Samuel Nunn

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be permitted to proceed in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on August 13, Geary Thomas Burton tragically and unexpectedly died while undergoing surgery to correct a knee injury he sustained during a recent church-related softball game. He was only 45 years old at the time of his death. Geary was known to all of us on the Armed Services Committee and to many here in the Senate because he was a very important member of the staff of the Armed Services Committee from 1989 to 1991. Today, I want to take this opportunity to recall Geary's many professional accomplishments and describe for my colleagues the life of this remarkable individual who served the Senate Armed Services Committee with great distinction for more than 3\1/2\ years. Geary Burton was born on June 30, 1951, in Pittsburgh, PA. We are privileged to have his mother, Lura Burton, sitting in the Senate Gallery today, along with Geary's sister Nancy and her daughers Claudia and Claudette. It was through Mrs. Burton's love, hard work, and devotion in raising Geary and his sister, Nancy, that he developed such strong character and learned the value and importance of a good education. In 1973, Geary earned a bachelor of arts degree at Thiel College in Greenville, PA, where he majored in political science. He continued his education and earned a law degree from Duquesne Law School in 1976. With great energy and dedication, Geary used his education and skills as an attorney in the service of our country. In August 1973, he received a commission as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps. He served as a criminal trial lawyer on active duty with the Judge Advocate General Corps from 1977 to 1981. Even after his release from active duty in March 1981, Geary continued to serve as an officer in the Marine Corps Reserve. In November 1982, he was promoted to the rank of major. We all know the Marines set very high standards--and Geary fully met these standards. Geary's accomplishments as one of ``The Few and the Proud'' are notable. I recall in many conversations with Geary he was extremely proud of his service with this elite military organization. In March 1981, Geary accepted a position with the Office of General Counsel at the General Accounting Office, where he served as legal counsel to the evaluator staff charged with auditing the Department of Defense, a very major responsibility. Geary consistently demonstrated a high degree of proficiency in performing his duties and moved quickly up the civil service ranks. In less than 7 years, he earned three promotions and obtained a GS-15 ranking at the age of 36--which is a remarkable achievement. Geary joined the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee as a detailee from the General Accounting Office in April 1989 to work on the complex issues of defense acquisition reform. I remember requestiang from the GAO one of their best people. We did not know Geary at the time but we really needed help. They certainly lived up to that request because they sent us a very talented young man. He quickly earned the respect and admiration of his fellow staff members as well as Senators on both sides of the aisle with whom he was in regular contact. Geary's tenure with the Armed Services Committee lasted until December 1992. During that period, he served as counsel to the committee for defense procurement and small business issues. We tried to keep Geary but finally the GAO demanded he come home because they needed him very bad. Geary successfully conducted research, drafted legislation, and developed congressional and public support for many key legislative initiatives. He performed a vital role in helping the Armed Services Committee make numerous changes to defense acquisition policy that were required in the face of the post-cold-war defense build-down. Geary worked hard to enhance the role of small and disadvantaged businesses, historically black colleges and universities, and other minority educational institutions in defense acquisition practices. Geary's key participation in the establishment of the Pilot Mentor-Protege Program was a direct reflection of the innovation and creativity that he brought to the committee in drafting acquisition legislation. In addition, Geary provided outstanding staff work in the oversight of programs designed to foster greater government-industry cooperation and to increase the use of commercial products and processes in Government procurement which has saved and will continue to save on an increasing basis literally millions and billions of the tax dollars for the American people. This of course has been a top priority of Secretary of Defense Bill Perry. While Geary's dedication and professional competence contributed to a highly successful career, Geary was totally devoted to his family and the community in which he lived. He was an active member of St. John the Evangelist Baptist Church in Columbia, MD. In his extended community of Howard County, MD, Geary served as a member of the board for the African-American Coalition and helped establish the Black Student Achievement Program. There is a saying that ``Those who possess the torch of wisdom should allow others to come and light their candles by that torch.'' Geary Burton followed this principle in both his professional and personal life to the great benefit of both the Senate Armed Services Committee and his local community. His service to our committee, to the Senate, and to the Nation was superb. Geary will be missed most of all by his devoted family but he will also be missed by all of us who worked with him. He was simply a superb individual in every sense of the word. In closing, Mr. President, I want to say to Geary's family--his wife, LaVarne; his two daughters, Ruth Giovanni and Beth Angela; his stepson Kevin Taylor; his mother Lura Burton; his sister, Nancy Bellony, and her daughters Claudia and Claudette--that my thoughts and prayers, and those of all of the members and staff of the Armed Services Committee with whom Geary served, are with you in these difficult days. Geary was a respected colleague and trusted friend. We will always be grateful for his service to the Senate and to his Nation. We will always recall with great fondness and with wonderful, wonderful memories his warm personality and the energy and enthusiasm with which he approached his work and his life. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the National Security Studies Program at Georgetown University. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr. Stephen Gibert, the founder and current director of the National Security Studies Program, for his vision in establishing and running this highly successful program. In addition, I want to add my best wishes to the faculty, the administration, the program's graduates, and the current students as they celebrate this important milestone in the program's history. The National Security Studies Program was started to provide military officers and civilian officials concerned with defense issues a high- quality graduate education with a concentration in national security studies. It represented an innovative and needed approach at that time. In the ensuing 20 years, the National Security Studies Program has kept pace with the changes that have occurred in the international security environment. As we move further along in the post-cold war era and encounter new types of threats to our Nation's security, it is encouraging to see that this program is sponsoring lectures on such timely issues as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, information warfare, terrorism, and computer security. The focus on new security threats complements a strong selection of courses offered by the National Security Studies Program in the categories of area studies, economics, and national security, as well as functional issues. I have kept up with this program since its inception as a number of my staff have been students. In fact, my Armed Services Committee staff director, Arnold Punaro, is not only a graduate of the program but is also a member of its adjunct faculty. I want to extend my best wishes for continued success to the National Security Studies Program at Georgetown University as it prepares a future generation of America's national security leaders to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I share the sentiments of the Senator from South Carolina. This is a good bill for the men and women who serve in our military. This bill is an increase over the President's budget, but it is a decrease in real terms from last year's budget. So the decline in defense spending continues downward, but it is an incremental step upward from the President's budget. The President said he will sign this. Virtually every provision in the House bill that the administration objected to has been either taken out of this conference report or has been handled in a way satisfactory to the administration. That would include the arms control provisions relating to the ABM Treaty and missile defense. It would also include those members of the military service who have HIV who, under the House bill, would have been automatically expelled from the service. That provision has been dropped. So I urge those on this side of the aisle to vote for this bill as a strong step forward for our Nation's security.