Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, let me just say, the Senator from New Hampshire would object to calling off the quorum call, unless the Senator from California would agree to be recognized for debate only while the managers are working on an agreement with respect to the Lautenberg amendment, and that I be recognized when the Senator from California yields the floor.

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

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I want to take this opportunity, since there is no one here offering amendments, to make a few remarks in support of this defense authorization bill as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee. I want to certainly commend my leader on the committee, Senator Thurmond, for his outstanding leadership in formulating this legislation. The committee conducted an abbreviated but thorough investigation of our defense requirements, examination of our defense requirements, and formulated what I believe to be an excellent blueprint for defense spending. The Senator from South Carolina deserves great credit for his leadership and invaluable contribution, and his diligence and hard work, on behalf of the defense of the United States of America and in the Armed Services. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute also to the distinguished ranking member, Senator Nunn. Senator Nunn has served on this committee for 23 years with great distinction. He has been seen on both the majority and the minority sides of the table--probably prefers the majority side. He served as the full committee chairman, as well, at a very critical time in our Nation's history regarding defense matters. Throughout the 6 years that I have been privileged to serve with Senator Nunn, he has always sought to promote the national security of our Nation and the well-being of our men and women in uniform. He has always shown great consideration for me, especially when I first came to that committee. I was a very junior member, sitting down at the end of the table in the minority.

Mr. SMITH. As the Senator leaves this institution later this year to pursue other interests, I want to take this opportunity, while I have it, while he is here, to thank him for his service to our Nation and certainly for his kind attention to me as both a majority and a minority member. Madam President, the bill before us provides a much needed increase of about $11 billion to the President's original budget request. I want to emphasize that this is still well below this year's funding level when adjusted for inflation. Since 1985, national defense funding has declined by 41 percent in real terms. Let me say that again, particularly for those who complain we are spending too much. Since 1985, the defense spending has fallen 41 percent. That is 11 straight years of decline, real decline. There are a variety of very important initiatives contained in this bill that I want to briefly highlight. They include, first and foremost, the 3-percent pay raise and a 4-percent increase in the basic allowance for quarters to our military men and women. We forget that every day, 24 hours a day, our Armed Forces are out there protecting us, serving our country. We found out this week how important that is and what sacrifice that calls for. If one were to look at the pay scale of those young men and women who were involved in that incident in Saudi Arabia, it is not a lot of money to risk their lives for. But they did not do it for money, and we all know that. So I am proud to support that pay raise, that 3- percent pay raise and that 4-percent increase in the basic allowance for quarters because these people give their all; sometimes they truly give their all. There is also $1.2 billion of additional readiness funding for the unfunded requirements of the service chiefs. There is an increase of $170 million for the cruise missile defense programs, including $40 billion for the Patriot ACM Program; legislation and funding to conduct competitive evaluations of promising laser programs. Antisubmarine warfare programs are also in this bill. There is an increase of $134 million to buy additional night vision goggles, thermal weapons sights and aiming lights to enhance Army and Marine Corps night-fighting capabilities. There is service funding and direction for the Navy to upgrade the effective jamming capabilities of the EA-6B also there, and a $700 million increase in military construction to enhance the quality of life of our troops and their families, and to improve readiness. On that point, Madam President, it is often forgotten--we talk about the big things, the submarines and the ships, the aircraft carriers and the airplanes and the missiles and missile defense. These are the big- ticket items, so to speak, that we find in the defense budget. But we had testimony earlier this year from the Commandant of the Marine Corps saying that at times he had leaky tents, sleeping bags that were falling apart, clothing that was not enough to keep the soldiers warm. These are the kinds of things that we overlook. When you put a soldier or sailor in a position like that, out there defending America, literally putting their lives on the line, they deserve the best we can provide them. I think we cannot overlook how important these so-called basics are. If you are out there in that tent and it is leaking and you are soaking wet, it is very basic to you. There is no excuse for ever allowing that to happen to our Armed Forces. So any time we can provide dollars in there--that is not glamorous. It does not get a lot of attention. And sometimes it is overlooked because it is not a glamour item. I am proud to support increases in funding in that area. Additionally, Madam President, the bill includes a number of important initiatives relating to ballistic missile defense, and it authorizes nearly $900 million in increased spending along the following lines: National missile defense, Navy Upper Tier Program, and the Theater High Altitude Area Defense Program as well, $134 million for a space and missile tracking system, and $50 million for the joint Israel-United States laser program known as Nautilus. This national missile defense program is so important, and we have had to fight, fight, fight, on the Senate floor even to get language, let alone dollars, for national missile defense. We have no defense against ballistic missiles. None. We cannot defend ourselves against an Iraqi, Iranian, North Korean, or Libyan missile. We need to be promoting this national defense program. A lot of people do not realize that. They say, ``What about the Patriot missile during the Persian Gulf?'' That was not designed to take out incoming missiles like the Scuds. We were able to do that. We were able to use improvisations on the Patriot and get it done, but we are not able to stop a ballistic missile. I am troubled by the administration's failure to comply with the law on missile defense. We tried to address it here last year in language and this year in language. We had to resort to writing a separate bill. The Congress has established very clear, firm schedules for the development and deployment of theater missile defenses in the fiscal year 1996 authorization bill. The President signed the legislation and never once complained about the schedule. In fact, for 3 years, the Clinton administration has stated that theater defense was their No. 1 priority. We are talking theater defense, not national defense. Yet in its budget submittal, the administration ignored the law and underfunded, I believe deliberately, the most important theater missile defense programs --THAAD and the Navy upper tier. Consequently, under the administration plan, our troops are vulnerable to hostile missile threats for as much as 4 or 5 years longer than mandated into law. This is simply unacceptable. We had a terrible tragedy this week in Saudi Arabia. It was terrible. It was a terrorist act. But that terrorist attack could very well have come from a missile, from a theater missile, as well. We have a lot of threats out there. It is not the cold war anymore, but we have a lot of threats. We have to be prepared to adapt to these threats. The bill codifies the so-called demonstrated capability standard for theater defense as a formal U.S. compliance policy. This action specifically mirrors the criteria proposed by the Clinton administration in Geneva 2 years ago. It is a responsible and appropriate standard, Madam President, and its codification in law supports the administration's position. I am pleased to be able to support the administration on this issue. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology, I want to speak just briefly on some initiatives included in the jurisdiction of my own subcommittee. Our review of the budget request highlighted a continuing trend within the administration of shortchanging investments in technology, development, and modernization in order to provide near- term relief for readiness. This is simply unacceptable. When you take dollars from the programs of the future to put them in some activity that you are conducting today, you are going to shortchange the troops of the future. We should be doing both. That is the truth. We should not be shortchanging the troops in the field. We should not shortchange the troops in the field of the future. That is where the technology and investment now in these technology programs is so important. Certainly today's readiness is important, but modernization is the key to long- term readiness. If people in the 1950's and 1960's in the Pentagon had not been farsighted enough to come up with the weapons that we used in the Persian Gulf, the price of oil would be a lot higher today and the outcome of that war could very well have been different. In order to have the weapons of the future, you have to invest today. The acquisition and technology section of the bill emphasizes three main concepts. First, it encourages more innovative thinking in the area of emerging operational concepts, and, in particular, the bill supports the Marine Corps' Sea Dragon and the Army's Force 21 initiatives, which seek to leverage technology to change the nature of warfare. It is the futuristic things that we are looking at here. What is war going to be like 10, 15, or 20 years down the road? Will we be ready to help the soldier, sailor, marine, air man or woman in the field? What will it be like 20 years from now? You need to have your think tanks and the best minds in the services out there trying to get a handle on that, looking at what that technology may be and begin to fund it. The bill seeks to reward, not discourage--reward--more innovation, to challenge the services to question traditional doctrine. Do not just do it tomorrow because we did it yesterday. Challenge the services to question this doctrine and to develop new strategies and tactics that leverage the revolutionary capabilities that technology now provides. I emphasize the word ``revolutionize.'' Sometimes we get evolutionary in our approach to things rather than revolutionary. I use the example of the Hubble telescope. That was a revolutionary item because it allowed us to see out into deep space things we have never seen before. That was revolutionary. Those are the kinds of breaks with the past, breaks with the present, futuristic approaches that we need to encourage. That is what we have tried to do in this committee. We are a $9 billion budget out of a $262 billion budget, but we tried to make the best of what we had. The second priority is the increased use of commercial technologies by the services. The bill provides a significant beginning for dual- use, cost-shared programs in the services, as well as a portion of the dual-use program in the budget requests. The key to integrating more commercial practices into the acquisition framework is not simply to spend more money on some stand-alone program, but rather to make commercial practices and products part of the core service acquisition so this is routine rather than an exception. There may be dual use between commercial and military. Third, the bill focuses on an affordability initiative to lower cost and increase the purchasing power of our limited defense dollars. The bill increases funding for manufacturing technology programs of the Navy and the Air Force and funds a variety of initiatives to improve the affordability of future weapons systems. Madam President, since he is on the floor, I take a moment--Senator Cohen, my colleague from Maine, regarding his information in the information technology area on last year's acquisition reform legislation, this is the kind of forward looking that the defense community needs, and the committee is fortunate to have benefited from Senator Cohen's foresight and acquisition reform. Although he is not chairing the subcommittee, his input has been greatly appreciated by me and it has been a pleasure to work with him on these issues. We will certainly miss him on the committee next year. Let me close, Madam President, with just some brief comments on a couple of other observations. We know this is an election year. We know that Members on both sides of the aisle are seeking sometimes to gain political advantage by delaying, obstructing or amending legislation that is brought up on the floor. Unfortunately, this is the case with this bill. This is not a partisan issue. The defense of America is not a partisan issue. How could one of us with these dilatory amendments and tactics look the families of those people in Saudi Arabia who lost their lives, look those families in the eye and say we ought to be out here debating something about vitamins or something on the floor of the Senate while we are trying to pass a defense authorization bill. It is wrong. It is wrong. We can do it. It is a misguided notion, Madam President, to take these kinds of things on the floor of the Senate during the Armed Forces debate, the debate on the moneys we use to fund our national defense. Providing for the common defense is a constitutional responsibility, probably the most important one we have. It should not be a political hot potato. It should not be a time to talk about minimum wage or vitamins or something else. That is not appropriate. You can do it, and it is within the rules, but it is not appropriate. The bill before us was reported out of the Armed Services Committee unanimously, 20-0. There was no dissent. Yet, it is being delayed here on the floor. The reason I am speaking now is because nobody is down here to offer amendments so that we can finish this bill. That should indicate to my colleagues the degree to which Senator Thurmond and members of this committee have worked to formulate a balanced, responsible, and nonpartisan defense bill. It is not easy. We lose sometimes, we give in a little bit sometimes. We all do, and we do not like it. We like to get our own way all of the time, but we understand that getting a good bill to support our men and women in the armed services, with the weapons they need, the clothing they need, O&M funds, operations and maintenance funds, they need--these are critical. Now, we are certainly sure that there are items in this legislation that some may oppose, but that is the nature of the legislative process. We ought to do it. If they are germane, let us have the amendments. That is the nature of the constitutional separation of powers. We have research, we discuss and debate and find common ground, and, when necessary, we vote to resolve issues. That is the way the Framers intended it, and that is democracy. It is not intended to be a polarizing bill, to draw political lines in the sand. It should not be about gun control. Yet, here we are talking about gun control. This leadership has decided to address controversial issues, such as missile defense and U.N. command and control, through separate legislation. We did it deliberately, not because we wanted to, but because we did not want to deny a 3-percent pay raise to our military and deny this bill. So the bill before us is designed to foster consensus, to promote the national security objectives of the United States of America. Let us maintain a spirit of cooperation and avoid the temptation to engage in election year demagoguery and negativism, which everybody is sick of. This is for the defense of the United States of America. Kids were killed this week defending our country. We owe it to them to pass this bill. We should have passed it days ago. Let us pass it today in honor of them and stop this bickering with nongermane, unessential items. The national security of this Nation is too important for this kind of stuff. I will conclude by thanking the chairman, Senator Thurmond, who is on the floor, and the ranking member, for their service. I am proud to serve with them. I am proud to be a part of this committee, and I will be proud to support and vote for this bill.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I further ask that if the Hatch amendment is not agreed to, it be in order for the majority leader to make a motion to table following 30 minutes of debate to be equally divided in the usual form, with 10 additional minutes under the control of Senator Specter and 5 additional minutes under the control of Senator Pryor, and no further amendments or motions be in order prior to that motion to table.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to hear at least a portion of the amendment read to get some understanding of what the amendment is. I do not choose to continue the objection. At this point, I want to object.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, while the Senator from New Jersey gets a chance to review the unanimous-consent request, I want to make a couple of points in response, very briefly, to some of the points that were made in this debate. The Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from California, when she was on the floor, argued about the value of these guns, the M-1. Both Senators advocate that these rifles be destroyed. You want to remember that in this program, rifle sales are only a part of the program and the program is about safety, it is about competitive sport shooting, it is about instruction. But the thing that fascinates me is how can one argue that the rifle should be destroyed on the one hand and, if they are destroyed, then the value is zero; yet, on the other hand complain that they are being sold? If I have a $10,000 porcelain artifact that an antique dealer would buy from me for $10,000 and I pick it up and I throw it to the floor and break it, I do not have anything of value. I think that is really what this debate is about. The taxpayers bought these rifles at one point for our military, and now we are hearing complaints when the taxpayers have the opportunity to buy them again. A couple more quick points. On the question about what stops the militia from participating, the law stops the militia from participating. They cannot participate, they cannot buy an M-1 if they advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government. No group like that can get those. There is a background check on all the people. It must be a certified program. There is a waiting period of 10 to 15 months. They are fingerprinted, and no felon can purchase these. Again, this is excess inventory. This is surplus. It is obsolete. These weapons are surplus, obsolete. They are of no use to the military. They are excess, therefore, the Government, in all types of excess materials, disposes of them. How do you advocate destroying $76 million in taxpayer assets if they do not have value, are without value to the taxpayers? This business about military access, militia access, and Camp Grayling, that does not have anything to do with this program. CMP is a very tightly controlled program. As a matter of fact, those people were thrown out who tried to get into Camp Grayling. U.S. citizen access to military installations is another issue.

