say to my friend from South Carolina that I identify with and completely support his remarks about two outstanding members of our committee, Senator Exon on the Democratic side and Senator Cohen on the Republican side. These two individuals have made truly enormous contributions to our Nation's security. I have worked with Senator Exon on many different matters over the years. He has been a stalwart on strategic matters, and really has made immense contributions to our overall security. Senator Cohen and I have joined together time after time in working on matters of great importance, including the special operating forces where he truly has been an expert and a leader. Senator Cohen is an expert on Asia and also has all sorts of legislative interests beyond the Defense Committee. But he has made tremendous contributions to the men and women who serve our Nation and to the taxpayers of our Nation. These two individuals, Senator Cohen and Senator Exon, truly will be missed. In the brief time allotted to us today, I will defer my detailed expression of appreciation to members of the committee and staff for their dedicated service in securing passage of this legislation until we act on the conference report. But I would like to summarize my thoughts at this time. First and foremost, I would like to thank our distinguished chairman, Senator Thurmond. Through his leadership, his strength, and his steadfast and dedicated commitment to the national defense, this bill is about to pass. It is my honor and privilege to work with him on all of the committee matters, and indeed have had the great pleasure of working with him over the years. I know that his service will continue with the strength and leadership that he has had in the past. I am also grateful to all of the other committee members on both sides of the aisle who have dedicated themselves to this important bill. Our subcommittee staff have done yeomen service on this bill. They deserve much credit for the passage of the bill. We brought a sound, good defense bill to the floor. There were a number of concerns that have now been ironed out. I think of such as demarcation, as in the ballistic missile and theater missile defense area, and also regarding the ABM Treaty; the multilateral provision that was in the bill. Both of those have been greatly improved on the floor. It is my strong impression that this bill will be acceptable to the administration. We have a real challenge in the House-Senate conference because there are a number of provisions that clearly would not be acceptable to the administration. In the House bill, we have to prevail upon those issues if we are going to have a Defense bill signed into law this year. The Senate also adopted a provision sponsored by Senator Lugar, Senator [[Page S7516]] Domenici, and myself to bolster our defenses against weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, both at home and abroad. We need no reminder that we are in an era of terrorism now. We spent all day yesterday in the hearing regarding the tragedy that took place in Saudi Arabia. Of course, our heart goes out to all of the families and to the men and women involved in that who were serving our Nation. The provision that passed the Senate in this bill improved existing programs, such as the Nunn-Lugar program designed to stop proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons at its source, primarily the former Soviet Union. But the primary new threat is on domestic preparedness against terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological, and nuclear. It is very, very clear by the hearings that we have had in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, as well as other hearings, that we are not prepared as a nation to deal with chemical or biological attack. We have a long way to go in the overall area of getting our policemen, our firemen, and our health officials able to handle one of these threats, if it ever comes. But primarily our effort must continue to be to stop the sources of this proliferation at the very beginning before they leave the country where the weapons are, where the scientists are, and where the technology is; and also to make sure, if that does happen, that we stop those weapons at our own borders before we have to deal with the attacks. But we have to have a tiered defense against this growing threat. I think we will have an even stronger bill in conference since the Senate has taken action on the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this important defense measure. The cooperation and help exhibited by all Senators, floor staff, parliamentarians, clerks, the Reporters of Debates, attorneys, and the Legislative Counsel's Office is very much appreciated by this manager of the bill. I am sure the chairman feels likewise. Finally, Mr. President, I have to express my appreciation to the superb committee staff on both sides of the aisle, and to our two staff directors, Les Brownlee with the majority and Arnold Punaro with the minority. They have done a magnificent job of managing and motivating in order to keep this bill on track and moving. I particularly want to express my appreciation to Les Brownlee, who has just become the staff director, although he has been a stalwart both in his service to our Nation in the Army as well as his service on this committee. But he has truly done a tremendous job as staff director on this bill. We have enjoyed very much working with him in his new capacity, as we did in his former capacity. I appreciate the hard work of both of the staffs. I will have more to say about them when we get the conference report back. They are not through working yet. So I do not want to overcongratulate them until we get through with the bill and we actually have it ready for conference. I thank the chairman for his dedication. I thank all of the members of our staff for their sacrifices which they have endured, and their families, in order to bring this bill to the floor. Mr. President, as we conclude the debate on the national Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 I would like to take a moment to bring to the Senate's attention recent remarks made by a former Senate colleague and a valued friend, Alan Dixon. Last year, Alan Dixon had the difficult task of chairing the 1995 Base Closure Commission. While some may not agree with various aspects of the Commission's findings, the Commission, under the tremendous leadership of Alan Dixon, fulfilled its obligation to make fair assessments of Department of Defense recommendations for base closures and realignments, to review additional closure and realignment options, and to make final recommendations to the President on ways in which the Department of Defense must reduce its excess infrastructure. DOD and the military services are executing these final BRAC decisions and affected local communities are making, plans for reuse and economic development. Mr. President, there is no easy part to base closure--the final recommendations were not easy for the Commission, implementation of the final decisions by the services is not easy, and base reuse by local communities is not easy. Not easy, but a necessary part of the Department's ability to afford modernization and readiness in the future. Mr. President, Alan Dixon made a speech before the American Logistics Association Conference on June 18 where he summarized the 1995 Base Closure Commission's actions and commented on what should be considered in terms of a future round of base closure. In his remarks, he pointed out, as senior military and civilian defense leaders have also indicated, that excess capacity and infrastructure will remain even after all base realignment and closure actions from the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 rounds have been completed. In order to address this excess infrastructure using the same Commission-type framework, Senator Dixon recommends that Congress authorize another Commission. I believe it is important that Alan Dixon's remarks be made part of the Record for all to read and consider. Mr. President, I commend our former colleague, Alan Dixon, on his leadership and dedicated service on issues of great importance to our national security. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dixon's remarks be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Perspective on Future Base Closings Thank you for the opportunity to speak to your convention today. Throughout my career of public service I was a strong advocate for the readiness of our military services and the quality of life for our military members and their families, so it is a real pleasure for me to be addressing a group that contributes so much to these important goals. Today I am going to talk a little bit about the base closure process--both the work of the 1995 Base Closure Commission which I chaired and what I see as the future of the base closure process. Let me start just by giving a quick summary of the work of the 1995 Commission. The 1995 Commission was actually the fourth--and under current law--the final round of base closing authorized by the Congress to operate under special expedited procedures. The first base closing round was in 1988. In my view this first round was seriously flawed from a procedural point of view. I was one of the principal authors of the 1990 Base Closure legislation that set up the succeeding three base closure rounds, and I think we corrected most of the procedural shortcomings of the 1988 rounds. Altogether, the 1995 Commission recommended the closure of 79 military installations; the realignment of 26 others; and approved 27 requests from the Defense Department to change recommendations of previous Commissions. The 1995 Commission rejected only 19 of the 146 closures or realignments proposed by DOD, and we closed or realigned 9 installations not requested by the Pentagon. Like previous Commissions, the 1995 Commission made changes to the list of closures and realignments proposed by DOD only in those cases where we found that the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from the force structure plan or the selection criteria. Of the 147 recommendations on Secretary's original list, we approved 123, or 84 percent. This is almost identical to previous Commissions. The 1993 Commission accepted 83 percent of DOD's recommendations, and the 1991 Commission accepted 83 percent. The 1990 Base Closure Act anticipated that the Commission would give great deference to the Secretary of Defenses's recommendations, and you can see that all three Commissions did that. I am particularly proud of the fact that the estimated 20- year savings from the 1995 Commission recommendations of just over $19.3 billion were $323 million higher than the revised savings baseline of $19.0 billion projected by DOD. This was the only time in the three closure rounds that the Commission achieved greater savings than contemplated by the Defense Department. The 1995 Commission also included in our report a set of 20 recommendations for the President, Congress and local communities that suggested ways to improve the process of helping local communities recover from the economic consequences of a base closure. Finally, and we will talk a little more about this in a moment, the 1995 Commission recommended that Congress authorize another round of base closures in the year 2001. I think most of you are aware that President Clinton was a little upset with a couple of our recommendations-- particularly the ones to close the Air Force Logistics Centers in Sacramento, California and San Antonio, Texas--but ultimately forwarded our recommendations to the Congress. The Resolution of Disapproval introduced in the House of Representatives was defeated by a vote of 343 to 75 on last September 8. [[Page S7517]] After four separate base closure rounds, do we need to close more bases? In my view, the answer is yes. In the last 10 years, the defense budget has declined in real terms by almost 40 percent, and current plans call for the defense budget to remain essentially stable through the end of the century. Overall, DOD has reduced the size of the military services by about 30 percent--and some are saying that further reductions in force levels are likely before the end of the decade. The cumulative reduction in our domestic base structure from the 4 base closures rounds is approximately 21 percent. I am not saying that there should be a direct correlation between reductions in force levels and reductions in basing structure, but I think we can and should reduce more base structure. The senior DOD leadership also thinks we need to close more bases. Secretary of Defense Bill Perry told the Commission last year that DOD would still have excess infrastructure after the 1995 round, and suggested the need for an additional round of closures and realignments in 3 to 4 years. General Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, agreed with Secretary Perry on the need for additional base closing authority in the future. He told us that opportunities remain in DOD to increase cross-servicing, particularly in the area of joint-use bases and training facilities. Josh Gotbaum, who at the time was Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security and oversaw the base closure process for OSD, told the Commission that ``Even after BRAC 95 has been implemented we will continue to have excess infrastructure. Future base closure authority will be necessary.'' How many additional bases should be closed, and in which military services? It was painful enough last year to vote to close specific bases, so I am not about to get in the business of suggesting which ones ought to be closed in a future round. Those decisions can only be made after a thorough review and analysis by the military services and some future Commission. I will suggest some functional areas that should be looked at, based on the work that the 1995 Commission did. In general, I would put a premium on retaining operational bases that have unique strategic value or that have good training ranges and