[Pages S7928-S7936]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1894) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and
for other purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

Pending:
Stevens amendment No. 4439, to realign funds from Army and
Defense Wide Operation and Maintenance accounts to the
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund.

Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my understanding as to the vote on the
cloture motion that was filed last week, it has been temporarily set
aside and could be called back by the leadership after notice to the
minority; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Hawaii and I are now at liberty to
proceed with the bill; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

[[Page S7929]]

Mr. STEVENS. When we were interrupted by the proceedings on the
cloture motions last week, I had an amendment pending which had been
set aside. Is that still the situation with regard to this bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 4439, as
the Senator has stated. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4439

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the clerk to lay before the Senate
the amendment that was set aside, No. 4439.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending question.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment that
transfers funds from one account to another to assure that the
contingency operations of the Department will be met.

Amendment No. 4589 to Amendment No. 4439

(Purpose: A second degree amendment to amendment number 4439 filed by
Mr. Stevens)

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now send to the desk an amendment which
was proposed by Senator Inouye and introduced on Friday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Inouye,
proposes an amendment numbered 4589 to amendment No. 4439.

The amendment is as follows:

In lieu of the matter to be inserted by amendment number
4439, at an appropriate place in the bill insert:
Sec. 8099. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, the number for Military Personnel, Navy shall be
$16,948,481,000, the number for Military Personnel, Air Force
shall be $17,026,210,000, the number for Operation and
Maintenance, Army shall be $17,696,659,000, the number for
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force shall be
$17,326,909,000, the number for Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide shall be $9,887,142,000, the number for Overseas
Contingency Operations Transfer Fund shall be $1,140,157,000,
the number for Defense Health Program shall be
$10,251,208,000, the number for Defense Health Program
Operation and maintenance shall be $9,931,738,000. (b) Of the
funds appropriated under the heading Aircraft procurement,
Air Force, $11,500,000 shall be made available only for
modifications to B-52 bomber aircraft. (c) Of the funds
appropriated in title VI of this Act, under the heading
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense for
Research, development, test and evaluation, $3,000,000 shall
only be for the accelerated development of advanced sensors
for the Army's Mobile Munitions Assessment System. (d) Of the
funds appropriated in title IV of this Act, under the heading
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide,
$56,200,000 shall be available for the Corps Surface-to-Air
Missile (CORPS SAM) program and $515,743,000 shall be
available for the Other Theater Missile Defense/Follow-On TMD
Activities program. (e) Funds appropriated in title II of
this Act for supervision and administration costs for
facilities maintenance and repair, minor construction, or
design projects may be obligated at the time the reimbursable
order is accepted by the performing activity: Provided, That
for the purpose of this section, supervision and
administration costs includes all in-house government costs.
(f) Of the funds appropriated in title IV of this Act, under
the heading Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy,
$2,000,000 is available for titanium processing technology.
(g) Advance billing for services provided or work performed
by the Navy's defense business operating fund activities is
prohibited: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under
the heading Operation and Maintenance, Navy, $2,976,000,000
shall be available only for depot maintenance activities and
programs, and $989,700,000 shall be available only for real
property maintenance activities. (h) The Secretary of Defense
may waive reimbursement of the cost of conferences, seminars,
courses of instruction, or similar educational activities of
the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies for military
officers and civilian officials of foreign nations if the
Secretary determines that attendance by such personnel,
without reimbursement, is in the national security interest
of the United States: Provided, That costs for which
reimbursement is waived pursuant to this subsection shall be
paid from appropriations available for the Asia-Pacific
Center. (i) Of the funds appropriated in title IV of this
Act, under the heading Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide, $3,000,000 shall be available for a
defense technology transfer pilot program. (j) Of the funds
appropriated in title IV of this Act, under the heading
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, $4,000,000
is available for the establishment of the National Coastal
Data Centers required by section 7901(c) of title 10, United
States Code, as added by the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1997. (k)(1) Of the amounts appropriated
or otherwise made available by this Act for the Department of
the Air Force, $2,000,000 shall be available to provide
comprehensive care and rehabilitation services to children
with disabilities who are dependents of members of the Armed
Forces at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), the Secretary of the Air
Force shall grant the funds available under subsection (a) to
the Children's Association for Maximum Potential (CAMP) for
use by the association to defray the costs of designing and
constructing the facility referred to in subsection (1).
(3)(a) The Secretary may not make a grant of funds under
subsection (2) until the Secretary and the association enter
into an agreement under which the Secretary leases to the
association the facility to be constructed using the funds.
(b)(1) The term of the lease under paragraph (1) may not be
less than 25 years.
(2) As consideration for the lease of the facility, the
association shall assume responsibility for the operation and
maintenance of the facility, including the costs of such
operation and maintenance.
(c) The Secretary may require such additional terms and
conditions in connection with the lease as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