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, after a truly heroic effort by both members and staff, before the recess we completed action on a conference agreement on the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill. I hope this agreement will be voted on by the Senate soon. I wanted to take a few moments to highlight one provision in that bill which relates specifically to a recent tragic incident that has hit all of us in our hearts and homes. The incident to which I refer is the terrorist pipe bomb that went off in Centennial Park--the heart of the Olympic celebration in Atlanta--in July, which killed 1, caused the death of another, and injured over 100 people. But, Mr. President, at this point in history, we have to ask ourselves, ``What if?'' What if this hadn't been a crude pipe bomb? What if the individual who planted this terrorist device had used information readily available on the Internet and materials readily and legally available to concoct a chemical weapon? Or, worse, suppose he had concocted a biological weapon? The answer seems too terrible to consider, but consider it we must. And that is precisely why Senator Lugar, Senator Domenici, and I cosponsored the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, an amendment--adopted by a unanimous vote in the Senate--to the Defense authorization bill that addresses this very threat. I am pleased to say that our colleagues in the House of Representatives also accepted this amendment in the conference report virtually as it passed the Senate. Mr. President, the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Program, now title XIV of the Defense authorization bill, provides $201 million--$144 million to the Department of Defense and $57 million to the Department of Energy--to address the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. DOD is being given $65 million to conduct a program to train, equip, and assist local first responders in dealing with incidents involving nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and related materials; $10.5 million of this funding is specifically earmarked for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Health and Human Services in forming emergency medical response teams capable of dealing with these materials. DOD is also being given $30 million both to provide equipment and assistance to the United States Customs Service and to help train customs services in the former Soviet Union, the Baltic States, and Eastern Europe in an effort to improve our ability to detect and interdict these materials before they reach the hands of terrorists in the United States. An additional $27 million is provided to DOD and DOE for research and development of improved detection technologies, which are badly needed. Finally, DOD and DOE are provided additional funding to address the threat of proliferation at its source. In addition to being fully funded at the administration's request of $327.9 million, DOD's Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is being provided $37 million for projects designed to destroy, dismantle, and improve controls over the former Soviet Union's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. DOE is being provided $40 million for its programs in this area. The provision also calls for the creation of a senior level coordinator to improve the Federal Government's efforts in dealing with the threat of proliferation and to coordinate Federal, State, and local plans and training. Some $2 million is provided for the coordinator to use in focusing research efforts on improved planning, coordination, and training efforts. Mr. President, the threat of attack on American cities and towns by terrorists, malcontents, or representatives of hostile powers using radiological, chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons is one of the most serious national security threats we face today. This threat is very different than the threat of nuclear annihilation with which our Nation and the world dealt during the cold war. During the cold war both we and the Soviet Union recognized that either side could destroy the other within an hour, but only at the price of its own destruction. I have heard too many experts, whose opinions and credentials I respect, tell me that it is not a question of if but only of when terrorists will use chemical or biological--or even nuclear--weapons in the United States. In July, the Commission on America's National Interests, cochaired by Andrew Goodpaster, Robert Ellsworth, and Rita Hauser, released a study that concluded that the No. 1 vital U.S. national interest today is to prevent, deter, and reduce the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons attacks on the United States. The report also identified preventing the loss of control of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons-usable materials, and the containment of biological and chemical weapons proliferation as one of five cardinal challenges for the next U.S. President. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee held a series of hearings over the last year on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, at which representatives of the intelligence and law enforcement communities, the Defense Department, private industry, State and local governments, academia, and foreign officials described a threat that we cannot ignore, but for which we are virtually totally unprepared. CIA Director John Deutch, for one, candidly observed ``We've been lucky so far.'' And, in fact, we have already received at least three loud warning bells. First was the release of deadly sarin gas in the Tokyo subway system. Second was the truck bomb which went off in the garage of the World Trade Center in New York City--a bomb that the trial judge believed the killers intended to be a chemical weapon which, had it deployed as intended, would have killed thousands. Third was the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The pipe bomb in July in Atlanta serves as yet another warning that we must improve our preparedness for terrorist attacks in this country. Mr. President, this legislation will significantly improve our ability to deal with this threat--an ability which today is clearly not up to the challenge. We have heard testimony in recent months at hearings held by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that speaks clearly to the remarkable lack of domestic preparedness for an incident involving nuclear, radiological, chemical, or biological materials. Fire chiefs said that they cannot plan on Federal emergency assistance to help in an emergency of this nature as it is simply too long in coming. Local emergency first-responders--policemen, firemen, medical technicians--grimly said over and over again that they were incapable of dealing with a chemical or, especially, biological weapon or incident. By providing funding and a mandate for DOD and DOE to share their experience, expertise, and equipment dealing with nuclear, radiological, chemical, and biological weapons and materials, we can address critical shortfalls in our domestic preparedness that have been specifically and repeatedly noted in congressional testimony and documentation. Several modest exercises have been held to test how Federal, State, and local emergency responders would deal with a nuclear, radiological, chemical, or biological attack. In one large exercise, the first 100 or so emergency response personnel--police, firemen, medical personnel--arriving at the scene of a mock chemical weapon disaster rushed headlong into the emergency scene, and were promptly declared ``dead'' by the referees. In a second exercise featuring both chemical and biological weapons, contaminated casualties brought to the nearest hospital were handled so carelessly by hospital personnel that, within hours, most of the hospital staff were judged to have been killed or incapacitated by spreading contamination. In addition, a report recently forwarded by the Secretaries of Defense and Energy to Congress on our preparedness for a nuclear, radiological, chemical, or biological terrorist attack noted that, ``response personnel are relatively few in number and pieces of equipment necessary to provide adequate support to an NBC event are in some cases one of a kind.'' I still remain fully convinced that the best way to prevent the use of these terrible weapons and materials on American soil is by stopping them before they get here. For this reason, this legislation provides additional resources and impetus for enhancing our ability here at home to detect and interdict nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and related materials before they get into the hands of terrorists or malcontents. An extensive study by Arnaud de Borchgrave, Judge William Webster, former Director of the FBI and CIA, Congressman Bill McCollum, and others, published earlier this year by the respected Center for Strategic & International Studies [CSIS], concluded that ``there are few opportunities for detecting, interdicting, and neutralizing these materials once they are beyond the source site. * * * Attention and resources must be directed toward post-theft measures as well.'' Mr. President, the single best way to deal with this threat is by preventing proliferation at its source, as far away from the United States as possible. That is why this legislation also bolsters the original concept introduced by Senator Lugar and myself in 1991, which aims at helping the states of the former Soviet Union to improve their safeguards and controls over existing stockpiles of deadly materials. The CSIS de Borchgrave-Webster study also found that: The most serious national security threat facing the United States, its allies, and its interests is the theft of nuclear weapons or weapons-usable materials from the former Soviet Union. The consequences of such a theft-- measured in terms of politics, economics, diplomacy, military response, and public health and safety--would be catastrophic. de Borchgrave himself stated at a press conference that: ``We have concluded that we're faced now with as big a threat as any we faced during the cold war, when the balance of terror kept the peace for almost half a century.'' Finally, Mr. President, this legislation attempts to improve the overall coordination of how we deal with the broad threat to our Nation posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. There are currently dozens of government agencies that deal with the various aspects of this threat, with overlapping authorities and programs, but with serious gaps. Testimony provided in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed that coordination between Federal agencies is seriously lacking, and that there is virtually no effective coordination or communication between the Federal Government and State and local agencies and organizations. This appears to be changing, at least in the case of the Olympic games in Atlanta. I visited Atlanta during the Olympics and received a briefing by a group of representatives from various Federal agencies that were working together to provide security for the Olympic games. I strongly commend their joint efforts, but, this must become the pattern all over the country. We must build from this experience, improve in areas where we have weaknesses, and make this kind of interagency cooperative effort the norm. Mr. President, I believe this legislation, while only a beginning, responds to a very urgent national security concern of our Nation. I commend all of the Defense authorization conferees for their swift actions in approving the inclusion of the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act in the conference agreement, and I look forward to the President signing this legislation into law.