airspace that provide opportunities for realistic training. One of the keys to maintaining our qualitative edge over future potential adversaries is to provide our forces frequent, realistic opportunities to train as they would have to fight. So where we have large bases with operational units with access to good training airspace or extensive land for training ground forces, we should think long and hard before closing them. I think the greatest opportunities for future closures lie in the support infrastructure. The Defense Department's industrial facilities represent one area where I think further reductions are possible. Secretary of the Army Togo West told the Commission last year that ``our analysis tells us that the Department of Defense is bleeding depot money. We are just spending money on capacity that we simply do not need now.'' The Commission on Roles and Missions, chaired by my friend John White who subsequently became the Deputy Secretary of Defense, reached the same conclusion. Their Report in May of last year said that ``With proper oversight, private contractors could provide essentially all of the depot-level maintenance services now conducted in government facilities within the United States. . . . We recommend that the Department make the transition to a depot maintenance system relying mostly on the private sector. DOD should retain organic depot capability only where private-sector alternatives are not available and cannot be developed reasonably.'' So I think the military services can look at their industrial activities for more closures. We also found in the 1995 Commission that there was a great deal of overlap and duplication in the area of R labs and test and evaluation facilities. In preparing the 1995 recommendations, OSD set up 6 cross-service groups to look at functions across the military services, and we heard testimony from the directors of each of those cross service groups. The leaders of the Labs and Test and Evaluation Facilities Cross Service Group told us that they were frustrated by their inability to achieve any meaningful cross servicing in this area and felt that much more could be done. Military medical facilities are another area where I think the military services can make some savings without compromising care to military members and their families or to military retirees. Some of the members of the 1995 Commission looked into this, and the Commission concluded in our Report that many opportunities remain for consolidating military medical facilities across service lines and with civilian sector medical resources. what should a future base closure process look like? I have never seen a process that can't be improved on, but the fact is that the base closure process set up under the 1990 Base Closure Act worked pretty well. My friend Jim Courter, who chaired the 1991 and 1993 Commissions, deserves a lot of credit for putting in place the policies and procedures that ensured that the process was open, fair and objective. Communities might disagree with the final recommendations of the Commission, but I don't think any community ever said that they were not given an opportunity to make their case and did not receive a fair hearing. By the end of the 1995 process, President Clinton was not a big fan of the base closure process, but he said in a letter to me that ``The BRAC process is the only way that the Congress and the executive branch have found to make closure decisions with reasonable objectivity and finality.'' I think the President was right. Our Commission recommended that Congress authorize another Base Closure Commission for the year 2001 similar to the 1991, 1993 and 1995 Commissions--after the Presidential election in the year 2000. We realized that the Defense Department would have a lot of work to do to implement the closures from the 1995 and prior Commissions through the end of this decade. Since the 1990 Base Closure Act gives DOD 6 years to complete closures, the closures from the 1995 round will not be completed until 2001. is congress likely to enact legislation setting up another base closure round? When I was Deputy Majority Whip of the United States Senate I had a hard time predicting from one day to the next whether I would be able to have dinner that night with my wife, so I hesitate to predict what Congress is likely to do on this sensitive subject. There are some who say that Congress will not set up another Base Closure Commission because it is too painful a process to go through. There is no doubt that it was a painful process for members of Congress. We wrote the 1990 Base Closure Act to insulate the process from political and parochial influences as much as possible, and I think we succeeded to a large extent. Our 1995 Commission listened carefully to the view of members of Congress, but these members did not have any more influence on the votes of our Commission and the outcome of the process than the state and local officials and even the individual citizens in the communities affected by our decisions. I was a member of the United States Senate for 12 years, and I know that members of Congress don't like to be put in the position that reduces their influence over the outcome of a process that could affect the economic well-being of their constituents. In this case, however, I think history shows that the process of closing bases is so politically charged that it has to be put in the hands of an independent Commission that is insulated as much as possible from partisan and parochial influences. In my view, the defense budget is not likely to get much larger in the next five years, and we still have a requirement to maintain a ready, capable military. I am still convinced that closing military bases is one of the keys to the future readiness and modernization of our military forces. Ultimately, I think members of Congress realize this. As painful as it is, we need to close more military bases, and I think and hope that Congress will realize this and authorize another Base Closure Commission in the future. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I know Senator Pell is on the floor. I believe Senator Helms is on the floor. So at this point I yield and reserve any time I have remaining. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I share with the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] concerns with regard to section 1005 of the Defense authorization bill. Senator Helms and I had planned to offer an amendment to delete that section, but, as recess approached, were not able to find an opportunity to do so. This section of the bill would authorize spending under the Military- to-Military Program for military education and training for military personnel of foreign countries. The program would be in addition to the International Military Education and Training Program now in operation and overseen by the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Appropriations, and their appropriate subcommittees. This new program would not have the same congressional oversight. Oversight of the International Military Education and Training [IMET] Program has proved generally valuable in ensuring that the Congress is comfortable with the activities undertaken pursuant to the program. Just this year, for instance, the Department of Defense proposed a program for a troubled country that was not consistent with its needs. In consultation with two members of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I requested that the Defense Security Assistance Agency modify the program. They were quite prepared to consider our views and to [[Page S7518]] meet our request that the program be modified. I would point out that, in that particular case, there has been a continuing and productive dialog to ensure that the program for that nation does not conflict with congressional concerns, but meets the reasonable objectives of the Department of Defense. There is no reason to conclude that the IMET Program is not supported by the committees of jurisdiction. I would point out that the foreign operations appropriations bill just reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee provides a full $40 million for the IMET Program in the next fiscal year. This sum represents an increase in funding and reflects congressional willingness to back that well- established program. It makes no sense to create a duplicative military education and training program under the Military-to-Military Contacts Program. The IMET Program and the contacts program have different purposes and goals. The Congress has been very careful to separate the programs to ensure that the Military-to-Military Contacts Program would not be used to circumvent the restrictions of the IMET Program and to prevent duplication and overlaps. Three provisions were added to prohibit funding for the Military-to- Military Program from being used in countries that are ineligible for IMET to require coordination with the Secretary of State and to prevent the authorities from being used to transfer weapons. It is not at all in the interests of the Congress or the country for the distinction between these two programs to be blurred. Mr. President, it is not at all clear why this provision is being sought. It was not requested by the Department of Defense and it is opposed by the Department of Defense and it is opposed by the Department of State. I believe very much that section 1005 has no place in this bill. I hope that, with an eye both to comity and to good sense, it will be dropped in conference. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina. Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I believe there are 7\1/2\ minutes set aside for me. Is that correct? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. HELMS. We are supposed to begin voting at 12? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct. Mr. HELMS. How many votes in tandem, three? The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will have a series of five votes beginning at 12 o'clock. Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have been around this place for almost 24 years now, and I have never participated in the occasional turf battles that occur, and I do not particularly enjoy making the comments I am about to make but I feel obliged to make them for the record. Mr. President, S. 1745, as introduced and reported by the Armed Services Committee, contains, in my judgment, several significant provisions falling clearly within the primary jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee. And I have disclosed now my interest in that because I am chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I do not think there can be a clearer case of imposing upon the jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee than section 1005 of the bill, entitled ``Use of Military-to-Military Contacts Funds for Professional Military Education and Training.'' That is a lot of gobbledygook perhaps, but it is a provision that represents an obvious effort by some to commandeer a longstanding foreign policy instrument of the Department of State, that being the International Military Education and Training program known familiarly as IMET. Section 1005 of this bill does not even pretend to differ substantively from the existing IMET program. The proposed authority would allow the Department of Defense to engage in a back-door foreign assistance program without the supervision of the State Department or the oversight of the Foreign Relations Committee by conducting ``military education and training for military and civilian personnel of foreign countries.'' Mr. President, why should the United States establish this duplicative program as identical authority already exists under chapter 5 of the Foreign Assistance Act which authorizes the President of the United States to furnish ``military education and training to military and related civilian personnel of foreign countries.'' Now, again, I am not going to get into any fight about the turf, but I must point out that this is the second year that an attempt has been made to seize foreign policy tools belonging solely to the Secretary of State. At a time when we should be considering consolidating the foreign affairs apparatus of the of the United States into the Department of State, it makes no sense to me to proliferate the number of foreign assistance programs outside the control of the Secretary of State. It makes even less sense in light of the drastic budget cuts undergone by the Department of Defense to pay for foreign aid in the defense budget and from defense funds. The result will be more nondefense spending in the 050 account. This authority--and I have checked on this--was not requested by the administration. It has not been agreed to in the administration's interagency process, and I daresay that it likely is not supported by the Secretary of State. However, I have not talked with or to Warren Christopher about that. Because this provision falls within the jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee, I respectfully request that this provision be removed from the bill during conference. That action I believe would recognize appropriately the jurisdictional responsibilities of both of our committees. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield me the remainder of his time? Mr. PELL. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Maryland. Mr. HELMS. And if I have any time I yield it to the Senator from Maryland. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I join in the concerns expressed by Chairman Helms and by the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell, about section 1005 of this bill. This section would have the effect of creating a second IMET Program, a new aid program for foreign militaries. IMET, the International Military Education and Training Program, funds tuition for foreign military officers in U.S. professional military training courses, and related activities. It has traditionally been funded through the foreign aid bill. In fact, the foreign operations appropriations bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee provides a full $40 million for IMET in fiscal year 1997. It is one of the only programs in the entire foreign aid budget that is slated to get more money in fiscal year 1997 than in fiscal year 1996 or 1995. When the Military-to-Military Contacts Program was established in the Defense Department, the justification was used that this would not-- would not--be another IMET Program. It was to be something entirely separate. It was not going to duplicate IMET activities. For that reason it was spelled out exactly what the new Military-to- Military Contact Program was going to be. In the law, there are listed eight specific activities, such as exchanges of personnel, transportation for contact and liaison teams, seminars and conferences, and distribution of publications, all distinct from the IMET activities. To further ensure that the new Military-to-Military Program would not be used to circumvent the restrictions of the IMET Program, several conditions were added to ensure coordination and prevent overlap. Because of concerns about the potential for duplication in the two programs, the fiscal year 1995 foreign operations appropriations bill required a report from the Secretary of Defense addressing the future of military training of foreign armed forces. In that report, which was issued with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, the Defense Department concluded: The IMET Program and the traditional CINC military-to- military activities are distinct efforts contributing to the achievement [[Page S7519]] of common goals. From the beginning, both programs have commanded close coordination between the Defense and State Departments. Coordination between both departments ensures program uniqueness and the effective utilization of scarce resources in support of broad U.S. foreign policy and national security goals. Unfortunately, what the bill now before us would do is eliminate all distinctions between the two programs. It would create, in effect, a second IMET Program under different jurisdiction and separate funding. The Military-to-Military Contacts Program is expected to receive funding of $60 million in each of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997, out of the Services' operations and maintenance accounts. That is on top of the $40 million already going to IMET. I wish to stress, as have my colleagues, that this authority was not requested by the Defense Department. It is not something they believe is needed. Furthermore, it is opposed by the State Department as well as by the committees of jurisdiction over foreign aid funding. I very much regret that section 1005 has not been stricken from the bill. I make the observation that it plants the seeds for continuing controversy, which I think is something that is highly undesirable. I very strongly urge that it be dropped in conference. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I am puzzled concerning the objections to the use of Military-to-Military Contacts Program funds for international military education and training [IMET]. The Armed Services Committee is told each year by the commanders in chief of the combatant commands that IMET is the United States' most cost effective program in terms of fostering friendly relations with the foreign militaries. The combatant commanders routinely point out that foreign military officers who have received IMET training come to appreciate American values and the American way of life and that these foreign officers often rise to assume senior positions of leadership within their military and civilian hierarchies. Pursuant to this testimony, the Armed Services Committee in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 specifically authorized the creation of a CINC Initiative Fund to carry out eight types of activities, including military education and training to military and related civilian personnel of foreign countries. The CINC Initiative Fund is designed to provide funding for activities that were not foreseen when the budget request was submitted to Congress and that would enhance the war fighting capability, readiness, and sustainability of the forces assigned to the commander requesting the funds. In the years since this authority was created, the CINC Initiative Fund has only been used to provide IMET on a few occasions. Incidentally, the use of this authority for IMET is limited to $2 million per fiscal year. The committee's initiative this year seeks to build upon an existing program--the Military-to-Military Contacts Program which is designed to encourage a democratic orientation of defense establishments and military forces of other countries. Under existing law, this program is primarily aimed at in-theater activities and generally involves the establishment of military liaison teams and traveling contact teams in engaging democracies to seek to identify those countries' needs and then seek to design programs that are carried out by visiting experts, seminars, conferences, or exchanges of personnel. When a larger need is identified that would exceed the limited funding for this program, the in-country liaison teams seek to identify programs under the Foreign Assistance Act that can satisfy the need. When it comes to IMET, however, we have found that existing funding for the IMET Program has already been programmed and the traditional IMET Program is unable to meet the need. We have also found that the needs of emerging democracies in Eastern Europe have caused legitimate IMET needs of countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia to go unfunded. Thus, by adding IMET as one of the activities that can be carried out under the Military-to-Military Contacts Program, we are merely seeking to provide a modest supplement to the traditional IMET Program when a truly pressing need arises. We are, of course, amenable to put funding limits on the use of the military-to-military contacts programs for IMET and that has been communicated to the Foreign Relations Committee. I hasten to point out that the Secretary of State must approve the conduct of any activity--not just IMET--authorized under this program and that funds cannot be provided for any country that is not eligible for assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act. In summary, Mr. President, this is a very modest supplement to the traditional IMET Program, it has a precedent in prior congressional action relating to the CINC Initiative Fund, and we are amenable to including reasonable funding limitations to its use for IMET. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1745. Mr. President, I would simply say that the IMET Program is one of the highest priorities of the commanders in chief we hear from every year around the world. The newly emerging democracies in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have consumed a great deal of those funds, leaving almost nothing for Asia, Africa, and Latin America. We also take note of the fact that these IMET funds have been cut each and every year, so they do not seem to have a high priority by the Foreign Relations Committee but they do have an enormous priority for our military. So we will be glad to work with our friends on the Foreign Relations Committee to iron out jurisdictional problems with the hope that we can unite behind one of the most important programs we have to have contacts and influence all over the world through military-to-military contacts that can end up bringing peace in areas that otherwise would be in conflict. So I would take into account what my colleagues have said, but we do have a very high priority on this program and that has been exemplified in testimony year after year after year by all of our military commanders. Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I regret that the Senate again has produced a bill that is gravely flawed. It suffers from many of the defects associated with last year's bill. I voted to favorably report the bill out of committee in the hope that the bill would be improved when it was considered on the floor. While agreement was reached to eliminate unacceptable missile defense provisions from the bill, the bill remains fundamentally flawed. As a consequence, I will vote against its final passage. With respect to missile defense, I am pleased with the agreement announced by the majority leader on June 28th to drop sections 231 and 232 from the bill. These sections related to U.S. compliance policy for the development, testing, and deployment of theater missile defense systems, and to the demarcation between theater and strategic missile systems. I am also grateful to see that the language in the bill in section 233 with respect to the mutilateralization of the ABM Treaty has been dropped and converted into a sense of the Senate. I understand full well, however, that we will soon be back on the floor debating many of these same ill-advised proposals placed in another bill. I intend to speak in more detail about those proposals at the appropriate time. For now, I would just like to restate my conviction that it would ill serve the interests of our country--and surely not the interests of our taxpayers--to follow the misguided missile defense plan that the majority appears determined to pursue in the weeks ahead. As far as I am concerned, the missile defense language I cited above would have made for bad law if enacted on this bill-- simply moving this language into another bill will not change this basic quality of the proposal. The bill contains more than $11 billion in unrequested funding with huge increases in the procurement and research and development accounts. For the most part, these additions are based on the Services' so-called wish list--lists of programs the Services would like to see funded if additional funding were made available. I agree with some of the spending decisions, but I do not support this approach to defense budgeting. It undermines the objectives of Goldwater-Nichols by encouraging the submission of separate [[Page S7520]] spending priorities for each service that are set without regard to our unified command structure's warfighting needs. Moreover, I cannot support the magnitude of the increase in funding especially when we are spending billions of dollars on programs we do not need now and some we may not need ever. The additions in procurement include $750 million for the DDG-51 destroyer program, $701 million for the new attack submarine program, $351 million for the V-22 program, $249 million for the C-17 program, $240 million for the E8-B program, $234 million for the F/A-18 C/D program, $204 million for the C-130J program, $183 million for the Apache longbow program, $158.4 million for the Kiowa warrior program, $147 million for the MLRS program and $107 million for the F-16 program. The additions in research and development include the $885 million for missile defense programs to which I already alluded, $100 million plus-ups for the Comanche Program and Army Force XXI, $305 million for the national defense sealift fund, $147 million for the Arsenal Ship and $116 for advanced submarine technology. The bill contains more than $600 million in unrequested military construction projects, an annual temptation that Members cannot seem to resist, even though there is no compelling reason to move these projects forward. I think it is particularly damning that at least $200 million of these projects not only did not make the initial cut of the budget request but also did not make the second cut of the services' wish lists. We are authorizing an additional $600 million in military construction projects just so Members can say that they have brought home the bacon. Another rite of spring, the addition of hundreds of millions of dollars in Guard and Reserve equipment warrants mention. Some progress has been made in avoiding the earmarking problem we had last year. Only about $485 million of the $760 million in funding is earmarked. Unfortunately, no real progress has been made in eliciting a realistic budget request from the Defense Department for Guard and Reserve equipment. This failure invites earmarking funds for programs in Members' districts and as a consequence, the funding decisions that become law only bear relation to the Guard and Reserves' requirements by happenstance. We should not be spending the taxpayers' money in this way. Several amendments to eliminate some or all of this unrequested funding were offered. Unfortunately, Mr. President, these efforts were defeated. On other matters, I am concerned about the criteria used in allocating an additional $200 million for DOE's environmental restoration and waste management program. I could support, and, fact, have long advocated increased funding for this program. However, rather than accept the recommendations provided by the Department of Energy which listed projects that, if given increased funding in the near term, could save substantial dollars in the out-years, the bill factors in additional criteria concerning site employment. I have grave concerns that the credibility of the entire DOE cleanup operation will be undermined if it is treated merely as a jobs program. A number of factors should be assessed when deciding to increase funding for cleanup projects such as: reducing the risk to the public, workers and the environment, lessening the long term mortgage costs of the program; mandates and the environment; lessening the long term mortgage costs of the program; mandates from Federal and State laws; and stakeholder input. I do not believe that the effect on a given site's employment should be among these factors. I disagree with the committee's report language concerning the external regulation of the Department of Energy. I believe Secretary O'Leary's Advisory Committee on External Regulation established credible reasons for moving to external regulation, and I believe that this goal can be accomplished without significant increased costs to the taxpayer and without any detrimental impact on our Nation's security. In my view, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board will continue to play a key role in ensuring the safe operation of the defense nuclear facilities. Since January of this year, the Department has been carefully reviewing the options available for transitioning to external regulation. A preferred option should be presented to the Secretary within the next several weeks. I believe that the Department should continue planning to move to external regulation for nuclear safety. It is my hope that the plan presented to the Secretary will outline the steps necessary for such a transition, recognizing that such a transition may take several years. During consideration on the floor, the committee accepted an amendment I offered regarding worker safety and health at DOE's Mound. For too long Congress has done too little to ensure that the workers in our nuclear weapons complex were adequately protected from the many hazards they face on a daily basis. While the situation has improved at many sites, it is unfortunately the case that the Mound facility is still not up to the standards of other DOE facilities, not to mention commercial nuclear facilities. This amendment requires DOE to report to Congress on progress to improve worker health and safety at the facility. On June 21, 1996, I received a letter from DOE Under Secretary Tom Grumbly. This letter clearly establishes the Department's intent and commitment to seriously and forthrightly address worker safety issues at Mound. The letter lists a series of discrete program improvements that will be taken at the mound site beginning immediately and continuing through 1997. These important upgrades should begin at the earliest possible opportunity. I remain concerned though that we may be forcing a trade off between worker safety and health improvements and the pace of cleanup at the Mound site. In order to avoid such a trade off, it may be necessary to seek an authorization for these activities during conference. Finally, I would like to mention a special retirement provision for Federal employees who happen to work at military bases where the work will be privatized as part of base closure. The Committee on Armed Services voted 11 to 9 to add nongermane legislation to the bill that appropriately is in the jurisdiction of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. This amendment also was recently introduced as a bill, S. 1686, which is pending before the Subcommittee on Post Office and Civil Service of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Its stated purpose is to make privatization more likely to succeed by giving employees an incentive to stay at the base when a private employer takes over the workload. Under the terms of the amendment, 30 percent of the Federal civilian employees at two DOD bases, one in Indianapolis and one in Louisville, would enjoy civil service retirement system [CSRS] benefits that no other Federal employee enjoys today. I believe the authors of the amendment intended for it to apply to a third base in Newark, OH, but it is unclear whether the workers at the Ohio base will be eligible for the benefit. In addition, it is unclear whether bases in Texas and California will also be covered by the amendment. Under the terms of the amendment, additional retirement system credits would be given to employees in the civil service retirement system [CSRS] whose jobs are being privatized, and who are not eligible for immediate retirement benefits. The amendment would allow these employees to count their time as a private contract employee as qualifying service toward meeting the eligibility requirements under CSRS. In addition, their current high-3 years of salary would be indexed to general increases in Federal salaries. These benefits are independent of additional subsequent retirement benefits earned by the employees following privatization. Under current law, the affected employees would be eligible for a CSRS pension at age 62 with the high 3 years based on current employment by the Federal Government. Under the terms of the amendment, these employees could retire at an earlier age and their high-3 years of salary would be at a level indexed during the years of privatization. Of course, they would not even be required to contribute toward the cost of these extra benefits, although Federal employees in CSRS must contribute toward system costs. [[Page S7521]] While the stated purpose of the amendment is to encourage Navy employees to accept contractor employment in Indianapolis and Louisville, the proposed retirement incentives do not apply to 70 percent of the work force at the two facilities. Nineteen percent of the employees at the two facilities are now eligible to retire under CSRS and therefore, are ineligible for the proposed retirement incentives. Fifty-one percent of the employees are covered under the Federal employees retirement system [FERS] and therefore, are also ineligible for the proposed retirement incentives. Therefore, in terms of increasing their Federal retirement benefits, it would be to the advantage of 70 percent of the work force at the two facilities, to relocate and seek other Federal employment. Newark Air Force Base in Ohio is privatizing in the same way that the bases in Louisville and Indianapolis are scheduled to proceed, although it is not clear from the legislation whether the employees at Newark would be included in the pilot program. The privatization at Newark has been working because employees want to remain employed and many want to stay in the Newark area. Based upon Newark's experience, it is my view that the amendment, offered by Senator Coats, proposes a solution to a problem that does not really exist. Regrettably, given the nature of the proposed solution, I believe that this legislation will create a host of problems. Problems of equity and fairness that will fall straight into the lap of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, the committee with jurisdiction over Federal employment benefits. We are in the process of downsizing the Federal Government. I note that through the efforts of the Armed Services and Governmental Affairs Committee and the administration, we have 240,000 fewer Federal employees than when President Clinton took office. Many Federal jobs are being privatized in place. Numerous Federal jobs are also being eliminated. One Ohio constituent recently wrote to me and explained that his job was being eliminated in July. He said that if we could provide him with 4 additional months of service credit, he could apply and be eligible for early retirement under the civil service retirement system. I cannot explain to this constituent why he should not be eligible for an additional 4 months of credit if we are providing years of service credit to other employees who are not even losing their jobs. They have the opportunity to continue working. They will be eligible to accrue private employer pension benefits in addition to the Federal benefits they will have already earned. Perhaps, the Congress should consider retirement inducements for all employees affected by privatization and downsizing. However, if this is to be done, it should be done in a studied fashion. Changing a system of universal retirement benefits--where everyone previously had participated under the same benefit rules--should be the subject of hearings in a bright light, where we understand exactly what equity problems are created as well as the long-term cost of providing such retirement credits. My problem with the amendment adopted by the Armed Service Committee is that it is not generous enough to discourage employees from seeking other Federal employment and this is the purported purpose of the legislation. The assumption that a majority of these employees will move onto other Federal employment also assumes that these employees will want to relocate and that they will find jobs through the priority placement program. These are two assumptions that I question. To repeat, the amendment is not generous enough to fulfill its stated purpose, while at the same time it is too generous when one considers that the Government is proposing to do nothing along these lines for other employees being separated from Government employment. It is these sorts of contradictions which should be the subject of congressional hearings before we act. western kentucky training site Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense authorization bill we will pass today contains $10.8 million in authorized funding for phase 3 construction of the Western Kentucky Training Site in Muhlenburg County, KY. I appreciated the willingness of my colleagues to secure this funding for phase 3 construction at the site and wanted to share with them a recent articles from Soldiers magazine. This article gives an excellent review of the center's training activities and its importance to our Nation's defense, calling it the training site of choice of units stationed in the Eastern United States. Again, I would like to thank my colleagues for their support of this military site, and I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From Soldiers magazine, July 1996] Kentucky's NTC East (By SSgt. David Altom) Camouflaged soldiers bustle around the airstrip while, in the distance, a formation of helicopters moves slowly across the overcast sky, slingloads of vehicles and equipment swinging beneath them. A C-130H Hercules transport lands and kicks up a cloud of dust as it taxis to the end of the strip. Turning around in preparation for takeoff, the aircraft is immediately surrounded by a team of soldiers emerging from the nearby tree line. A Humvee pulling a trailer is quickly off-loaded, the soldiers move back into the woods. The C-130 stirs up another dust storm as it roars back down the runway toward home base. The entire operation take less than five minutes. Welcome to the Western Kentucky Training Site. Owned and operated by the Kentucky National Guard, the WKYTS is proving popular with active and Reserve soldiers and airmen, making it the training site of choice for units stationed in the eastern United States. The greatest appeal of the training site is the open terrain. Occupying more than 700,000 acres of reclaimed strip mine property near the western tip of Kentucky, the facility has enough flat and rolling land to give commanders plenty of training options. While nearby Fort Campbell and Fort Knox have live-fire ranges, accommodating everything from M1 Abrams main battle tanks to Multiple Launch Rocket System, the WKYTS has shown itself to be ideal for movement-to- contact exercises and large-scale maneuvers. The expanse of the WKYTS is a tanker's dream come true, said Lt. Col. Norman Arflack, commander of the Kentucky Army Guard's 1st Battalion, 123rd Armor. ``As a maneuver unit we need to conduct force-on-force training, especially when we go to battalion-on-company tactics,'' he said. ``That's hard to do unless you go some place like Fort Hood. We feel fortunate to have a facility like this so close, especially with training dollars so tight.'' Arflack cited last summer's Advanced Warfighter Experiment as an example of the value of the WK

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
(Senate - July 10, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7514-S7612] NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11:30 a.m. having arrived, the Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1745, which the clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 1745) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. The Senate resumed consideration of the bill. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from South Carolina is recognized. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Senate has completed many long hours of debate on S. 1745, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. I would like to thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, my good [[Page S7515]] friend Senator Nunn, for his insight, wisdom, and devotion to our Nation. He and I have always worked to provide our Armed Forces with the direction and resources they need to carry out their difficult responsibilities. Our future collective efforts will be diminished by his absence. Senator Nunn was named chairman of the ad hoc Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel in 1974 and he served in that capacity until 1981. In 1983, he became the ranking minority member and in 1987 he became the chairman of the committee. He served with distinction in that capacity for 8 years, and earned the respect of leaders around the globe for his wisdom, statesmanship, and insight. A hallmark of his tenure, and a basis for his effectiveness, was the trustworthy and bipartisan manner in which he conducted the committee's business. Our Nation owes Senator Nunn its deepest appreciation for his truly distinguished service. I would also like to recognize the outstanding contributions of Senators Cohen and Exon, who are departing the Senate. They have worked and fought hard to preserve our national security, and provide for the well-being of our men and women in uniform. Mr. President, I want to extend my deep appreciation also to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, who has been most helpful in every way in bringing this bill to final passage. He is a fine and able leader of whom the Senate can be proud. I also want to thank all the members from both sides of the committee, and particularly Senator Warner and Senator McCain, for their leadership and assistance on the floor. In addition, I would like to commend the entire staff of the Committee on Armed Services for their dedication and support. I would like to recognize each of them individually for their effort on this bill. I will soon ask unanimous consent that a list of the committee staff be printed in the Record. I also want to recognize and thank Greg Scott and Charlie Armstrong, the legislative counsels who crafted the language of this bill. We have achieved a number of important successes in this bill, and I commend my colleagues for their good