Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GREGG. Parliamentary inquiry, are we in morning business?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak a little bit about the balanced budget amendment which is being brought forward on this floor in the near future. It is obviously one of the most significant items that this Congress will deal with. As we all know, in the last Congress it passed the House and unfortunately failed here in the Senate by one vote. So it is a matter of substantive policy which we must attend to, and which we as a Congress should pass. There are a lot of reasons for passing the balanced budget amendment. The most important, in my opinion, is that we put in place procedures in this Nation which will not allow one generation to take from another generation its opportunity for hope and for economic prosperity. Unfortunately, every time we go to the well and borrow money here, as a Congress, we are requiring our children to pay that debt. It truly is unfair for one generation, which has benefited so much from the greatness and energy and prosperity of our Nation, to be taking from another generation its ability to also benefit from that greatness, energy, and prosperity. But that is what we do, we run up the debt of the United States and pass it on to the next generation. In dealing with the balanced budget, there has been a lot of discussion as to how it should be structured, how this constitutional amendment for a balanced budget should be structured. One of the primary arguments that has been made, on the other side of the aisle especially, is that any balanced budget amendment must not include in its calculation the receipts that flow into the Social Security trust fund for the purposes of determining whether or not the Government is in balance. This is what is known as the Social Security argument. I think it is put forward for a variety of reasons, some of them substantive and, regrettably, some of them political. We all know whenever you raise the issue of Social Security you not only gather the attention of a number of Americans but, in many instances, if you raise it in certain ways you scare a lot of Americans because many Americans' lifestyles, their ability to exist financially and their capacity to make it from day to day, depend on their capacity to receive Social Security and the support of Social Security. It has been an extraordinarily successful program. But, in the context of the balanced budget amendment, the way it is being presented is, I think, a bit of an obfuscation of what is actually the situation. Because what is being represented, if you want to get down to the simplest statement of it, what is being represented is that today the Social Security funds are essentially being raided to operate the Federal Government. That is the basic argument that is being made on the other side. And the argument therefore follows that we should not do that, we should only use revenues that are available for the purposes of operating the Government in order to operate the Government. In other words, if we raise $1 of taxes to pay for defense or to pay for education or to pay for any variety of things that we do at the Federal level, that is where that dollar should go. But if we raise $1 for purposes of the Social Security trust fund through the withholding tax, if we raise that dollar, it should only be spent on Social Security. And to set up a balanced budget amendment which may in some way use those dollars to operate the general Government is unfair and inappropriate to seniors who deserve that money to support them. This argument makes sense just stated in that way. But it does not make any sense if you look at the substance of the way Social Security works. Today, in fact, it raises some very serious concerns about what the promoters of this argument really want to do with the Social Security trust fund. Because today the way the Social Security trust fund works is this. You pay $1 into the Social Security trust fund. That $1, as a working American--whether working on an assembly line in Detroit or whether you are working as a computer programmer in New Hampshire --you pay $1 into the Social Security trust fund and that dollar is immediately paid out to support somebody who is on Social Security today. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. Today, under the system as it is structured, more people are paying into the fund than are taking out of the fund in total dollars. If you discount interest payments as a technical thing, basically you are paying $29 billion more into the Social Security fund than is taken out of the Social Security fund, for the purposes of paying seniors their support under Social Security. So the senior citizen might say, or some from the other side of the aisle seem to be saying, ``Well, that $29 billion should be available to Social Security and only Social Security. Because, after all, it was raised with Social Security taxes.'' I am willing to accept that as an argument; as an argument. But how does it actually work? How does it actually work? Under the law, what do the Social Security trustees do with this extra $29 billion they will receive this year that they are not going to pay out in benefits? Do they invest it in the private sector or put it in a savings account designated to a senior's name? Do they in some other way hold that asset for the benefit of that senior citizen, for the benefit of a senior citizen or for the benefit of the wage earner who paid into the trust fund? No, they do not. They do not. Why don't they? Because, under the law, the Social Security trustees can only do one thing with that surplus, with that extra $29 billion they are taking in this year they are not spending for benefits. They can only lend that money to the Federal Government. They cannot lend it to anybody else. They can only lend it to the Federal Government under a special loan document that yields a special interest payment. So the money goes back to the Federal Government and is spent by the Federal Government as a loan. That means the $29 billion is not in some special savings account for a senior citizen or for the wage earner who paid it in. It is not in some special stock agreement, stock certificate. It is not invested in IBM or General Motors, or not invested in a mutual fund like the Fidelity fund. It can only be invested in the Federal Government. Of