Mr. NUNN. I also agree with the statement of the Senator from New Hampshire. Submarine Language

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from South Carolina's interpretation. The mention of ``some or all of such funds'' does indeed refer to research and development funds, not to procurement funds. The intent of the conference is that the prohibition is on the obligation of procurement funds until some or all of the research and development funds are obligated for a reactive jammer program.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for bringing up this issue. It is true that the committee proposed to merge the Air Force's and the Navy's requirements into one electronic warfare aircraft program that could be pursued aggressively, but the Department of Defense responded that it needed two separate robustly funded jamming aircraft programs. Now it has one program that limps along without the benefit of any real capability upgrades.

Mr. NUNN. Yes.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I join Senator Thurmond in urging our colleagues to adopt this conference report on H.R. 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. I also join him in commending the staff. Les Brownlee, George Lauffer, and Jon Etherton on the majority side have led a very capable majority staff. Arnold Punaro, David Lyles, and Andy Effron, now Judge Effron, did the same on our side. They have worked together in a splendid fashion. This truly is a bipartisan bill. As Senator Thurmond has said, President Clinton has indicated he plans to sign this bill, and that is a reflection that the bill is solid for national security. This also reflects the kind of leadership we saw this year under Senator Thurmond. He made sure this was a bill that did reflect not only his strong concern and continued commitment for a national security, but also a bill that could be signed into law. I commend him on his leadership, and I thank Senator Thurmond for his very thoughtful and kind remarks about my career in the Senate, particularly my involvement in the national security arena. I also would like to join Senator Thurmond in being one of those who can testify in the first person about the tremendous role that Senator Exon and Senator Cohen have played as members of this committee. Senator Cohen and I have joined in numerous national security matters over the years, including the creation of a special forces command, the builddown proposal, and moving away from MIRV'd warheads. I can think of numerous proposals that he and I jointly championed. He has been a stalwart of national security. He has made an outstanding record, not only in this area but in others. I certainly share the very strong statements made by Senator Thurmond in terms of praise for Senator Cohen. I also would like to add very loud applause for Senator Exon who has chaired the Strategic Subcommittee for a number of years. Every year when I was chairman, Senator Exon chaired the subcommittee. That is not only where the controversy was, that is where the money was. We had one matter after another that had to be handled, both in terms of strategic weapons and in terms of overall arms control concerns. Senator Exon has been a stalwart leader. He has been a person who could find a light of agreement and mold together a consensus in very difficult circumstances. He has been steadfast in his support for a strong and sensible national security. He has been my partner time and time again in crucial matters, and he will be sorely missed. Senator Exon also has been a leader and a champion of moving toward a balanced budget in his leadership on the Budget Committee. He will be missed in that area as well. Mr. President, this budget that we have before us increases the President's budget on national security, and it does so in a way that is going to boost the funds for procurement, research and development, and, as Senator Thurmond said, quality of life for our military forces. I think everyone should keep in mind, even with the substantial increase over President Clinton's budget, this budget remains a reduction from last year in real terms. When we hear over and over again ``the very large increases in the defense budget,'' those increases are relative to the proposals made by the Clinton administration but do not accurately reflect that the trend continues downward in national security. Many of these cuts that have taken place over the last 8 or 10 years were needed and necessary. This drawdown has been the most successful, in terms of personnel policy, we have ever had in the U.S. military after a major mission or, in this case, the end of the cold war. We have been able to maintain the quality and the qualifications of the men and women who serve in our military. This is a very difficult and challenging task, and none of us should diminish the importance of it. If we had not been able to accomplish this successful drawdown, we would be reading all sorts of horror stories about readiness and horror stories about our military being demoralized. We are not reading those stories because we have had a very successful drawdown. I think our committee and our counterparts in the House deserve some credit for this. We have come up with new, innovative ways to ease into this transition and to take care of the personnel, not only those that were leaving but those that are staying, and their families. I also think the leadership of Dr. Perry has been outstanding in this regard, and I believe the leadership of the services has been outstanding. The U.S. Army, in particular, has been able to manage a very, very substantial drawdown of forces and reduction in the size of the Army. The Army has moved forces from parts of the world back home in an unprecedented and very skillful way. Mr. President, the Senate passed this bill in early July. Under the leadership of Senator Thurmond, the House and Senate conferees completed a very difficult conference on this large and very important bill in 4 weeks. I congratulate Senator Thurmond for his leadership of this conference and the bipartisan manner in which it was conducted. He kept all of us in harness and told us we had to finish this conference before we left for the August recess. Without that leadership, without that push, we would not have this bill before us today. Again, I thank Senator Thurmond, not only for his work on this bill, but for his stalwart leadership on national security issues during the entire time I have been in the U.S. Senate. I thank him most of all for his friendship and for being a man of integrity and a man who absolutely places the security of our country above partisan interests and above parochial interests. I thank him for that. I think our Nation is, indeed, indebted to him for that kind of leadership. I am indebted to him for his personal friendship. I thank our House counterparts, Chairman Spence, who was determined to get a bill this year and who exercised leadership time and time again, along with my good friend, Congressman Ron Dellums, who is the ranking Democrat. They were determined to get a bill. They were determined to make changes and display flexibility where flexibility was absolutely required if we were going to see a bill signed into law. I commend them for their leadership, as well as all the House conferees and all of our Senate conferees for their cooperation in bringing this conference to a successful conclusion. I also would like to thank, as Senator Thurmond did, the chairman and ranking members of each of our subcommittees. These members played such a key role on the Senate committee in getting this legislation passed. Mr. President, this is the last defense authorization conference report of my Senate career. I want to express my deep appreciation to the staff of the Armed Services Committee, not only this year but over the years that I have served on the Committee. They have provided tremendous support during this conference and throughout this year: Les Brownlee, John Etherton, Arnold Punaro, David S. Lyles, and Andy Effron. I mention them again because without them this bill would simply not be possible. Arnold Punaro and all of the members of the minority staff have continued to provide the outstanding assistance to me and to other members on the Democratic side. This support has been their trademark for many years. More importantly, both Les Brownlee and Arnold Punaro have the confidence of the entire committee. They make contributions, as do their staffs, to the analysis and thinking of the committee members on both sides. Mr. President, Senator Thurmond has already summarized the major features of this conference report. I endorse those statements he has made, but I would emphasize a few others, which I think are very notable provisions in this conference report. I am pleased the House conferees agreed to the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996, which the Senate adopted unanimously, both in this bill and in the appropriations bill. This legislation is a critical step in addressing our Nation's ability to deal with the threats from the proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons with special emphasis on combating domestic terrorism. I, too, thank Senators Stevens and Inouye for supporting this legislation, both on the floor and in conference in the appropriations bill. I also thank them for their splendid leadership in the national security arena. This legislation authorizes $201 billion for the Departments of Health, Human Services, and Energy to address the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This includes $65 million for the Defense Department to conduct a program to train, equip, and assist local first responders in dealing with incidents involving nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and