Mr. SMITH. Then I object to the calling off of the quorum call.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, in this amendment the Senator from New Jersey argues that the private, nonprofit, self-sustaining entity established by Congress, the CMP, the Civilian Marksmanship Program, is neither private nor self-sustaining. The amendment appears to make the program self-sustaining, but in fact it terminates the program flat out. He says that the CMP should be self-sustaining. He states that the program is terrible; in fact, it is outrageous, he says. I think the goal here is to portray the Civilian Marksmanship Program as dangerous and wasteful, perhaps an agenda here which is to terminate the entire program. Let me just use some phrases that the Senator from New Jersey has used in debate here. The Senator from New Jersey says, ``Located deep inside the massive 1996 Defense Authorization Act, there is a small provision that was slipped into the defense bill.'' Both the House and the Senate bills contained very detailed provisions to transition this Civilian Marksmanship Program from the Federal Government. This is not something that was deep inside a massive bill that was slipped in. It is actually 14 sections in a separate title. Title 16, Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety. It is almost 10 pages. So it is not a little, insignificant item that was somehow slipped into this bill. It is very clear. It is not a small provision. It certainly is not in any way hidden. It is very much a part of the bill and easy to find. The Senator from New Jersey also says that, ``The law directs the Department of Defense to turn over 176,000 guns and 150 million rounds of ammunition in buildings in Washington, DC, and Ohio worth $8.8 million.'' The law directs DOD to transition the program to the private sector-- transition the program to the private sector. No transfer of an obsolete M-1 Garand rifle can occur by law unless strict criteria are met. No buildings or real property are going to be given to the corporation. One building at Port Clinton, OH, may be leased back to the corporation. Ammunition held in this Civilian Marksmanship Program is surplus ammunition. Eighty-five percent of it was purchased with revenues generated by CMP from fees and dues. There are no U.S. forces or allies, for that matter, who have any need for this 30-caliber ammunition. So the 287,000 M-1 Garand rifles now being stored by the defense logistics agencies are obsolete. They are carried by DOD as unserviceable. So I do not understand where all this tremendous monetary value comes from that somehow we are wasting or giving away. They are obsolete. They are not worth anything to the Federal Government. So this transition saves the Government, does not cost the Government, saves the Government millions--millions of dollars--because you have to destroy this inventory. If you did not get rid of it by giving it away, you would have to destroy ammunition, you would have to destroy these weapons. Plus, in the meantime before you destroyed them, you would have to have storage costs. The estimate of that is somewhere around $2.5 million annually. In addition to that, you would preserve the program and avoid other significant costs. M-1's are obsolete and have value only if they are sold. They do not have value if they sit. They have value only if they are sold. Criticism that the program is a giveaway for selling obsolete rifles that have no value unless they are sold does not make any sense. Disposals comply with all current law. All current law is complied with, and further, require a formal training program and a waiting period of 10 to 15 months after the completion of all these requirements. Now, the Senator from New Jersey, and I will use his language, said, ``The total tab to the American taxpayer for this boondoggle is over $76 million.'' That is simply not true. The value of obsolete M-1 rifles is zero. How would one put a value of $76 million on obsolete items that no one wants to buy? They are a liability. They cost money if they are destroyed. No real property is here being transferred to the corporation. So the $76 million, I do not know where it came from. It has no basis, in fact. However, there are some savings. Mr. President, 28 Government employees would leave the program, $83,000 in annual rent for a commercial building would be saved, and $850,000 in conducting national matches would be saved, a cost avoidance by not having to store and destroy 287,000 obsolete firearms. Another statement that was made here, Mr. President, by the Senator from New Jersey is, ``Why should taxpayers be delivering cost free to American gun enthusiasts more than 176,000 rifles and enough ammunition to start a small war?'' If we could try to look through that kind of inflammatory rhetoric, it is fair to ask a public policy matter, I think, as to whether the CMP should be transitioned or terminated. That is a fair question. No concern was raised while the issue was considered in markup nor on the floor nor in conference. This is not a gun control issue. That is what the other side is making this into. It is not a gun control issue. The program promotes safety and conducts matches--national matches. The disposals of these obsolete weapons, the M-1's, comply with all current law and further require a formal training program and a waiting period of 10 to 15 months after all these requirements are complete. We have heard today that somehow this is a great benefit to the NRA and we are carrying water for the NRA. This is not even about the NRA. The NRA does not have a thing to do with this program, nothing, not one bit of a role does the NRA have in this program. The essential question is whether the program contributes sufficient value to the United States to merit its continuation. That is the issue. The program of safety education and the contribution to the U.S. Olympic teams alone would answer that question in the affirmative. Now we have heard to the contrary, but considering the program's value as an outreach program, conducted by a large network of volunteers, its proven value in military recruitment and the savings to taxpayer, all of those items support its continuation. What we are hearing is a misrepresentation of the facts, turning this into a gun issue. The fact that there is no cost to the taxpayers to continue the program as a private entity further supports its continuation. Now, let me answer this point about gun enthusiasts. This is a large program, a very large program. It has the direct involvement of over half a million young adults, maybe some older adults. Nine out of 10 members of the 1992 U.S. Olympic