judgment. Among these successes are: Increasing the budget request by $11.2 billion to revitalize the procurement, and research and development accounts, which form the core of future readiness; Significantly improving quality of life programs for our troops and their families, including funds for housing, facilities, and real property maintenance; Authorizing a 3-percent pay raise for military members and a 4- percent increase in the basic allowance for quarters, to arrest part of the decline in compensation; Establishing a dental health care insurance program for military retirees and their families, to keep faith with those who have kept faith with our Nation; Increasing the level of funding requested in the President's budget for Department of Defense counternarcotics activities, to combat the flow of illegal drugs; Authorizing increases for the Space and Missile Tracking System, cruise missile defense programs, and ballistic missile defense advanced technologies; Accelerating the Department of Energy's phased approach to tritium production, and upgrading tritium recycling facilities; and Providing funding for essential equipment for the Active, Guard, and Reserve components. These are important achievements that reflect significant bipartisan effort, both within the committee and on the Senate floor. I urge my colleagues to endorse this bill with a solid vote of approval, to support our men and women in uniform who go in harm's way every day to protect our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the list of staff I referred to earlier be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Armed Services Committee Staff Majority Les Brownlee, Staff Director. Charles S. Abell; Patricia L. Banks; John R. Barnes; Lucia M. Chavez; Christine K. Cimko; Kathie S. Connor; Donald A. Deline; Marie Fabrizio Dickinson; Shawn H. Edwards; Jonathan L. Etherton; Pamela L. Farrell; Cristina W. Fiori; Larry J. Hoag; Melinda M. Koutsoumpas; Lawrence J. Lanzillotta; George W. Lauffer; Paul M. Longsworth; Stephen L. Madey; John Reaves McLeod; John H. Miller; Ann Mary Mittermeyer; Bert K. Mizusawa; Lind B. Morris; Joseph G. Pallone; Cindy Pearson; Sharen E. Reaves; Steven C. Saulnier; Cord Sterling; Eric H. Thoemmes; Roslyne D. Turner; Mary Deas Boykin Wagner; Jennifer Lynn Wallace. Minority Arnold L. Punaro, Staff Director for the Minority. Christine E. Cowart; Richard D. DeBobes; Andrew S. Effron; Andrew B. Fulford; Daniel B. Ginsberg; Mickie Jan Gordon; Creighton Greene; Patrick T. Henry; William E. Hoehn, Jr.; Maurice Hutchinson; Jennifer Lambert; Michael J. McCord; Frank Norton, Jr.; Julie K. Rief; James R. Thompson III; DeNeige V. Watson. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Thurmond very much for his gracious remarks concerning my participation in this bill and also my participation over the last 24 years in the Defense authorization process and matters affecting our national security. I also say to my friend from South Carolina that I identify with and completely support his remarks about two outstanding members of our committee, Senator Exon on the Democratic side and Senator Cohen on the Republican side. These two individuals have made truly enormous contributions to our Nation's security. I have worked with Senator Exon on many different matters over the years. He has been a stalwart on strategic matters, and really has made immense contributions to our overall security. Senator Cohen and I have joined together time after time in working on matters of great importance, including the special operating forces where he truly has been an expert and a leader. Senator Cohen is an expert on Asia and also has all sorts of legislative interests beyond the Defense Committee. But he has made tremendous contributions to the men and women who serve our Nation and to the taxpayers of our Nation. These two individuals, Senator Cohen and Senator Exon, truly will be missed. In the brief time allotted to us today, I will defer my detailed expression of appreciation to members of the committee and staff for their dedicated service in securing passage of this legislation until we act on the conference report. But I would like to summarize my thoughts at this time. First and foremost, I would like to thank our distinguished chairman, Senator Thurmond. Through his leadership, his strength, and his steadfast and dedicated commitment to the national defense, this bill is about to pass. It is my honor and privilege to work with him on all of the committee matters, and indeed have had the great pleasure of working with him over the years. I know that his service will continue with the strength and leadership that he has had in the past. I am also grateful to all of the other committee members on both sides of the aisle who have dedicated themselves to this important bill. Our subcommittee staff have done yeomen service on this bill. They deserve much credit for the passage of the bill. We brought a sound, good defense bill to the floor. There were a number of concerns that have now been ironed out. I think of such as demarcation, as in the ballistic missile and theater missile defense area, and also regarding the ABM Treaty; the multilateral provision that was in the bill. Both of those have been greatly improved on the floor. It is my strong impression that this bill will be acceptable to the administration. We have a real challenge in the House-Senate conference because there are a number of provisions that clearly would not be acceptable to the administration. In the House bill, we have to prevail upon those issues if we are going to have a Defense bill signed into law this year. The Senate also adopted a provision sponsored by Senator Lugar, Senator [[Page S7516]] Domenici, and myself to bolster our defenses against weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, both at home and abroad. We need no reminder that we are in an era of terrorism now. We spent all day yesterday in the hearing regarding the tragedy that took place in Saudi Arabia. Of course, our heart goes out to all of the families and to the men and women involved in that who were serving our Nation. The provision that passed the Senate in this bill improved existing programs, such as the Nunn-Lugar program designed to stop proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons at its source, primarily the former Soviet Union. But the primary new threat is on domestic preparedness against terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological, and nuclear. It is very, very clear by the hearings that we have had in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, as well as other hearings, that we are not prepared as a nation to deal with chemical or biological attack. We have a long way to go in the overall area of getting our policemen, our firemen, and our health officials able to handle one of these threats, if it ever comes. But primarily our effort must continue to be to stop the sources of this proliferation at the very beginning before they leave the country where the weapons are, where the scientists are, and where the technology is; and also to make sure, if that does happen, that we stop those weapons at our own borders before we have to deal with the attacks. But we have to have a tiered defense against this growing threat. I think we will have an even stronger bill in conference since the Senate has taken action on the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this important defense measure. The cooperation and help exhibited by all Senators, floor staff, parliamentarians, clerks, the Reporters of Debates, attorneys, and the Legislative Counsel's Office is very much appreciated by this manager of the bill. I am sure the chairman feels likewise. Finally, Mr. President, I have to express my appreciation to the superb committee staff on both sides of the aisle, and to our two staff directors, Les Brownlee with the majority and Arnold Punaro with the minority. They have done a magnificent job of managing and motivating in order to keep this bill on track and moving. I particularly want to express my appreciation to Les Brownlee, who has just become the staff director, although he has been a stalwart both in his service to our Nation in the Army as well as his service on this committee. But he has truly done a tremendous job as staff director on this bill. We have enjoyed very much working with him in his new capacity, as we did in his former capacity. I appreciate the hard work of both of the staffs. I will have more to say about them when we get the conference report back. They are not through working yet. So I do not want to overcongratulate them until we get through with the bill and we actually have it ready for conference. I thank the chairman for his dedication. I thank all of the members of our staff for their sacrifices which they have endured, and their families, in order to bring this bill to the floor. Mr. President, as we conclude the debate on the national Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 I would like to take a moment to bring to the Senate's attention recent remarks made by a former Senate colleague and a valued friend, Alan Dixon. Last year, Alan Dixon had the difficult task of chairing the 1995 Base Closure Commission. While some may not agree with various aspects of the Commission's findings, the Commission, under the tremendous leadership of Alan Dixon, fulfilled its obligation to make fair assessments of Department of Defense recommendations for base closures and realignments, to review additional closure and realignment options, and to make final recommendations to the President on ways in which the Department of Defense must reduce its excess infrastructure. DOD and the military services are executing these final BRAC decisions and affected local communities are making, plans for reuse and economic development. Mr. President, there is no easy part to base closure--the final recommendations were not easy for the Commission, implementation of the final decisions by the services is not easy, and base reuse by local communities is not easy. Not easy, but a necessary part of the Department's ability to afford modernization and readiness in the future. Mr. President, Alan Dixon made a speech before the American Logistics Association Conference on June 18 where he summarized the 1995 Base Closure Commission's actions and commented on what should be considered in terms of a future round of base closure. In his remarks, he pointed out, as senior military and civilian defense leaders have also indicated, that excess capacity and infrastructure will remain even after all base realignment and closure actions from the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 rounds have been completed. In order to address this excess infrastructure using the same Commission-type framework, Senator Dixon recommends that Congress authorize another Commission. I believe it is important that Alan Dixon's remarks be made part of the Record for all to read and consider. Mr. President, I commend our former colleague, Alan Dixon, on his leadership and dedicated service on issues of great importance to our national security. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dixon's remarks be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Perspective on Future Base Closings Thank you for the opportunity to speak to your convention today. Throughout my career of public service I was a strong advocate for the readiness of our military services and the quality of life for our military members and their families, so it is a real pleasure for me to be addressing a group that contributes so much to these important goals. Today I am going to talk a little bit about the base closure process--both the work of the 1995 Base Closure Commission which I chaired and what I see as the future of the base closure process. Let me start just by giving a quick summary of the work of the 1995 Commission. The 1995 Commission was actually the fourth--and under current law--the final round of base closing authorized by the Congress to operate under special expedited procedures. The first base closing round was in 1988. In my view this first round was seriously flawed from a procedural point of view. I was one of the principal authors of the 1990 Base Closure legislation that set up the succeeding three base closure rounds, and I think we corrected most of the procedural shortcomings of the 1988 rounds. Altogether, the 1995 Commission recommended the closure of 79 military installations; the realignment of 26 others; and approved 27 requests from the Defense Department to change recommendations of previous Commissions. The 1995 Commission rejected only 19 of the 146 closures or realignments proposed by DOD, and we closed or realigned 9 installations not requested by the Pentagon. Like previous Commissions, the 1995 Commission made changes to the list of closures and realignments proposed by DOD only in those cases where we found that the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from the force structure plan or the selection criteria. Of the 147 recommendations on Secretary's original list, we approved 123, or 84 percent. This is almost identical to previous Commissions. The 1993 Commission accepted 83 percent of DOD's recommendations, and the 1991 Commission accepted 83 percent. The 1990 Base Closure Act anticipated that the Commission would give great deference to the Secretary of Defenses's recommendations, and you can see that all three Commissions did that. I am particularly proud of the fact that the estimated 20- year savings from the 1995 Commission recommendations of just over $19.3 billion were $323 million higher than the revised savings baseline of $19.0 billion projected by DOD. This was the only time in the three closure rounds that the Commission achieved greater savings than contemplated by the Defense Department. The 1995 Commission also included in our report a set of 20 recommendations for the President, Congress and local communities that suggested ways to improve the process of helping local communities