related materials. Within this $65 million, $10.5 million is specifically earmarked for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Health and Human Services in forming emergency medical response teams capable of dealing with the consequences of the use of these materials. A total of $30 million is authorized for DOD to provide equipment and assistance to the U.S. Customs Service and to help train custom services in the former Soviet Union, the Baltic States, and Eastern Europe in an effort to improve our ability to detect and interdict these materials before they can reach the hands of terrorists in the United States. Of course, a partnership between the United States and these other customs services is absolutely essential for our own security. An additional $27 million is provided to the Department of Defense and to the Department of Energy for efforts to research and develop improved detection technologies, which are badly needed. I will not go into detail, but that was one of the most important lessons learned at the Olympics in Atlanta. All elements of our law enforcement need to learn to detect more thoroughly, with a broader area and with more confidence, the presence of a chemical or biological weapon, if one is released. This area needs attention in the research field. Finally, this conference report authorizes additional funding to address the threat of proliferation, as we have done in the past, at its source. In addition to fully authorizing the administration's request of $327.9 million for the DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, this legislation authorizes $37 million for DOD projects designed to destroy, dismantle, and improve controls over the former Soviet Union's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. DOE is being provided $40 million for its program in this area. I must commend our colleague, Senator Domenici, for his outstanding leadership in developing, implementing, following through, and providing the funding for this legislation. This legislation also calls for the creation of a senior level coordinator to improve the coordination among Federal departments and agencies dealing with the threat of proliferation, and to improve coordination between the Federal Government and State and local governments and emergency response agencies. Mr. President, the threat of attack on American cities and towns by terrorists, malcontents, or representatives of hostile powers using radiological, chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons is one of the most serious national security threats we face today. I put it right at the top of the list. Too many experts have said it is not a question of ``if'' but only of ``when'' terrorists will use chemical, biological-- or even nuclear--weapons in the United States. The legislation in this conference report is a major step forward and will significantly improve our ability at the local level and State level and all over this country to deal with this threat--a threat which today we are clearly not prepared for. I anticipate that the National Guard, if they choose and if the administration moves in that direction, will be able to play a major role in this area. We have Guard forces in every community of any real size in America. Every Governor has Guard forces that are available if an emergency comes at on the State level. A number of these units are trained in the chemical and biological area. I think it is a natural fit because Guard forces are on the scene and also enjoy a great deal of confidence by our citizens. I would like to see, as one of the originators of this entire legislation, it move in the direction of the Guard. I am also pleased that the conferees agreed to the Senate provision giving the Secretary of Defense discretionary authority to waive some of the existing buy-America limitations for defense procurement. I joined Senator McCain in sponsoring this provision in committee and in conference. I commend Senator McCain for his leadership in this respect. Mr. President, this waiver authority is essential if we are to live up to our commitments to our allies to work for free and open competition for defense procurement. If we do not buy from them in a fair way, they are not going to buy from us. We enjoy an advantage on the sale of defense articles. It is a favorable part of our trade balance. This is a very important step for those who sell defense equipment to our allies. Two of the most difficult issues in this conference and in this whole bill, Mr. President, were the multilateralization of the ABM Treaty and the demarcation between theater missile defense systems and ABM systems. The House bill contained provisions on each of these issues which the administration vigorously opposed as infringements on the President's treaty-making powers under the Constitution. The Senate bill reported by the committee contained similar language, but both provisions were modified on the Senate floor. The administration was prepared to accept the two provisions in the bill that passed the Senate. Again this year, a majority of the conferees decided to drop all the provisions on these two issues, rather than accept the bipartisan provisions contained in the Senate bill. This same course was followed last year with respect to language on national missile defenses, with the end result that the Congress provided some $800 million for national missile defense for the current fiscal year without any guidance to the Department of Defense as to how to spend it. Mr. President, I commend the House conferees on their willingness to drop their language. I have never understood why the language adopted in the Senate, both last year and this year, was not acceptable. After removing all of the bill language regarding both multilateralization and theater missile defense demarcation this year, a majority of the conferees endorsed the statement of managers language on both issues. That, of course, is the right of the conferees. This statement of managers language was not endorsed by all of the conferees. In fact, some of my colleagues on the minority side of our committee decided not to sign the statement of managers accompanying the conference report, in large part because of their disagreement with this statement of managers language. While I signed the conference report and statement of managers because of my overall support for this bill, I want to make clear my concerns with the statement of managers language on both multilateralization of the ABM Treaty and on theater missile defense demarcation. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that Congress remains deeply divided on missile defense issues. We may have a debate on issues relating to missile defense in the next 2 or 3 weeks before we adjourn this session. For one thing, I think a debate would be healthy. I think this subject needs to be debated. I think it needs more understanding, both in the media and in the main body of the American people, as well as here in the Congress. We are in sort of a gridlock in the DOD's management of missile defense programs, which is not helpful for program execution. In each of the past 2 years, the Senate has reached a bipartisan consensus on missile defense language that has had overwhelming support, only to see this consensus language dropped from the final conference report. While the Senate seems to be able to develop, at least under pressure when required, a consensus, the House and Senate have not been able to see eye to eye on this issue. Mr. President, another difficult issue in this conference was whether to allow increased privatization of depot-level maintenance currently performed by Government employees at DOD facilities. The Senate bill contained a series of provisions concerning DOD depot-level maintenance of equipment. Mr. President, I do not want to take too much time discussing this issue. I have a few more minutes, but if Senator Thurmond has anything he would like to say at this point or wants to interrupt me at any point, I welcome that. Mr. President, the House bill basically supported the so-called 60/40 rule in current law, which requires that at least 60 percent of DOD's depot-level maintenance be performed in Government facilities. The statute, however, has been interpreted by the Air Force to exclude contractor logistics support from the definition of depot-level maintenance. While you have a 60/40 requirement in law, interpretation by the Air Force excludes contractor logistics support from the definition of depot level maintenance. Therefore, under current law, the Government could move away from the depots simply by reclassifying it as contractor logistics support. The Senate bill would have changed the 60/40 formula, giving the administration and DOD more flexibility, so that 50 percent of DOD's depot-level maintenance would be performed in Government depots, while the balance could be performed in the private sector. At the same time, the Senate bill would have created a common definition of depot maintenance for all the military services that would have included all depot maintenance, including contractor logistics support. The Senate bill would also have prohibited privatization of the depot maintenance work at Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases unless there was a competition open to all public and private sector competitors. We on the Senate side certainly are not opposed to Kelly and McClellan competing. We felt there should be a competition, not simply an assignment. After vigorous discussions in conference, the conferees determined that there were too many issues in dispute to permit development of a long-term solution to this question at this time. The House was insistent on sticking with the 60/40 rule, but it did not have the