Mr. STEVENS. I stand corrected. This is an amendment based upon a
series of amendments that I will articulate after we adopt this
amendment. This is a managers' amendment. It has been drafted and
prepared by Senator Inouye. With his consent, I have called it up as an
amendment in the second degree to the pending amendment.
I want to give notice to all Senators that it is being brought up and
it is a technical amendment. However, it does cover a series of
amendments that were filed in cloture. This amendment, if adopted,
covers amendments Nos. 4466, 4439, 4467, 4468, 4469, 4470, 4471, 4472,
4473, 4474, 4475, 4476, 4477, 4478, 4481, 4482, 4483, 4484, 4485, 4486,
4487, 4488, 4511, 4565, 4567, and 4576. I believe that is the list.
Because of the cloture requirements, we filed separate amendments to
achieve the same objective as the managers' amendment we had worked out
before the cloture motion was filed. These were a series, not totally
technical, of amendments that had been worked out on both sides and
cleared on both sides for inclusion in this bill by unanimous consent.
If we adopt this amendment, I will ask that the amendments I have just
read be withdrawn.
I turn to my friend from Hawaii to seek his concurrence in this
procedure.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have no objection, and I wish to advise
my colleagues that this procedure and these amendments have been
cleared by both sides.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to wait a minute in total
fairness. We are trying to contact one Senator. I want to make sure
there is no disagreement. We have the list here, if anyone who is
observing these proceedings is concerned. This will, in effect, adopt
the amendments that we were prepared, before the cloture motion was
filed, to recommend to the Senate as one managers' amendment. That is
our proceeding now.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I restate my request. I have an amendment
at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as a
substitute for the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the plasma quench technology amendment will
yield valuable results for our defense and aerospace industries in the
near future. I understand it has been accepted by the committee, so I
will keep my remarks brief. I sincerely appreciate the help and support
of the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Stevens and the ranking
member, Senator Inouye.
Mr. President, my amendment would provide $2 million from funds
available under title IV of the legislation before

[[Page S7930]]

us, to support development of an innovative metallurgic technology
called plasma quench developed at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, to be used in producing ultra fine titanium powder and
developing an injection molding of titanium metal.
Titanium metal is of critical significance to a wide variety of
strategically important manufactured products, and the need for
titanium in the production of such products is set to increase
dramatically. In the transportation and aerospace areas the feasibility
of many advanced products is predicated on a high-quantity, low cost
supply of titanium that simply does not currently exist. At the same
time that U.S. aerospace companies and other manufacturers are becoming
more dependent on titanium, the sources for processed titanium metal
are increasingly moving offshore, becoming more expensive. High capital
and operational costs, in addition to the waste disposal costs
associated with the standard Kroll process for titanium production are
largely to blame for this migration. This situation threatens to
seriously diminish the leverage and control exercised by U.S.
manufacturers over this important strategic material.
The plasma quench process represents an alternative to the Kroll
process that could have a radical impact on the world's titanium market
by dramatically reducing the capital and process costs, and eliminating
the waste stream associated with titanium production. While commercial-
scale production of other metals using this process has already been
demonstrated, much developmental work is necessary to prove the
viability of the process with regard to titanium.
Mr. President, this is an important step in assuring the cost-
effective, viable, and readily accessible production in the United
States. As I mentioned before, I thank the committee for accepting this
amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Now, Mr. President, I will announce, once again, that
this is the managers' amendment. It incorporates a series of amendments
that we had agreed to accept on both sides prior to the cloture motion
being filed. It has been checked with the persons that had some
question about it. I now believe that it is still cleared on both
sides. With that concurrence from the Senator from Hawaii, I ask if he
concurs that it be adopted.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I concur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, amendment No. 4589
is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4589) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4439, As Amended

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, amendment No. 4439,
as amended, is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4439), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I read the series of amendments that have
been proposed in the cloture mode, and I recall all of those
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, those amendments are
recalled.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have a series of amendments that have
been filed, and we have been notified of a series that Members will
seek to debate. We have an understanding with the leadership that a
cloture motion will continue to be set aside so long as we proceed
expeditiously with this bill.
Senator Inouye and I are prepared to debate and consider any
amendments that Members have indicated they wish to bring before the
Senate. We will announce to the Senate that if there are no Members
that wish to bring the matters before the Senate, we will go to third
reading.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I will. Does the Senator from Hawaii have any
remaining amendments he wishes to consider?
Mr. INOUYE. Not personally.
Mr. President, I want to advise my colleagues that the managers of
this measure are prepared to not only debate but to pass this measure
today. If we cooperate, we should be able to do so by a reasonable time
this evening.
That would mean tomorrow and the weekend would be free for our
colleagues to do what they normally wish to do at this time of the
year. So, Mr. President, I hope that the staff on both sides will send
the message out to those who are interested in presenting amendments to
come forth to the floor and do so expeditiously.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I can have the indulgence of the
Chair, I have three small amendments that I will present.

Amendment No. 4563

(Purpose: To require a study regarding the F-22 advanced tactical
fighter)

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

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment
numbered 4563.