rifle team participated in this program, 9 out of 10, to include female gold and silver medalists. Congress considered the issue, recognized the value of the program, and developed the transitional aspect of this legislation in close cooperation with the Army to enhance those people to use those weapons in their training on the U.S. Olympic team. CMP, the Civilian Marksman Program, is conducted through 1,100 formally affiliated clubs in all 50 States, whose volunteers teach young people the safe and responsible use of firearms in conjunction with competitive sport shooting, competitive sport shooting. Who belongs? Clubs in New Jersey, for example, include the Vernon Township Police Athletic League, the Queen of Peace High School, the 44th infantry Division Historical Reenactment Society, the Boy Scout Troop 46, and Kearny Police Junior Rifle Club. We forget that when we go to see these reenactments of military battles or marchers, that they do carry these weapons. Where would they get them? We are providing them to them. That is a service. These are not placed in the hands of fanatics who are going out shooting people. Yet that is the image that is being presented here. A typical club secretary, who also is a New Jersey police officer, commented to our staff on the committee, ``Our club has 21 young people in grades 6 to 8 and 40 on a standby list. We have turned away countless others because we do not have instructors. The local schools and parents fully support our club.'' I repeat, ``The local parents and schools fully support our club. Ours is the only basic firearms safety program in the area. We believe that educating kids in safety is the best way to demystify guns and achieve responsibility, safety, and respect. We teach kids how to handle these situations where a friend may try to take out a gun in a house,'' for example. It is a team program. Another secretary commented, ``We have more than 400 members in our club. This is a family program, lots of fathers and daughters. Most adults are in the National Guard, the Reserves, or have had military experience. We stress the safe handling of firearms and dispel myths. We instruct the police auxiliary and active Reservists without the use of public funds. Our community has found in 15 years of club affiliation this is an excellent program for kids.'' So, ``The CMP,'' again, using the words of the Senator from New Jersey, ``has sponsored summertime shooting competitions for civilians and it even purchased bullets for Boy Scouts and taught them how to shoot guns.'' Now, that is really an outrageous statement, Mr. President. The program conducts annual national matches, supports programs like 4-H, Future Farmers of America, and, yes, the Boy Scouts. It does furnish .22 caliber ammuni- tion--formerly free of charge, soon at a nominal price--for certified youth programs paid from revenues that this program generates. Without this program, there would be no national matches. Again, the Senator from New Jersey says in reality the new corporation will be private in name only. That is not true, either. The legislation states, ``The corporation shall not be considered a department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government. An officer or employee of the corporation shall not be considered to be an officer or employee of the Federal Government.'' The Senator from New Jersey also says, ``There was also evidence of links between the program and antigovernment militia groups.'' Of course this is a hot button, which is why it is brought up. Again, this is simply not true. Now, facts are facts. This comment may refer to a group not affiliated with the program that tried to use a military installation range and was turned away by the installation commander because they were affiliated with the militia. The Army conducted an investigation of possible militia involvement in a program and can find absolutely no indication of militia involvement. This M-1 is not the type of firearm that such a group or a criminal would prefer. It cannot be used as a full automatic. It is heavy and it is impossible to conceal. This is an old military weapon, Mr. President. The legislation prohibits explicitly participation in the program by anybody who is a convicted felon, firearm violator, and any individual who would advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government or any overthrow of the U.S. Government. The requirements to purchase an M-1 through the program are probably the most vigorous in the country. An applicant must comply with all existing laws, have a background check, be fingerprinted, attend a formal training program, fire 50 rounds under supervision as part of the training, and wait 10 to 15 months after completion of all of the requirement to receive a rifle. It is regrettable, Mr. President, that this program has come under attack and this thing is being made into an NRA issue or a gun issue. Again, in summary, these are outmoded weapons that are used in competition, or in military reenactments, or hobbyists, or for competitive shooting, and that is all. They have no value whatsoever to anyone. So to say they are worth $76 million is simply outrageous. They have no value. So by providing this opportunity for people to get some use out of them, some training, I think we enhance the possibility that they would be less be apt to have accidents, or go to people who do not understand guns. But to say we are putting bullets and guns into the hands of Boy Scouts, that is terribly misleading, Mr. President. At this point, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH

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

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at the hour of 4 o'clock p.m. today the Senate lay aside any pending amendments to the DOD authorization bill and Senator Pryor be recognized to offer his amendment regarding GATT, and immediately following the reporting by the clerk, Senator Hatch be recognized to offer a relevant, perfecting amendment limited to 30 minutes, equally divided in the usual form, with an additional 10 minutes under the control of Senator Specter, and following the disposition of the second-degree amendment, if agreed to, Senator Pryor be recognized to offer a further second-degree amendment, and there be 30 minutes' time for debate prior to a motion to table, to be equally divided in the usual form, with an additional 10 minutes under the control of Senator Specter, and following the conclusion or yielding back of time, Senator Lott be recognized to move to table the second- degree Pryor amendment, and no other amendments or motions be in order prior to the motion to table.