definitions which I think are important. As a result, the conferees dropped all the relevant provisions in both bills relating to depot maintenance and decided to retain current law. I believe this outcome is unfortunate. The issues have been the subject of a lot of debate and discussion in recent years. I think the Senate provisions were a good, long-term compromise that would have provided flexibility to put in place clear definitions and a well-defined policy that would have given greater predictability and stability for both DOD depots and private- sector interests. Turning to the area of personnel policy, the House bill contained a provision that would have required the mandatory separation of HIV- positive service members who have less than 15 years of service. Under the House provision, these individuals would have had to be separated within 2 months of their having been determined to be HIV positive. The Senate bill contained a provision that would have required the Secretary of Defense to prescribe uniform regulations concerning the retention of service members who cannot be deployed worldwide for medical reasons. These regulations would have not only applied to members affected by HIV but by all other diseases that may affect the ability for these personnel to be deployed. Under this provision, the policies governing the retention of service members who are nondeployable because of medical conditions like asthma, cancer, diabetes, and heart disease would be the same as those policies governing the retention of service members determined to be nondeployable because of their being HIV positive. Mr. President, I will not go into detail today, but the House provision would have imposed a very severe hardship on people found to have HIV and to their families. These are people who have gotten into this situation through no fault of their own. It would have been very unfair. There are very few people in this category. We can state that the conferees dropped the House provision, and the report includes no changes to current law. I think that is the right result. Mr. President, President Clinton indicated over the weekend that he would sign this bill, so this is the last defense authorization bill that I will have the privilege of voting on during my Senate career. I am glad about that. I did not want the bill to be vetoed, and I did not want an encore here. I am delighted we were able to finish this conference. This will be the last Defense authorization bill that I will have the privilege of voting on and working on. I joined the Armed Services Committee when I came to the Senate in 1973. It was one of the real reasons I ran for the Senate. I wanted to be on the Armed Services Committee, and I wanted to be involved in international security. I had it in my heart and mind. Being able to work with the men and women who serve our Nation on the Armed Services Committee has been one of the true highlights of my entire life and my Senate career. It has been the highlight of my tenure here in the Senate. Every year that I have been in the Senate this committee has brought a Defense authorization bill to the floor, and every year it has been signed into law. Occasionally, we had to have a bill vetoed first, but we have always managed to enact an authorization bill. I hope that will continue. Mr. President, the hallmark of the Armed Services Committee has always been a deep and unwavering commitment to the national security of the United States and particularly to the welfare of the men and women who so capably and bravely serve us. This service is not without sacrifice throughout this country and the world. The people in uniform are remarkable. This commitment has been completely bipartisan, and I am proud of the fact that over the years, with a few exceptions here and there, we have managed to conduct our business with a minimum of partisanship. It has been a real privilege for me and a great honor to serve on the committee under the leadership of some of the giants of the U.S. Senate. Of course, my predecessor, Richard Russell, was an outstanding chairman of this committee and the Appropriations Committee for many years. I followed his career before I came to the U.S. Senate. My great uncle, Carl Vinson, chaired the Naval Affairs Committee and then the House Armed Services Committee for many years during his 50 years of service in the House of Representatives. I have been deeply honored to serve with the giants, who have chaired and been ranking members of the Armed Services Committee. I am not going to try to name every one that I have served with because they have all been friends and colleagues. However, I have to list Senator John Stennis, a giant in the U.S. Senate; Senator Barry Goldwater, my partner in numerous legislative undertakings, as Senator Thurmond has said, particularly in the legislation known as the Goldwater-Nichols legislation; Senator John Tower, a colleague and very strong chairman of the Armed Services Committee; and, of course, now, my colleague and friend, Senator Strom Thurmond, who has been a great chairman and ranking member when he was in the minority of the Armed Services Committee. I must add that Senator Thurmond was a pillar of strength in his own service in the U.S. military. He was a stalwart leader during World War II. All of us who went to Normandy were able to recount that history and understand the remarkable role Senator Thurmond played there. Again, we are impressed and indebted to him for his service. I have to mention Senator ``Scoop'' Jackson, a man I admired deeply before I came to the U.S. Senate. I felt a great privilege in knowing and working with him, both in military and national security, foreign policy matters, as well as on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I was his vice chairman, and while he was engaging in his run for Presidency in 1976, I was the acting chairman under his direction of that investigative subcommittee. I must mention Senator John Warner, who has been my partner on many different ventures involving military foreign policy matters. He served as a ranking minority member of the committee during my chairmanship. He has been a pillar of support for the men and women in uniform and for our national security. I have thoroughly enjoyed my association with him. I have learned a tremendous amount from all of these Senators. I remember Senator Dewey Bartlett, now departed, Republican from Oklahoma. Senator Bartlett and I went to NATO in the mid-1970's and worked together on a NATO report which we think had some effect on strengthening our overall NATO positions. He was a very close friend of mine. He died a few years ago. Certainly, the recent book that has come out on Senator Bartlett is on my ``must read'' file. He was a wonderful Senator. I remember him with great fondness. Then there are Senators Cohen and Levin. I have already mentioned Senator Cohen and the remarkable role he played in all the things we have undertaken together. Senator Levin, Senator Exon, and I have worked together as partners on many, many, different matters. Senator Levin will be the chairman of this committee if the Democrats are in control next year and will be the ranking Democrat if the Republicans retain control. In either role, I am confident that he will continue his diligence and his dedication to the men and women in our military and to our Nation's security. Senator Bingaman has been a champion and our real leader in technology issues. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with him as well as every member of the committee. Senator Byrd as majority-minority leader, a member of this committee, and a leader in the Appropriations Committee has been one of my most greatest friends and has helped me every step of the way in everything I have undertaken on this committee and in the Senate. I will not try to name all the people, but Senator Kennedy has done a great job in his work. Senator Glenn and I have been great friends and have worked together on many different matters, including the deployment of our forces in Korea and helping to convince President Carter to change his mind on withdrawal of the forces from Korea in a critical time. Senator McCain is certainly not only a war hero but also a leader for national security. Senator Coats and Senator Kempthorne are newer members of the committee, but they both have done remarkable jobs. Senator Smith and others are going to be increasingly heard from on the Armed Services Committee in the years ahead. I leave with a great sense of feeling that the Armed Services Committee is going to be in strong hands on both sides of the aisle in the years ahead. I will follow these issues with a great deal of interest in the future. I am sure that I will continue to be involved in one way or another in national security issues. I leave the Senate with a great feeling of confidence that the men and women who serve in the military have stalwart champions of our national security policy and the quality of life for the people who serve our Nation so well. Mr. President, in closing, the Armed Services Committee has been fortunate to have the service of some extraordinarily talented and dedicated staff members during my service on the committee--staff directors and the staff who serve under them. I wish I could name everyone who served so well on this committee as a member of the staff. They all know of my deep admiration for them, and they all know that I relied on them every day that I have been in a leadership position on this committee. We have had staff directors like Ed Braswell, Frank Sullivan, Rhett Dawson, Jim Roche, Jim McGovern, Carl Smith, Pat Tucker, Dick Reynard, Les Brownlee, and, of course, Arnold Punaro, who has been my right arm on national security issues for over 20 