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

On page 30, line 2, before the period, insert: ``:
Provided, That not less than $1,000,000 of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph shall be made available only
to assess the budgetary, cost, technical, operational,
training, and safety issues associated with a decision to
eliminate development of the F-22B two-seat training variant
of the F-22 advanced tactical fighter: Provided further, That
the assessment required by the preceding proviso shall be
submitted, in classified and unclassified versions, by the
Secretary of the Air Force to the Congressional defense
committees not later than February 15, 1997''.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment allocates $1 million for
the Air Force to assess comprehensively the implications of the
service's recent decision to terminate development of a two-seat
trainer variant of the F-22 advanced tactical fighter.
I might state to the Senate that we have been informed that, if there
was a proposal to eliminate the two-seat variant of the F-22 advanced
tactical fighter, that would leave us without a training vehicle for
this very sophisticated new aircraft.
We are not mandating that the decision be changed. We are mandating
that there be a study made of that decision with regard to safety and
training problems, as well as budgetary and technical problems, and
that the Appropriations Committees and the Armed Services Committees of
the House and Senate receive this study by February 15, 1997.
The Air Force normally acquires fighter aircraft in single-seat and
two-seat variants so that the latter may be used for pilot flight
training. Although the twin-seat trainers cost more than the single
seat aircraft, they are considered necessary for the effective and safe
training of pilots in the demanding air-to-air and air-to-ground
tactical environments. Should a student pilot experience difficulties,
the instructor pilot can assume control of the aircraft and safely
demonstrate the required procedures and maneuvers.
Recently, the Air Force decided to cease development of the two-seat
F-22--known as the ``F-22B''--in order to constrain costs.
Mr. President, there are serious safety, operational, and training
issues associated with this decision. The F-22 is the most complex
fighter aircraft ever developed. The pilots flying it must be the best
trained to operate and fight the aircraft safely and effectively. The
loss of a single pilot in a training accident would be a tragedy and
would deprive the nation of a talented Air Force officer needed to
accomplish important military missions.
There also are major cost, budgetary, and technical issues associated
with the decision. Every F-22 fighter will cost at least $111 million
to procure. The entire program will cost at least $70,092,947,000. In
addition to the high cost of training a pilot, the loss of just a few
F-22's in training or operational accidents caused by inferior training
would more than offset the savings generated by terminating the F-22B.
In retrospect, this decision may well come to be seen as penny wise and
fiscally and militarily pound foolish.

[[Page S7931]]

The amendment I am offering is intended to provide the Congress with
sufficient information to enable us to fully understand the many
serious implications of the Air Force decision. Congress should have
the opportunity to consider, and to act on, this decision in a timely
manner.
The amendment mandates that the required report be submitted in
classified and unclassified versions.
Does this have my friend's support?
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by both
sides.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4563) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4489

(Purpose: To reduce by $100 million the maximum amount allowed for
Pentagon renovation)

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4489 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Bingaman,
proposes an amendment numbered 4489.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 70, line 8, strike out ``$1,218,000,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``$1,118,000,000''.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment will bring the defense
appropriations bill into conformance with the authorization bill on the
total cost of the renovation of the Pentagon reservation. My amendment
reduces the cost cap in the bill by $100 million to a total of $1.118
billion. This is identical in purpose to the amendment passed by the
Senate on June 25 during debate on the defense authorization bill.
The amendment is very simple and straightforward. It reduces the
funds for the Pentagon renovation project by $100 million. As we have
realigned our defense programs to meet changing needs, funds for many
projects have been reduced or eliminated. Despite big reductions in
defense spending and defense personnel, the Pentagon renovation project
has enjoyed a steady flow of cash.
The time has come to impose greater financial discipline on the
Pentagon, just as the Pentagon has asked other military organizations
to be more frugal. This would be the first reduction in funds for this
expensive project since its inception half a decade ago, and it amounts
to less than 10 percent of the total.
Many things have changed since this 15-year project began, and I
believe Pentagon renovation plans can be better aligned with today's
realities. There are many factors which ease the impact of a reduced
renovation budget. For example, the Department of Defense is
downsizing. As the civilian and military workforce is steadily reduced,
demands on workspace have eased. Construction costs in the Washington
DC area have fallen and contract costs for the renovation have turned
out to be considerably lower than the original estimates. On one
construction contract alone, for example, costs were 36 percent less
than anticipated. Also, modern communications technology makes it
unnecessary to have large staffs at the Pentagon to manage dispersed
operations.
Mr. President, in 1990 Congress transferred responsibility for the
operation, maintenance, and renovation of the Pentagon from the General
Services Administration to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Congress recognized that the serious structural problems of the
Pentagon building had to be addressed without further delay, and we
took this action to get the long overdue project moving forward.
Congress earmarked the $1.2 billion DoD would have paid to GSA in rent
for the next 12 or 13 years as a break even way to pay for the
renovations. This $1.2 billion was not based on projected renovation
costs; it was simply a sum that was available and seemed a logical way
to fund the renovation. Congress also provided the Department of
Defense great flexibility in managing this large and complex project.
Since fiscal year 1994, the Senate Appropriations Committee has
required the Secretary of Defense to certify that the total cost of
Pentagon renovation will not exceed $1,218 million. But this
$1.2 billion cap does not include all the renovation costs. In fact,
there are four catogories of expenses which add substantial amounts to
the total. For example, the Pentagon estimates the cost of buying and
installing information management and telecommunications equipment is
$750 million. This amount is not part of the $1.2 billion cap. Neither
is the heating and refrigeration plant, the classified waste
incinerator, the furniture, or the 780,000 square feet of leased spaces
for people who must be moved during the construction. A figure of $1.2
billion is misleading; the expense of renovating the Pentagon easily
exceeds $2 billion.