Mr. SMITH. The Senator from New Hampshire does have a further item on the unanimous-consent request that I would like to finish, but I think it is contingent upon whether or not there is objection to the first unanimous-consent request. Whatever the Chair feels is appropriate.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the town of Jefferson, NH, on their 200th Anniversary. Jefferson is celebrating their 200th birthday all throughout the year, and the town's citizens will highlight these festivities with a Grand Parade and numerous other activities on July 6. This small New Hampshire town has a significant heritage to celebrate on their bicentennial. The history of Jefferson began in 1765 with a land grant from George III to John Goffe and 75 others. Although Goffe and his friends failed to meet the conditions of the grant and retain the land, they left the area with the name Dartmouth, which would eventually become Jefferson. The land was eventually granted to Col. Joseph Whipple, a man of great vision who saw the potential and appreciated the beauty of the Singrawac Valley. Located midway along the slopes of Mount Starr King in the Pliny Range, Jefferson has breathtaking views of both the Presidential Range and Cherry Mountain. Colonel Whipple was instrumental in Jefferson's development, as the man responsible for giving the town its distinguished name. He was both a personal friend to Thomas Jefferson and an ardent Jeffersonian Democrat. In addition, he was the brother of William Whipple, one of New Hampshire's three signers of the Declaration of Independence. In honor of this great man the town received the name Jefferson in 1796, 4 years before Thomas Jefferson was elected President of the United States. Later in 1796 an act of the New Hampshire legislature incorporated the town of Jefferson, beginning its proud history. The early settlers of this untamed country were independent and self- sufficient folk, characteristics that have endured in the people of this region. They began as a farming community working for the town's founder Colonel Whipple. They were paid with half of a hundred acre lot and had the option to buy the other half. With their independent spirit and determination they built a strong and lasting community that makes their descendants proud. When the town was first settled, the nearest mill was forty miles away, yet the town residents made the trip with bushels of corn in tow. Thomas Starr King was an important figure in the town's history and lent his name to the mountain Jefferson proudly rests upon. It was he who encouraged Benjamin Plaisted to build a hotel for tourists in this northern region. He wanted to see a place created where people could contemplate the ever changing beauty of the majestic mountains. The Waumbeck, meaning White Rock, was built in 1860 with its name and location chosen by Mr. King. At the height of the late 1800's, the area around Jefferson boasted a large community of inns and hotels. Deborah Vicker was also an important figure in Jefferson's history. She was originally a housemaid of Col. Whipple who, with typical Jefferson independence, later became a well respected doctor in the region. Today, the town of Jefferson prides itself on its quality of life and community spirit, a tradition that has manifested itself throughout the town's history. In 1885, a disastrous rock slide on the mountain destroyed a nearly completed home and in 1928, fire destroyed the Waumbeck Hotel. Although the era of the grand hotels of the 19th century is gone, the people of Jefferson continue to enjoy their majestic view of the Singrawac Valley and the surrounding mountains. The great Jefferson community spirit manifested itself again in 1988, when a series of fires in the area threatened the town and drew national attention as the community pulled together. This town of nearly 1,000 residents boasts not only magnificent surroundings, but a community of friendly, caring neighbors as well. I congratulate the town of Jefferson on this historic milestone and wish them a happy bicentennial celebration. I send them my best wishes for continued success and a prosperous year as they mark their 200th birthday. Happy Birthday Jefferson.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I must ask my colleagues: Is this the direction we should go? We are putting a great deal of trust in an undeveloped technology for such a critical national security mission. I certainly cannot predict the future, but I am 100 percent at predicting the past. I cannot say with any degree of certainty that the accelerator technology--for which we are authorizing over $140 million in spending in fiscal year 1997--will or will not work. However, I can say with confidence that the Department of Energy has demonstrated a very poor record in managing other large initiatives. Furthermore, the American people have never been enthusiastic about paying for these types of large projects. When costs begin to escalate, what makes us think they will support this risky project in the future? Unfortunately, Mr. President, I fear that the administration, and now this Congress, may be overlooking the most reasonable approach to performing the tritium mission; that being, a new nuclear reactor that could produce tritium, while generating electricity for use in the surrounding area of the country. Since this type of new reactor project would earn revenue from the electricity sales, it could be privatized and, thus, its construction could be paid for largely through private funds--not by the taxpayers. In fact, Department of Energy studies show the new reactor option to be billions of dollars less expensive than the accelerator. Indeed, industry critics say that the cost gap between the accelerator and reactor options is even larger than the numbers in DOE's studies--more like $10 to $15 billion over the project's lifetime. Mr. President, I doubt this issue will receive any more debate or discussion than what I have raised today. I know that my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, has been an outspoken critic of the Department of Energy's handling of the tritium decision. I commend my friend from Arizona for his continuing interest in this matter, and his steadfast support for maintaining a safe, reliable, and effective nuclear deterrent. While this issue may go largely unnoticed this year, I am forewarning my colleagues that we are likely to debate in the future this Government's exorbitant spending on the accelerator and how research and development is taking much longer than previously anticipated--at the same time that our tritium stockpile comes perilously close to depletion. Meanwhile, a technology available today that can be privately financed is apparently being shunned. Considering all of the painful budget cuts confronting us in the years ahead, and the critical need for tritium, I cannot understand how this body would allow the Energy Department to initiate another big ticket accelerator research project, particularly when its overall cost and performance are seriously in question. In my view, we should be exploring other possible alternatives, particularly those that are less expensive and more reliable, to satisfy this key national security requirement. environmental management headquarters, program direction subaccount

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the town of Pelham, NH, as they celebrate their 250th birthday on July 5. The town residents have been busy planning a big birthday bash including a charter ceremony, birthday party, fireworks, the town's largest parade, a fireman's muster and many other enjoyable events for the July 4 weekend. The activities are certain to bring the town together for an historic 3-day celebration. In 1721, the first settlers came to Pelham. John Butler led a group of families from Woburn, MA, who first came to the area. The Wymans, Jakes, Richardsons, and Hamblets were part of the first group. Butler's memory is now honored by a monument on the town common. The town of Pelham was incorporated on July 5, 1746. Then Governor Benning Wentworth of the new royal province signed the town charter on that day and named the town of Pelham after Henry Pelham, who was the Prime Minister of England at the time. Pelham had been a member of the House of Commons since 1717, and had been made Secretary of War in 1724. He succeeded Lord Wilmington as First Lord of the Treasury in 1721 and became prime minister in 1743, serving 11 years. One interesting note is that Pelham was once a part of Massachusetts. In 1741, when the boundary line was finally settled between New Hampshire and Massachusetts, Pelham became part of New Hampshire. Originally, the town was very agricultural and had many dairy farms. Since then most of the farms have disappeared and only a few active farms exist today. One of Pelham's wel-known residents was the Reverend Augustus Barry who was born in 1861. He was the minister of the First Congregational Church and was very active in the schools until his death in 1899. Today, the town has four major churches--St. Patrick Church, Pelham Baptist Church, the New England Pentecostal Ministries, and the First Congregational Church. Pelham's first library was built in 1896, and will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year. Several of the events planned for the weekend birthday celebration will take place in the more historic areas of the town. Friday evening's charter ceremony and birthday party will be held on the grounds of the First Congregational Church, founded in 1751 just 5 years after the town was founded. I congratulate the residents of Pelham on 250 years of history. I wish to extend my very best wishes for a festive weekend of activities and continued prosperity. Happy Birthday Pelham.