years. Arnold and Les both have had outstanding military careers and have accorded themselves with great valor on the field of battle. Mr. President, these staff directors and those who serve with them are truly the unsung heroes of our American military forces. I will continue to be indebted to them. I am indebted to the current minority staff committee, who worked so hard on this bill and on countless other issues. In addition to Arnold Punaro, Andy Effron, and David Lyles. David, who is on the floor today, left the committee for a while and has come back. I hope he will be on the committee staff for a long time to come. Andy Effron left the committee last month to take a position on the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Nobody will do a better job as a judge affecting our military forces than Andy Effron, and we all know that. Rick DeBobes is an outstanding lawyer and Navy captain who worked with Admiral Crowe. He has been my right arm on numerous foreign policy issues and is always available to the majority leader and minority leader in working out difficult foreign policy matters on behalf of this committee. I thank Creighton Greene, P.T. Henry, and Bill Hoehn, who has been with me a long time. Creighton and P.T. have all done a tremendous job. Bill Hoehn has made remarkable contributions to national security at the Rand Corp., as a DOD official in the Reagan administration, and on our committee. Mike McCord is a genius with budget numbers and has been our mainstay in so much of the analysis that is critical for our committee. Frank Norton has done a wonderful job on military construction. Julie Rief is a true professional on construction and family housing issues. Chris Cowart, who runs the committee and tolerates Arnold Punaro. Chris can hear him all across the Capitol, wherever he is, and she has done so much for our committee day in and day out. I thank Jan Gordon, Jennifer Lambert, Danny Ginsberg, Jay Thompson for their hard work. Maurice Hutchinson and DeNeige (Denny) Watson, who have come out temporarily, Maurice from the Department of Defense and Denny from the executive branch, to help me personally and our entire committee in analyzing key developments in Asia and the former Soviet Union. Maurice was involved in Asia and Denny with the former Soviet Union. Mr. President, I would like to have a chance to thank everybody who I have served with on staff. I will not name them all today. Generally speaking, without any doubt, we could not prepare any bill, let alone a bill of this size, without their help. They do the hard work under a great deal of pressure and with impossible deadlines. They stay up all night many times. The taxpayers of this Nation are well-served. All of them are underpaid, in terms of not only the hours they work, but in terms of what they could earn if they were out in the private sector. They, like our men and women in uniform, make sacrifices for our national security. I think that should be said. Finally, Mr. President, I thank the Democratic floor staff. I will not try to name all of them. They are absolutely remarkable people. We take them for granted because they are so good. The floor staff here on the Democratic side--and I am sure the same is true on the Republican side--are terrific. We appreciate their help in every step we take to get our bills and legislation through. In closing, this is a good conference report. I congratulate Senator Thurmond, all of our staff, members of the committee, and the conferees. Again, I thank Senator Thurmond for his leadership. This legislation will improve our national security, and that is what we are all about. I thank the Chair. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Navy Capt. John ``Tal'' Manvel who has been named the Navy's program manager for the next generation aircraft carrier. Until this assignment, Captain Manvel had been serving as the Executive Assistant to Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition John Douglass, where he established an outstanding record of service. Navy acquisition has benefited greatly from Captain Manvel's professional advice to the Assistant Secretary Douglass. Captain Manvel's next assignment carries a very important responsibility. The aircraft carrier is the backbone of our Navy. With a 50-year expected life cycle--greater than any other weapon platform in the Navy--over 80,000 men and women will serve aboard each of these new ships during their life as well as several generations of Naval aircraft. As the program manager for the next generation aircraft carrier, Captain Manvel's influence on our Navy will be evident for more than a half century. Captain Manvel has broad experience as both an acquisition professional and as a naval engineer with experience onboard aircraft carriers, including duty as chief engineer onboard the U.S.S. America (CV 66). He is superbly suited to lead this project. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Captain Manvel on his new assignment and in wishing him continued success in his career of service to the Navy and our country.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. This article documents a number of innovative initiatives undertaken by the Navy at Norfolk Naval Base--energy audits; joint agreements with civilian port terminals to increase the Navy's railroad access and terminal capacity; and lease arrangements with private real estate developers to increase the quality and quantity of housing for Navy members and their families. Mr. President, this kind of aggressive and innovative approach to reducing infrastructure costs is essential if our military services are going to have the funds to invest in the new systems and equipment need to modernize our forces. According to the Wall Street Journal, the individual most responsible for these efforts at Norfolk Naval Base is Adm. William J. ``Bud'' Flanagan, the Commander of the Atlantic Fleet. Many of my colleagues remember Admiral Flanagan from his tour as head of the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs in the late 1980's. Following that assignment, Admiral Flanagan commanded the Navy's Second Fleet before taking over as Commander of the Atlantic Fleet. Mr. President, I have known and worked with Admiral Flanagan for many years. He is an extremely capable naval officer, and I am not at all surprised to see that he is also an energetic and creative business manager who is bringing innovative practices to the Navy's base operations. I hope that he keeps up the good work, and that others throughout the military services follow his good example. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 19, 1996] An Admiral Turns Big Guns on Waste at Norfolk, VA., Base Facing a Sea of Business Deals, Flanagan Charts a Course That Changes U.S. Navy (By John J. Fialka) Norfolk, VA.--Not long ago, a private company wanted to rent one of the Navy's sagging, ``temporary'' buildings here. It offered $400,000 a year for a Cold War relic that was sitting empty. ``We can't do that! Tear it down,'' ordered Adm. William J. ``Bud'' Flanagan Jr., commander of the Atlantic Fleet and the short, stocky czar of the sprawling Norfolk Naval Base. The admiral, who now oversees an $11 billion budget but spent many of his 29 years in the Navy hunting for Soviet submarines, had reason to torpedo the deal. He had hired an outside research firm to analyze the base's $100 million energy bill--a first--and found that heating and cooling the 70,000-square-foot, uninsulated structure would cost nearly $1 million a year. So the rental would lose money. Now, the building is the 84th the admiral has ordered destroyed, and he has targeted 80 more. Not that Adm. Flanagan hates business deals. In fact, he views this 55-square-mile naval base as awash in entrepreneurial possibilities. He will welcome tourists to what will be, in effect, a theme park with aircraft carriers. He will let a neighboring cargo terminal store cocoa beans on the base--if it helps load Navy ships. He will let developers build fancy townhouses and offices on a slummy-looking peninsula. For decades, the Navy played a cat and mouse with the Soviet Union at sea, but on shore it operated much like its old adversary. Nobody itemized costs. Electricity wasn't metered. Submarine, aircraft and surface-ship commanders built redundant fiefs and, Adm. Flanagan complains, ``didn't talk to each other.'' As with many federal bureaucracies, leftover funds reverted to the Treasury at year end; so they were spent--on almost anything. ``The old tradition was if the Navy can spend some money, it will,'' he recently noted to a group of naval auditors. changed rules Last year, however, the Navy changed the rules--after hard lobbying by Adm. Flanagan. He did so partly because, as one of a Cape Cod, Mass., policeman's eight children, he admired his mother's gentle but firm grasp on the family budget. But he also was strongly influenced by four mid-career months at Harvard Business School, where he became acquainted with marketing concepts. ``It opened up a whole new avenue of thought,'' he recalls. Under the Navy's new rules, a commander who saves money or generates outside income can use the funds to buy new ships, planes or other equipment. Now Adm. Flanagan, perhaps with more determination than most senior officers, is trying to get his subordinates on board. His reasoning: The Navy's job remains ``to fight and win.'' he says, but, in an era of shrinking budgets, it can't win ``unless we learn to look more like GE than USN.'' When he found the Norfolk base renting several hundred vans it didn't need and its overstaffed golf course losing vast sums, he didn't ``shoot anybody'' but got the problems corrected, he says. ``If you start assessing fear and blame,'' he adds, waste simply goes ``underground.'' Instead, he