Last year the Senate passed my amendment to cut Pentagon Renovation
expenses by $100 million. During conference, however, the conferees
agreed to eliminate that requirement and instead directed the Defense
Department to review the Pentagon's renovation plans and recommend cost
saving options. In fact, this review had been underway since March of
1995. A March, 1995 Pentagon press release stated:

This review will include re-examination of all lower cost
options. At a time when the Secretary has initiated efforts
to improve housing for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and
marines, we need to do all we can to insure that dollars
being spent for other infrastructure projects are not being
taken away from the very high priority of improving the
lifestyles of our men and women in uniform.

I agree with this sentiment, and now I'd like to ensure
that we turn these words into actions.
This well publicized review was supposed to produce a report which
was due in February of this year. We didn't get that report, but on
June 5 the Armed Services Committee staff did receive a one-page memo
which states the Defense Department has found a savings of $37 million
and will continue to look for more. A reduction of $37 million out of a
total of $1.2 billion is not what I consider an aggressive response to
our call to reduce costs.
Mr. President, 15 months ago the Pentagon itself publicly announced
the intent to reduce the cost of this project. The Defense Department
identified a new spending target only after last year's threat of a
reduced cap and after I announced at the Readiness Subcommittee markup
on April 30 that I would introduce a similar amendment this year if I
was not convinced by the Pentagon's long-overdue report. Well, that
report is not here. I am not convinced that $37 million is the best the
Pentagon can do in the way of savings. The only way in which we can
force additional savings is to keep up the pressure. That is what my
amendment does.
Mr. President, Americans have been asked to tighten their belts and
they expect no less from their Government. The Pentagon must be
expected to do the same.
I yield the floor and urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment conforms to the Senate-
passed authorization that places a ceiling on the Pentagon renovation
fund. It has been cleared by both sides.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we do support this to conform with the
authorization bill as passed by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment No.
4489 is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4489) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4566

(Purpose: To increase the funding level available to continue the
Maritime Technology program to $50,000,000 within available RDT&E,
Defense-Wide appropriations and provide appropriate offsets)

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call before the Senate amendment No.
4566.

[[Page S7932]]

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

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Lott,
proposes an amendment numbered 4566.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Before the period on page 30, line 13, insert: ``: Provided
further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading,
$50,000,000 shall be available for the Maritime Technology
program and $3,580,000 shall be available for the Focused
Research Initiatives program''.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is to increase the funding level
available to the Maritime Technology Program to $50 million within the
available research and development funds of the defensewide
appropriations to provide for appropriate offsets, and it is an item
that I have introduced on behalf of Senator Lott, and I ask for its
consideration.
Mr. INOUYE. This amendment has been cleared and approved by both
sides.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection to amendment No.
4566, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4566) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison, I ask
unanimous consent that Michael Montelongo be admitted to the floor
during the consideration of this Defense appropriations bill. He is a
congressional fellow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4490

(Purpose: To set aside $10,000,000 for the United States-Japan
Management Training Program)

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in behalf of Senators Bingaman, Domenici,
and Santorum, I call for the immediate consideration of amendment No.
4490.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Bingaman, for
himself, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Santorum, proposes an
amendment numbered 4490.