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I join today with my friend and colleague Senator Gregg in offering an amendment to convey approximately 3.5 acres of land to Saint Anselm College in Manchester, NH. This land is currently owned by the Army, but will soon be vacated upon completion of a military construction project that is authorized in this bill. Saint Anselm College is a liberal arts college that was founded in 1889. The college is conducted by the Benedictine Order, and has a longstanding relationship with the U.S. Armed Forces. In fact during the two world wars, Korea, and Vietnam, members of the Benedictine community volunteered to serve as chaplains in the military. During World War II, Saint Anselm was among the first colleges to participate in the military ``V-1'' program to assist in training young men for military service. In March 1943, the college turned its campus over to the Army Air Corps which used Saint Anselm as a pre-flight school until the end of the war. Members of the faculty were used as teachers of the pre-flight cadets in mathematics and science subjects. In 1950, Saint Anselm College cooperated with what was then known as the ``organized reserve'' to establish an Army reserve unit on campus. The organized reserve used college facilities, classrooms in storage facilities, and college students served as members of the Reserve in a field artillery battery. The U.S. Government incurred no costs for the use of these facilities which were provided willingly by the college. In 1954, when the Army decided it needed to establish a permanent reserve facility, Saint Anselm generously offered a building on campus. When none of the on-campus facilities proved suitable to the Corps of Engineers, the Army looked elsewhere. In the end, the site ultimately determined to be most desirable was on property that was part of the Saint Anselm campus. Again, the college expressed its willingness to cooperate and sought to give the U.S. Government a lease at no cost for as long as the Army needed the property. Unfortunately, Government regulations prohibited building military structures on leased land. Nonetheless, in its continuing effort to cooperate with the needs of the Government, Saint Anselm gave the land to the Army free of charge. When the college donated the property, it retained an easement for a major sewer line that runs through the tract. That sewer line continues to be the principal line flowing from the campus to connect with the Manchester system. Mr. President, Saint Anselm's had two principles in mind when it agreed to give this valuable tract of land to the Government. The first was that it intended to conduct itself as a good citizen to promote the readiness of our country, and the U.S. Army in particular--an organization with which the college had a long history of service. The second was that students of Saint Anselm College were to be an integral part of the plans which the Army had for the new reserve center. This relationship did in fact continue, and students of the college became part of the reserve unit, receiving their military training, earning a commission, and fulfilling their military obligation. In fact, more than 50 alumni of Saint Anselm College have given their lives in wartime service to the Nation. Mr. President, the Army Reserve will soon vacate the crafts brother facility and be absorbed into a new joint service reserve center at the Manchester Airport. The Army will have no further need for this property, which is valued at approximately $300,000. In fact, in this bill we are authorizing the final installment on the military construction project that will render the property excess. I can think of no more fitting or appropriate action than for us to convey this land back to Saint Anselm College just as the college so generously donated it to the Army some 40 years ago. It is my understanding that the Army has no objection to this conveyance, and that it is agreeable to the managers on both sides. If it is now appropriate, I would move the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the 80 fifth-grade students in Pam Moreau's math classes at Milford Middle School in New Hampshire. Pam and her students organized an elaborate recycling system and donated 80,000 metal pull-tabs from soft drink cans to the Shriners hospital in Springfield, MA. The Shriners Hospital sells the tabs and uses the money to buy medical and nonmedical supplies for the hospital's burn victims and orthopaedic patients, all of whom are children. I congratulate the Milford students who worked for so many months to collect and recycle the tabs. These 80 fifth-graders and the 80,000 tabs they collected are an example of the type of goodwill exemplified all across the country for the Shriners hospital. The Shriners hospital in Massachusetts is one of 22 Shriner hospitals in the United States that provides high-quality medical care absolutely free of charge. The Shriners hospital network is the only hospital system in the Nation that provides 100-percent charitable care, accepting no government or insurance reimbursement for treating hundreds of thousands of children. The only way the Shriners are able to help so many young patients is due to the generous support of the American people like the Milford fifth-graders. Since 1922, when the first Shriner hospital was founded, the Shriner hospital network has helped over 500,000 children. Last year, the hospitals treated close to 20,000 orthopaedic cases and conducted over 200,000 outpatient and outreach clinic visits. Money raised from the tabs collected by the Milford students will help pay for x-ray film, children's books, and VCR tapes for the patients at the Springfield Shriners Hospital. This hospital and other Shriner hospitals make the largest single contribution on a continuing basis to the care of disabled children in the United States. I have always been impressed with the number of children the Shriners hospital helps each year and have worked with them over the years to promote and assist their efforts. I am particularly pleased that a group of young students in New Hampshire worked so diligently to contribute to this outstanding institution. These young fifth-graders will help make a difference in the lives of the sick and disabled children at the Shriners hospital. They should be very proud of their volunteer effort. Mr. President, I ask that this recently published article from the Telegraph describing the students' hard work be inserted into the Record. [From the Telegraph] Project Has Kids Pulling for Other Kids Fifth-graders in Pam Moreau's math classes are getting a lesson in numbers while helping other kids. About 80 pupils at the Milford Middle School in New Hampshire began collecting metal pull-tabs from soft drink cans last fall and donating them to the Shriners Hospital in Springfield, Mass., which treats orthopaedic patients; other Shriners Hospitals, such as one in Boston, treat child burns patients. The hospital sells the tabs to an aluminum recycler and uses the money to purchase a variety of medical and nonmedical items, from X-ray film to children's books and VCR tapes patients use during their hospitalization. As of mid-April, the Milford pupils had collected about 80,000 of the small metal objects--an average of 1,000 per pupil. The dollar value of their efforts is estimated to be $130, so far [price fluctuates daily]. ``It's a project we got started for the fun of it . . . but the kids come in with thousands each week,'' said Moreau, who added they might expand the effort to include more pupils next year. Many pupils involve their parents, aunts, and uncles in their collecting, said Moreau. One girl made a bin for employees at her father's workplace to donate the tabs. Each month, Moreau gives out a small prize to the pupils who collect the most. She said their collecting efforts have translated well in the math classes--pupils keep track of their collecting by plotting numbers on graphs. They deposit them into empty five-gallon water bottles, and have filled about five since they began. It has also spawned a sense of recycling, which for many Milford residents is already the norm. But she said pupils have taken to checking the family garbage and picking up cans littering local parks. Moreau said she learned about the fund-raising project through a friend who saves the tabs and gives them to Chief Grayden, a Nashua Shriner active in Shriners Hospitals. Grayden regularly drives local patients to their treatments in Boston or Springfield, and he brings the tabs to Springfield when he has a bunch. Moreau said they kicked off the volunteer effort by inviting Grayden in to speak about how collecting them would help other kids. Since then, pupils have been unstoppable. ``It's kids helping kids,'' she said. ``Even though they never have met these kids, they think it's great to be helping out.''

