[Pages S7436-S7447]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume consideration of S.
1005, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1005) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and
for other purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:

Stevens-Inouye Amendment No. 846, to require a report to
Congress on all anticipated costs to the United States for
the admission of the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary to
NATO.
Harkin Amendment No. 848, to prohibit the use of taxpayer
funds to underwrite restructuring costs associated with a
business merger.

Amendment No. 849

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

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mrs. Hutchison,
for herself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. McCain, Mr. Warner,
Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Levin, proposes an
amendment numbered 849.

The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) International efforts to bring indicted war criminals
to justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina consistent with the 1995
Dayton Accords should be supported as an important element in
creating a self-sustaining peace in the region;
(2) The Administration should consult closely with the
Congress on all efforts to bring indicted war criminals to
justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina consistent with the 1995
Dayton Accords; and
(3) The Administration should consult closely and in a
timely manner with the Congress on the NATO-led Stabilization
Force's mission concerning the apprehension of indicated war
criminals, including any changes in the mission which could
affect American forces.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both
sides and is now acceptable to the managers of the bill. I urge its
adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Texas.
The amendment (No. 849) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S7437]]

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 850

(Purpose: To make available funds for the payment of claims for loss
and damage to personal property suffered by military personnel due to
flooding in the Red River Basin)

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

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] for Mr. Dorgan, for
himself, and Mr. Conrad, proposes an amendment numbered 850.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . Up to $4.5 million of funds available to the
Department of Defense may be available for the payment of
claims for loss and damage to personal property suffered as a
direct result of the flooding in the Red River Basin during
April and May 1997 by members of the Armed Forces residing in
the vicinity of Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota,
without regard to the provisions of section 3721(e) of title
31, United States Code.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I offer today with my colleague from North
Dakota, Senator Dorgan, an amendment that would prevent unintended
discrimination against Grand Forks AFB personnel as the Defense
Department provides compensation for personal property losses incurred
as a result of this spring's unprecedented flooding in the Red River
Valley. This legislation has been requested by Air Force Secretary
Sheila E. Widnall, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ronald R. Fogleman,
and the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Transportation Command, Gen.
Walter Kross, with the support of Gen. Howell Estes, Commander in Chief
of the U.S. Space Command.
As my colleagues are aware, last week I offered this amendment to the
fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization bill with Senators Dorgan,
Wellstone, Johnson, and Daschle. It was accepted by the Armed Services
Committee, but I look forward to its inclusion in the fiscal year 1998
Defense appropriations bill before us as well. This will ensure that
both defense measures passed by the Senate this year are in agreement
that disaster relief must be provided to personnel on an equitable
basis.
As I have discussed on the Senate floor on several occasions, Mr.
President, this winter and spring were the most severe in my State's
history, culminating in a 500-year flood. Damages to property stretched
into the billions, and the disruption to families and the community was
incalculable.
Confronted with a disaster of almost Biblical proportions, the able
men and women of Grand Forks AFB helped fight the flood. They manned
``sandbag central,'' helped evacuate the city of Grand Forks, and
provided shelter, food, and comfort to thousands of flood refugees.
Many Air Force officers and enlisted personnel worked tirelessly, even
as their homes were washed away, resulting in almost total personal
property losses.
Fortunately, current law allows the Defense Department to provide
personal property compensation to personnel once personal insurance and
any other Federal assistance has been exhausted. Separate compensation
from the military is appropriate, Mr. President, in light of the fact
that servicemembers, their families, and their property have been put
in harm's way as a result of assignment orders. Those residing in Grand
Forks AFB housing are currently able to benefit from this assistance.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, we have a catch 22 problem. The
families that suffered the most--those living off-base in the city of
Grand Forks because of on-base housing shortages--are getting no help.
This is because existing law prevents ``Federal agencies from paying
claims for losses incident to service which occurs at residences not
provided by the United States,'' to quote an Air Force analysis.
Mr. President, the men and women of Grand Forks AFB were there when
their country needed them. The amendment I have offered here again
today would ensure that their country does not allow them to endure
unfair and unintended discrimination in their hour of need. It would
waive the provision that prevents them from receiving assistance. This
action would be consistent with earlier legislation passed in 1992 on
behalf of Homestead AFB personnel living off-base who had suffered as a
result of Hurricane Andrew.
On behalf of the more than 700 Air Force families living in the city
of Grand Forks when the levees broke, I would like to extend my thanks
again to the Senate and the able leadership of the Armed Services
Committee for passing this amendment last week. Today, sincere thanks
should also go to the distinguished leadership of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee, to Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye,
for their willingness to work with Senator Dorgan and myself to bring
the authorization and appropriations measures into agreement on this
important matter.
Before closing, Mr. President, I would like to recognize again the
exemplary work of everyone at Grand Forks AFB during this spring's
flooding. In accepting thousands of flood refugees at the worst of the
disaster, the base provided warm, safe housing for countless families.
They also provided something else, something even more important--a
sense of hope that has helped preserve Grand Forks' sense of community.
At a time when nearly the entire city was submerged by the rising
floodwaters and its most historic areas burned, the importance of this
cannot be overstated.
Again, Mr. President, let me thank the committee and the Senate for
their careful consideration of this amendment, which will ensure that
all Air Force personnel in the flooded area are treated equitably. I
look forward to its approval as part of the fiscal year 1998 Defense
appropriations bill, retention in conference, and passage into law.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to comment briefly on my flood
relief amendment, which is now pending to the defense appropriations
bill.
As my colleagues know, this spring the Red River Valley suffered its
worst flooding in recorded history. Personnel at Grand Forks Air Force
Base pitched in to fight the flooding that everyone knew would come--
they helped operate ``Sandbag Central'' to enable volunteers to go to
the front lines on the dikes.
When the water finally won, a 500-year flood emptied Grand Forks, ND,
a city of 50,000 people, and sent 4,000 residents to the Grand Forks
Air Force Base for shelter. Many of my colleagues saw on television the
base hangar that was converted to a shelter and that provided refuge
for those citizens.
What my colleagues may not know is that many of the base personnel
who fought the flood for weeks were themselves victims of the flood
when it came. Over 700 military personnel were forced to evacuate
during this disaster. And 406 servicemembers have suffered losses to
personal property, including 95 families whose homes were inside the
diked area near the Red River and were extensively damaged.
However, without the flood relief authority my amendment would
provide, these servicemembers will be victims of unintended
discrimination.
If these servicemembers had lived on base, they would be eligible to
file a claim with the Department of Defense for losses incident to
service. The Air Force pays such claims pursuant to section 3721 of
title 31 of the United States Code. But as the law now stands, military
personnel living off base are not eligible to file such claims, even
though they are stationed at Grand Forks Air Force Base as a result of
their military service.
My amendment would simply permit the Air Force to reimburse these
servicemembers for their losses despite the fact that they lived off
base. It makes available up to $4.5 million of the funds already
available to the Department of Defense for paying claims.