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

On page 30, line 13, insert before the period the
following: ``: Provided, That, of such amount, $10,000,000 is
available for the United States-Japan Management Training
Program''.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment would allocate $10
million within the DOD university research initiatives program element
61103D for the United States-Japan Management Training Program.
This program was begun in fiscal year 1991 at my initiative. It has
enjoyed the support of both the Armed Services and the Appropriations
Committees since its inception and I have been very grateful for the
support of the senior Senators from Alaska and Hawaii. The goal of the
program is to train American scientists and engineers and business
managers in the Japanese language as part of their graduate educations
and then place them in Japanese research institutions for internships
or fellowships where they could learn firsthand how the Japanese
research and development system--second only to our own at more than
$100 billion per year--functions. They could then later in their
careers in American industry and government help tap and build bridges
to the Japanese research efforts in their areas of expertise.
Essentially, this was an effort on a modest scale to learn from the
Japanese success in tapping our research enterprise through such
fellowships at our universities.
By all reports--and there have been several thorough reviews of this
program--the program, as run by the Air Force Office of Scientific
Research [AFOSR], has done an impressive job of achieving its
objectives. Nineteen universities from around the country have received
grants under the program and there has been significant cost-sharing
from non-Federal sources to match funds provided by AFOSR.
Unfortunately, in fiscal year 1996, AFOSR was only able to fund the
program at $2 million from its own resources after several years in
which DARPA had provided AFOSR $10 million per year for the program.
Essentially, the program got caught up in the politics of the
Technology Reinvestment Project [TRP], even though the Japan program's
focus was only peripherally related to the TRP's focus on government-
industry technology partnerships.
Earlier this year, the Senate Armed Services Committee in its report
provided discretion for the Pentagon to allocate up to $10 million to
the Japan program from either PE61102F, the Air Force's defense
research sciences program element, or PE61103D, the Office of Secretary
of Defense's university research initiatives program element. The Armed
Services Committee also directed AFOSR to ensure that cost-sharing from
non-Federal sources should match AFOSR funds to the maximum extent
practicable in future grant awards.
The Appropriations Committee in its report on the pending bill also
urged the Pentagon to fund this program up to the $10 million level in
its report language on the university research initiatives program
element. I agree with the Appropriations Committee that the university
research initiatives line is the more appropriate source for funds for
this program, although the Air Force Office of Scientific Research
should continue to manage it. I very much appreciate the Appropriations
Committee's continuing support for the program. My amendment would take
the extra step of insuring the full $10 million is really available to
the program. I believe that taking this step is warranted in light of
the great success the program has enjoyed in achieving its goals. I
hope that the managers of the bill can support taking this additional
step in supporting the Japan program.
I urge the adoption of the amendment and yield the floor.
Mr. INOUYE. This amendment earmarks $10 million for the U.S.-Japan
Management Training program. Both authorization and appropriations
include supporting report language, and it has been cleared by both
sides, Mr. President.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I concur with the statement of the
Senator from Hawaii. This is a matter that needs to be adopted to
conform with the action taken by the authorizing committees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 4490 is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4490) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4462

(Purpose: To provide $4,000,000 for the procurement of a real-time,
automatic cargo tracking and control system)

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in behalf of Senator Feinstein, I call up
amendment No. 4462 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mrs. Feinstein,
proposes an amendment numbered 4492.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 29, line 10, strike out ``1998.'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``1998: Provided, That of the funds appropriated
in this paragraph, $4,000,000 shall be available for the
procurement of a real-time, automatic cargo tracking and
control system.''.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my
amendment to make $4 million from the Army's Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation available to acquire a real-time,

[[Page S7933]]

demonstrated, automatic cargo tracking and control system. This cargo
tracking and control system is designed to assure that the smooth flow
of cargo and to reduce the occurrence of misplaced cargo at Army ports.
This demonstrated cargo tracking mechanism makes it possible for the
manager of a port, rail yard, or other cargo distribution area to know
where each container is and to move those containers without risk of
being lost.
The Army has already witnessed massive unreported but costly loss of
cargo location in storage following Vietnam and Desert Storm. The Army
made previous attempts to purchase this tracking system but was unable
to do so due to funding constraints. It is my understanding that the
Army Material Command would like to use $4 million from Army Research,
Development, Technology, and Evaluation budget line PE0603804A.
I am pleased that this amendment is acceptable and I thank the
managers of the bill.
Mr. INOUYE. This amendment appropriates $4 million to be made
available for the procurement of a real-time, automatic cargo tracking
and control system. It has been cleared by both sides, Mr. President.
Mr. STEVENS. I do concur in this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 4462 is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4462) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4442

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call before the Senate amendment No.
4442.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. McCain,
proposes an amendment numbered 4442.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have called this amendment before the
Senate on behalf of Senator Bond and Senator Ford. It is an amendment
that will prevent the reduction of the funds that are available under
authorized program activities for the National Guard, and it has been
cleared on both sides. It does indicate that if additional funds are
required for a program, project or activity of a higher priority than
any other in future acts, they should be submitted to Congress under
section 1997 of the Defense Authorization Act.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4452

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds to inactivate or
reduce any unit of special operation forces of the Army National Guard)

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I apologize to the Senate. The number
should have been 4452. I mistakenly called up 4442. I ask the previous
amendment be set aside. We do not want to call it up or recall it, just
not bring it before the Senate at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. And that the amendment we consider now be the amendment
for Mr. Bond, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Lott, which is 4452.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Bond, for
himself, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Lott, proposes an amendment
numbered 4452.