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S. 1219, the Senate Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1996. There are several major campaign finance proposals that are now being considered by the Congress. I am pleased to offer my views on each of them. The most far-reaching campaign finance reform proposals involve the taxpayer financing of congressional campaigns. I do not favor that approach. I do not think that liberal Democratic taxpayers should be forced to finance my political campaigns any more than conservative Republican taxpayers should be forced to finance the campaigns of liberal Democratic politicians. Other campaign finance proposals have sought to place limits on how much money campaigns can spend. Such proposals raise serious constitutional questions. In the case of Buckley versus Valeo, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional for Congress to limit the ability of individual candidates to spend their own money to finance their own political campaigns. How is it fair, then, for Congress to limit the ability of candidates who are not wealthy to raise campaign money? If wealthy candidates can spend all of the money that they want while candidates of modest means cannot, then we will soon have a Congress made up almost exclusively of wealthy individuals. Still another approach is that which is embodied by S. 1219. Under the McCain-Feingold bill, voluntary campaign spending limits would be adopted and candidates who complied with those limits would be provided with free and-or sharply reduced rates of advertising by the news media. I do not favor this approach because I do not think that Congress should compel private entities to offer their services at below-market rates. Therefore, I simply cannot support this bill. The McCain-Feingold bill, as well as others, also proposes the elimination of political action committees [PAC's]. I have voted for this reform in the past. I believe that the best way to reform our system of campaign finance is to find ways in which to encourage more participation by small donors. I am proud to say that in my political campaigns over the years, I have been supported by many thousands of small contributors. I also strongly support the current system under which congressional campaigns must disclose the sources and amounts of financial contributions from all entities--large and small. I believe that the public has a right to this information. I believe that a responsible and meaningful package of campaign finance reform legislation can and should be developed and passed by the Congress. I support that effort.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the founder of the National Scrip Center, Msgr. Tom Keys, on the 25th anniversary of his ordination as a Roman Catholic priest. Monsignor Keys founded the National Scrip Center in 1986 to help save a Catholic high school that was facing a quarter of a million dollars worth of debt. The National Scrip Center provides an innovative gift certificate program to help schools and nonprofit organizations generate revenues for their programs. Monsignor Keys has given numerous nonprofit organizations across the country opportunities to expand and succeed through the money they raise from scrip. Since 1986, Monsignor Keys' Scrip Center has grown steadily and now helps over 5,000 organizations across the country. I congratulate Monsignor Keys for all his hard work over the years in establishing scrip which has become a vital program for so many nonprofit groups. His entrepreneurial spirit has brought community nonprofit groups and businesses together in a remarkable show of unity. He is a role model for all of us to follow. The National Scrip Center's education, training and fundraising support services have helped a network of 5,700 neighborhood Catholic, Jewish and Protestant private, parochial, and public schools and nonprofit affiliates in more than 30 States. Under Monsignor Keys' leadership, the center empowers nonprofits to help themselves generate operating funds. One of his primary goals is to provide children and young people with opportunities for affordable quality education. The Scrip Center was first started at the St. Vincent's Parish in Petaluma, CA. Now, the national center is a network of nonprofits raising money for important causes, provides a customer service department, software for marketing and accounting purposes and other services. I congratulate Monsignor Keys for his vision and determination. The National Scrip Center is a remarkable symbol of his 25 years of dedication to his community as a Roman Catholic priest. I am proud of his efforts and commend his inspiration to nonprofit organizations across the country. He has touched so many lives in the process. Best wishes to Monsignor Keys on his 25th anniversary as a spiritual leader, and I wish him continued prosperity, happiness, and blessings as the scrip network of nonprofit organizations continues to grow.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, in offering this amendment. It is an amendment that needs to be offered. It is one of those very painful chapters in American history that occasionally we have to deal with. It is a great tribute, I think, to America that when we find a wrong, that we do have the capacity to admit that wrong and to right it. Over 35 years ago, the United States Government asked the Republic of Vietnam to provide some South Vietnamese military personnel for special commando missions into North Vietnam. The best figures that we have, and there is some variation here, but approximately 350 of these commandos were trained by U.S. Government agencies. They were inserted into North Vietnam by our military forces, and, as has already been said, they were captured by the Communist forces and forced to spend the next 20 to 30 years in reeducation camps. The term ``reeducation camp'' does not really, Mr. President, accurately define what exactly these men went through. We know they were tortured. So reeducation is hardly the correct word. For the record, Mr. President, it is clear that these commandos knew what they were doing. They knew they were taking great risks. Indeed, many of their fellow comrades died during these very operations, and some died after the missions while they were in North Vietnam. They also knew what was at stake with the Communist aggression if we did not contain the Communist aggression in Southeast Asia. More importantly, the United States certainly was aware of the dangers involved with these missions. That is why I believe a solemn commitment was made to these commandos and their families that they would be compensated for the sacrifices they made. It is interesting, these Vietnamese worked for the CIA and the United States military in, basically, a doomed effort to infiltrate North Vietnam between 1961 and 1969. They were dropped behind enemy lines by parachute. Some secretly swam ashore after being taken there in speedboats, and then they were captured. It is clear that as we stand here now, the United States has yet to live up to that commitment that was made to these South Vietnamese commandos in the 1960's. In point of fact, a cold and uncaring bureaucracy was allowed to write these men off, literally, as dead three decades ago, even though there was convincing evidence that many had been captured. To put it bluntly, their families were told they were dead when, in fact, they were alive. It is a documented historical fact that in 1969, in then secret testimony before the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a DOD official stated: ``We reduced the number of commandos on the payroll gradually by declaring so many of them dead each month until we had written them all off and removed them from the monthly payroll.'' It is really bizarre to think these kinds of things do happen in our Government, but, as I said earlier, the fact that we right these wrongs is perhaps a better comment about what America is like. The families were paid a very small token of death gratuity, and that was it. Knowing these men were alive, the DOD official told the Joint Chiefs of Staff that we were writing them off as dead, and the widows and surviving family members were paid a small stipend and then informed that these people were dead when, in fact, we knew they were not. The majority of those men had put