course, what is the Federal Government going to do with that $29 billion? Is it going to sit on it? Hold it under a mattress? Of course not. What the Federal Government does with that $29 billion is it operates the Government of the United States. If the $29 billion that is being lent to the Federal Government by the Social Security system were not available to the Federal Government, the Federal Government would have to go out, theoretically, and borrow it from somebody else, borrow it in the marketplace by issuing Treasury notes. So, what you have here, essentially, is a pay-as-you-go system. Everything that is paid in is paid out. But to the extent it is not paid out, to the extent there is a surplus, the money has to go to the Federal Government. What the other side is saying is the Federal Government should not be allowed to use that money for the purposes of accounting for its budget, as to whether or not it is balanced. As a practical effect, what does that mean? What does it really mean, what they are saying? It means one of two things. It means either: First, they want all that surplus invested in something other than Federal-issued debt, they must want it invested in the stock market or maybe they want to invest it in real estate, or maybe they want to invest it in futures funds or maybe they want to buy into the Albanian Ponzi scheme. But they do not want it invested in the Federal Government. That is the first thing it means. That is the first alternative. I have to say that is a very dangerous idea. Many people have considered that idea and it has been of significant concern. But to just arbitrarily say the Federal Government will not be able to borrow money from the Social Security fund and therefore somebody else is going to have to borrow the money, they are going to have to lend it to somebody else, is to say you are going to privatize--that is what they are suggesting--they are going to suggest privatizing the surplus of the Social Security fund. Not designated to any individual contributor or taxpayer, which I happen to think makes sense, but, rather, just simply you cannot invest Social Security funds in the Federal Government any longer, you have to invest in some other vehicle. That is, in practice, what they are proposing. They are not saying that because they are using the political cover of this hocus pocus about Social Security. But in practice, that's exactly what they are presenting as their concept. OK. If that isn't the alternative, if the alternative is you should have to invest in something other than the Government with the Social Security surplus, then the other alternative is--what they are saying-- we're looking at a bookkeeping event, because if the Federal Government is allowed to borrow the money from the Social Security trust fund, if the Federal Government is allowed to borrow the surplus from the Social Security trust fund, then what is the difference from today? There isn't any difference. Today, the Federal Government, for the purposes of operation, borrows the money from the Social Security trust fund, gives the Social Security trust fund a debt instrument and pays interest on it. What they are suggesting is either, one, that shouldn't occur under their proposal, which means they are calling for the privatization of the surplus, or, two, if it should occur, then there's no difference from today, they're just talking about a bookkeeping event. Instead of the Federal Government accounting for it one way, the Federal Government will account for its borrowing another way. But the fact of the matter is, the Federal Government is still borrowing the money, and there will be absolutely no difference. So this argument from the other side is highly specious. It cannot be defended on the basis of substance. It can be defended on the basis of politics, I admit to that. This is great politics: Let's trot out the old Social Security again. Let's scare the seniors. But on the basis of substance, it has no legs. All you have to do is look at the fact of the matter and recognize it has no legs, because I don't think these folks over there on the other side of the aisle who are suggesting this are suggesting we privatize the surplus, that we allow the surplus to be willy-nilly invested in the market. I happen to think there are some strong arguments--this is another whole issue--if we are taking that surplus and rather than taxing it, rather than raising it through taxes, allowing the wage earner to retain that surplus, give them a tax cut, basically, on their payroll tax and let them put that surplus, that percentage of their payroll tax that represents that surplus, which is about 1 percent, in their own savings account so they can save for themselves for retirement. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is whether the other side really believes they want to privatize the surplus, and if it is not their position they want to privatize the surplus, essentially what they are saying is they want a bookkeeping event to occur, because they are still going to let the Federal Government borrow the money under one scenario, under a balanced budget, and they borrow it under one set of books. Without the balanced budget, they would balance it under another set of books. But as a practical matter, the effect would be the same. The budget would be balanced. Is my time expired? I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Wednesday, January 22, 1997, at 3:00 p.m. in executive session, to consider the nomination of William S. Cohen to be Secretary of Defense.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 22, 1997, to conduct a hearing of the following nominee: Andrew M. Cuomo, of New York, to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Commerce, Science, and Transportation me authorized to meet in executive session for the purpose of adopting Committee Rules at 2:00 p.m., January 22, 1997 and at 2:30 p.m. to hold a confirmation hearing for Mr. William Daley, to be Secretary of the Department of Commerce.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 22, 1997, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 22, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. to hold a hearing on balanced budget amendment.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the time situation?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Chair advise me of the time situation.