The amendment is as follows:
On page 88, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
Sec. 8099. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be obligated or expended--
(1) to reduce the number of units of special operations
forces of the Army National Guard during fiscal year 1997;
(2) to reduce the authorized strength of any such unit
below the strength authorized for the unit as of September
30, 1996; or
(3) to apply any administratively imposed limitation on the
assigned strength of any such unit at less than the strength
authorized for that unit as of September 30, 1996.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, as cochairman of the Senate National Guard
Caucus, I join with my colleague, Senator Bond, to thank my good friend
Senator Stevens and his ranking member Senator Inouye for including our
amendment prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to inactivate any
units of Special Operation Forces of the Army National Guard in the
managers amendment.
This issue has just been brought to Senator Bond's and my attention.
From all indications, the U.S. Special Operations Command has decided
on their own to inactivate two Army National Guard Special Forces
battalions by September 1998.
This inactivation represents a loss of 802 individuals--or one-third
of the Army National Guard Special Forces structure. This is not only a
complete surprise to me and Senator Bond, but also to the Department of
Defense.
Upon hearing of this plan, I asked my staff to check with the
Pentagon to see if they knew of this proposal and had given their
approval. Much to my dismay, I found out this was new to them as well.
The Special Operations Command tells us that these National Guard
units are excess. However, a closer examination of the facts indicates
that the actual motive behind this proposal is to harvest moneys to be
spent on active forces. It is my understanding that the Special
Operations Command did not even bother coordinating these proposed
reductions with the leadership of the National Guard Bureau, the Army
National Guard, or the active duty Army.
I believe this is the first step by the Special Operations Command
for the total elimination of Special Forces in the National Guard.
The National Guard Special Forces units--the 19th and 20th Groups--
are made up from the following States: Alabama, Utah, Mississippi,
Florida, West Virginia, Colorado, Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois,
Virginia, Washington, Ohio, Rhode Island, California, and Kentucky.
These Special Forces groups are at the highest personnel readiness
levels in history. Just recently, they proved their mission readiness
during Operation Uphold Democracy when they made up over one-half of
the U.S. Special Forces presence in Haiti.
Mr. President, the Special Operations Command's proposal to reduce
these National Guard units does not appear to be based on any thorough
analysis of force structure required or cost comparison savings between
Active Components and Reserve Components units.
It was because of decisions like this that Senator Bond and I joined
Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain and others to co-sponsor an amendment
to the 1997 Defense authority bill calling for a complete review of our
military force structure needs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I received from
the adjutant general of the State of Kentucky, Gen. John Groves, be
printed in the Record following my remarks.
Mr. President, I again thank the chairman and ranking member and
their staffs for their assistance in this matter.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Military Affairs,
Office of the Adjutant General,
Frankfort, KY, July 5, 1996.
Hon. Wendell H. Ford,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ford: I have just become aware of a proposal
by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) to
inactivate two Army National Guard Special Forces Battalions
by September 1998. This represents 802 ARNG spaces or one-
third of the Army National Guard Special Forces structure.
As you may recall, USSOCOM conducted a comprehensive review
of requirements during the 1990-92 timeframe. This review
identified that two SF Groups were excess to requirements in
light of the end of the Cold War. At that time, a
determination was made to inactivate one group each from the
Guard and USAR. The 1993 Offsite Agreement resulted in a
determination that both USAR groups would inactivate and both
Guard groups would remain in the structure.
Upon inactivation of the two USAR groups, the Adjutants
General, with the full support

[[Page S7934]]

of the National Guard Bureau, committed to ensuring that the
readiness levels of these two groups were appropriately
maintained. This was accomplished by absorbing highly
qualified SF soldiers from the inactivating USAR units and
intensively managing and resourcing the other shortfalls.
Today, the 19th and 20th Groups are at the highest personnel
readiness levels in history. Further evidence of their
mission readiness was proven during Operation Uphold
Democracy, when one-half of the U.S. Special Forces presence
in Haiti was from the National Guard.
This proposal by USSOCOM to reduce these SF units does not
appear to be based on any thorough analysis of force
structure required or cost comparison savings between Active
Component and Reserve Component units. It seems to be an
attempt by USSOCOM to capture dollars at the expense of the
Reserve Component without regard to any hard facts. These
reductions will most likely jeopardize the ninety-five SF
positions in Kentucky. However, the most critical aspect of
these reductions is the loss of highly skilled/trained
soldiers/units at a considerable savings in OPTEMPO and
PERSTEMPO costs at a time when the probability of extensive
participation in military operations other than war, such as
in Haiti, is at an all-time high. The skills and equipment
these soldiers possess to accomplish state and federal
missions at minimum costs cannot be overstated.
Your assistance in stopping any further reduction in
Special Forces Units would be very much appreciated. I am
available to discuss this matter or answer any questions you
may have either personally or by telephone at your
convenience.
Sincerely,

John R. Groves, Jr.

Brigadier General, KYNG,
Adjutant General.
P.S. In order to lose no time, I directed that background
materials be sent to you by Fax on 3 July. This letter is my
position relative to those materials.