recover from the economic consequences of a base closure. Finally, and we will talk a little more about this in a moment, the 1995 Commission recommended that Congress authorize another round of base closures in the year 2001. I think most of you are aware that President Clinton was a little upset with a couple of our recommendations-- particularly the ones to close the Air Force Logistics Centers in Sacramento, California and San Antonio, Texas--but ultimately forwarded our recommendations to the Congress. The Resolution of Disapproval introduced in the House of Representatives was defeated by a vote of 343 to 75 on last September 8. [[Page S7517]] After four separate base closure rounds, do we need to close more bases? In my view, the answer is yes. In the last 10 years, the defense budget has declined in real terms by almost 40 percent, and current plans call for the defense budget to remain essentially stable through the end of the century. Overall, DOD has reduced the size of the military services by about 30 percent--and some are saying that further reductions in force levels are likely before the end of the decade. The cumulative reduction in our domestic base structure from the 4 base closures rounds is approximately 21 percent. I am not saying that there should be a direct correlation between reductions in force levels and reductions in basing structure, but I think we can and should reduce more base structure. The senior DOD leadership also thinks we need to close more bases. Secretary of Defense Bill Perry told the Commission last year that DOD would still have excess infrastructure after the 1995 round, and suggested the need for an additional round of closures and realignments in 3 to 4 years. General Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, agreed with Secretary Perry on the need for additional base closing authority in the future. He told us that opportunities remain in DOD to increase cross-servicing, particularly in the area of joint-use bases and training facilities. Josh Gotbaum, who at the time was Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security and oversaw the base closure process for OSD, told the Commission that ``Even after BRAC 95 has been implemented we will continue to have excess infrastructure. Future base closure authority will be necessary.'' How many additional bases should be closed, and in which military services? It was painful enough last year to vote to close specific bases, so I am not about to get in the business of suggesting which ones ought to be closed in a future round. Those decisions can only be made after a thorough review and analysis by the military services and some future Commission. I will suggest some functional areas that should be looked at, based on the work that the 1995 Commission did. In general, I would put a premium on retaining operational bases that have unique strategic value or that have good training ranges and airspace that provide opportunities for realistic training. One of the keys to maintaining our qualitative edge over future potential adversaries is to provide our forces frequent, realistic opportunities to train as they would have to fight. So where we have large bases with operational units with access to good training airspace or extensive land for training ground forces, we should think long and hard before closing them. I think the greatest opportunities for future closures lie in the support infrastructure. The Defense Department's industrial facilities represent one area where I think further reductions are possible. Secretary of the Army Togo West told the Commission last year that ``our analysis tells us that the Department of Defense is bleeding depot money. We are just spending money on capacity that we simply do not need now.'' The Commission on Roles and Missions, chaired by my friend John White who subsequently became the Deputy Secretary of Defense, reached the same conclusion. Their Report in May of last year said that ``With proper oversight, private contractors could provide essentially all of the depot-level maintenance services now conducted in government facilities within the United States. . . . We recommend that the Department make the transition to a depot maintenance system relying mostly on the private sector. DOD should retain organic depot capability only where private-sector alternatives are not available and cannot be developed reasonably.'' So I think the military services can look at their industrial activities for more closures. We also found in the 1995 Commission that there was a great deal of overlap and duplication in the area of R labs and test and evaluation facilities. In preparing the 1995 recommendations, OSD set up 6 cross-service groups to look at functions across the military services, and we heard testimony from the directors of each of those cross service groups. The leaders of the Labs and Test and Evaluation Facilities Cross Service Group told us that they were frustrated by their inability to achieve any meaningful cross servicing in this area and felt that much more could be done. Military medical facilities are another area where I think the military services can make some savings without compromising care to military members and their families or to military retirees. Some of the members of the 1995 Commission looked into this, and the Commission concluded in our Report that many opportunities remain for consolidating military medical facilities across service lines and with civilian sector medical resources. what should a future base closure process look like? I have never seen a process that can't be improved on, but the fact is that the base closure process set up under the 1990 Base Closure Act worked pretty well. My friend Jim Courter, who chaired the 1991 and 1993 Commissions, deserves a lot of credit for putting in place the policies and procedures that ensured that the process was open, fair and objective. Communities might disagree with the final recommendations of the Commission, but I don't think any community ever said that they were not given an opportunity to make their case and did not receive a fair hearing. By the end of the 1995 process, President Clinton was not a big fan of the base closure process, but he said in a letter to me that ``The BRAC process is the only way that the Congress and the executive branch have found to make closure decisions with reasonable objectivity and finality.'' I think the President was right. Our Commission recommended that Congress authorize another Base Closure Commission for the year 2001 similar to the 1991, 1993 and 1995 Commissions--after the Presidential election in the year 2000. We realized that the Defense Department would have a lot of work to do to implement the closures from the 1995 and prior Commissions through the end of this decade. Since the 1990 Base Closure Act gives DOD 6 years to complete closures, the closures from the 1995 round will not be completed until 2001. is congress likely to enact legislation setting up another base closure round? When I was Deputy Majority Whip of the United States Senate I had a hard time predicting from one day to the next whether I would be able to have dinner that night with my wife, so I hesitate to predict what Congress is likely to do on this sensitive subject. There are some who say that Congress will not set up another Base Closure Commission because it is too painful a process to go through. There is no doubt that it was a painful process for members of Congress. We wrote the 1990 Base Closure Act to insulate the process from political and parochial influences as much as possible, and I think we succeeded to a large extent. Our 1995 Commission listened carefully to the view of members of Congress, but these members did not have any more influence on the votes of our Commission and the outcome of the process than the state and local officials and even the individual citizens in the communities affected by our decisions. I was a member of the United States Senate for 12 years, and I know that members of Congress don't like to be put in the position that reduces their influence over the outcome of a process that could affect the economic well-being of their constituents. In this case, however, I think history shows that the process of closing bases is so politically charged that it has to be put in the hands of an independent Commission that is insulated as much as possible from partisan and parochial influences. In my view, the defense budget is not likely to get much larger in the next five years, and we still have a requirement to maintain a ready, capable military. I am still convinced that closing military bases is one of the keys to the future readiness and modernization of our military forces. Ultimately, I think members of Congress realize this. As painful as it is, we need to close more military bases, and I think and hope that Congress will realize this and authorize another Base Closure Commission in the future. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I know Senator Pell is on the floor. I believe Senator Helms is on the floor. So at this point I yield and reserve any time I have remaining. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I share with the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] concerns with regard to section 1005 of the Defense authorization bill. Senator Helms and I had planned to offer an amendment to delete that section, but, as recess approached, were not able to find an opportunity to do so. This section of the bill would authorize spending under the Military- to-Military Program for military education and training for military personnel of foreign countries. The program would be in addition to the International Military Education and Training Program now in operation and overseen by the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Appropriations, and their appropriate subcommittees. This new program would not have the same congressional oversight. Oversight of the International Military Education and Training [IMET] Program has proved generally valuable in ensuring that the Congress is comfortable with the activities undertaken pursuant to the program. Just this year, for instance, the Department of Defense proposed a program for a troubled country that was not consistent with its needs. In consultation with two members of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I requested that the Defense Security Assistance Agency modify the program. They were quite prepared to consider our views and to [[Page S7518]] meet our request that the program be modified. I would point out that, in that particular case, there has been a continuing and productive dialog to ensure that the program for that nation does not conflict with congressional concerns, but meets the reasonable objectives of the Department of Defense. There is no reason to conclude that the IMET Program is not supported by the committees of jurisdiction. I would point out that the foreign operations appropriations bill just reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee provides a full $40 million for the IMET Program in the next fiscal year. This sum represents an increase in funding and reflects congressional willingness to back that well- established program. It makes no sense to create a duplicative military education and training program under the Military-to-Military Contacts Program. The IMET Program and the contacts program have different purposes and goals. The Congress has been very careful to separate the programs to ensure that the Military-to-Military Contacts Program would not be used to circumvent the restrictions of the IMET Program and to prevent duplication and overlaps. Three provisions were added to prohibit funding for the Military-to- Military Program from being used in countries that are ineligible for IMET to require coordination with the Secretary of State and to prevent the authorities from being used to transfer weapons. It is not at all in the interests of the Congress or the country for the distinction between these two programs to be blurred. Mr. President, it is not at all clear why this provision is being sought. It was not requested by the Department of Defense and it is opposed by the Department of Defense and it is opposed by the Department of State. I believe very much that section 1005 has no place in this bill. I hope that, with an eye both to comity and to good sense, it will be dropped in conference. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina. Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I believe there are 7\1/2\ minutes set aside for me. Is that correct? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. HELMS. We are supposed to begin voting at 12? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct. Mr. HELMS. How many votes in tandem, three? The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will have a series of five votes beginning at 12 o'clock. Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have been around this place for almost 24 years now, and I have never participated in the occasional turf battles that occur, and I do not particularly enjoy making the comments I am about to make but I feel obliged to make them for the record. Mr. President, S. 1745, as introduced and reported by the Armed Services Committee, contains, in my judgment, several significant provisions falling clearly within the primary jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee. And I have disclosed now my interest in that because I am chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I do not think there can be a clearer case of imposing upon the jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee than section 1005 of the bill, entitled ``Use of Military-to-Military Contacts Funds for Professional Military Education and Training.'' That is a lot of gobbledygook perhaps, but it is a provision that represents an obvious effort by some to commandeer a longstanding foreign policy instrument of the Department of State, that being the International Military Education and Training program known familiarly as IMET. Section 1005 of this bill does not even pretend to differ substantively from the existing IMET program. The proposed authority would allow the Department of Defense to engage in a back-door foreign assistance program without the supervision of the State Department or the oversight of the Foreign Relations Committee by conducting ``military education and training for military and civilian personnel of foreign countries.'' Mr. President, why should the United States establish this duplicative program as identical authority already exists under chapter 5 of the Foreign Assistance Act which authorizes the President of the United States to furnish ``military education and training to military and related civilian personnel of foreign countries.'' Now, again, I am not going to get into any fight about the turf, but I must point out that this is the second year that an attempt has been made to seize foreign policy tools belonging solely to the Secretary of State. At a time when we should be considering consolidating the foreign affairs apparatus of the of the United States into the Department of State, it makes no sense to me to proliferate the number of foreign assistance programs outside the control of the Secretary of State. It makes even less sense in light of the drastic budget cuts undergone by the Department of Defense to pay for foreign aid in the defense budget and from defense funds. The result will be more nondefense spending in the 050 account. This authority--and I have checked on this--was not requested by the administration. It has not been agreed to in the administration's interagency process, and I daresay that it likely is not supported by the Secretary of State. However, I have not talked with or to Warren Christopher about that. Because this provision falls within the jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee, I respectfully request that this provision be removed from the bill during conference. That action I believe would recognize appropriately the jurisdictional responsibilities of both of our committees. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield me the remainder of his time? Mr. PELL. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Maryland. Mr. HELMS. And if I have any time I yield it to the Senator from Maryland. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I join in the concerns expressed by Chairman Helms and by the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell, about section 1005 of this bill. This section would have the effect of creating a second IMET Program, a new aid program for foreign militaries. IMET, the International Military Education and Training Program, funds tuition for foreign military officers in U.S. professional military training courses, and related activities. It has traditionally been funded through the foreign aid bill. In fact, the foreign operations appropriations bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee provides a full $40 million for IMET in fiscal year 1997. It is one of the only programs in the entire foreign aid budget that is slated to get more money in fiscal year 1997 than in fiscal year 1996 or 1995. When the Military-to-Military Contacts Program was established in the Defense Department, the justification was used that this would not-- would not--be another IMET Program. It was to be something entirely separate. It was not going to duplicate IMET activities. For that reason it was spelled out exactly what the new Military-to- Military Contact Program was going to be. In the law, there are listed eight specific activities, such as exchanges of personnel, transportation for contact and liaison teams, seminars and conferences, and distribution of publications, all distinct from the IMET activities. To further ensure that the new Military-to-Military Program would not be used to circumvent the restrictions of the IMET Program, several conditions were added to ensure coordination and prevent overlap. Because of concerns about the potential for duplication in the two programs, the fiscal year 1995 foreign operations appropriations bill required a report from the Secretary of Defense addressing the future of military training of foreign armed forces. In that report, which was issued with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, the Defense Department concluded: The IMET Program and the traditional CINC military-to- military activities are distinct efforts contributing to the achievement [[Page S7519]] of common goals. From the beginning, both programs have commanded close coordination between the Defense and State Departments. Coordination between both departments ensures program uniqueness and the effective utilization of scarce resources in support of broad U.S. foreign policy and national security goals. Unfortunately, what the bill now before us would do is eliminate all distinctions between the two programs. It would create, in effect, a second IMET Program under different jurisdiction and separate funding. The Military-to-Military Contacts Program is expected to receive funding of $60 million in each of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997, out of the Services' operations and maintenance accounts. That is on top of the $40 million already going to IMET. I wish to stress, as have my colleagues, that this authority was not requested by the Defense Department. It is not something they believe is needed. Furthermore, it is opposed by the State Department as well as by the committees of jurisdiction over foreign aid funding. I very much regret that section 1005 has not been stricken from the bill. I make the observation that it plants the seeds for continuing controversy, which I think is something that is highly undesirable. I very strongly urge that it be dropped in conference. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I am puzzled concerning the objections to the use of Military-to-Military Contacts Program funds for international military education and training [IMET]. The Armed Services Committee is told each year by the commanders in chief of the combatant commands that IMET is the United States' most cost effective program in terms of fostering friendly relations with the foreign militaries. The combatant commanders routinely point out that foreign military officers who have received IMET training come to appreciate American values and the American way of life and that these foreign officers often rise to assume senior positions of leadership within their military and civilian hierarchies. Pursuant to this testimony, the Armed Services Committee in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 specifically authorized the creation of a CINC Initiative Fund to carry out eight types of activities, including military education and training to military and related civilian personnel of foreign countries. The CINC Initiative Fund is designed to provide funding for activities that were not foreseen when the budget request was submitted to Congress and that would enhance the war fighting capability, readiness, and sustainability of the forces assigned to the commander requesting the funds. In the years since this authority was created, the CINC Initiative Fund has only been used to provide IMET on a few occasions. Incidentally, the use of this authority for IMET is limited to $2 million per fiscal year. The committee's initiative this year seeks to build upon an existing program--the Military-to-Military Contacts Program which is designed to encourage a democratic orientation of defense establishments and military forces of other countries. Under existing law, this program is primarily aimed at in-theater activities and generally involves the establishment of military liaison teams and traveling contact teams in engaging democracies to seek to identify those countries' needs and then seek to design programs that are carried out by visiting experts, seminars, conferences, or exchanges of personnel. When a larger need is identified that would exceed the limited funding for this program, the in-country liaison teams seek to identify programs under the Foreign Assistance Act that can satisfy the need. When it comes to IMET, however, we have found that existing funding for the IMET Program has already been programmed and the traditional IMET Program is unable to meet the need. We have also found that the needs of emerging democracies in Eastern Europe have caused legitimate IMET needs of countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia to go unfunded. Thus, by adding IMET as one of the activities that can be carried out under the Military-to-Military Contacts Program, we are merely seeking to provide a modest supplement to the traditional IMET Program when a truly pressing need arises. We are, of course, amenable to put funding limits on the use of the military-to-military contacts programs for IMET and that has been communicated to the Foreign Relations Committee. I hasten to point out that the Secretary of State must approve the conduct of any activity--not just IMET--authorized under this program and that funds cannot be provided for any country that is not eligible for assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act. In summary, Mr. President, this is a very modest supplement to the traditional IMET Program, it has a precedent in prior congressional action relating to the CINC Initiative Fund, and we are amenable to including reasonable funding limitations to its use for IMET. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1745. Mr. President, I would simply say that the IMET Program is one of the highest priorities of the commanders in chief we hear from every year around the world. The newly emerging democracies in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have consumed a great deal of those funds, leaving almost nothing for Asia, Africa, and Latin America. We also take note of the fact that these IMET funds have been cut each and every year, so they do not seem to have a high priority by the Foreign Relations Committee but they do have an enormous priority for our military. So we will be glad to work with our friends on the Foreign Relations Committee to iron out jurisdictional problems with the hope that we can unite behind one of the most important programs we have to have contacts and influence all over the world through military-to-military contacts that can end up bringing peace in areas that otherwise would be in conflict. So I would take into account what my colleagues have said, but we do have a very high priority on this program and that has been exemplified in testimony year after year after year by all of our military commanders. Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I regret that the Senate again has produced a bill that is gravely flawed. It suffers from many of the defects associated with last year's bill. I voted to favorably report the bill out of committee in the hope that the bill would be improved when it was considered on the floor. While agreement was reached to eliminate unacceptable missile defense provisions from the bill, the bill remains fundamentally flawed. As a consequence, I will vote against its final passage. With respect to missile defense, I am pleased with the agreement announced by the majority leader on June 28th to drop sections 231 and 232 from the bill. These sections related to U.S. compliance policy for the development, testing, and deployment of theater missile defense systems, and to the demarcation between theater and strategic missile systems. I am also grateful to see that the language in the bill in section 233 with respect to the mutilateralization of the ABM Treaty has been dropped and converted into a sense of the Senate. I understand full well, however, that we will soon be back on the floor debating many of these same ill-advised proposals placed in another bill. I intend to speak in more detail about those proposals at the appropriate time. For now, I would just like to restate my conviction that it would ill serve the interests of our country--and surely not the interests of our taxpayers--to follow the misguided missile defense plan that the majority appears determined to pursue in the weeks ahead. As far as I am concerned, the missile defense language I cited above would have made for bad law if enacted on this bill-- simply moving this language into another bill will not change this basic quality of the proposal. The bill contains more than $11 billion in unrequested funding with huge increases in the procurement and research and development accounts. For the most part, these additions are based on the Services' so-called wish list--lists of programs the Services would like to see funded if additional funding were made available. I agree with some of the spending decisions, but I do not support this approach to defense budgeting. It undermines the objectives of Goldwater-Nichols by encouraging the submission of separate [[Page S7520]] spending priorities for each service that are set without regard to our unified command structure's warfighting needs. Moreover, I cannot support the magnitude of the increase in funding especially when we are spending billions of dollars on programs we do not need now and some we may not need ever. The additions in procurement include $750 million for the DDG-51 destroyer program, $701 million for the new attack submarine program, $351 million for the V-22 program, $249 million for the C-17 program, $240 million for the E8-B program, $234 million for the F/A-18 C/D program, $204 million for the C-130J program, $183 million for the Apache longbow program, $158.4 million for the Kiowa warrior program, $147 million for the MLRS program and $107 million for the F-16 program. The additions in research and development include the $885 million for missile defense programs to which I already alluded, $100 million plus-ups for the Comanche Program and Army Force XXI, $305 million for the national defense sealift fund, $147 million for the Arsenal Ship and $116 for advanced submarine