Mr. GREGG. It would be my proposal then to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana and then speak myself 5 minutes to try to get the time more in line. I yield to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to speak, along with my colleagues, on the good counsel, good decision the President has made in choosing Madeleine Albright. I think it also is appropriate at this time to acknowledge the extraordinary effort and the extraordinary commitment of service that was made by Secretary Christopher during his term as Secretary of State. He was a patient and tireless pursuer of peace around the world. I may not have agreed with all his policies, but certainly in a number of areas his successes are considerable and I point specifically to the Mideast. Equally important, he was an individual totally committed to raising up the standard of living and of support for members of his team, his Foreign Service team and their families, something I am also committed to, that, as chairman of the appropriations committee which has jurisdiction over the State Department, I feel very strongly we must continue to pursue. So I congratulate him on his efforts. Ambassador Albright is someone I have had a chance to work with, relative to her time at the United Nations. I know she will bring to the office of Secretary of State a great deal of integrity and a great deal of energy. Of course she has a unique personal background that I think will be a tremendous asset to the President, as he and she develop international policy. But, as we address the issue of Madeleine Albright's nomination I think we need to go beyond the person. I intend to vote for her and vote with enthusiasm for her, but I do believe very strongly that we need to raise the issue of policy, as to how this administration is pursuing the decisions of foreign policy in a number of arenas because there are some problems and I have significant reservations, as I know many of my colleagues do. I know there has been some discussion on the issue of Bosnia, and the question as to how the administration acted and is going to continue to act there, the fact that basically neither the Congress nor the American people were told fully of the policies there, and in fact were really misled as to the decisions that were made there, as to the removal of American troops. But rather than focusing on that issue, that I know some of my colleagues were talking about, I want to focus on two other issues I think are critical and about which this administration's policies need to be reviewed with considerable intensity. The first issue is how we deal with the United Nations. It is my understanding the administration will be sending up a supplemental request or some other form of request for an appropriation to fully fund the arrearages that are due to the United Nations. I happen to be a supporter of the United Nations, its goals and purposes. But I also am realistic enough to know that body has not functioned very effectively and that body has spent a lot of money ineffectively and has had a significant track record of patronage, of misuse of funds, and in some instances of actual abusive use of funds. The question becomes how should we pay these arrearages? Should we just do it in a carte blanche manner or just do it in an orderly manner that allows the United States to assert financial interests of the integrity within the institution, of its management of day-to-day operation, and of its delivery of services? To date we have not had a great deal of success in that area. There has been a lot of talk about it. The United Nations has claimed that it is now funding a no-growth budget, something which is very suspect even though the State Department has certified it. It is very suspect because there are $154 million worth of reductions in spending which they claim they are going to make, but which have not been identified. Yet we see the State Department accepting them at face value, which is something I think this Congress should have a great deal of problems doing for any American agency. In addition, we hear the United Nations is aggressively pursuing reform within itself. But that reform does not seem to be broad. It also does not seem to be willing to be subject to significant review. An inspector general has been appointed, but that inspector general's portfolio has been significantly limited. We, as a Congress, have also been significantly circumscribed in our ability to determine how the dollars are being spent. Why is it important that we look at this? Well, because 25 cents of every dollar that the United Nations spends comes from the American taxpayer, and we have to go back to our constituents and say those dollars are being spent effectively. I personally have no problem funding the United Nations at a level that is reasonable, but I do have a great deal of problem funding some group of individuals simply sitting at a desk who got those jobs out of patronage or because they happened to know somebody or related to somebody and are not pursuing and accomplishing a great deal, either to the benefit of the United Nations or the world. Yet, there appears to be a significant amount of that going on. I had one U.N. spokesperson say to me, ``But we have 290 countries looking over our shoulders making sure every cent is spent appropriately.'' The