Mr. STEVENS. Again, this is the same item discussed before. It is
what I would call a preventive amendment and really instructs that the
funds cannot be obligated to reduce the number of units of Special
Forces in the Army National Guard for the year 1997, and we believe
that it is consistent with existing law. It just indicates that those
funds shall be expended for the purpose authorized only.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to advise the Senate that
this amendment has been cleared and approved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 4452 is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4452) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

amendment no. 4572

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Army to establish
subcontracting goals for certain procurement using funds appropriated
by the bill)

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of Mr. Shelby and Mr. Heflin, I
call up amendment No. 4572 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Shelby, for
himself and Mr. Heflin, proposes an amendment numbered 4572.

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

On page 88, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
Sec. 8099. (a) The Secretay of the Army shall ensure that
solicitations for contracts for unrestricted procurement to
be entered into using funds appropriated for the Army by this
Act include, where appropriate, specific goals for
subcontracts with small businesses, small disadvantaged
businesses, and women-owned small businesses.
(b) The Secretary shall ensure that any subcontract entered
into pursuant to a solicitation referred to in subsection (a)
that meets a specific goal referred to in that subsection is
credited toward the overall goal of the Army for subcontracts
with the businesses referred to in that subsection.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to propose an amendment
designed to aid small business in this time of consolidation and
reduced Federal spending. Over the last few years, as the Army has
reduced its contracting personnel strength, I have seen larger and
larger small business set-aside contracts. This process is known as
bundling. Unfortunately, when the bundled contract values approach $50
million annually, the number of firms eligible to compete is greatly
reduced. The pressure on small businesses is further increased by the
Army's failure to place firm small business subcontracting targets in
its unrestricted requests for proposals.
My amendment would, therefore, require the Army to place firm small
business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business
subcontracting targets in appropriate unrestricted RFP's. These
subcontracts would then count toward the Army's small business set-
aside goal. This amendment would not, however, increase the percentage
of work being set aside for small business.
As this amendment is beneficial to small business and will not affect
the Army's procurement workload, I hope my colleagues will fully
support it.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared. It
relates to small business activities and contracts, and provides
disadvantaged businesses and women-owned small businesses a slight
advantage.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have examined the amendment. There is
no objection to this amendment from this side of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 4572 is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4572) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4564

(Purpose: To require a report from the Secretary of the Air Force and
the Director of the Office of Personnel Management)

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the clerk to lay before the Senate
my amendment No. 4564.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment
numbered 4564.

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

At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following
general provision:
Sec. . (a) The Secretary of the Air Force and the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall submit a
joint report describing in detail the benefits, allowances,
services, and any other forms of assistance which may or
shall be provided to any civilian employee of the Federal
government or to any private citizen, or to the family of
such an individual, who is injured or killed while traveling
on an aircraft owned, leased, chartered, or operated by the
Government of the United States.
(b) The report required by subsection (a) above shall be
submitted to the Congressional defense committees and to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of
Representatives not later than December 15, 1996.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a general provision which
requires the Secretary of the Air Force and the Director of the Office
of Personnel Management to submit a joint report describing in detail
the benefits, allowances, services, and other forms of assistance which
may or shall be provided to any civilian employee of the Federal
Government or to any private citizen, or to the family of such an
individual, who is injured or killed while traveling in an aircraft
owned, leased, chartered, or operated by the Government of the United
States.
This report is to be submitted to the congressional defense
committees, the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate, and the
Committee on Governmental Reform Oversight of the House, no later than
December 15, 1996.
This report is needed because we have had some recent accidents--the
terrible accident involving Commerce Secretary Brown and other
accidents--of military aircraft on which civilians who were not
employees of the Federal Government were killed, as a result of the
accident.
I am seeking a study to determine the fairness of the situation with
regard to people who may be asked, invited, by the Government to
perform

[[Page S7935]]

what amounts to semiofficial tasks, and they are involved in missions
that are undertaken on behalf of the United States, and they are killed
as a result of an aircraft accident.
There has been some indications that some of these people do not have
the coverage of benefits and other assistance that employees of the
Government have, and that their survivors do not have the assistance of
the laws that are in effect for survivors of those who were official
employees. I wish to present to the Senate and the Congress next year
legislation to see if we can correct this situation.
There was a similar concept in World War II that I recall. We called
them the dollar-a-year persons. They were placed on the payroll and
received $1 in order that they might be considered government employees
so their survivors, in the event of disaster, were given the same
consideration as the survivors of those who were government employees.
I do not ask the Senate, the Congress, at this time, to try to
correct this, because I think there is sort of a patchwork quilt out
there of benefits for survivors. I want to be able to consider this
matter in the next session, as I indicated.
The difficulty is that, in almost all instances, these aircraft are
military aircraft, but some of them, now, are leased and some of them
are actually leased for the United States but operated under other
departments than the Department of Defense. So this has to be a
comprehensive report for us to see what is, really, the situation under
this patchwork quilt that I mentioned, and see if we can find some way
to be fair and treat these survivors honorably, without regard to which
agency of the Federal Government was in charge of the aircraft and
without regard to whether or not they were, in fact, employees of the
United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to advise the Senate that
this measure has been cleared and approved by both managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, amendment No. 4564
is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4564) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4550

(Purpose: To require a report on meeting Department of Defense
procurements of propellant raw materials)

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
4550 be called up for immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Lautenberg,
proposes an amendment numbered 4550.