their lives on the line for the United States' national interests. They were not Americans, but they put their lives on the line for America, and they were shackled in North Vietnamese prisons, and our Government knew it and our Government never told the families. The amendment that my colleagues are offering today, along with me, will authorize back pay, very simply, for the men who participated in these daring missions. It is a bit late, for sure, but it comes out to about $2,000 per commando for each year spent in North Vietnamese prisons. It is the least we can do. I note as a comparison that our distinguished colleague from Arizona and many others who were captured by the North Vietnamese and imprisoned and tortured, they received full pay, as they should have, during the time they were in Communist activity. So there is certainly a well- established precedent for this amendment. There is nothing dramatic about it. It is just the right thing to do. Let me also point out after a year of fighting this case in U.S. claims court, the administration has decided that granting this back pay to these commandos is the right thing to do. I think we should give credit to National Security Adviser Tony Lake, because he has been very supportive and very helpful in getting this done. I think that the tragedy which befell these commandos was only made worse by the initial attitude of the Justice Department and DOD and the CIA in the claims court. Again, we had to drag them kicking and screaming in to right the wrong, but the wrong is righted. I commend, again, Tony Lake for reversing this attitude and coming out in support of the amendment. Finally, Mr. President, as we continue to seek answers about the fate of our own missing American servicemen from the Vietnam war, I think it is imperative for the administration to assure that each of these South Vietnamese commandos has been interviewed for any information they might possess on any missing American, dead or alive. This is very important. Some of these men have been in prison in North Vietnam for 20 years. Who knows what they might know. They all should be debriefed thoroughly. This would include making arrangements to speak to all of them who are reportedly still in Vietnam awaiting approval for departure to the United States. Let me commend my colleagues, again, who served with me on the Senate committee in 1992, including the Senator from Virginia, who is here on the floor, for working with me on this amendment. We were all concerned when we saw the news accounts, and we were all committed to doing something about it. We reacted quickly. I am proud to be an original cosponsor, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I might say that there is no one on our side that I know of who wishes to speak on the amendment. I yield to the Senator from Virginia to move the amendment.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I will respond to my friend from New Mexico. We worked very closely together on the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee. I will not pound the table. I am not even going to raise my voice. The truth of the matter--and the Senator knows this full well--the administration did not request any funding in their budget for the ASAT Program. Unless I am missing something in the logic here--I do not believe I am; maybe the Senator would like me to miss it and would like others to miss it--unless I misunderstand something, if the administration does not request it and the policy folks do not want it, if we send it back to the space architect, who is a policy person, to study it, you can pretty well conclude what the results will be. They will not fund it. When I say this is a deliberate attempt to kill the Kinetic Energy ASAT Program, I mean what I say. It is true. It will kill it. The other thing that we need to understand here, the Army supports the Kinetic Energy ASAT Program. They objected to the rescission list. They objected to this being listed as a rescission item. They did not win the debate. The policy people won. The Senator's amendment sends this back to the space architect. He will study it diligently over the next few weeks, months, whatever it takes, and then announce that we do not need it, and kill it. This is not an objective decision here. This person was not objective. This person made up his mind already. He does not want it. If he wanted it, he would have funded the remainder of it, which has already been--as we said earlier, we have already expended $245 million on this program, and we have already proven that it works, and we already have the technology in place. All we are asking for is the completion. That is the reason why this is a killer amendment. We should not be cute about the process here. When somebody opposes something, you give it back to them to make the decision, you can pretty well guess what the decision is going to be. That is a little bit disingenuous. They did not fund it. The administration does not want this program. The administration is getting quite a reputation around here for not expending moneys that we have appropriated and authorized. They are getting pretty good at it, and they are doing it without legislation. They are just doing it. They are just saying, ``We do not want this, so even though you authorized it and appropriated it, we are not going to spend it.''

Mr. SMITH. I will withhold.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH. At this time, not to interrupt the debate, I would like, if the Senator from New Mexico is finished, to move the amendment, or at least ask for the yeas and nays. Let me just ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, since fiscal year 1995 the Senate has annually sponsored in its defense authorization bill a program for enhancement of the Marine Corps maritime prepositioning force by the purchase and conversion of three ships from the world market. An additional ship for each of the three Marine Corps prepositioned squadrons will allow them to carry extra materiel, including an expeditionary airfield, a fleet hospital, a Navy mobile construction battalion equipment set, Marine Corps command element equipment, and additional sustainment supplies. The lessons learned from the Marine Corps' experience in Desert Storm demonstrate that having this additional equipment afloat on a continuing basis will provide our warfighting commanders with much greater flexibility when they choose to employ Marine Corps units. For 3 years the Senate Armed Services Committee has intensively studied various options for providing MPF enhancement for the Marine Corps. The objective has been an affordable program that will deliver an adequate capability at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. The committee has consistently concluded that a program for purchase and modest conversion of existing ships represents the best means to achieve this goal. However, the committee has avoided any temptation to foreclose possible alternatives. Consequently, section 345 of the Senate bill, which would authorize additional funds for the MPF Enhancement program, leaves open the option to satisfy its requirements by construction of new ships, if this option can compete based on cost and timeliness. The Senate approach is supported by the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and by the vast majority of United States shipyards. Although the House supported the Senate program for MPF Enhancement in both the fiscal year 1995 and 1996 defense authorization bills, it has now included a provision in its version of the defense authorization bill that would exclude the purchase and conversion of existing ships for the MPF Enhancement program. This action is yet another in a series of exclusionary provisions proposed by the House that seek to limit competition, no matter what the cost to the taxpayer and the ship construction and repair industry as a whole. My amendment would reaffirm in law an authorization for the purchase and conversion of the ships needed to provide MPF Enhancement for the Marine Corps by the most cost effective means. It will also provide a strong Senate position for use by our conferees that stands in stark contrast to the exclusionary one contained in the House bill. I strongly encourage my fellow Senators to join Senator Santorum and myself in supporting this amendment.