fact is, just a few nations are actually paying for the spending. Most of the nations that participate in the United Nations either contribute very little or, in some cases, nothing to general coffers, and they are not looking over their shoulders to determine how the money is being spent effectively. In many instances, they are looking over the shoulders to see how much money they can get spent on them. So, really, it is the United States role in the exercise of reviewing the United Nations that we be much more aggressive in financial review and management of that institution. This is something I do not think this administration has pursued aggressively enough. Ambassador Albright, to her credit, tried to pursue it aggressively, but I think that once we take off the lever of the arrearages issue and simply sign a blank check for arrearages, we lose our capacity to effectively pursue United Nations reform in its own house, and that is something that I will be very resistant to doing. I believe Congress should put a strong fence around any funds for the United Nations, and before those moneys can be spent for arrearages, there must be a hard account--a hard account--of how the reforms have occurred and whether or not they are going to be effective. Second, this administration's actions in the area of terrorism, which is a core issue of foreign policy--in fact, there is no greater threat to this country today than the act of a terrorist, either orchestrated by a foreign power or orchestrated by an international group of individuals directed at our country--there is no greater threat to our country today. We came out of the cold war where the threat was two nations confronting each other with nuclear armament into a world where we have innumerable factions around the world who, for whatever reasons-- whether they are religious, whether they are personal, whether they are just economic--have decided to make the United States the target of their concerns and, in many instances, these are fanatics. We, as a nation, must be much more aggressive in addressing the issue of terrorism. To do this, we have to have a coordinated effort that starts with the President and involves the core agencies at the Federal level, including the State Department, the CIA, the Defense Department and the Justice Department, and especially the FBI in the Justice Department. I have been concerned and have spoken on this floor a number of instances about the fact that although we have leadership in those Departments who have raised the issue of terrorism to a high standard within their Departments, and although those leaders talk to each other--Secretary Christopher was aggressive in talking to other agency heads, the Defense Department, CIA, and Justice--we do not yet have in place a systematic process for pushing down through the agencies the cooperation which is necessary in order to have a coordinated effort. In fact, we still have in the field significant resistance from the State Department to FBI agents being placed overseas for the basic purpose of law enforcement, and we have a real lack of communication, in many instances, between the FBI, CIA, and the field people who do the work for the State Department. Until we put in place a systematic process of developing information and getting it back to a central group in this country who can use that information effectively, we will be continuing to blind ourselves as a nation as to the threat of terrorism and our ability to respond to it. This has to come from the top. It has to come from the President. The President has to have the leadership of the agencies sit with him on a regular basis and develop a plan which is then communicated down through the various levels of the different Departments. But it has not occurred yet. To be honest, I do not think there is a sense of urgency expressed yet within this administration to do that. So, once again, I have a strong concern and hope that they will take this issue on. So those are two public policy issues which I think this administration has yet to adequately address, and I hope the new Secretary of State, Ambassador Albright, will pursue them. They are put on the table by myself as a matter of a caveat item of concern that, as chairman of the committee which has jurisdiction over the State Department and the Justice Department, I intend to continue to push and to which I hope this administration will respond. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Wednesday, January 22, 1997, at 10:30 a.m. in open session, to consider the nomination of William S. Cohen to be Secretary of Defense.