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

On page 88, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
Sec. 8099. (a) Not later than March 1, 1997, the Deputy
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the defense Committees a
report on Department of Defense procurement of propellant raw
materials.
(b) The report shall include the following:
(1) The projected future requirements of the Department of
Defense for propellant raw materials, such as nitrocellulose.
(2) The capacity, ability, and production cost rates of the
national technology and industrial base, including
Government-owned, contractor-operated facilities, contractor
owned and operated facilities, and Government-owned,
Government-operated facilities, for meeting such
requirements.
(3) The national security benefits of preserving in the
national technology and industrial base contractor owned and
operated facilities for producing propellant raw materials,
including nitrocellulose.
(4) The extent to which the cost rates for production of
nitrocellulose in Government-owned, contractor-operated
facilities is lower because of the relationship of those
facilities with the Department of Defense that such rates
would be without that relationship.
(5) The advantages and disadvantages of permitting
commercial facilities to compete for award of Department of
Defense contracts for procurement of propellant raw
materials, such as nitrocellulose.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the
managers of this bill in approving this amendment. The amendment is
straightforward. It asks the Deputy Secretary of Defense to provide a
report, not later than March 1, 1997, to the Defense committees on
examining the advantages and disadvantages of allowing commercial
facilities to compete for future contracts of propellant raw material
requirements, such as nitrocellulose.
The report shall include an assessment of first, the projected future
procurement requirements for propellant raw material, such as
nitrocellulose; second, the capacity, ability, and production cost
rates of the national technology and industrial base to satisfy DOD
requirements; third, the national security advantage of preserving
contractor owned, contractor operated facilities as part of the
industrial base; and finally, the extent to which government owned,
contractor operated rates for nitrocellulose are reduced as a result of
their relationship with the DOD.
Nitrocellulose is the basic chemical in the propellant mixture that
provides the propulsion power for a projectile or cartridge, such as
for the 120 millimeter target practice cartridge used on the M1A2 tank
for gunnery training.
Because of the shrinking Defense procurement budget, the Department
of the Army had directed the production of propellant to its Government
owned, contractor operated facility located at the Radford Army
Ammunition Plant in Virginia in order to keep its industrial base
operating. However, this decision has precluded a commercial facility
in my home State from competing for certain grades of nitrocellulose.
This commercial facility wants to compete for future contracts
beginning in fiscal year 1999.
Mr. President, this study is intended to make information available
to help the Congress and the administration make an informed decision
on this issue in the future. Therefore, Mr. President, I am pleased
that my colleagues support this amendment.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment calls for a report on DOD
procurement of propellant raw materials such as nitrocellulose.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have examined this. There have been
some technical changes made at our request. We do not object to the
amendment offered on behalf of the Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 4550 is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4550) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4534

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Air Force to carry out a
cost-benefit analysis of consolidating the ground station
infrastructure supporting polar orbiting satellites)

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call before the Senate amendment No.
4534, offered by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Murkowski,
proposes an amendment numbered 4534.

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

On page 88, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
Sec. 8099. Not later than six months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force shall
submit to Congress a cost-benefit analysis of consolidating
the ground station infrastructure of the Air Force that
supports polar orbiting satellites.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment
that deals with requiring a report from the Air Force on the cost-
benefit analysis of consolidating the ground station infrastructure of
the Air Force that supports polar orbiting satellites. At present,
there are several. We seek

[[Page S7936]]

to discover whether it would be cost effective to consolidate those.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared and
approved by both managers.
Mr. STEVENS. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, amendment No. 4534
is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4534) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have just completed a series of
amendments that would have taken about--well, about 12 hours under
cloture. So I am grateful to the Senate for an opportunity to proceed
with our bill.
I would now like to announce to the Senate we would like Members who
have amendments that they wish to present that have not been cleared to
come to the floor. We will be pleased to consider any amendment and see
if we can handle it as expeditiously as we have these that we have
presented to the Senate. I might add, many of those amendments were
modified substantially before we agreed to them.
So we look forward to that opportunity with regard to the rest of
these amendments that have been filed before cloture. The leaders, I am
informed, will look at this situation somewhere around 1 o'clock to
determine whether we should proceed with our cloture vote.
At present, I think we could announce to the Senate, from the way we
look at the amendments that have been submitted to us for review and
were submitted to the Senate under the cloture procedure, if we work
cooperatively we should be able to finish this bill by 7 or 8 o'clock
tonight. We can do that by limiting the amount of time a Member might
seek for the debate of an amendment or by assuring Members we will be
more than pleased to attempt to work with them to alter the form of the
amendments so we could agree to an amendment and take it to conference.
I am sure my friend from Hawaii joins me in urging Members now to
come to the floor to present controversial amendments.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________