technology. The bill contains more than $600 million in unrequested military construction projects, an annual temptation that Members cannot seem to resist, even though there is no compelling reason to move these projects forward. I think it is particularly damning that at least $200 million of these projects not only did not make the initial cut of the budget request but also did not make the second cut of the services' wish lists. We are authorizing an additional $600 million in military construction projects just so Members can say that they have brought home the bacon. Another rite of spring, the addition of hundreds of millions of dollars in Guard and Reserve equipment warrants mention. Some progress has been made in avoiding the earmarking problem we had last year. Only about $485 million of the $760 million in funding is earmarked. Unfortunately, no real progress has been made in eliciting a realistic budget request from the Defense Department for Guard and Reserve equipment. This failure invites earmarking funds for programs in Members' districts and as a consequence, the funding decisions that become law only bear relation to the Guard and Reserves' requirements by happenstance. We should not be spending the taxpayers' money in this way. Several amendments to eliminate some or all of this unrequested funding were offered. Unfortunately, Mr. President, these efforts were defeated. On other matters, I am concerned about the criteria used in allocating an additional $200 million for DOE's environmental restoration and waste management program. I could support, and, fact, have long advocated increased funding for this program. However, rather than accept the recommendations provided by the Department of Energy which listed projects that, if given increased funding in the near term, could save substantial dollars in the out-years, the bill factors in additional criteria concerning site employment. I have grave concerns that the credibility of the entire DOE cleanup operation will be undermined if it is treated merely as a jobs program. A number of factors should be assessed when deciding to increase funding for cleanup projects such as: reducing the risk to the public, workers and the environment, lessening the long term mortgage costs of the program; mandates and the environment; lessening the long term mortgage costs of the program; mandates from Federal and State laws; and stakeholder input. I do not believe that the effect on a given site's employment should be among these factors. I disagree with the committee's report language concerning the external regulation of the Department of Energy. I believe Secretary O'Leary's Advisory Committee on External Regulation established credible reasons for moving to external regulation, and I believe that this goal can be accomplished without significant increased costs to the taxpayer and without any detrimental impact on our Nation's security. In my view, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board will continue to play a key role in ensuring the safe operation of the defense nuclear facilities. Since January of this year, the Department has been carefully reviewing the options available for transitioning to external regulation. A preferred option should be presented to the Secretary within the next several weeks. I believe that the Department should continue planning to move to external regulation for nuclear safety. It is my hope that the plan presented to the Secretary will outline the steps necessary for such a transition, recognizing that such a transition may take several years. During consideration on the floor, the committee accepted an amendment I offered regarding worker safety and health at DOE's Mound. For too long Congress has done too little to ensure that the workers in our nuclear weapons complex were adequately protected from the many hazards they face on a daily basis. While the situation has improved at many sites, it is unfortunately the case that the Mound facility is still not up to the standards of other DOE facilities, not to mention commercial nuclear facilities. This amendment requires DOE to report to Congress on progress to improve worker health and safety at the facility. On June 21, 1996, I received a letter from DOE Under Secretary Tom Grumbly. This letter clearly establishes the Department's intent and commitment to seriously and forthrightly address worker safety issues at Mound. The letter lists a series of discrete program improvements that will be taken at the mound site beginning immediately and continuing through 1997. These important upgrades should begin at the earliest possible opportunity. I remain concerned though that we may be forcing a trade off between worker safety and health improvements and the pace of cleanup at the Mound site. In order to avoid such a trade off, it may be necessary to seek an authorization for these activities during conference. Finally, I would like to mention a special retirement provision for Federal employees who happen to work at military bases where the work will be privatized as part of base closure. The Committee on Armed Services voted 11 to 9 to add nongermane legislation to the bill that appropriately is in the jurisdiction of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. This amendment also was recently introduced as a bill, S. 1686, which is pending before the Subcommittee on Post Office and Civil Service of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Its stated purpose is to make privatization more likely to succeed by giving employees an incentive to stay at the base when a private employer takes over the workload. Under the terms of the amendment, 30 percent of the Federal civilian employees at two DOD bases, one in Indianapolis and one in Louisville, would enjoy civil service retirement system [CSRS] benefits that no other Federal employee enjoys today. I believe the authors of the amendment intended for it to apply to a third base in Newark, OH, but it is unclear whether the workers at the Ohio base will be eligible for the benefit. In addition, it is unclear whether bases in Texas and California will also be covered by the amendment. Under the terms of the amendment, additional retirement system credits would be given to employees in the civil service retirement system [CSRS] whose jobs are being privatized, and who are not eligible for immediate retirement benefits. The amendment would allow these employees to count their time as a private contract employee as qualifying service toward meeting the eligibility requirements under CSRS. In addition, their current high-3 years of salary would be indexed to general increases in Federal salaries. These benefits are independent of additional subsequent retirement benefits earned by the employees following privatization. Under current law, the affected employees would be eligible for a CSRS pension at age 62 with the high 3 years based on current employment by the Federal Government. Under the terms of the amendment, these employees could retire at an earlier age and their high-3 years of salary would be at a level indexed during the years of privatization. Of course, they would not even be required to contribute toward the cost of these extra benefits, although Federal employees in CSRS must contribute toward system costs. [[Page S7521]] While the stated purpose of the amendment is to encourage Navy employees to accept contractor employment in Indianapolis and Louisville, the proposed retirement incentives do not apply to 70 percent of the work force at the two facilities. Nineteen percent of the employees at the two facilities are now eligible to retire under CSRS and therefore, are ineligible for the proposed retirement incentives. Fifty-one percent of the employees are covered under the Federal employees retirement system [FERS] and therefore, are also ineligible for the proposed retirement incentives. Therefore, in terms of increasing their Federal retirement benefits, it would be to the advantage of 70 percent of the work force at the two facilities, to relocate and seek other Federal employment. Newark Air Force Base in Ohio is privatizing in the same way that the bases in Louisville and Indianapolis are scheduled to proceed, although it is not clear from the legislation whether the employees at Newark would be included in the pilot program. The privatization at Newark has been working because employees want to remain employed and many want to stay in the Newark area. Based upon Newark's experience, it is my view that the amendment, offered by Senator Coats, proposes a solution to a problem that does not really exist. Regrettably, given the nature of the proposed solution, I believe that this legislation will create a host of problems. Problems of equity and fairness that will fall straight into the lap of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, the committee with jurisdiction over Federal employment benefits. We are in the process of downsizing the Federal Government. I note that through the efforts of the Armed Services and Governmental Affairs Committee and the administration, we have 240,000 fewer Federal employees than when President Clinton took office. Many Federal jobs are being privatized in place. Numerous Federal jobs are also being eliminated. One Ohio constituent recently wrote to me and explained that his job was being eliminated in July. He said that if we could provide him with 4 additional months of service credit, he could apply and be eligible for early retirement under the civil service retirement system. I cannot explain to this constituent why he should not be eligible for an additional 4 months of credit if we are providing years of service credit to other employees who are not even losing their jobs. They have the opportunity to continue working. They will be eligible to accrue private employer pension benefits in addition to the Federal benefits they will have already earned. Perhaps, the Congress should consider retirement inducements for all employees affected by privatization and downsizing. However, if this is to be done, it should be done in a studied fashion. Changing a system of universal retirement benefits--where everyone previously had participated under the same benefit rules--should be the subject of hearings in a bright light, where we understand exactly what equity problems are created as well as the long-term cost of providing such retirement credits. My problem with the amendment adopted by the Armed Service Committee is that it is not generous enough to discourage employees from seeking other Federal employment and this is the purported purpose of the legislation. The assumption that a majority of these employees will move onto other Federal employment also assumes that these employees will want to relocate and that they will find jobs through the priority placement program. These are two assumptions that I question. To repeat, the amendment is not generous enough to fulfill its stated purpose, while at the same time it is too generous when one considers that the Government is proposing to do nothing along these lines for other employees being separated from Government employment. It is these sorts of contradictions which should be the subject of congressional hearings before we act. western kentucky training site Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense authorization bill we will pass today contains $10.8 million in authorized funding for phase 3 construction of the Western Kentucky Training Site in Muhlenburg County, KY. I appreciated the willingness of my colleagues to secure this funding for phase 3 construction at the site and wanted to share with them a recent articles from Soldiers magazine. This article gives an excellent review of the center's training activities and its importance to our Nation's defense, calling it the training site of choice of units stationed in the Eastern United States. Again, I would like to thank my colleagues for their support of this military site, and I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From Soldiers magazine, July 1996] Kentucky's NTC East (By SSgt. David Altom) Camouflaged soldiers bustle around the airstrip while, in the distance, a formation of helicopters moves slowly across the overcast sky, slingloads of vehicles and equipment swinging beneath them. A C-130H Hercules transport lands and kicks up a cloud of dust as it taxis to the end of the strip. Turning around in preparation for takeoff, the aircraft is immediately surrounded by a team of soldiers emerging from the nearby tree line. A Humvee pulling a trailer is quickly off-loaded, the soldiers move back into the woods. The C-130 stirs up another dust storm as it roars back down the runway toward home base. The entire operation take less than five minutes. Welcome to the Western Kentucky Training Site. Owned and operated by the Kentucky National Guard, the WKYTS is proving popular with active and Reserve soldiers and airmen, making it the training site of choice for units stationed in the eastern United States. The greatest appeal of the training site is the open terrain. Occupying more than 700,000 acres of reclaimed strip mine property near the western tip of Kentucky, the facility has enough flat and rolling land to give commanders plenty of training options. While nearby Fort Campbell and Fort Knox have live-fire ranges, accommodating everything from M1 Abrams main battle tanks to Multiple Launch Rocket System, the WKYTS has shown itself to be ideal for movement-to- contact exercises and large-scale maneuvers. The expanse of the WKYTS is a tanker's dream come true, said Lt. Col. Norman Arflack, commander of the Kentucky Army Guard's 1st Battalion, 123rd Armor. ``As a maneuver unit we need to conduct force-on-force training, especially when we go to battalion-on-company tactics,'' he said. ``That's hard to do unless you go some place like Fort Hood. We feel fortunate to have a facility like this so close, especially with training dollars so tight.'' Arflack cited last summer's Advanced Warfighter Experiment as an example of the value