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for a period of 5 minutes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I want to speak briefly here to the second item on the agenda, which is education. Obviously, we all recognize the significance and importance of education. We also recognize, those of us who have been involved in the issue for a while, that the issue of education is, for the most part, settled at the local school level, at the local community level, especially as it involves elementary and secondary education, and that the Federal role is narrow and one which is focused on specific areas. It is not the Federal Government's obligation nor is it appropriate that the Federal Government step into the designing or the curriculum or the choosing of the proper activities for school systems. Rather, it is the Federal Government's role to pick areas where it can assist the local school districts and can assist parents in helping their children to get a better education. The proposal that has been put forward by the Republican Senate today, Republican Members of the Senate, as the second item on our list of 10, is a very strong proposal on behalf of the parents of America and the students of America. It is an effort to identify a number of areas where we think the Federal Government can assist parents in helping their children get a better education. We all recognize that education is the core activity that we must undertake if we are to have a competitive society. We especially recognize this in New England where we depend so much on brainpower because we have no great natural resources. Our natural resource is the intelligence of our citizenry, which is extraordinarily high and depends on a strong education system. In this area I want to highlight two activities that have been pointed to by our proposal. The first is that we understand that there is this huge baby-boom generation--of which Bill Clinton happens to be the most visible individual--which happens to also have children. And all those children of that baby-boom generation, people like Chelsea, people like my own children, are moving into the college-age years. There are a lot of parents who are very concerned about how they are going to pay for the high cost of higher education. This proposal gives parents an option. It gives them an opportunity, sets up the Bob Dole grants, which are the specific vehicle that allows parents to invest for their children's education, to save for their children's education, and be able to plan ahead so that they can use the vehicle of, basically, a designated savings account which will receive significant tax benefits to assist them in getting ready for their children's college education. In addition, it supports prepaid tuition plans that many of our States are now pursuing, where parents can actually choose a college or group of colleges within a State and pay the tuition early and thus avoid the cost of inflation and put themselves in a position where they can better afford the cost of education as their children get older and the costs go up. In addition, it expands the deduction for student loan interest, a very important element in having the ability to go to college or go to graduate school and to be able to get a loan and still be able to pay it back. This expansion of the deduction will have a positive impact in that area. It expands study awards and assists employers who are assisting their employees in higher education. It is a very significant effort to make higher education more affordable for the families of America. In addition, the bill has another major element which is absolutely critical, especially in New Hampshire. That is, it says that the Federal Government is financially going to step up to its obligation to special ed children. A long time ago we passed something called 94142, which was an excellent bill, the purpose of which was to make special education more readily available to children who needed it. The concept was that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the cost and the States would pay 60 percent of the costs. Today, unfortunately, the Federal Government is only paying about 6 percent of the costs that are borne in order to care for a child who has special requirements in education. As a result, this has put a huge burden on the local communities and the local school systems. States like New Hampshire, which rely heavily on real estate taxes to support their schools, or even States that rely on State government income taxes or sales taxes, find that a large percentage of the tax dollars they are raising for education are going to support what should have been the Federal obligation to help out with the special education child. As we all know, the special education child can, in instances, cost $100,000 or more as compared with a child going through the system in an average school system which may cost $4,000. So it can skew dramatically the ability to apply resources to benefit other children in the system because of the fact that the Federal Government has shirked its obligation to come forward with its 40 percent, as it said it would when it initially passed this bill a long time ago. So what we have proposed as Republicans is that the Federal Government will finally step forward and fund special education at near the 40-percent level. We are talking about a $10 billion increase in funding for special education, which increase will be met by ramping up, over a series of years, 7 years, and thus allowing the States and the communities to free up those education dollars which they are now using in order to support the Federal obligation to care for the special ed child, to educate the special ed child, to free up those dollars to use them to expand education activity for other children in the school system. If you want to look at it in its cleanest sense, it is actually going to be the largest block grants to local education the Federal Government has ever pursued. It should have occurred earlier, but it is going to occur now as a result of the commitment that