[[Page S7438]]

Let me assure my colleagues that this amendment supplements private
insurance and benefits provided by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. Air Force claims practices and FEMA regulations prohibit
duplicative benefits. Military members who have private insurance will
be required to file claims against that insurance before the Air Force
will pay claims under this amendment.
I understand that this amendment is acceptable to the Chairman,
Senator Stevens, and to the ranking member, Senator Inouye. I thank
them very much for their support of this amendment, and for the work of
their staffs in clearing this amendment.
I look forward to this amendment's approval by the Senate, and I
yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment is supported by the
Department of the Air Force, and we are prepared to accept it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 850) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in the order pertaining to this bill that
was agreed to last evening, there is a second Dorgan amendment that I
am authorized to withdraw. I ask that it be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry. Is the amendment I have offered
together with my friend from Hawaii, No. 846, still the pending
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would observe that the amendment
pending before the body is amendment No. 848 offered by the Senator
from Iowa.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is there also pending behind that 846?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Amendment No. 851

(Purpose: To set aside $36,000,000 of O&M funds for an authorized Navy
program to demonstrate expanded use of multi-technology automated
reader cards throughout the Navy and the Marine Corps, including
demonstration of the use of the so-called ``smartship'' technology of
the ship-to-shore worked load/off load program)

Mr. STEVENS. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator
Robb of Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Robb,
proposes an amendment numbered 851.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8099. Of the total amount appropriated under title II
for the Navy, the Secretary of the Navy shall make
$36,000,000 available for a program to demonstrate expanded
use of multitechnology automated reader cards throughout the
Navy and the Marine Corps, including demonstration of the use
of the so-called ``smartship'' technology of the ship-to-
shore work load/off load program.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, last evening the Senator from Hawaii and
I discussed this amendment with the Senator from Virginia. We are
convinced that it will bring about savings of taxpayer funds and that
it should be adopted at this time.
Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Virginia.
The amendment (No. 851) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 846

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the
Senate my amendment No. 846.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself, and Mr.
Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered 846.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and
nays be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Alaska.
The amendment (No. 846) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have now pending, under the orders
agreed to last evening, the Feinstein amendment on land transfer, a
Feinstein amendment on NATO expansion cost caps, the Graham amendment
on electronic combat testing, the pending Harkin merger cost amendment
No. 848, a managers' amendment from Senator Inouye, and one for myself,
which we will join together, and two McCain amendments, one dealing
with foreign flag vessels, and one ``Buy America'' amendment.
I urge Members of the Senate to come and offer their amendments. We
are asked by leadership to see if it is possible to finish this bill
before the recess for the Tuesday meetings of both parties. The Senator
from Hawaii and I are prepared to try to do that if Members would come
and offer their amendments.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 852

(Purpose: To strike out section 8097)

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 852.
Strike out section 8097.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment strikes section 8097 from
the Defense appropriations bill in its entirety.
This provision has nothing to do with national security issues. It is
purely and simply an example of pork-barrel spending that has nothing
to do with defense.
The provision earmarks $250,000 for the maritime technology program.
Do not be deceived by the amount of money. The $250,000 is the
beginning of what could turn into a multimillion-dollar bailout for a
cruise ship line and ships to be constructed in a certain shipyard.
The money would be used to establish a pilot project to transfer
commercial cruise shipbuilding technology to U.S. shipyards--on its
face it is an innocuous idea, even though it doesn't have a lot to do
with national defense or anything--utilizing the experience of U.S.
flag cruise ship operators, and protecting the operation of a foreign-
built U.S. flag cruise ship and two newly constructed U.S. flag cruise
ships around the Hawaiian Islands.
The last goal of the pilot project is, I suspect, the most important
and most disturbing aspect of the program.
As I mentioned, this provision only earmarks $250,000. I also
mentioned that money has nothing to do with defense.
The Maritech Program is a very limited program, and this $250,000
earmarked represents a large portion of available Maritech funds.
I suspect very strongly that this is not the end of the drain on
defense dollars for this cruise ship program. I fully expect to see
millions of dollars set aside to build these cruise ships and
subsequent bills, whether it is the Commerce, State, Justice
appropriations bill this year or in next year's defense appropriations
bill.

[[Page S7439]]

If the past is any indicator, this is just the beginning of a
multimillion-dollar waste of defense dollars.
Was the Commerce Committee asked to review this proposal? No.
Should the Commerce Committee have been asked to review this program?
Yes.
This provision waives three established laws:
One, it bypasses the established process for reviewing the Jones Act,
Passenger Service Vessel Act, and coast-wise endorsement waivers.
Ordinarily, the Commerce Committee considers action on each requested
waiver. This legislation did not come before the Commerce Committee and
effectively waives these laws for an unidentified foreign-built cruise
ship.
In my view, should the Commerce Committee approve this proposal as
written? No.
Frankly, that is the precise reason this provision is in this bill
and not in the Commerce Committee bill.
I wonder if anyone can tell me exactly how many cruise ship operators
can meet the exact criteria spelled out in the provision of the bill.
I quote:

$250,000 should be made available to assist with a pilot
project that will facilitate the transfer of commercial
cruise shipbuilding technology and expertise, and enable the
operation of a U.S. flag foreign-built cruise ship and two
newly constructed U.S. flagships.
That a person (including a related person with respect to
that person) within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. Section 801, may
not operate a U.S. flag foreign-built cruise ship, or any
other cruise ship, in coastwise trade between or among the
islands of Hawaii, upon execution of the contract referred to
in this section and continuing throughout the life expectancy
. . . of a newly constructed U.S. flag cruise ship referred
to in this section, unless the cruise ship is operated by a
person that is . . . operating a cruise ship in coastwise
trade between or among the islands of Hawaii on the date of
enactment, except if any cruise ship constructed pursuant to
this section operates in regular service other than between
or among the islands of Hawaii.
Provided further, That for purposes of this section, the
term ``cruise ship'' means a vessel that is at least 10,000
gross tons . . . and the berth or stateroom accommodations
for at least 275 passengers.