praises managers who improve matters. Meanwhile, the first new business was peering through the front gate. Lured by hulking carriers moored at the docks, some 350,000 visitors showed up at base entrances every year, but most couldn't get past the guards. So in October, the admiral removed the guards from the gates. ``It took some old salts here some time to get used to it,'' recalls Norfolk's mayor, Paul Fraim. Before long, tour buses will call at a new, privately owned marina and restaurant, which will share any profits with the base, and a ``Welcome Center'' complete with souvenir shops. Naval Number-crunchers--more use to counting munitions-- expect 500,000 tourists this year, causing one naval officer to exult: ``When they each buy a baseball cap at $6 a pop, we've just made $3 million!'' Nearbly Norfolk International Terminals is also pleased. Cramped for space, it finds itself inundated by two million bags of cocoa beans after a market upheaval. For years, Robert Bray, executive director of the Virginia Port Authority, which runs it, had sought access to empty Navy warehouses just across the fence but found ``the answer was always no.'' Barter Deal Proposed Adm. Flanagan said yes. But he wants a billion-dollar barter deal; if the terminal will load cargo onto Navy ships, it can build storage facilities on unused naval property. Under the projected agreement, the railroad serving the terminal could use Navy land, allowing it to operate longer freight trains. Both the terminal and the base would gain cargo capacity. Another possible deal that interests Adm. Flanagan involves Willoughby spit, a landfill area with 440 somewhat-shabby Navy apartments--each needing $70,000 of renovation. Two local developers see opportunity--prime waterfront land for a hotel-office-marina complex and townhouses. Monica R. Shephard, the Navy's negotiator, hopes to lease out the site on a long-term basis and use the revenue to finance better naval housing elsewhere. However, civilian tenants would be warned they could be temporarily locked off the base in a national emergency. In addition, many other tacky, prefab buildings are coming down. Adm. Flanagan, who first came here as a freighter crewman in 1964, remembers even then wondering why so many ``temporaries'' were still around. As the landlord, he found 132 Navy tenants, some with no direct connection to his base's mission, and told them to pay rent or ship out. ``The goal is to make people aware that this stuff isn't free. . . . We are in a limited-resources game,'' he explains. repair facilities consolidated His staffers also have consolidated 13 electric-motor repair facilities into one and have cut some 30 instrument- calibration shops to five. The savings so far: about $39 million. And Rear Adm. Art Clark, the Atlantic fleet's chief maintenance officer, says he can cut more. Not all this pleases private repair yards. They invested heavily in drydocks and piers when President Reagan wanted a 600-ship Navy, and now they fear that the Navy will do more of its own work. J. Douglas Forrest, vice president of Collona's Shipyard Inc., a family business operating here since 1875, grumbles about naval officers going to ``90-to-120-day whiz-bang programs at Harvard, so then they can deal in the financial world.'' Nothing personal, he adds quickly. ``People like Bud Flanagan broke the Red Navy. . . . They're great guys. . . . But the Navy never prepared them for making all the decisions that have been forced upon them by a government that is downsizing.'' Adm. Flanagan, too, sometimes longs for the days when ``win the war'' was the Navy's bottom line: ``that was easy. You just got up in the morning and followed the plan.''

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, in an article entitled ``An Admiral Turns Big Guns on Waste at Norfolk, VA, Base'' last month, Wall Street Journal reporter John Fialka described some of the new business practices that the Navy is employing to improve the efficiency of its base operations. I will ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks for the benefit of my colleagues who may have missed it.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise today to note the passing of and to pay tribute to Michael Rhode, Jr., of South Carolina. Mike Rhode died after a brave bout with cancer in May, only too briefly after he retired from his position as Secretary of the Panama Canal Commission. I only recently learned of Mike's death. I first met Mike when he served as Chief of the Army's Senate Legislative Liaison Office in the early 1970's when I was a newly elected Member of the U.S. Senate. Mike, who had combat experience in Korea and Vietnam, literally took me under his wing and played a major role in my education about the capabilities of the U.S. Army and the other services. He accompanied me on my official travels, particularly to the territory of our NATO allies. Mike was extremely knowledgeable about NATO and my first-ever report to the Armed Services Committee on NATO specifically cited Mike's invaluable assistance and expertise on NATO matters. I continued my association with Mike when, upon his retirement from the Army after 26 years of dedicated service to our Nation, he became the Secretary of the Panama Canal Commission in 1980. Mike was extraordinarily helpful to me and the other members of the Armed Services Committee as Secretary of the Commission. He had that unique ability to explain proposed legislation and to suggest ways in which the laws governing the operation and maintenance of the Panama Canal could be modified over the years to ease the transition to Panamanian control by the year 2000. In looking back over my association--and my friendship--with Mike over the years, I am most struck by his dedication to duty and his warm and gregarious personality. He always had a warm smile and time to spare to answer any question. Shortly before he retired from the Panama Canal Commission, Mike came by my office for a purely social call. We reminisced about old times and talked about the future that awaited both of us in private life. Mike had been in poor health but was confident that he would lick this health problem as he had all other challenges in the past. My most vivid memory of our last meeting was his broad smile and his plans for retirement with his wife Lin and spending time with his daughter, Pamela Lister, and two sons, Michael and Randy. Mr. President, Mike Rhode was a valued friend and a dedicated and talented public servant. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge the ``passing of a baton'' both in the literal and figurative sense. On July 11, 1996, Col. John R. Bourgeois, the 25th director of the U.S. Marine Band and Music Advisor to the White House, retired. He had led the band, known as the President's Own, for 17 years. A native of Louisiana, Colonel Bourgeois joined the Marine Corps in 1956 and joined the band just 2 years later as a French horn player. When he was appointed to his present grade, he became the first musician in the Marine Corps to serve in every rank from private to colonel. As director of the Marine Band and Music Advisor to the White House, Colonel Bourgeois has selected the music for each Presidential inauguration since 1981 and has appeared at the White House more frequently than any other musician. I am sure that those of my colleagues who have enjoyed the band's incredible performances at the evening parades or in other venues are not surprised that Colonel Bourgeois and the Marine Band remain the favorite of Presidents year after year. When he retired, Colonel Bourgeois literally passed the baton--a baton that had been given to another director of the Marine Band, John Philip Sousa, over a century ago--to Maj. Timothy W. Foley, who has been nominated to become the next director. The particular connection between the military profession and its rousing music has transcended the years and national borders. It is as much a part of history as military service itself. As Colonel Bourgeois retires from active duty after a distinguished career of service to the Marine Corps and his country, I know all of my colleagues join me in expressing our deepest appreciation for the passion and professionalism he has brought to his duties, and the joy and pride he has brought to so many Americans.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. If I could just take 2 seconds here, I am glad progress is being made. I join the chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond, in his plea that we pass the defense authorization bill. It will take a total of about 20 minutes, based on what I know now. Even more urgently, I urge that we clear the nominations, the military nominations. We have posts all over the world that depend on these nominations. It is extremely important that we do the nominations this evening. Whatever else is still in dispute when we go home tonight, I hope the nominations on the military side are cleared. I can assure my colleagues that if Senator Thurmond and I are given 20 minutes, equally divided--we will probably cut that down, if necessary--we can finish debate on the defense authorization bill and conference report, which passed the House last night, have the stacked votes at 6 o'clock, and have that vote right after that. I hope we would be able to get agreement on both sides.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. I was going to inquire about the nominations. I see the chairman of the Armed Services Committee on the floor. I know we would both want to inquire about whether we would have the chance to pass the defense authorization conference report, passed by the House last evening, which I believe the Senator from South Carolina believes we can pass within an hour, maybe a shorter time than that.

