Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I will be glad to do that, Mr. President. This amendment is a very simple, straightforward amendment. I really do not understand how anyone can object to it. It simply puts in law a requirement that the States receiving these block grants under the family assistance block grant program that is being established in this legislation--that they develop a plan, a plan for how they are to spend that money. The plan is very general in the requirements for what would be in the plan, but we basically say the same planning requirement that Senator Dole had proposed for the work force training block grants, that same kind of planning should occur in the case of the family assistance programs. Once a State has its program in place, this amendment, in my view, would help both Federal and State taxpayers and officials evaluate the success of the State programs through State- established goals and benchmarks. I do not really understand any credible argument against it. The proposal here is very consistent with the provisions specified in the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, which I know Senator Roth had a great involvement in, to establish performance-based program management in the Federal Government. This continues to leave the decisionmaking, the substantive decisionmaking, to the States. But under the bill as it presently sits before us, there is virtually no planning required or encouraged or ensured. States need not do any long-range or strategic planning, nor do they need to establish any goals or benchmarks. There is no accountability to State or Federal taxpayers as to those goals actually being achieved. We are talking, in this legislation, about block grants that add up to something over $16.8 billion in Federal money each year. In my view, it is not unreasonable for us, as stewards of that Federal money, to at least ask for a written document that explains how it is to be spent. So that is the essence of the amendment. I ask the manager of the bill if he has had a chance to review the modification and if he sees a problem with it? If not, I ask unanimous consent, again, I be allowed to modify the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the remainder of my time as well.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a modification of the amendment to the desk.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I had amendment No. 2483, which I thought might have been cleared by now. I will be prepared to offer that if it has been cleared.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Amendment No. 2483. I believe that is going to be acceptable. If it is, I am ready to offer it at any time.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I ask the majority leader, does the unanimous consent agreement contemplate some time tomorrow for some few minutes to discuss each amendment before the votes occur?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to speak on behalf of the Daschle amendment. I do think it is very important that we try, as we are going through this legislation, to assist Indian tribes in pueblos around the country in helping their own people. We talk a lot about empowerment. Here is a chance for us to do just that. At the same time that we are talking about empowering people, we are in fact cutting funds for Indian education, cutting funds for tribal justice programs, for housing operations, for tribal law enforcement, tribal social services, and a number of other vital programs. We should not shortchange the Indian children of this country and their families in this bill. The Daschle amendment helps to ensure that we do not do that. I very much urge my colleagues to support the Daschle amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, to meet the requirements of the agreement that has been worked out by the managers of the bill and the majority and minority leaders, I send three amendments to the desk and ask that it be in order for me to submit them for consideration at this time en bloc.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the amendments be dispensed with. And as I understand the agreement at this time, it is appropriate to ask consent that the amendments be set aside for consideration later.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am going to vote against this bill as I did in the Armed Services Committee. We have had a good debate on the Senate floor on the bill and I went into this debate hopeful that we would fix many of the problems I saw in the bill as reported. We have fixed some of those problems. For example, the Department of Energy provisions have been almost completely rewritten and all the provisions I objected to during committee deliberations have been corrected, with the exception of the hydronuclear testing provision which Senators Exon and Hatfield sought to eliminate. Elsewhere, unfortunately, the improvements have been modest. The Missile Defense Act of 1995 has not been changed enough for me to be able to support it. I commend Senator Nunn and Senator Levin for their efforts to defuse the worst features of the reported bill's missile defense provisions. I voted for their language as a substitute for the reported bill. But I believe that these provisions will still contribute to the unraveling of critical arms control agreements that would enhance our security far more than accelerating the development and deployment of a limited national missile defense system. Our current policy on missile defense, the Missile Defense Act of 1991 as amended, makes it a goal of the United States to comply with the ABM Treaty while developing, and maintaining the option to deploy, a limited national missile defense. That is as far as we should go. We simply do not need to be making a several-hundred-million-dollar downpayment this year for a multitens of billion dollar national missile defense system. The bill has many other provisions which I oppose. Section 1082 prohibits retirement of strategic weapons delivery systems that the nuclear posture review says we don't need. We cannot afford to keep every nuclear weapon delivery system, even those the Pentagon says we don't need, as bargaining chips for future arms control negotiations. We should not be sending the signal that we expect the START II and START I treaties to unravel and therefore intend to maintain the maximum nuclear capability possible within the START counting rules. If we end up with the nuclear posture review force structure, we will be quite adequately