Mr. President, the list goes on and on.
This is really unacceptable. This is really unacceptable.
In my view, I understand there is only one cruise ship operator in
Hawaii that can meet this criteria. Only one. And that operator is
being handed a 30-year to 40-year monopoly for his existing business.
How many times has the U.S. Senate so blatantly set up a monopoly set
aside for any individual or business? Why would we want to start now?
On the very rare occasions that Congress has permitted a monopoly
operation, such as Conrail, it was to ensure availability of adequate
domestic transportation in the absence of any other possible viable
alternative.
I personally know of no other monopoly operation other than the
Conrail example.
Many of my colleagues in this Chamber profess to be concerned about
the growing consolidation in the defense industry, expressing worry
that overconsolidation will lead to monopolies in the defense industry.
I have long been a free trade advocate, and I believe in our existing
review. Why wouldn't that same concern about unfair anticompetitive
restrictions apply in this case? Why is this legislative monopoly
necessary?
The current operator of this cruise ship operation in Hawaii has
operated for many years without this legislative protection. He is
protected from foreign competition under existing laws and does not
need the protection of Congress to replace his existing ship with new
ships.
What is the urgency of including this language in this defense
appropriations bill, or, for that matter, in any other bill?
Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that this provision was
inserted in this bill. But it is not necessary. It wastes defense
dollars, and it sets up an ill-considered monopoly for one single
entity.
Mr. President, if this amendment is not stricken from the bill and it
survives conference with the House, I would strongly recommend that the
President of the United States, in the exercise of his line-item veto
authority, eliminate this egregious example of pork-barrel spending.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, 40 years ago the United States shipping
interests controlled the Mediterranean. Most of the cruise ships in the
Mediterranean, if I may remind my colleagues, were made in the United
States. They had crews of American sailors, and we carried passengers
not only from the United States but all over the world.
At the same time, we also dominated and controlled the cruise ship
industry in the Caribbean. The same is true in the Pacific. For that
matter, 40 years ago the United States shipping interests sailed the
seven seas and controlled the seven seas.
Today, we have one company that has one cruise ship. No shipyard has
ever made a cruise ship since 1956. That is 40 years. For 40 years, our
shipyards have not built a cruise ship. Today, we have one, an old
ship.
And what is the situation? The fastest growing part of the tourist
industry of the world is cruise ships. We see that on television every
night, every 30 minutes on just about every channel--love boats,
holiday boats, and most of the passengers are American. These cruise
ships are built in foreign shipyards, and they are manned by foreign
sailors.
It may interest you to know that just last week the Wall Street
Journal reported that cruise ship workers on foreign flag vessels work
between 16 to 18 hours a day and get paid by the cruise lines about
$1.50 a day before tips--$1.50 a day before tips. That is their take-
home pay because the cruise ship owner says, well, he has a free bunk;
we give him three meals a day. This is gravy for him, $1.50 a day.
That is why we cannot compete with them. We insist that all of our
ships maintain the highest health standards. Wage and hour provisions
that apply here in the Nation's Capital will apply on cruise ships
manned by Americans. The cruise ships operating in the Hawaiian waters
today pay not minimum wage but union declared wages. They are much,
much higher than union wage, and they get paid more than $1.50 an hour.
Many of us felt that the time had come to stop this, to reinvigorate
the industry, and we came up with this plan. This plan reminds us of
what happened to the United States in World War II--for that matter in
World War I--the Korean conflict, and even in Vietnam. Since we do not
have a fleet of troop carriers, we have always had to call upon private
shipowners to come forth with their passenger vessels, convert them
into troop carriers, and sail the seven seas.
Mr. President, as a young man of 18, I crossed the Pacific on a
luxury cruise ship which was converted into a troop carrier. Going
across the Atlantic, I am sorry to say, it was not a cruise ship; it
was a tanker, but there were many other cruise ships in operation at
that time.
This program, the Meritech Program, has been authorized. It has been
operational. And up until now they have come up with plans on how to
bring about the construction by private industry of passenger vessels
that can be converted for defense purposes if the need should arise.
This provision in this bill is to implement those plans.
I can assure you, if the Senator from Arizona wishes, we will put in
clear language that says this ship will be built with private funds. I
can assure one and all that if this will satisfy my friend from
Arizona, I would like this language put in the appropriate place:
``Provided further, that none of the funds provided in this or any
other act may be obligated for the construction of vessels addressed by
this section.''
If it is appropriate, I ask that this provision be made part of the
bill before us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will ask, does the Senator ask
unanimous consent----
Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. To place the appropriate language in the
legislation?

[[Page S7440]]

Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
not object, I just want to clarify, I understand that----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. My reservation is as follows. My understanding is that
the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii are willing to
modify the language of the bill that states that no Federal money will
be spent for the construction of a cruise ship or the tooling up of a
shipyard for that construction. If that is correct, then I appreciate
the agreement of the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from Alaska
and we will make that change and propose that change shortly.

Is that the intent of the Senator from Hawaii?
Mr. INOUYE. That is the intent of the language. I believe the
language is clear.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside my amendment at this
time and we will revisit it when the language, modifying language is
made up, and I will at that time make a motion to modify my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have another amendment at the desk.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Does it mean that
the McCain amendment is set aside?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is it the intention of the Senator from Hawaii
under the UC agreement that his legislation has been modified under the
previous UC request?
Mr. INOUYE. The Presiding Officer is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there is a little bit of a parliamentary
situation here. It is not clear to me whether the language of the
legislation will be modified--and then I would ask unanimous consent to
drop my amendment--or is it language that will be added to the
amendment which would then be acceptable? I would ask the President as
to what the parliamentary situation is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend for a moment.
If there is no objection, the unanimous consent request by the
Senator from Hawaii will be considered as an amendment to the bill by
the Senator from Alaska. Upon passage, then the Senator from Arizona
could be recognized to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment No. 854

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

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes an amendment
numbered 854.

The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert: ``: Provided further,
That none of the funds provided in this or any other Act may
be obligated for the tooling to construct or the construction
of vessels addressed by this section''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 854) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 852, withdrawn

Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, the
pending McCain amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then the amendment No. 852 is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 852) was withdrawn.

Amendment No. 853

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to waive limitations
applicable to uses of funds for procurements from foreign sources as
necessary to protect cooperative programs)

Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have another amendment at the desk, and
I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 853.

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

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8099. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall waive
generally with respect to a foreign country each limitation
on procurements from foreign sources provided in law if the
Secretary determines that the application of the limitation
with respect to that country would impede cooperative
programs entered into between the Department of Defense and
the foreign country, or would impede arrangements for the
reciprocal procurement of defense items entered into under
section 2531 of title 10, United States Code, or under any
other provision of law, and the country does not discriminate
against defense items produced in the United States to a
greater degree than the United States discriminates against
defense items produced in that country.
(b) Subsection (a) applies with respect to--
(1) contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) options for the procurement of items that are exercised
after such date under contracts that are entered into before
such date if the option prices are adjusted for any reason
other than the application of a waiver granted under
subsection (a).
(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to a limitation regarding
construction of warships.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is a simple and straightforward
amendment that simply levels the playing field between U.S. and foreign
manufacturers. This amendment promotes U.S. products, not by enforcing
restrictive barriers on open competition and free trade, but by
promoting sound and beneficial economic principles.
This amendment waives restrictions on the procurement of certain
defense items with respect to a foreign country if the Secretary of
Defense determines they would impede cooperative programs entered into
between a foreign country and the Department of Defense. Additionally,
it would waive protectionist practices if it is determined it would
impede the reciprocal procurement of defense items in that foreign
country and that foreign country does not discriminate against defense
items produced in the United States to a greater degree than the United
States discriminates against defense items in that country. This
amendment would apply to all contracts and subcontracts entered into on
or after the date of enactment, including any option for the
procurement of items that are entered into before the date of enactment
if those option prices are adjusted for any other reason.
I have spoken of this issue before in this Chamber and the potential
impact on our bilateral trade relations with our allies because of our
policy toward Buy America. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose
these type of protectionist trade policies because I believe free trade
is an important component of improved relations among all nations and a
key to major U.S. economic growth.
From a practical standpoint, adherence to Buy America restrictions
seriously impairs our ability to compete freely in international
markets for the best price on needed military equipment and could also
result in a loss of existing business from longstanding international
trading partners. While I fully understand the arguments by some to
maintain certain critical industrial base capabilities, I find no
reason to support domestic source restrictions for products which are
widely available from many U.S. companies, that is, pumps produced by
no less than 25 U.S. companies. I believe that competition and open
markets among our allies on a reciprocal basis provide the best
equipment at the best price for U.S. and allied militaries alike.
There are many examples of trade imbalances resulting from
unnecessary Buy America restrictions. Let me cite one case in point.
Between 1991 and 1994, the Netherlands purchased $508 million in
defense equipment from United States companies, including air-refueling
planes, Chinook helicopters, Apache helicopters, F-16 fighter
equipment, missiles, combat radios, and training equipment. During the
same period, the United States purchased only $40 million of Dutch-made
military equipment. In recent meetings, the Defense Ministers of the
United Kingdom and Sweden have apprised me of similar situations. In
every meeting, they tell me how difficult it

[[Page S7441]]

is becoming to persuade their governments to buy American defense
products, because of our protectionist policies and the growing Buy
European sentiment.
Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that this amendment will end
once and for all the anticompetitive, antifree trade practices that
encumber our Government. I only look forward to the day when my trips
to the floor to highlight Buy America provisions are no longer
necessary.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial by Secretary
Weinberger and Dr. Schweizer that appeared in today's USA Today be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From USA Today, July 15, 1997]

Pentagon Lopping Off Military Muscle in Favor of Pork

(By Caspar W. Weinberger and Peter Schweizer)

In 1938, the British Royal Navy counted 308 ships on its
active roster, and Great Britain ruled the waves. This
massive armada required 11,270 admiralty officials and
clerical staff for its management. Thirty years later, the
British Navy was down to just 114 ships, a decline of more
than 60%. However, the number of brass hats and
administrators had increased to 33,574. At its peak, the
British Navy required 37 desk sailors per ship. At its low
point, 295.
C. Northcote Parkinson tracked these trends and proclaimed
what eventually became known as one of Parkinson's famous
laws: The number of subordinates increases at a fixed rate
regardless of the amount of work produced. What was true for
a declining Britain is applicable to present-day America. Fat
in the military bureaucracy continues to expand at the
expense of military muscle. Congressional action to limit
further base closings last week and the recently released
Quadrennial Defense Review does nothing to correct this
dangerous reality. The Pentagon is putting the best possible
light on further reductions of 60,000 active-duty troops,
arguing that cuts are necessary in order to procure more
advanced weapons. But choosing between force size and
weaponry is a lose-lose situation. We need both large forces
and advanced weapons to maintain our battlefield edge and
minimize U.S. casualties. What we need to cut is fat.
Just how badly has our military ``muscle'' been affected?
The stated policy of the United States is to be able to fight
two wars at once. But as Professors Frederick Kagan and David
Fautua of the United States Military Academy point out, we
would have trouble fighting and winning one war today.
Consider our victory in Desert Storm. The United States
committed seven active Army divisions, three Marine Corps
divisions and two additional combat brigades from other units
to the ground war. Of the seven Army divisions, five were
``heavy'' units--mechanized and armor. We were able to build
this force from a total of 18 Army divisions. Now we have but
10 Army divisions, and only six are ``heavy.'' Many are
already committed to other overseas assignments such as Korea
and, therefore, would be unavailable for a regional conflict.
Since Desert Storm, defense spending has declined 24% in
constant dollars, and manpower has been cut 27%. The Navy has
lost 34% of its ships. Air Force tactical squadrons have been
cut by 28%. Budget cuts also have led to a reduction in
our overseas presence. By 2000, about 90% of our combat
power will be based in the continental United States. Lack
of funds means we may not even reach the battlefield. The
Army's capability to deploy forces has dropped 44% and the
Navy's support ships, critical for overseas operations,
have been slashed 61% since 1991.
But budget cuts not only have led to force reductions.
Existing units have been dramatically hurt by serious
training deficiencies. At Camp Pendleton, Marines have
trekked 17 miles to training ranges to conserve truck fuel
and tires. Air Force personnel are now regularly deployed
overseas well beyond the recommended 120-day maximum, causing
serious psychological and training problems. Some tank crews
have been forced to park their tanks and conduct training
dismounted, walking around pretending to be tanks, in order
to cut costs.
The great paradox is that this small and grossly
underfunded military has been called on to increase its
overseas operations. Our two post-Cold War commanders-in-
chief--Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton--have
dispatched troops abroad more often than the United States
did in the previous 20 years. The military has conducted
expensive operations in Haiti, Rwanda, Liberia, Cuba, Panama,
Southwest Asia, Iraq and Somalia. Rather than deal with this
squeeze, the defense review calls for further reductions.
The military has already borne a disproportionate share of
cuts and now accounts for less than 20% of the federal
budget. Of the federal jobs lost since fiscal 1992, more than
89% have come from the Department of Defense. Rather than
cutting forces as the defense review recommends, troop levels
should be maintained at present levels. Savings should come
from cuts in civilian personnel and nondefense programs, not
out of the military's core competence of fighting wars. Today
the Pentagon spends more than 40% of this budget on
infrastructure, running cafeterias and day-care centers and
paying accountants. The only portions of the budget that have
grown since the end of the Cold War have been for the Defense
Logistics Agency, which handles warehousing, inventory
control and the transport of supplies, and the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service, which manages payroll and
budget. Many of these functions could be privatized. The
Pentagon estimates privatization could save $14 billion.
Others put the savings at $30 billion.
Reductions also could come from programs that have been
foisted on the Pentagon that have nothing to do with defense.
About $28 billion is being spent on environmental compliance
and cleanup. Millions are going to a jobs program that
updates the Bay Area Rapid Transit System. These programs may
be worthwhile, but they shouldn't be funded with scarce
defense resources.
The defense review fails to deal with the underlying
resource problems that plagues the military. Let's prove
Parkinson wrong by preserving our military capability and
lopping off the fat.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe that this amendment is
acceptable to the managers of S. 1005. I have discussed this with the
Senators from Alaska and Hawaii and both staffs. Basically, as I said,
it gives discretion to the Secretary of Defense as far as restrictive
Buy America provisions are concerned. This amendment gives the
Secretary of Defense the kind of latitude that is necessary in order to
make sure that our national security and warfighting capability is
protected.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. INOUYE. We find no objection to the amendment.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding this is quite similar to a
provision that is already in the armed services bill. And under those
circumstances we have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 853) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from
Alaska for their cooperation and assistance on both amendments.
I yield the floor.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry. It is my understanding the Harkin
amendment is ready to go to a vote at any time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending question before the
Senate.
Mr. STEVENS. We still have three amendments that could be offered
before the lunch hour, and that is the Feinstein amendments and the
Graham amendment.
Mr. President, there is in the order a managers' package that enables
me to offer an amendment. I do offer the amendment. It is the only item
in this managers' package. It is the amendment of the Senator from
Indiana [Mr. Coats].

Amendment No. 855

(Purpose: To set aside for the Information System Security Program
$15,708,000 of the amount provided for the Army for other procurement)

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

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Coats,
proposes an amendment numbered 855.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 24, line 6, after ``2000'' insert the following:
``: Provided, That, of the amount appropriated under this
heading, $15,708,000 is available for the Information System
Security Program, of which $5,500,000 is available for
procurement of Airterm KY-100 devices''.

[[Page S7442]]

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this conforms this bill to an authorized
account that was added to the authorization bill when it passed the
Senate, and I urge its immediate adoption.
Mr. INOUYE. We concur.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 855) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I implore Senators Feinstein and Graham
to offer their amendments. We are ready to proceed. I think we could
finish the bill before the lunch hour. I see the Senator from Texas is
on the floor, and I yield the floor to her in the hope she will yield
the floor to the others if they arrive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Amendment No. 849

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I assure the distinguished chairman,
if the other two pending amendments' authors come to the floor, I will
yield.
I wanted to speak about an amendment that has just been agreed to.
The chairman offered the Hutchison-Lott-Lieberman-McCain-Warner
amendment earlier. It is something we have been working on, actually,
for the last few days, trying to come up with language that everyone
could support. In fact, everyone has now agreed to support it, so it is
a sense of the Senate with 100 percent approval of language that says
we are very concerned about the situation in Bosnia, we are concerned
about the indicted war criminals not being brought to justice. All of
us are concerned about that, because, under the Dayton accords, the
three parties to the agreement, the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Muslims,
and the Croats, were supposed to do that and it has not happened.
At the same time, our amendment states that the administration should
consult closely and in a timely manner with the Congress on the NATO-
led Stabilization Force's mission concerning the apprehension of
indicted war criminals, including any changes in the mission which
could affect American forces. I think this is a very responsible
statement for the Senate to make because it is very important if there
is a change in mission with regard to the apprehension of war criminals
and if American forces are going to be involved, that the Congress
understand that fully because that is not our understanding today nor
is it part of the Dayton accords.
So, having been burned in Somalia when there was mission creep
without the complete accord of Congress, I think it is important that
we learn from history and take the responsible role that Congress
should take.
I am concerned that we do this in a very, very clear thinking,
responsible way. I look at the Washington Times from this morning where
the headline is, ``Serbs Threaten End Of Dayton Pact.'' It has a quote
from an ex-teacher--an ex-teacher. He says: ``I used to wave to them,
the NATO troops, and had my little daughter wave when they pass by. But
now I told her to spit at them.''
I think we have to understand that what we do has consequences. I
hope NATO will carefully look at how we go about changing any kind of
mission. Certainly we expect, in Congress, to have a role in that. But
I also think it is important that we go back to the Dayton accords. The
Dayton accords provide the three parties will apprehend war criminals.
I hope that is what happens, because there were heinous crimes
committed--heinous crimes. No civilized nation, no civilized person
could look at what happened in Srebrenica--it was clearly an
assassination of men and boys. It was ethnic cleansing. That's what it
actually was. We ought to stand against that. We do stand against it.
But, let's make sure that as we go forward we do it in a measured,
responsible way so what we do is helpful, that we keep the Dayton
accords, and that we do not have mission creep with American troops
that would put them in harm's way, or in a combat situation if they are
not prepared--if we are not prepared--for that eventuality.
So I think we have taken a responsible step. I appreciate the work of
the chairman. I appreciate the work of the Democrats and Republicans on
this issue where we do want to speak with a unified voice. It is
important that we do. That is what we have done today.

passenger safety modifications

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to commend the chairman and the
committee for adding funds for passenger safety modifications for the
Air Force. The committee's initiative is both timely and appropriate
and recognizes the need to provide the most up-to-date available safety
equipment to aircraft transporting our military personnel. I would like
to clarify a point with the chairman. Mr. Chairman, is the $75 million
added by the committee for aircraft passenger safety modifications to
be sent on the acquisition of navigation and safety equipment to
initiate phase II of the Defense Department's initiative to modify
military passenger aircraft? Is it the intent of the committee that
this additional funding be spent on the following equipment and
technologies: enhanced Ground Proximity warning Systems [EGPWS] with a
digital terrain data base, Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance
Systems [TCAS], predictive windshear radar, cockpit voice recorders,
and flight data recorders?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. The Air Force has indicated
specifically that EGPWS and TCAS for selected aircraft are part of the
phase II modifications. The Air Force also has unfunded requirements
for flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders. The committee
appreciates the Senator's interest and leadership on this issue.

UH-60L BLACK HAWK IN THE NATIONAL GUARD

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would greatly appreciate it if my
colleagues, the chairman of the appropriations Committee and the
ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee would join
with me in a colloquy regarding the committee's support for a
firefighting demonstrator kit for the UH-60L Black Hawk helicopter for
the Army National Guard. It is my understanding that the Army National
Guard needs and wants improved capability on its UH-60L Black Hawk
helicopter to enable them to more effectively augment the firefighting
capabilities of State and local government other Federal agencies.
To this end, the Army is pursuing a cooperative research and
development agreement or CRADA with Sikorsky Aircraft to obtain this
demonstrator aircraft. Once received, this modified Black Hawk will be
used in a 3-month, National Guard, operational suitability test with
the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
Mr. STEVENS. I am aware of this firefighting demonstration kit for
the Black Hawk helicopter. I agree that this program should be treated
as any other item of special interest in the National Guard and Reserve
Miscellaneous Equipment account, and am happy to support the Senator
regarding this issue.
Mr. INOUYE. I, too, am a strong supporter of this firefighting kit.
California is especially hard hit, each year, by wildfires and I fully
understand the great resources necessary to battle these fires. I am
happy to join with the chairman of the committee in urging that this
program be given high priority in the National Guard and Reserve
miscellaneous equipment account.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank both the Chairman and the ranking member for
their interest in this program and their support.

Amendment No. 856

(Purpose: To express the Sense of Congress regarding cost-sharing for
NATO enlargement)

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

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mrs. Feinstein,
proposes an amendment numbered 856:

At the appropriate place, insert:

SEC. . SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the Sense of Congress that should the Senate ratify
NATO enlargement, current proportional cost-sharing
arrangements will remain in place and that the proportional
cost of the U.S. share of the NATO common budget should not
increase.

[[Page S7443]]

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to
the Defense appropriations bill which expresses the Sense of Congress
that U.S. payment for the cost of NATO enlargement is contingent on our
NATO allies' willingness to pay their fair share of the costs of NATO
enlargement as well.
I was concerned and surprised to read French President Chirac's
statement last week that ``France does not intend to raise its
contribution to NATO because of the cost of enlargement.''
Mr. President, we all know that NATO enlargement will cost money. And
those costs must be borne fairly by all members.
If France or Germany or any other member of NATO is unwilling to pay
its fair share, then this seems to me to be a faulty foundation for the
expansion of NATO.
Indeed, as an article in the July 14-20 issue of Defense News stated:

Its decision to admit new members threatens to tear the
Western alliance asunder if the European allies fail to
shoulder a larger proportion of NATO's future security costs,
according to U.S. and European diplomats and analysts.

The purpose of this amendment is to make clear that the United States
is willing to pay its share of the cost of NATO enlargement. No more.
No less.
But this amendment also makes clear that if the Europeans are
unwilling to pay their share of the costs, then the United States will
not pay either.
The bottom line is that the costs should be fairly met and paid for
by all Alliance members. The United States can not and should not pick
up the share of European countries unwilling to do their part.
This amendment, I believe, sends a strong message to our European
allies as we enter into the NATO enlargement process that if we are to
enlarge the alliance it must be done fairly, and it must be done right.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the pending
Feinstein amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.

Rescinding Action on Amendment 856

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I find I acted prematurely. I ask the
past action be rescinded and the Feinstein amendment remain the pending
measure before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will take that under consideration.
Upon considering the request by the distinguished Senator from
Alaska, without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1005, the
Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. The pending bill
provides $247.2 billion in total budget authority and $244.4 billion in
total outlays for the Department of Defense. There are some major
elements to this bill that are important programs for the Senate to
review.
According to preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget
Office, the bill, as reported, is within the Defense Subcommittee's
section 602(b) allocation and, thus, complies with the requirements of
the Budget Act.
The bill is fully consistent with the bipartisan balanced budget
agreement. Senators may have heard or read statements to the contrary,
but I can assure them that the bill in no way transgresses the
agreement. I can also assure Senators that any misunderstanding in the
administration about this matter is in the process of being clarified.
The bill fully funds certain important initiatives that were
requested by the President, including a 2.8 percent pay raise for all
military personnel and the end strengths for all of the active and
reserve military services. The bill also funds needed increases in each
of the major accounts of the defense budget.
The Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, and the
Subcommittee staff deserve the thanks of the Senate for their extremely
skillful crafting of this bill. It makes the best possible use of the
defense funds available and sustains our national defense posture
consistent with the Defense Department's new roadmap, the Quadrennial
Defense Review.
I strongly support this bill, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Senate Budget Committee
table displaying the budget impact of this bill be placed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1005, DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 1998--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 1998, $ millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority......................................... 246,981 .......... ........ 197 247,178
Outlays.................................................. 244,202 7 ........ 197 244,406
Senate 602(b) allocation:
Budget authority......................................... 246,988 .......... ........ 197 247,185
Outlays.................................................. 244,232 7 ........ 197 244,436
President's request:
Budget authority......................................... 243,698 27 ........ 197 243,922
Outlays.................................................. 243,409 31 ........ 197 243,637
House-passed bill:
Budget authority......................................... ........ .......... ........ ......... ........
Outlays.................................................. ........ .......... ........ ......... ........

SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:

Senate 602(b) allocation:
Budget authority......................................... (7) .......... ........ ......... (7)
Outlays.................................................. (30) .......... ........ ......... (30)
President's request:
Budget authority......................................... 3,283 (27) ........ ......... 3,256
Outlays.................................................. 793 (24) ........ ......... 769
House-passed bill:
Budget authority......................................... 246,981 .......... ........ 197 247,178
Outlays.................................................. 244,202 7 ........ 197 244,406
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
conventions.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Pilot Program Tagging Hydrocarbon Fuels

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to enter
a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, Senator Stevens. As the chairman knows, title III, subtitle
C, section 339 of the recently adopted Defense authorization bill
provides for the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program to
determine if hydrocarbon fuels used by the Department of Defense can be
tagged for analysis and identification. Mr. President, $5 million was
authorized to conduct this program.
Mr. STEVENS. My distinguished colleague from Texas, Senator
Hutchison, who ably serves on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
is correct.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is anticipated that this program will deter theft,
aid in the investigation of fuel theft, and facilitate determining the
source of surface and underground pollution in locations where the
Department and civilian companies maintain separate fuel storage
facilities.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct in her description of this
program as approved by the authorizing committee and the full Senate.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is my understanding that this pilot program could
also be funded through title IV of the pending bill, research,
development, test, and evaluation, particularly the Defense-wide
funding provisions.
Mr. STEVENS. Again, the Senator is correct on the likely source of
funding for this pilot program.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I look forward to learning the results
of this pilot program and thank my distinguished chairman for his able
assistance. I yield the floor.

[[Page S7444]]

Vote on Amendment No. 848

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair
place before the Senate the Harkin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
pending question is the Harkin amendment No. 848. It is not necessary
for the clerk to report the amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the rollcall vote that was agreed to last
evening take place now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
848. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] and
the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 15, nays 83, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]

YEAS--15

Boxer
Bumpers
Byrd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Glenn
Grassley
Harkin
Kohl
Moynihan
Thompson
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--83

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Campbell
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner

NOT VOTING--2

Burns
Chafee

The amendment (No. 848) was rejected.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we continue
for another 5 minutes on a matter of total agreement here and that we
then have a vote on final passage on this bill at 2:15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 857

(Purpose: To limit the use of funds to transfer more than 10 electro-
magnetic test environment systems from Eglin Air Force Base, FL)

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

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Graham, for
himself and Mr. Mack, proposes an amendment numbered 857.

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

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8099. (a) Congress finds that the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Commission directed the transfer of only 10
electro-magnetic test environment systems from Elgin Air
Force Base, Florida, to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment also has the cosponsorship
of Senator Mack. It has our approval.
Mr. INOUYE. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 857) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 856, As Modified

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send a modification of amendment No.
856 to the desk.
This is a modification of an amendment by Senator Feinstein that was
previously adopted, and that action was rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 856 is so modified.
The amendment (No. 856), as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert:
``It is the Sense of Congress that should the Senate ratify
NATO enlargement, that the proportional cost of the U.S.
share of the NATO common budget should not increase, and that
if any NATO Member does not pay its share, the United States
shall not either.''

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. STEVENS. The amendment now has our approval. It is a sense-of-
the-Senate amendment concerning payment of NATO costs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 856), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 858

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding DOD printing
costs)

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

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Bumpers,
proposes an amendment numbered 858.

SEC. . FINDINGS.

(a) the Department of Defense budget is insufficient to
fulfill all the requirements on the unfunded priorities lists
of the military services and defense agencies;
(b) the documented printing expenses of the Department of
Defense amount to several hundred million dollars per year,
and a similar amount of undocumented printing expenses may be
included in external defense contracts;
(c) printing in two or more colors generally increases
costs;
(d) the Joint Committee on Printing of the Congress of the
United States has established regulations intended to protect
taxpayers from extravagant government printing expenses;
(e) the Government Printing and Binding Regulations
published by the Joint Committee on Printing direct that,
``... it is the responsibility of the head of any department,
independent office or establishment of the Government to
assure that all multicolor printing shall contribute
demonstrable value toward achieving a greater fulfillment of
the ultimate end-purpose of whatever printed item in which it
is included.''
(f) the Department of Defense publishes a large number of
brochures, calendars, and other products in which the use of
multicolor printing does not appear to meet the demonstrably
valuable contribution requirement of the Joint Committee on
Printing, but instead appears to be used primarily for
decorative effect; and
(g) the Department of Defense could save resources for
higher priority needs by reducing printing expenses:
Therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that:
(1) the Secretary of Defense should ensure that the
printing costs of the Department of Defense and military
services are the lowest amount possible;
(2) the Department of Defense should strictly comply with
the Printing and Binding Regulations published by the Joint
Committee on Printing of the Congress of the United States.
(3) that the Department of Defense budget submission for FY
1999 should reflect the savings that will result from the
stricter printing guidelines in (1) and (2).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Bumpers
amendment?
If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 858) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S7445]]

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that all of the
amendments that were ordered to be called up, or had the right to be
called up under order 108 entered into last night have now been
disposed of. Is that the opinion of the Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It appears that the amendments on that list
have been offered.
Mr. STEVENS. I know of no further amendments.

United States Military Presence in Bermuda

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last week I had worked out an amendment with
the managers of the national defense authorization bill that provided
for the Secretary of Defense to study and report on the status of
environmental problems in Bermuda associated with the United States
military presence on that island for more than 50 years. Senator
Inhofe, the subcommittee chairman was particularly helpful in working
with me.
Inadvertently that amendment was not included in the managers en bloc
amendment package on Friday afternoon. However, I am very grateful to
the chairman and ranking member of the Arms Services Committee that, by
unanimous consent, they have agreed to include this amendment in the
authorization bill.
Mr. President, for more than 50 years, United States military
personnel were deployed to bases on the Island of Bermuda. In fact,
United States bases occupied approximately one-tenth of Bermuda's land
area. The 1941 Leased Bases Agreement formalized the conditions under
which the United States military remained in Bermuda until 1995. The
United States was not charged a penny in rent for its use of these
properties during all of that period.
I know that the distinguished ranking member of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Inouye, is fully aware of the
questions that have been raised related to the United States military
presence in Bermuda. I would ask him whether he believes that this is
something that the Secretary of Defense should look into?
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague from
Connecticut that I am aware of matters related to the bases in Bermuda.
I know, for example, that the bases in Bermuda very effectively
contributed to United States. national security during World War II and
throughout the cold war. I am also aware that with changed world
circumstances, it became clear during the 1990's, that it was no longer
necessary for the U.S. military to continue to maintain bases there.
And, on September 1, 1995, U.S. military forces formally withdrew from
the island.
Certainly it seems very logicial for the Secretary of Defense to be
asked to look into matters related to our presence there.
Mr. DODD. Mr President, I know that my distinguished colleague from
Hawaii knows well that Bermuda is actually a tiny group of islands, 21
square miles in land area. Its environmental situation is unique in
many respects--land is obviously scarce, fresh water resources are very
limited, and storage capacity for hazardous waste disposal doesn't
exist. It is also one of the most northerly coral reef areas, making
the marine environment surrounding the island extremely fragile as
well.
Mr. President, I call to the attention of my distinguished colleague
from Hawaii that it would appear that the formerly United States
occupied properties that have now reverted back to Bermudian
authorities could pose a number of problems for that Government--
problems that they are now seeking our help in ameliorating. These
problems include soil and ground water pollution and asbestos hazards
contained in now deserted U.S. military installations on the bases.
For example, most of the buildings on the bases will require
demolition, if this property is to be useable again. That means that
the hazardous asbestos must also be removed and appropriately stored.
In addition, industrial wastes and raw sewage that were disposed of in
Bassett's Cave over time will pose a threat to parts of the island's
water system unless they are removed. Underground and above-ground
petroleum storage tanks--many in poor condition--are leaking into
surrounding soils and ground water. Left behind landfills are also
causing environmental problems.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Connecticut
that I believe that President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and others
in this administration care deeply about environmental issues. Clearly
the United States cannot resolve every environmental problem that
exists in every part of the globe. However, under the circumstances,
given the special relationship between the United States and Bermuda,
it is particularly appropriate for the Secretary of Defense to study
this problem and report back to the relevant committees. I will look
forward to reading that report.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii for his
interest in this matter. I too look forward to being kept informed
about progress on this issue.

QDR IMPLEMENTATION

Mr. BENNETT. The Quadrennial Defense Review [QDR] outlined a
direction for the Air Force to consolidate force structure and reduce
manpower. Included in the QDR is a proposal to transfer one active duty
fighter wing to the reserve forces. General Fogleman recently informed
me that the Air Force was specifically exploring a number of options to
accomplish this directive.
Because of the changes that may occur as the Department of Defense
downsizes, I would expect the Air Force to alert Congress as important
decisions are made, and will outline the rationale behind their
conclusions. Is it the chairman's expectation that this will be the
case?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator raises a good point. I would expect the Air
Force to inform Congress of major decisions, such as the one to which
the Senator was referring. I would also expect the Air Force to be able
to outline sound reasons for their actions.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, as the Air Force determines where fighter
units will be located, these decisions will inevitably impact how our
test and training ranges are utilized. Consequently, I believe it would
also be reasonable for the Air Force to outline how changes in force
structure will impact the use of test and training ranges.
Mr. STEVENS. I believe this is a reasonable request, and I expect the
Air Force to outline impacts of test and training range utilization as
a result of changes in force structure to the Congress.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LEGACY PROGRAM

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Members of the Senate may have read in the
papers a few weeks ago about the discovery of a Revolutionary War
gunboat found in the waters of Lake Champlain, bordering my home State
of Vermont. There, perfectly preserved in the cold, fresh, dark water,
lying upright on the bottom, is a 54-foot gunboat, its mast still
standing and its bow cannon in place.
This gunboat is one of eight led by Benedict Arnold against the
British in the Battle of Valcour Island on October 11, 1776. Only four
vessels survived the battle, but the British were forced to delay their
invasion from Canada for an extra year, giving the Americans critical
time to prepare defenses.
Mr. President, this historic find led the former curator of naval
history at the Smithsonian's American History Museum, Mr. Philip
Lundeberg, to say, ``This could prove to be the most significant
maritime discovery in American history in the last half century.''
The exact location of the ship is a secret, and it will not be
touched until maritime archeologists, working with the Navy and local
authorities, develop a comprehensive management plan to preserve and
protect this amazing discovery. The ship may be left as an underwater
museum, or it may be feasible to raise and preserve it. We will not
know until the management plan is completed.
In the bill before the Senate today, the Appropriations Committee
funded a modest program called Legacy, which coordinates cultural
resource management efforts among the four military services. I ask my
friend from Alaska, will the Senator support my effort in conference
with the other body to designate a small amount of Legacy funding to
develop the management plan that will preserve and protect this
important historical find?

[[Page S7446]]

Mr. STEVENS. This discovery is one of the great military history
finds in memory, and I believe that we have an obligation to ensure
that this ship is properly preserved. This type of discovery is why the
committee created the Legacy Program in 1991, under the leadership of
the senior Senator from Hawaii. I strongly support the proposal of the
Senator from Vermont, and I am hopeful that his view will prevail in
conference.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator for his consideration.

Operation and Maintenance Account

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished
manager of this bill, Senator Stevens, in a colloquy concerning the
funding of the operation and maintenance account for the Department of
the Army.
For some time, I have been concerned about the deteriorating
conditions of the historic buildings at the Walter Reed Army Medical
Center Annex at Forest Glen, MD. In response to my amendment to the
National Defense Authorization Act last year, the Department of the
Army recently submitted a Comprehensive Plan for the Basic Repair and
Stabilization for the Historic District of the Forest Glen Annex. This
plan identified the need for $9.8 million in fiscal 1998 to take care
of the critical needs for stabilization of the historic buildings at
the Forest Glen Annex.
I want to inquire whether there is sufficient funding within the
Army's real property maintenance account to implement this plan.
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, the committee has provided additional funding in
the amount of $87.5 million to address the funding shortfall in the
Army's real property mainenance account. Recognizing that the Army has
prioritized its real property maintenance shortfalls, I am confident
that the Department will work with you to address your concerns
regarding the Annex.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support the recommendations of the defense
subcommittee for the Department of Defense Appropriations measure for
FY 1998. The $247.2 billion recommended for the programs under the
jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee is within the subcommittee's
allocation in both budget authority and outlays, and is $1.2 billion
below the amount authorized by the Senate for these programs in the
Authorization bill which was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate last
week. The recommendations have been unanimously supported by all
members of the Defense Subcommittee, an event which is noteworthy, and
is a reflection on the judgment, experience and abilities of the
distinguished leadership of the subcommittee, my friend, the Chairman,
the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and the senior Senator from
Hawaii, the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Inouye.
The bill is noteworthy for the consensus that underlies it, and the
Senate is fortunate to have these two senior Senators, with vast
experience in defense matters, at the helm of our post-war defense
spending. Central elements of American leadership in the post-cold-war
world are the readiness, capabilities and further development of our
military forces, present in all major regions of the world, exercising
leadership in Europe, the Middle East, and the Pacific. While the
agenda for American leadership will change, and is changing, we have
witnessed, several times in this century, the risk that abdicating such
a leadership role can entail. The need for such leadership is a jointly
held responsibility of the Administration and the Congress. It is clear
that America is not retrenching radically from its commitments and its
far-flung presence as a result of the end of the cold war, in some
historical variance with the practice of our nation in times of peace
in the past.
Mr. President, the quality of life and the need to attract excellent,
motivated people for the armed forces is a critical ingredient of our
long-term success in carrying out our commitments. I note that the
Subcommittee has produced recommendations with a top priority of fully
supporting our men and women in uniform, including funding for a 2.8
percent pay raise for military personnel.
Mr. President, this is a good bill, worthy of the strong support of
the Senate. It is the product of a truly bi-partisan process, and comes
with the unanimous support of the members of the Appropriations
Committee. I commend the leadership of that Committee, and the capable
staff of Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye in putting this bill
together.

allowability of esop costs

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished
Senator from Alaska in a brief colloquy, not just in his capacity as
floor manager of the fiscal year 1998 Defense appropriations bill, but
also as a leading proponent of the legislation that created employee
stock ownership plans [ESOP's].
Mr. President, the Defense Contract Audit Agency [DCAA] is
threatening the viability of ESOP defense contractors by applying
different determinations of ESOP costs than the Internal Revenue
Service and the Department of Labor. It is my understanding that
Congress intended that ESOP cost issues be governed by the tax and
pension laws and regulations administered by those offices, not DCAA.
If this matter is not resolved when the defense appropriations
conference committee meets, would the distinguished chairman be willing
to try to assist in resolving it at that point?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Pennsylvania for recalling that I was an original sponsor of the
legislation that encouraged companies to become employee-owned by
establishing ESOP's. I will certainly try to do what I can to help
solve the situation the Senator has described.

research and development

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for the purpose
of engaging my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee and the distinguished ranking minority
member, in a colloquy regarding support for evolving telemedicine
technologies, research and development on an advanced double hull ship
design and research and development of the helicopter vectored trust
ducted propeller.
Mr. President, we all recognize the need to continue efforts to
develop telemedicine services for our Armed Forces. I note in
particular, efforts by institutions in the Northeast to design a
telemedicine trauma/emergency medical services system to provide
necessary diagnostic and treatment interventions and improve medical
outcomes.
Advanced research and development for the Navy is vital to ensure
force readiness and capability for our Navy well into the future. The
Navy is currently facing a technical challenge in design and
manufacture of very large and complex structural systems that have
historically been made of traditional steel materials but are now
incorporating the use of more advanced materials like non-magnetic
steels. Currently, there is no comprehensive initiative in the Navy to
develop the most promising application of these new materials--a
nonmagnetic, stainless steel advanced double hull warship design. The
marriage of the advanced double hull concept with nonmagnetic steels
offers the potential to reduce acquisition costs and improve
survivability. I support a development program for the stainless steel
advanced double hull concept that combines numerical analysis
techniques with large-scale representative testing.
Mr. President, in another area of military research and development,
I point out the survivability and cost-effectiveness benefits from use
of vectored ducted propeller helicopter technology. Research and
development of this design will ensure that our Armed Forces are
prepared for the next century. I look forward to working with my two
colleagues during conference to address these programs.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Pennsylvania. These are three very important and valuable programs for
the readiness and capability of our Armed Forces. I have long been a
supporter of telemedicine initiatives and its application to military
objectives. In addition, I recognize the need to continue research and
development of advanced technology for hull and aircraft design. I
believe these programs deserve a thorough review and look forward to
working with the Senator from Pennsylvania in conference.

[[Page S7447]]

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I also thank the distinguished Senator
from Pennsylvania. Telemedicine, particularly those initiatives focused
on emergency and trauma care are essential for the highest quality
medical care for our troops. I too look forward to working with the
Senator from Pennsylvania in conference.

PERSIAN GULF WAR ILLNESSES AMENDMENT

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues, Senator
Stevens and Senator Inouye, for their work on this appropriations bill
and the bipartisan spirit in which it was crafted.
I wish to speak for a moment on the amendment I offered on Persian
Gulf war illnesses that was accepted by the chairman and ranking
member.
The amendment will provide $4.5 million for the Department of Defense
and the Veterans Administration to determine what treatments are
working for those who are afflicted with Persian Gulf war illnesses.
The reasonableness and necessity for action along these lines seem so
obvious that many of my colleagues probably find it difficult to
believe that such action has not already been taken. To allay their
doubts, let me quote directly from a GAO report released just last
month: ``There is an absence of efforts to measure Gulf War veterans
clinical progress. This leaves the government unable to promptly
determine the quality and effectiveness of treatments currently being
provided to Gulf War veterans.''
That's not an angry Senator making unsupported allegations. That's
the objective, nonpartisan view of the General Accounting Office.
Mr. President, at this point, it seems to me that we've left our
ailing troops on the battlefield. Here we are, 6 years after the end of
the Persian Gulf war and it takes an act of Congress to begin an
effective examination of which treatments are most effective in caring
for our veterans with Persian Gulf war illnesses.
While I am heartened by the fact that we're offering examinations to
those who served in the Persian Gulf War, I feel it's important to take
the next step to determine what happens after that initial examination.
Often I hear stories of families being forced to look outside the
government agencies to get the care and compensation their Persian Gulf
war veterans deserve.
So those are the reasons that I offered the amendments to the Defense
authorization bill and the Defense appropriations bill. Mr. President,
nearly 700,000 men and women served in our Armed Forces in the Persian
Gulf war. Five thousand of them were constituents of mine. Depending on
what reports you read, as many as 10 percent of those who served are
today ailing from some form or another of these Persian Gulf war
illnesses. That's far too many to be left out on the battlefield. One
ailing veteran forgotten by this country is too many. I expect to see
some progress now on finding and employing effective treatments for
those with Persian Gulf war illnesses.
Let me again express my gratitude to the Senator from Alaska and the
Senator from Hawaii for approving of this funding and accepting the
amendment. I'm sure they feel equally compelled by the issues raised
here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read
the third time.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rollcall vote will occur at 2:15.

____________________