Mr. NUNN. And the space command general, also.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Lieberman amendment of which I am an original cosponsor. I believe it is useful to recall that in June 1994 North Korea decided to defuel its five megawatt research reactor, precipitating a crisis on the Korean Peninsula. Spent fuel contains essential fissile material for a nuclear arsenal and North Korea could have extracted enough plutonium to build five or six nuclear weapons. As a result of the negotiation of the October 1994 Framework Agreement, North Korea agreed, among other things, to freeze and eventually dismantle its graphite moderated nuclear reactors and related facilities and to safely store and ultimately ship out of its territory the spent fuel from its five megawatt nuclear research reactor. The United States agreed to lead an international consortium to oversee the finance and construction of two 100-megawatt light water reactors and to provide 500,000 metric tons of heavy fuel oil annually until completion of the first light water reactor. I am advised that North Korea has maintained the freeze on its nuclear facilities, that the IAEA has maintained a continuous presence in North Korea to verify and monitor the freeze, the canning of the more than 8,000 spent fuel rods is proceeding at a steady pace and North Korea has concluded a number of agreements with KEDO to facilitate the furnishing of the light water reactors, including a Protocol on Privileges and Immunities for KEDO personnel. Mr. President, I believe it is in our national security interest to freeze and eventually dismantle North Korea's graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities. The United States has approximately 37,000 troops in and is committed by treaty to defend the Republic of Korea. As Secretary Perry has noted Should KEDO be unable to fulfill its obligation to deliver oil, the risk of the North breaking the nuclear freeze would rise significantly. Such a scenario greatly increases the risk of direct confrontation with North Korea, with costs measured in lives and billions of dollars. Under the arrangements worked out with our allies, South Korea and Japan have agreed to bear the financial burden for the provision of the light water nuclear reactors for North Korea. The cost will be more than $4 billion and by some estimates will approach $6 billion. The United States has agreed to fund less than one-half of the cost of providing heavy fuel oil annually to make up for the loss of electricity. I am also advised that a number of countries have pledged monetary contributions and the European Union is on the verge of making a multi- year financial contribution commitment but that this commitment could be endangered if the United States didn't provide the $25 million this year. Insummary, Mr. President, I believe that a $25 million contribution to KEDO for fiscal year 1997 is in our national security interest and I encouraged my colleagues to support the Lieberman amendment.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that the Senator from Colorado will be speaking to this. The Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Colorado and I have worked out the problems that we had with the Brown amendment. I understood the unanimous consent to include that as a rollcall vote. It is not my desire to have a rollcall required. The Senator from Colorado is planning on modifying his amendment, so I believe it would be wise to withhold any request for a unanimous consent for a rollcall vote until such time as the amendment is modified.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will just take a moment at this juncture, because I know the Brown amendment will be laid aside. My friend from Colorado has indicated he will be willing to work with me and Senator Biden on troubling language in this amendment. I think it is essential to work out the troubling language. There are several paragraphs that are indeed troubling here. I say that with this background: On June 27, I proposed an amendment on the floor and worked with Senator McCain and, as I recall, Senator Cohen and others in offering the amendment posing a substantial and very important series of questions to the administration, to the President, to answer regarding NATO enlargement. Now, Mr. President, I recall once coming in on the floor when I was a much younger Senator and watching the esteemed Senator from Minnesota, Senator Humphrey, propose a series of questions to the floor manager of the bill, and without ever pausing, and I think without realizing it, having said that he had to have the answer to these questions before he voted on the measure that was pending, he proceeded to answer his own questions and to come out on one side of the issue in a very decisive way. He answered his own questions, and nobody else intervened, and he solved his own problem. Mr. President, I don't think we ought to do that regarding the questions that have been posed in a serious way. These questions were posed to the administration on June 27 by a unanimous vote in the Senate. A number of paragraphs in the Brown amendment would answer those questions only 2 weeks later, without any kind of analytical report, or any kind of thought process even, by the administration. I don't believe we were posing these questions to ourselves. I think we were posing them to the administration and asking them seriously to answer them. So I hope that we can not have some of the findings that are in the Brown amendment, and particularly the paragraph in that amendment which states in paragraph 4 on section 4, page 8: The process of enlarging NATO to include emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe should not stop with the admission of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as full members of the NATO Alliance. These countries are all doing well and should be considered as NATO members under the due process that has been set forth. But for the Senate of the United States to decide and imply that that already has been decided, which is what this amendment does, it seems to me is answering the question, the serious question, with no analytical process at all and without consulting the administration or our partners in NATO. So, Mr. President, I have a long history of being involved in NATO. I have written at least three reports on NATO, and I really think it may be time to remind the Senate of the United States about that history. I am prepared to do so. I normally do not like to take the time of the Senate. But on an amendment of this magnitude, where we are making findings, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Senate to vote on this without having a very keen reminder of the history of NATO and what the alliance is all about. That may take several hours, maybe even several days. I am hoping that we will be able to eliminate the provisions in the Brown amendment that answer the serious questions without any intervening report from the administration, and all in a 2-week period after the Senate has gone on record, I believe unanimously, in favor of posing these serious questions in a serious way. I will be glad to work with my friend from Colorado. I know the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, has some questions himself that we will be glad to work on. I see the Senator from Missouri on the floor. I wanted to let my colleague know that this is a serious amendment about a serious subject matter. I have serious reservations about the way the amendment is now drafted. I will be glad to work with my friend from Colorado on the amendment.

Mr. NUNN. Reserving the right to object, I do not mind laying aside the amendment and going ahead with the votes, but I would like to make a brief statement of 2 or 3 minutes, outlining my concern here on this amendment before we vote. Beyond that, if that is accommodated, I do not object.