defended and will hardly have to sue for surrender if the cold war is revived. Mr. President, I fundamentally disagree with the need to add $7.1 billion to the President's defense request. The weapons research and production funded with that money are only going to make our out-year defense budget problems worse. The committee has admitted that it has designed a defense bill that will require many billions of dollars in additional defense spending in future years beyond the budget resolution levels. Since I didn't support the first $33 billion added by the budget resolution, I can't support a bill that assumes even more spending in future years. I regret that the Kohl-Grassley effort to enforce budget discipline failed. I regret that my efforts to cut spending for unneeded antiarmor munitions and for an amphibious assault ship we don't need to buy before 2001, if then, were defeated in votes on the companion Defense appropriations bill. These are the tip of the iceberg of unneeded Member-interest spending in this bill and the companion appropriations bill. Mr. President, this bill is better than the House bill in most respects. The House bill has terrible provisions on discharging members who are HIV positive and on denying female service members and female dependents of service members the right to get an abortion in overseas military medical facilities with their own money. The House bill funds additional B-2 bombers with their multitens of billions of dollars out- year funding requirement. The House bill has a fundamentally misguided provision that attempts to lock in the Bottom-Up Review force structure of 1.445 million active duty service members in permanent law. The House bill's combination of force structure and weapons systems provisions would require rapid real growth in defense spending in future years, even more rapid than the Senate bill's. This is simply not in the cards. Mr. President, we go to conference with two bad bills, each deserving a veto in my view. It's possible that we will strip the worst of both bills in conference and end up with a product acceptable to the President. But far more likely is a result that the President would have to veto. This is the first time in my 13 years in the Senate that I have voted against a Defense authorization bill. I do not do it lightly. I regret that I feel compelled to do this. I urge my colleagues who believe this bill spends too much money on unneeded and wasteful defense projects or who oppose its cold war revival provisions to join me in voting against this bill. stratcom

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this afternoon at 5 o'clock, the Senate will vote on final passage of the Defense appropriations bill, which will then go to conference. One of the provisions contained in that bill, which was added by amendment, I think is worthy of note and has not received significant attention, either by Members of the Senate or by the public at large. So I wanted to call it to the attention of both of my colleagues and of the public and indicate my strong support for it. It is an amendment that Senator Akaka offered, amendment No. 2406 on behalf of himself and Senator Pell. The amendment was adopted by voice vote and puts the Senate clearly on record with regard to nuclear testing contemplated by the Republic of France. Let me just read the amendment as it was adopted by the Senate before we went out of session earlier in August. It says: Sense of the Senate regarding underground nuclear testing. Findings. The Senate makes the following findings: (1) The President of France stated on June 13, 1995, that the Republic of France plans to conduct eight nuclear test explosions over the next several months. (2) The People's Republic of China continues to conduct underground nuclear weapons tests. [[Page S 12532]] (3) The United States, France, Russia, and Great Britain have observed a moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992. (4) A resumption of testing by the Republic of France could result in the disintegration of the current testing moratorium in the renewal of underground testing by other nuclear weapon states. (5) A resumption of nuclear testing by the Republic of France raises serious environmental and health concerns. (6) The United Nations Conference on Disarmament presently is meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, for the purpose of negotiating a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which would halt permanently the practice of conducting nuclear test explosions. (7) Continued underground weapons testing by the Republic of France and the People's Republic of China undermines the efforts of the international community to conclude a CTBT by 1996, a goal endorsed by 175 nations at the recently completed NPT Extension and Review Conference (the conference for the extension and review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty). Therefore, ``It is the sense of the Senate that the Republic of France and the People's Republic of China should abide by the current international moratorium on nuclear test explosions and refrain from conducting underground nuclear tests in advance of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.'' That is the end of the resolution adopted here in the Senate before we went out on recess, Mr. President. As I am sure my colleagues know, the People's Republic of China has gone ahead during this last month and conducted one additional underground test in contravention of the sentiments expressed in this resolution. The Republic of France is now contemplating and intending, as I understand it, to proceed with eight additional nuclear test explosions over the next several months. I believe it is very important that the Senate is on record as being opposed to these nuclear explosions. And I felt it was important to call to the attention of Members of the Senate and the public that this was unanimously agreed to by the Senate as part of this Defense appropriations bill, which will be finally voted by the Senate at 5 this afternoon. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Feingold, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Lott. It is a very simple amendment. The amendment sets a new target for the total cost of renovation of the Pentagon over a multiyear period. The target that we set in here is $1.118 billion. That is $100 million less than the level previously set. Mr. President, in 1990, Congress took the Pentagon out of the hands of the General Services Administration and put it in the hands of the Department of Defense. The reason was that the GSA was doing nothing to renovate the building, which was in disrepair, and was getting paid a lot more than maintenance costs. The 1990 law set the course for Pentagon renovation. Such renovation is desperately needed. There is no question about that. The building is over 50 years old. Its utilities are totally outmoded. Power outages are routine. Rats roam the basement. There is no question that we need to move ahead, and we are moving ahead. In recent years, the Appropriations Committee has required the Secretary of Defense to certify that the total cost of Pentagon renovation will not exceed $1.218 billion. Secretary Perry sent the last such certification to Senator Byrd on December 19, 1994. In March of this year, Secretary Perry appointed a steering committee chaired by Dr. Kaminski to review plans for the Pentagon renovation and to make recommendations on options available for cost reductions, transition of personnel, and ultimate tenancy of the building. It is my understanding that Deputy Secretary White has now taken over that committee. The March Pentagon news release says that-- This review will include a reexamination 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 lifestyle of our men and women in uniform. It is also prudent at this stage in the project to take a new look to insure that costs are being contained and that we won't end up with more money being spent than initially estimated. Mr. President, my cosponsors and I agree with that statement from the Pentagon. We are spending $161 million this year for Pentagon renovation. The Secretary is right that it is time to assess where we are. There is evidence that we can get a better price than the $1.218 billion previously estimated for the renovation. On page 33 of the annual status report on Pentagon renovation submitted March 1, 1995, it is noted that-- Favorable bids on the Basement Phase I renovation were received on August 10 of 1994. The contract was awarded August 30, 1994 to Hyman Construction Company for $48,043,871. The original bid was about 36 percent below the Government estimate. The amendment we are offering today gives the Pentagon steering committee a target to aim for in their cost reduction efforts, and I for one hope they can do even better than this target. When we are asking Americans in all walks of life to tighten their belts, the Pentagon can do its fair share at the renovation of its headquarters. That is what this amendment attempts to achieve. Mr. President, as I understand the situation, the majority has agreed to this amendment, and on the Democratic side Senator Glenn has indicated opposition and a desire to speak to the amendment. Until he comes and has that opportunity, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending [[Page S 12529]] amendment 2125 be temporarily laid aside so that I can offer an amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up for consideration amendment No. 2157.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside so that I can offer an amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering on behalf of myself and Senator Domenici is a modification of the amendment that we originally filed, amendment No. 2159. We have made several modifications in the original amendment to accommodate the desires of the managers on both sides to speed the day that assistance payments to Los Alamos County and its school board can be brought to a mutually agreeable conclusion. Mr. President, the amendment would extend assistance payments under the Atomic Energy Community Act to Los Alamos County and the Los Alamos School Board for 1 year, until June 30, 1997. It would require a report from the Department of Energy by June 30, 1996 on how and whether a plan could be drawn up to end these payments at that time. The original amendment would have had a 2-year extension. The pending amendment would also require the utilities and municipal installations now run by Department of Energy be transferred to the county by June 30, 1998, instead of June 30, 2001, as in the original amendment. Mr. President, the two Los Alamos governmental entities are the last remaining recipients of payments under the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1954. That law originally encompassed the Hanford area and the Oak Ridge area in Tennessee as well. When those communities ceased to receive payments under the act, substantial settlements were reached with the communities to put them on a firm financial footing. Senator Jackson and Senator Magnuson won approval of an amendment of a settlement for the Hanford communities in the late 1970's. Senator Howard Baker, then the majority leader, spearheaded the Oak Ridge settlement in the early 1980's during the Reagan defense buildup when defense funds were plentiful. Mr. President, unfortunately, the Los Alamos community and DOE did not reach agreement at that time on a transition plan. The Department of Energy told Congress in a 1986 report that the existing arrangement should be continued. So Senator Domenici and I in 1986 offered an amendment extending the payment for 10 years to June 30, 1996. Mr. President, we do not have the option today of making a substantial one-time payment to the Los Alamos entities. The Department of Energy has been discussing possible land transfers and other arrangements with the county. These arrangements will involve other Federal agencies and other local entities, and will require time and will probably require that legislation be enacted. The Department of Energy also must negotiate a new contract with the University of California to run the laboratory in 1996, and there is a possibility that the Department of Energy will decide to compete that contract. The details of that contract could also affect the county and the school board significantly. For those reasons, Senator Domenici and I are proposing to give these processes time to work and have the Congress revisit this issue late next year, or more likely in 1997, with specific Department of Energy proposals in hand. The provision that we are offering has been worked out between the Department of Energy and the community leaders and has the support of both as an interim step toward a comprehensive solution within the next 2 years. Mr. President, I understand this is acceptable to both the majority and the Democratic sides, and I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do withhold the quorum call request.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.