has been made by the Republican majority here in the Senate. The sign that it is going to occur is the fact that we already made the downpayment. In the last session--and this did not get much attention unfortunately; it should have gotten a lot more attention; I do not know why it did not get a lot more attention; maybe it was because of a national election and people wanted jinglese on their positions-- but in the last budget process last September we, as Republican Members of the Senate, put $730 million more into special education than the present funding was. We increased it by that amount of money. It was a downpayment on this effort to try to fully fund the 40 percent that the Federal Government originally said it was going to fund. As a result, a State like New Hampshire will receive an increase of approximately $3 million. That is a lot of money to help out with the special education issues. So we are not talking in rosy scenarios here. We are not using words. We are not trying to create perceptions. We are talking in terms of deeds. We have already made the downpayment on this effort to expand our commitment to special education. And now with the putting forward of the Republican list of initiatives for this Congress, we are making it very clear that we are going to follow through on that commitment. This will be positive for the children across this country and for the educational systems across this country. I think Republicans can take great pride that we at least have been willing to step up to this very critical issue of first educating our children in college and relieving the pressure on parents who are trying to send their children to college; and, second, helping out with the special ed needs which the States have for so long borne but which the Federal Government has for so long said it would bear. Madam President, I yield back my time. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I wish to thank the Senator from Kentucky for allowing me to proceed even though he had prior permission. I also want to congratulate the Senator from Wyoming on his superb discussion of the balanced budget amendment. It was thoughtful, to the point, focused, and really highlighted the importance of that amendment, which happens to be the first item on the agenda for the Republican majority in the Senate. Of the 10 items listed by the majority leader today as being the priority items which the Senate shall pursue under the Republican agenda, No. 1 was the balanced budget amendment. The Senator from Wyoming has done a superb job of pointing out why it is absolutely essential that we pass that amendment.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. That is correct.

Mr. GREGG. No, it is certainly within the discretion of the courts whether they see a need for a special master and wish to assume the responsibility for such payments.

Mr. GREGG. No, we did not intend to override any portion of the PLRA or impose such costs on anybody else.

Mr. GREGG. Yes, it is my understanding that the interpretation of my colleague from Michigan of the PLRA is consistent with the omnibus appropriation bill.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Florida that I am well aware of the devastation experienced in Homestead and South Dade and the work he has done to revitalize the community. The need for further economic development assistance in the area is abundantly clear. I would, therefore, be happy to work with the Senator in brining the city of Homestead's proposal to the attention of EDA and doing what I can to see that the proposal for funding receives fair consideration.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague and chairman on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee about the conference report's treatment of Defense's federally funded research and development centers, or FFRDC's. These institutions are unique in their capabilities to provide the Defense Department (DOD) with specialized scientific, engineering, and analytical knowledge important to national security. I am very proud that New England is the home of two of the premiere defense FFRDC's: the Lincoln Laboratory operated by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Mitre Corporation. Lincoln Lab is sponsored by the Air Force, and Mitre is sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. I want to discuss an issue affecting the Lincoln Laboratory. Lincoln Laboratory has been a leader in the fields of ballistic missile defense, communications, space and surface surveillance, and advanced electronics. For the benefit of our colleagues, and as guidance to the Defense Department, would the chairman be willing to elaborate on the conferees, action regarding defense FFRDC's?

Mr. GREGG. As the chairman knows, the use of a statutory dollar limitation during fiscal year 1996 inadvertently perturbed the funds made available to Lincoln Laboratory to acquire industry support for major development or demonstration activities. Would the chairman comment on this situation?

Mr. GREGG. Does the distinguished chairman believe that the conference agreement now before us eliminates this dilemma for Lincoln Laboratory for fiscal year 1997?

Mr. GREGG. I thank the chairman for this clarification. undergraduate flight officer training T-39N AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT