Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, in addition to the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup bill, I would also like to introduce today a targeted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act--or ``rick-ra''--reform bill. I offer this bill in the hopes that it will supplement and enhance the reforms we are proposing to Superfund. It is my feeling that these changes are consistent with the goals of the RCRA ``Rifle Shot'' proposal being discussed within the Administration. My targeted bill is intended to: Provide greater consistency among environmental statutes; make RCRA more user friendly; eliminate costly and ineffective bureaucratic burdens; and maintain, or improve, current protections to human health and the environment. I feel the provisions of this bill will greatly enhance recycling and reuse of hazardous materials and will begin to provide cohesiveness between the two largest hazardous waste laws--Superfund and RCRA. We are trying to accomplish three things with this act: First, remove some recyclable hazardous materials from current RCRA provisions, and instead, subject them to a tailored set of standards which will facilitate the reuse of these materials in an environmentally friendly way. Under current law, the only option is to discard such materials. Second, specify a reasonable point at which a material is considered hazardous. Currently, EPA is required to apply very strict controls once a hazardous material is created, even if it is created very early in a manufacturing process. This greatly increases the costs of managing wastes, regardless of whether they ever come in contact with the environment. Third, allow EPA to determine when a hazardous material is no longer considered hazardous. Under the current law, EPA does not have the authority to tailor its standards to specific risks posed by some hazardous substances. This greatly increases the cost of treating materials that pose little or no risk. Mr. President, these changes will not only save money on waste management and cleanup, it will also greatly increase the effectiveness of our waste management laws in protecting human health and the environment. I urge its passage at the earliest possible date. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from Missouri for yielding. Mr. President, I would like to address a few brief comments regarding the amendment that has been offered by my colleague, the Senator from New Jersey. As the Senate knows, Senator Lautenberg is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Superfund, which I chair. I have worked closely with the Senator on the reauthorization of this program. I am very familiar with his concerns and understand the concerns that he has regarding this program. But I think we must point out, Mr. President, that this program, to put it mildly, has had its share of problems over the past 15 years. It has had some successes. But its cleanup rate, success ratio, has been very, very low without getting into a lot of detail here. This has been a failed program. It is very premature at this point in the process--given the reconciliation before us that Senator Bond has already addressed--to simply say we are going to dump $400 million into the Superfund Program without knowing at this point what the reforms are or what the reforms should be. During the last 9 months of our subcommittee, the Senate Superfund Subcommittee has held seven hearings on Superfund. Senator Lautenberg attended all of those hearings. They were very extensive. I know there was a lot of information provided on how this program should be changed. There were many divergent ideas, and no one with all of the answers. There was a series of exchanges between people. Many had ideas that were in conflict with each other. One issue, as I indicated in my opening sentence, was made very clear in all of those hearings. The bottom line as we walked out of those hearings was that Superfund was a well-intentioned program but a deeply troubled program. It makes no sense to simply out of the blue take $400 million from somewhere else, anywhere else--I do not care where it comes from, the rich or from wherever you want to take it. From wherever you take it, to put $400 million into a troubled program before we have addressed the reforms that need to be made is a mistake. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment at the urging of the Senator who chairs that committee, who is prepared within the next few days to present to the full Senate, certainly to the committee, Environment and Public Works Committee, and ultimately to the full Senate a comprehensive reform which I believe is fair and that I believe will address many of the concerns we feel about the Superfund Program. Given the pendency of this reauthorization effort, I just cannot see how providing these additional moneys now to the Superfund Program is a good use of very limited financial resources. It is premature. I am not saying, I wish to emphasize to the Senator from New Jersey, that at some point I would not like to have additional funds for that program. Maybe they would be needed. But at this point it is premature, and I must for that reason urge the rejection of the Lautenberg amendment. If we are successful--and I believe we will be--in reauthorizing a streamlined and improved Superfund Program within the next few weeks, it is certainly possible that next year I might be here saying that when we look at the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD-independent agencies program, money should be shifted within that program to the Superfund Program, perhaps at the expense of something else. I very well might make that case. In view of the problems that we now face, in view of the fact that we are on the verge now of presenting these reforms, this amendment is simply premature. I think the Senate and all of my colleagues deserve the opportunity to address these concerns to see what the real problems of the Superfund Program are, to see how we are addressing those problems one by one, from the liability issue, to the State involvement issue, to the remedy issue. All of these issues are going to be fully addressed, including the funding issue, in the reform bill, and I hope my colleagues would await that bill, pass judgment on that bill, before simply dumping additional resources into the Superfund Program. I yield back any time I might have to my colleague from Missouri. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering S. 619, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act. I introduced this measure on March 24, 1995, along with Senators Lautenberg, Faircloth, McConnell, Lieberman, Simon, Mack, Bond, Graham, Warner, and Reid as original cosponsors. In addition, Senator Inhofe and Senator Snowe cosponsored the bill following its introduction. This legislation is urgently needed to remove Federal barriers detrimental to much-needed State and local recycling programs for batteries commonly found in cordless products such as portable telephones, laptop computers, tools, and toys. In order to respond to this urgent need, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported S. 619 out of the committee, by voice vote, on August 2, 1995. Since 1992, Federal battery legislation has been approved in various congressional forums, including full Senate passage in 1994, but it did not become law because the legislation that it was attached to did not move forward. S. 619 which is virtually identical [[Page S 14103]] to the Senate passed provisions last year, would: First, facilitate the efficient and cost effective collection and recycling or proper disposal of used nickel cadmium [Ni-Cd] and certain other batteries by: (a) Establishing a coherent national system of labeling for batteries and products; (b) streamlining the regulatory requirements for battery collection programs for regulated batteries; and (c) encouraging voluntary industry programs by eliminating barriers to funding the collection and recycling or proper disposal of used rechargeable batteries; and second, phase out the use of mercury in batteries. I am pleased to report that the U.S. Conference of Mayors, at its June meeting, passed a resolution in support of S. 619. As the resolution recognized, passage of this legislation will decrease the quantities of mercury and cadmium contributed to the environment by dry cell batteries. In addition, S. 619 will facilitate implementation of State battery laws in the 13 States that have enacted such provisions. These States are New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Florida, New York, Iowa, Oregon, Maine, Vermont, Minnesota, and Maryland. The bill also will assist all other States in moving forward with an industry financed and developed national battery collection program. Mr. President, although industry has developed a national collection program to comply with these laws, without enactment of a Federal bill, EPA's current regulatory requirements preclude industry from fully implementing this program and from complying with the State collection requirements. Regulatory changes currently under consideration, even if promulgated, will not provide the necessary solution. Additional lengthy rulemaking procedures would also be necessary to make the regulation operational on a national basis. Further, we would still lack a coherent national system of labeling, which is necessary to facilitate nationwide marketing of batteries and products while advancing a national battery collection program. Federal legislation is the only real solution to removing the barriers to complying with State battery recycling laws, and to achieving a comprehensive recycling program. The prompt passage of this bipartisan legislation will achieve a number of important goals. First, by establishing uniform national standards to promote the recycling and reuse of rechargeable batteries, this legislation provides a cost effective means to promote the reuse of our Nation's resources. Second, our bill will further strengthen efforts to remove these potentially toxic heavy metals from our Nation's landfills and incinerators. Not only will this lower the threat of groundwater contamination and toxic air emissions, but it will also significantly reduce the threat that these materials pose to the environment. Third, this legislation represents an environmentally friendly policy choice that was developed as the result of a strong cooperative effort between the States, environmental groups and the affected industries. Our bill is strongly supported by the Electronic Industries Association [EIA], the Portable Rechargeable Battery Association [PRBA], and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association [NEMA]. For all of the reasons cited above, I believe that this legislation provides a substantial win-win from both an environmental as well as an economic standpoint. Mr. President, I believe this bill represents a significant and positive step in removing potentially toxic heavy metals from our Nation's solid waste stream, and I urge its immediate adoption.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I do not choose to take too much of the Senate's time. I will be very brief. I know that Senator Thomas and Senator McCain are going to be speaking for and against the amendment. I am very pleased in offering this amendment to join with the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Senator Thomas, in offering this amendment. I very much appreciate his support. I also appreciate the support of the Senator in the chair, the Senator from Maine, for her support and cosponsorship as well. The language in this amendment is very straightforward. It prohibits the granting of any special trading privileges to the socialist Republic of Vietnam unless the President makes two key certifications to Congress. The first of these is that Vietnam is cooperating fully with efforts to account for missing American servicemen from the Vietnam war. That is very straightforward. It does not mean that they have to provide answers for every single person who is missing; some they may not be able to provide. The key is, are they fully cooperating with those efforts to account for missing Americans, giving us the help and assistance that we need to try to get information regarding our missing. Second, that Vietnam has taken steps to improve its human rights record, which is far from exemplary, and that would include addressing United States objections over the detention of American citizens now in Vietnam. The POW/MIA-related portion of this amendment was part of a resolution I introduced this past May which was cosponsored by the majority leader, Senator Dole, and by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, the Banking Committee chair, the Asian Pacific Subcommittee and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations Subcommittee, and the International Operations Subcommittee. All of those chairs supported this. As my colleagues may recall, since coming to office, President Clinton has taken five major steps to improve relations with Vietnam. Let me just briefly reiterate those. One, in July 1993, 2 years ago, the President ended United States objections to Vietnam having access to International Monetary Fund loans, a very significant step, moving Vietnam allegedly into the international community. Second, in September 1993, the President allowed United States companies to bid on internationally financed development projects in Vietnam. Third, in February, 1994, he ended the U.S. trade embargo. Fourth, in January 1995, the President allowed Vietnam and the United States to open liaison offices in our respective capitals. And finally, Madam President, this past summer the President announced his decision to establish diplomatic relations with Vietnam. So the administration has taken very dramatic steps in the past 2 years to bring Communist Vietnam into the family of nations, but it should not be one-sided, Madam President. There should be a two-sided equation. Quite frankly, I think it is now time for Vietnam to take some very dramatic steps equaling in significance the steps taken by the President before the American taxpayer is asked to subsidize specific trading privileges with that country. Specifically, I want the President to tell us if Vietnam is fully cooperating on the POW/MIA issue. That is all I am asking--the President to say Vietnam is fully cooperating with us on the POW/MIA issue. I would like assurances that Vietnam is addressing our human rights concerns as well. We also would like the President to provide us with complete information on the status of those who are still missing from the war, something which was required last year by a unanimous vote in this Chamber. By unanimous vote of the Senate, we asked that information on the status of Americans still missing from the Vietnam war be provided to the Congress. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, I would just include three items in the Record that will give a perspective of where we are concerning the issue of human rights in Vietnam and the MIA/POW issue. The first item is an Associated Press article from last month concerning the sentencing of two American citizens in Ho Chi Minh City who did nothing more than try to organize a nonviolent conference in Vietnam. That was their crime, a nonviolent conference. I know that Senator Thomas has already expanded on this issue of Vietnam's human rights record in a floor statement he made earlier this month so I am not going to belabor it because I think he will speak to that. The second item is a letter I sent to the Under Secretary of Defense in August requesting information on POW/MIA cases, as is required by law. There has been no response to that request despite the congressional testimony earlier this year that the requested information would be provided to Congress by this past July. It is a difficult task to provide this information, and I am fully aware of that, but it has not been provided. I think Congress should have this information. That is all I am asking. Let Congress get this information before any further trade decisions are made on Vietnam. I think this is especially important because these trade agreements with Vietnam are going to be subsidized through some of these international monetary organizations by the American taxpayer. We are cutting moneys everywhere to reconcile our budget, get it balanced and have a 7-year plan to do it, and surely the American taxpayer should not be subsidizing this country if it has not provided the information as required by the laws passed by this Congress. The third item is a breakdown of 2,197 cases of unaccounted Americans from the Vietnam war by country of loss and military service. And I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, that these referenced items be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, this is a very reasonable amendment. I know there is some opposition to it, but it makes clear to Vietnam, it sends a very strong message to Vietnam and to President Clinton about the seriousness of our resolve in Congress to obtain full cooperation on the POW issue as well as improvements in human rights cases. It sends that message. That is a reasonable message to send that we expect full cooperation and we expect improvement in human rights cases if we are going to provide taxpayer subsidies to help them, the Vietnamese, get loans. This is not an attempt to replay the decision that was made to establish full diplomatic relations. We lost that debate, and I understand that. I did not like it, but I understand it. But what we are trying to do now is make Vietnam comply with what is required. When the President is ready to tell the American people that our concerns have been addressed, then I will withdraw any objections that I have to move forward on trade. But the President must tell us, and he has not done that. If the President is going to move forward on trade, forward on establishing the diplomatic relations and the mission and all of those things, is it too much to ask to simply have the President of the United States certify to Congress that we are receiving the fullest possible accounting? [[Page S 13938]] I hope that my colleague, the Senator from Kentucky, might take a second look at opposition to this amendment because I do not think it is unreasonable. It is really very, very specific and very, very reasonable. We should not have to fund any trade decisions before receiving a certification from the President. It is that simple. That is what the law provides for. Let us hope, Madam President, that the leaders of Vietnam will choose to respond in a significant way to the five major concessions that this President has already made to Vietnam. I have listed all five. And they have been made in the last 2 years, not over a period of 20 years, but a period of 2, very rapidly. And I would just say that if those conditions would be met, if the Vietnamese could respond to those five points, the President steps forward and says that we have fully received now the full cooperation of the Vietnamese and we get that list on MIA's and we can get the cooperation on the human rights violations, both specifically--I think Senator Thomas will discuss the two cases--then I think we can move on. But we should not be moving on before. A lot of people died in this war, and a lot of families are still waiting for answers. And they deserve to have the President of the United States step up to the microphone, face the American people, and say very simply, the Vietnamese are fully cooperating; they are providing all the information that they have and can provide unilaterally to the United States of America regarding their missing in action. When he says that, the day he says that, I will be the first Senator down on the floor to say, ``Fine. Let us move on.'' That is all I am asking. That is not an unreasonable request. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dole be listed as an original cosponsor.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I send this amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Missouri, I will take just a couple minutes. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I have a couple of brief responses. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for his remarks. He has been very helpful on this issue. This amendment, I want to point out, does not reverse anything the President has already done. It does not reverse the diplomatic ties, it does not go back and replay the war, it does not mean that Senator Smith is running Vietnam policy out of his office. What it does mean is that this debate continues because this is a one-sided equation. It continues because the President of the United States has made significant movements. Some of us oppose those movements, but we are not replaying that. He made those decisions, and he moved forward. I respect the will of the majority. That decision has been made. I am not replaying that. But what I am trying to point out is that the Vietnamese have not responded in kind to those moves. I think we have an obligation to the families who still wait for answers to have them respond in time before the taxpayers of America, through subsidizing the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, are going to be providing funds to the Vietnamese. I think they have a right to have the President of the United States, who implemented this policy, stand before the Congress and the American people and say: ``The Vietnamese are fully cooperating with the United States Government on the accounting of our men.'' I ask any of my colleagues who have spoken previously in opposition to my amendment, or who will speak in the future in opposition to my amendment, whether it be Senator Bond or anyone else, stand here on the floor of the Senate and make the statement in the affirmative that the Vietnamese are fully cooperating--fully cooperating--with the United States of America and the accounting of our men. I have not heard that. If you think Vietnam has been fully cooperative, if you really think they have been, vote against my amendment; I want you to vote against my amendment. If you believe the Vietnamese are fully cooperating on this issue, then vote against my amendment. If you believe they are not, then you should vote for my amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to offer an amendment to the committee amendment on page 11, lines 9 and 10.

Mr. SMITH. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Associated Press, Aug. 16, 1995] State Department Calls Vietnamese Jailing of U.S. Citizens Unwelcome Washington.--The State Department says the jailing by Vietnam of two Vietnamese-Americans on subversion charges is unwelcome. In a two-day trial ending Saturday, a court in Ho Chi Minh City sentenced Nguyen Tan Tri, 39, to seven years in prison and Tran Quang Liem, 45, to four years on charges of trying to overthrow Vietnam's government. Both hold American as well as Vietnamese citizenship and have been held since November 1993. Seven Vietnamese also were sentenced. David Johnson, a State Department spokesman, said Tuesday he did not know specific charges against the two Americans, although U.S. diplomats attended the trial. ``It's certainly unwelcome that American citizens engaged in the peaceful expression of political views are arrested and imprisoned,'' Johnson said.

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

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of my colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts. This is an amendment that is necessary. It should be so obvious, considering the types of debate we have been having about cuts and reductions in spending and balancing the budget. I have always voted against market promotion programs but some like to refer to it as ``corporate welfare.'' I am satisfied with simply calling it a costly program that frankly does not work. That is really the issue here. If you are going to be providing subsidies, it ought to be accomplishing something, if you take a position that subsidies are necessary. The amendment that passed the House focuses on one particularly disturbing use of Federal tax dollars which the Senator from Massachusetts has outlined. That is a $2 million subsidy for the Mink Export Development Council. I came in late and I apologize to the Senator from Massachusetts, I do not know if he got into the amendment specifically in terms of the language. I will read that amendment verbatim, so we know exactly what it is that we are voting on. A virtually identical amendment passed the House by a vote of 232-160. It is very interesting, the findings in the amendment. This is right out of the House of Representatives amendment: (a) Findings, (1) since 1989, the Federal Government through the Department of Agriculture Market Promotion Program, has provided more than $13 million to the Mink Export Development Council for the overseas promotion of mink coats and products; and (2), the Department of Commerce has estimated that since 1989 the value of the United States exports of mink products has declined by more than 33 percent and total U.S. mink production has been halved. The third finding is in the area of funding. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to carry out, or pay the salaries of personnel who carry out the market promotion program established under section 203 of the Agriculture Trade Act . . . in a manner that provides assistance to the United States Mink Export Development Council or any mink industry trade association. Mr. President, if I had my preference I would zero out the entire MPP program. We do not need it. That is very obvious. That is not really what the Senator from Massachusetts is talking about here. What we are saying is if we are going to continue to fund this program, do not use it to subsidize the mink industry. Since 1989 this program, as I indicated in the findings of the amendment, has funneled nearly $13 million into the pockets of mink producers. What are the funds being used for? What is the use of these funds? Well, they put on fashion shows for mink coats in Europe. I am sure that people who work hard for a living every day trying to make ends meet are very thrilled about that, paying their tax dollars. They take out advertisements to promote these shows. That is what some of the money is being used for. Who is paying for that? Who is paying for it? It is not you and me. It is probably not even our children. It is our grandchildren and their grandchildren. They will pay for these fashion shows. They will pay for all of that interest that accumulates on the money we borrow to pay for the mink ads. That is who is going to pay, Mr. President. So, some of my colleagues might say, what the heck is $2 million? That is nothing, $2 million. I guess when you are talking about trillions it probably is nothing. But we borrow money at about 7 or 8 percent. Let us say 7 percent. So 7 percent of $2 million is $140,000 in interest on that $2 million we are spending on this subsidy. Talk about borrowing $2 million, not just 1 year, not just this year, every year, year after year after year, paying it all back with interest. As I said many times in speaking about some of the spending in this place, there is not a big fund sitting in the Treasury Department that has a surplus in it. We have a big debt and a big deficit. So we are borrowing this $2 million from hard-working men and women across this country who are trying to meet their child care responsibilities, maybe somebody on Medicare who really needs the money who is going to see a cut in Medicare, and we are going to fund $2 million in mink subsidies for mink coats and advertisements in Europe. It is a wasteful, ridiculous and, frankly, embarrassing spending program. I commend the Senator from Massachusetts for bringing it here to the attention of our colleagues. To fully understand how reprehensible this program is, there is another side to it. Some may not choose to get into it. It is the whole issue of the inhumane manner in which these animals are treated. Some might say the funding is paramount, and it is. But I think, also, you have to look at this other issue. I would like to point it out. If it gets another vote and that makes a difference, then I am more than happy to point it out. There are a couple of letters. The ASPCA, in a letter to me dated August 28 this year, said: [They were] surprised to learn that the mink industry receives such a subsidy at all. Mink-rearing practices are extremely cruel. The animals often die by suffocation with hot, unfiltered carbon monoxide from motor vehicles, or are killed by lethal injection of the pesticide Black Leaf 40, diluted with rubbing alcohol. These wild animals are raised in small cages and exhibit classic signs of serious stress such as constant pacing, throwing themselves against the sides of the cage walls, and self-mutilation. So I think that is an issue that may be of interest to some, the fact when you wear that coat you are participating in that cruelty and you are also spending a lot of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. So another letter, which came to me from Wayne Pacelle, Vice President of Government Affairs of the Humane Society of the United States, in which he said: The mink subsidy is not providing a good return on investment. While the taxpayer subsidy to the mink industry has increased by 20 percent over the last 5 years, total U.S. exports of mink pelts have declined by 35 percent. We are not getting any return on the investment we are making. So the bottom line is, it is inhumane to the animals, No. 1. No. 2, it is costing taxpayers a lot of money they should not be asked to spend, under these difficult budget times. We ought to respect the fact that this money belongs to the people of the United States of America. It belongs to the taxpayers. We are not respecting that. The mink subsidy is not only opposed by the ASPCA and other animal rights groups, it is opposed by the National Taxpayers Union, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Heritage Foundation, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute--liberals, conservatives, both sides of the political agenda; pro-business, pro-labor; Democrats, Republicans. All are opposed to a very wasteful program. In fact, just this morning--I think the Senator from Massachusetts may have referred to it--the Washington Post ran an excellent article about this mink marketing program. Just a couple of paragraphs from that article in today's Washington post. The lead story by Guy Gugliotta: Let's face it. At a time when Congress is talking about cutting off welfare mothers, student loans and low-income housing, it is pretty hard to argue that the nation's few hundred mink ranchers need a $2 million federal subsidy. You cannot really say it much better than that: It just looks bad for the feds to be paying for overseas advertising and fashion shows to promote the only item on Earth that blends naturally with diamonds and a Cadillac limo. That really is not the image that I want to have as a Member of this Senate and it is wrong. I do not think we ought to be promoting it. People just are not interested, frankly, anyway, for the most part, in wearing mink. That is why the exports have gone down. You can do all the marketing in the world, but if people do not like the product they are not going to buy it. So, if we decided to start pumping millions of Federal tax dollars into marketing zoot suits next, would people start buying them? I doubt it. But probably somebody around here might think up a Federal subsidy for zoot suits and probably would make an attempt to get it passed, if they made zoot suits in their State. But they are not in fashion. Frankly, mink coats are not in fashion anymore, either. Where mink coats were once seen as a status symbol, now they are a symbol of cruelty. And, in addition, now, because we know they are being subsidized so extensively by the taxpayers, they are a symbol of Government waste. People are not interested in either one. Over in the House, as the Senator from Massachusetts said, they voted to eliminate the mink subsidy. It was an easy decision. It was lopsided. Yet here they tell me the vote is close. It is an easy decision for me. How can we tell men and women serving their country that we cannot afford to keep their military base open but we can toss away $2 million for overseas fashion shows? Or how do we tell a young man or young woman serving in some faraway country--maybe in Bosnia, in the very near future--at a recruit pay, basic pay, some of them on food stamps; we are going to tell them that we are going to fund the mink subsidy because that is more important than them? Will you tell the thousands of other taxpaying businessmen and women who have never received a nickel of Government subsidy? I ask my colleagues to just think a little bit about the people in your State, business men and women whom you have run into in the past few years as you have campaigned or gone around meeting your constituents. Think about them: Barbers, construction workers, union guys, business guys. They work hard. Think about them. Do you think they would support this subsidy? You ought to ask them. Give them a call and ask them, if they support this kind of subsidy; that they think their dollars should go for this? They have to save or even borrow money to pay college expenses or to perhaps promote their business, perhaps to buy a car, or even the basic essentials of life. Maybe they cannot afford to do that. So maybe they just go around and put a leaflet on the car promoting their business. I could find hundreds of ways to use the $2 million subsidies and so could they. Every one of them--think about it; $2 million. That is not how the free market works. Most successful businessmen fully understand it. The brilliance of the competitive marketplace is if you provide a service that people want for a decent price there is no limit to your success. At the same time, if you are marketing a product that nobody wants, or very few people want, you will either go bankrupt, you will go out of business, or you will start making something else, some other product that somebody else might be interested in. That is why stores do not have racks full of outdated clothes. Once they go out of style, people are not interested in them anymore so they get rid of them. When people stop buying them you take them off the rack and you replace them with the latest fashion. This principle has worked for over 200 years in this country--200 years, long before subsidies. You start confusing the system when you start to pump money into an industry that, frankly, cannot cut it, it cannot cut it on the open market, it cannot handle it. And we ought not to be putting Federal dollars, hard earned, working men and women's dollars into such an outrageous--outrageous subsidy. For the Government to be using tax dollars to bring an outdated fashion back into vogue flies right smack in the face of the whole free market system. There are a lot of us in here on this side of the aisle, and some on the other side of the aisle, who profess to be strong advocates of the free market system. If you are a strong advocate of the free market, if people want to buy mink coats and there is plenty of mink out there, why do we have to have the taxpayers subsidize growing mink to provide those coats? Give me one good reason. I would like to hear one good reason. If the voters said anything in the last election, they said cut spending and restore the free market principles to our country. That is what we are doing. This is $2 million, not a lot of money under a huge $1.5 trillion budget. But, my goodness, what a small, little step. If we cannot take this little, tiny step to stop subsidizing the production of mink coats, if we cannot do that, then I do not have a lot of hope that we are ever going to get to reconciliation and balance the budget. The House got the message. They supported this amendment 232 to 160. They did the right thing. Let us not be the laughingstock of the Congress and approve such an outrageous subsidy. That is an insult to every hard-working man and woman in this country. I would venture to say even the very few people left who wear mink coats would probably be opposed to this subsidy. How can anybody be for this subsidy? What is the justification for this subsidy? Let us show the voters that the Senate got the same message that the House got and not be the laughingstock of the Congress by passing such an outrageous, absolutely outrageous, subsidy. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 4, the landmark welfare reform legislation that the Senate will be adopting this afternoon. Mr. President, I call H.R. 4 landmark legislation first and foremost because it ends the 60-year status of welfare as a cash entitlement program. Once this bill becomes law, no person will be able to choose welfare as a way of life. Likewise, no person will be entitled to cash benefits from the Federal Government simply because he or she chooses not to work. By dramatically cutting the Federal welfare bureaucracy and providing welfare block grants for the States, H.R. 4 recognizes that the best hope for making welfare programs successful lies in shifting major responsibility for their administration to a level of government where innovation and experimentation can flourish. That is a significant step toward reinvigorating federalism in our system of government. H.R. 4 transforms welfare from a handout that fosters dependency into a temporary helping hand for those who fall on hard times. The bill places a 5-year lifetime limit on receiving welfare benefits. Individuals will be permitted to move on and off of the welfare rolls, but will, after a cumulative total of 5 years, become ineligible for additional benefits. In return for Government's temporary helping hand, H.R. 4 requires that welfare recipients work for their benefits as soon as their States determine that they are ``work ready.'' If a recipient refuses to report for work, then a pro rata--or greater--reduction in benefits is imposed. In fact, the States may terminate benefits for such recipients if they so choose. Although I supported amendments to the bill that would have taken stronger steps to reduce the Nation's escalating out-of-wedlock birth rate, H.R. 4 does address that crisis in several very important ways. Most important, the legislation requires that minor mothers who have children out-of-wedlock must stay in school and live under adult supervision in order to receive welfare benefits. In doing so, the bill removes the perverse incentive under current law for a young girl to become pregnant and have a baby in order to receive a welfare check and thus become financially independent of her parents. Moreover, Mr. President, H.R. 4 permits the States to refuse to give more cash benefits to mothers who have additional children while on welfare. Finally, H.R. 4 provides $75 million to encourage the States to establish abstinence education programs designed to reduce out-of- wedlock births and encourage personal responsibility. I am also pleased, Mr. President, that H.R. 4 takes a number of steps toward ending the abuse of the welfare system by those legal immigrants who come to America not to go to work, but to go on welfare. H.R. 4 does this by giving the States the option to deny welfare benefits to noncitizens. Equally important, Mr. President, H.R. 4 requires that, for most means-tested welfare programs, both the income and the assets of a legal immigrant's sponsor are deemed to be those of the noncitizen for a period of 5 years. This ``deeming'' provision is designed to prevent noncitizens from going on welfare. This is good public policy. Noncitizens, after all, remain, by definition, citizens of other countries. If they come to the United States and fall on hard times, they can, quite simply, go home. They should not, in all fairness, expect to be supported by Americans who are not their fellow citizens. In summary, Mr. President, I commend those among my colleagues in the Senate who have worked long and hard to make this a strong welfare reform bill. I am pleased to support it. I look forward to supporting an even stronger bill when it comes back from the conference committee. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as chairman of the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee, I have been charged with overseeing of the technology base programs in the defense budget request for fiscal year 1996. The technology base budget includes funding for the basic research, exploratory development, and advanced development accounts, the so-called 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 accounts of the budget. In addition the subcommittee also has responsibility for the so- called RDT&E infrastructure accounts. These [[Page S 12672]] accounts fund the maintenance of laboratories, R&D centers, and test and evaluation facilities. The portion of the accounts allocated to the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee in fiscal year 1996 budget request amounted to a total of $9.5 billion. As the incoming subcommittee chairman, I faced a number of challenges. The budget request for fiscal year 1996 was already reduced from the amounts appropriated for these accounts in fiscal year 1995. Unlike other portions of the budget, the technology base programs are spread out among 250 separate program elements complicating a systematic review of the programs. Finally, it was clear that we needed to undertake a thorough review of each of these programs in order to ensure that defense relevance be the most important test for their continued funding. I was determined to understand the details of the programs under my purview. To aid in its review of these programs, the subcommittee conducted six hearings on program categories as well as on relevant policy areas. We began with an overview hearing on the technology programs in the Subcommittee's jurisdiction on March 14. This hearing yielded important insights into the relationship of the programs under the purview of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and those managed by the services. Over the past several years, there has been a distinct trend in technology funding shifting from service programs to programs managed by OSD. This trend may have serious consequences if we are robbing Peter to pay Paul and are thereby reducing service influence on the investment of our defense technology dollars. The importance of technology to the military in the face of the emerging revolution in military affairs was one of the subjects discussed at length during a subcommittee hearing on May 5. At that hearing, Admiral Owens, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Mr. Andrew Marshall of the DOD Office of Net Assessment presented a preliminary sketch of the future battlefield and the key role that technology, especially information technology, will play in bringing victory or defeat. The hearing underscored the need to maintain sufficient levels of defense technology investment to ensure that we are able to exploit the potential of future battlefield. Technology issues are only one aspect of the revolution in military affairs, and I am hopeful that the full committee will hold at least one hearing over the next year to examine the implication of this revolution for areas like organization and training that extend beyond the scope of any one subcommittee. The technology reinvestment project has become one of the more controversial programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. On May 17, the subcommittee held a hearing to review this program and other so-called dual-use technology programs in the Department of Defense budget request. As a percentage of the budget, these programs have been growing since 1990. The dual-use designation refers to the fact that such programs involve technologies that have application in both the commercial as well as the defense sectors of the economy. Dual-use technologies will be used to an increasing extent in weapon systems as the electronics content of such systems continues to rise. In the electronics industries, for example, the commercial marketplace, not defense requirements, is driving the pace of technology development. Because the Department of Defense represents a shrinking share of the electronics market, DOD leverage over the market is decreasing. For that reason, the paradigm for future interaction between the Department of Defense and the electronics industries is a dual-use partnership approach in which both DOD and the industry provide funding for the development of technology. Such partnerships can help to make our acquisition process more efficient as we inject commercial technologies into defense weapons systems. I want to make clear, however, that there are dangers in placing too much emphasis on this approach. If programs are not managed carefully, we may end up doing dual-use for dual-use sake with only a limited emphasis on military utility. Military utility must be the driving factor, and a time of limited funding, we have to ensure that we are not raiding critical technology base programs under the guise of dual- use development. We also need to ensure that Congress maintains the proper level of visibility and oversight in dual-use programs. At the May 17 hearing on dual-use programs, we explored these issues in depth with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, Paul Kaminski, and representatives of the defense industry and the General Accounting Office. What emerged from the testimony was the potential payoff of some existing dual-use programs, such as those underway in the technology reinvestment project, but also the need for improvements in management and oversight of these programs. An area that is directly related to our investments in technology is the issue of export control. Unless we have in place an effective process for reviewing licenses for the export of sensitive technologies, especially those that are dual-use in nature, we will end up having to spend scarce R&D dollars to counter technologies that we already have paid to develop. I am particularly concerned about the licensing for export of technologies for satellites and satellite- related services. On May 31, I chaired a hearing reviewing current export license review procedures and the relationship among the Departments of Defense, State, and Commerce in this process. The hearing uncovered some significant problems of coordination and cooperation among the agencies that have directly undermined our national security. I intend to continue pursuing these issues in further hearings. Mr. President, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is an ever growing threat to our national security. Because of this increased threat, I have made counterproliferation programs and policies a major area of new emphasis for the Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology. On April 14, the subcommittee held a hearing to review the funding request for fiscal year 1996 for counterproliferation programs. The hearing revealed that additional funding would be necessary to accelerate development and deployment of military counterproliferation technologies. The bill before us addresses many significant deficiencies in our counterproliferation program. Upon completion of the hearing process in May, I began a comprehensive analysis of the funding requests for the 250 program elements in the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee. As I announced at the first hearing in March, my litmus test for funding a program was simple: if there is a defense investment, there must be a defense return. We put everything on the table. I carried out this review independent of political bias, and without any prejudice toward systems or technologies. Because high priority requirements in readiness, modernization, and quality of life were severely underfunded in the President's defense budget request, Chairman Thurmond directed me to reduce accounts under the jurisdiction of the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee in areas of nondefense initiatives or lower priority activities. I agreed with that direction and accepted the guidance to reduce the programs $330 million below the President's request. However, in the midst of our review, the subcommittee received requests from Senators for additions to the bill totaling nearly $620 million. As we clearly could not accommodate even a majority of these requests, I attempted to apply the same litmus test to these requests as I applied to the programs in the administration request: direct defense relevance. In preparing the subcommittee recommendation on the President's request, we endeavored to protect the core, defense relevant technology programs above everything else. We gave programs with defined technology development a higher priority than those that lacked it. The largest source of reductions was the technology reinvestment project, which we cut by $262 million. This funding would all have supported a new competition in fiscal year 1996 for which technology thrust areas have yet to even be defined. Mr. President, as the committee report on page 111 indicates, despite our [[Page S 12673]] continued support of dual-use technology development programs, a new competition for unspecified technologies in 1996 must have a lower priority from a defense standpoint than funding well-defined technology programs in the budget request for the services. We changed the name of the program to the Defense Dual-use Technology Initiative and have also changed the statutory basis for the program to clarify the need for close connection between research and a military mission requirement. Another source of funding reductions was an undistributed cut of $90 million to the work conducted through the federally funded research and development centers known as FFRDC's. The FFRDC issue has been a controversial one in recent years due to the perception of some that these institutions lack effective management oversight from the Defense Department. While the subcommittee is satisfied with the efforts of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition to review the future role of the FFRDC's, our reduction was made in a manner consistent with overal reductions in R&D, and in anticipation of some redistribution of workload betwen the FFRDC's and the private sector. Another source of significant reductions was in the accounts supporting the research, development test, and evaluation infrastructure. One of the most disturbing trends in the technology budget is the greater and greater portion of R&D funding that is going, not to programs, but to maintaining facilities and test ranges. The base closure and realignment process has not dealt effectively with the need to consolidate laboratories, research centers and test facilities across the services. As a result, at a time when the R&D portion of the budget request has declined by over 10 percent from last year, the RDT&E support programs have declined overall less than 4 percent. In recognition of this trend, we reduced the infrastructure programs by $85 million. It is my hope that we can develop an effective process for consolidating facilities so that we can devote a greater share of our scarce resources to programs rather than maintenance. I intend to continue to pursue this issue vigorously next year. In the midst of these reductions, I am pleased to say that we were able to fund some critical gaps in the budget. We added $36 million to create a counterproliferation support program to accelerate the development and deployment of technologies for military counterproliferation. Our report details the new initiatives in such areas as biological agent detection, cruise missile defense, and proliferation of space technology. We also shifted $24 million into Army technology base accounts to correct some of the most serious shortfalls in the Army's underfunded technology budget. I want to thank members of the staff for all their work in helping out the members of the Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology. Monica Chavez, Jon Etherton, Tom Moore, Tom Lankford, and Pamela Farrell provided essential support for our review. On the minority side, Ed McGaffigan, John Douglass, and Andy Effron were extremely cooperative with our staff and members in working through these issues. I especially want to express my appreciation for the support and counsel I received from the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Jeff Bingaman. I was privileged to serve as the ranking member under his chairmanship of the subcommittee during the last Congress where Senator Bingaman conducted the process with fairness, openness, and always in a spirit of bipartisanship. I know there were recommendations in this bill that trouble the Senator from New Mexico, but he has remained supportive and helpful throughout our process. In summary, Mr. President, I believe that the acquisition and technology portion of the defense authorization bill maintains a strong technology base program. The core, defense-relevant programs are funded at or above the requested amounts, and the bill lays a solid foundation on which we can build future technology investments for national defense. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization bill, as reported by the Armed Services Committee. This is an excellent bill, and I want to specifically commend the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond, for his able leadership and tireless efforts on behalf of the men and women of our Armed Forces. I also want to thank Senator Nunn, the distinguished ranking member, for his hard work and dedication. Mr. President, when the 104th Congress convened in January, Senator Thurmond initiated a comprehensive review of our national defense requirements in view of the administration's future years defense plan. The review highlighted some serious deficiencies in military readiness, modernization, quality of life, and investment, and served as a basis for establishing a list of top priorities for the Armed Services Committee in this year's defense program. For the benefit of my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent that this list of priorities be inserted in the Record.

Mr. SMITH. The bill before us delivers on each of the priorities that were developed by Senator Thurmond and members of the committee. In fact, every element of the list is embodied in direct actions taken by the committee. We made a commitment, and we delivered on that commitment. The committee bill authorizes approximately $264.7 billion in budget authority for the National Defense Program. Although this represents an increase of $7 billion from the administration's grossly underfunded request, it still falls short of fully meeting our military requirements. The situation in the outyears is considerably worse. Both the Clinton plan and the recently passed budget resolution fail to fund defense at a level that even keeps pace with inflation. We are on track for a major train wreck between defense requirements and resources. If we are to maintain any semblance of a stable defense program we will need to maintain the spending outlined in this bill, and revisit future years funding levels next year. Mr. President, there are a number of very important initiatives contained in this bill, which I would like to briefly summarize for my colleagues. The committee bill: Provides a 2.4-percent pay raise for military members and a 5.2- percent increase in basic allowance for quarters. [[Page S 12671]] Equalizes dates for military and civil service retiree COLA's for 1996 through 1998. Authorizes $1.3 billion to purchase the LHD-7 amphibious assault ship. Fully funds the F-22 fighter program. Initiates a long overdue upgrade of our airborne electronic warfare programs. Funds critical antisubmarine warfare and countermine programs. Provides $110 million to purchase the second of three ships under the Marine Corps Maritime Preposition Ship Enhancement Program. Provides $35 million to begin retrofitting aging Patriot missiles with an advanced seeker to defend against modern cruise missiles. Includes a provision ensuring free and fair competition between Electric Boat and Newport News for the new attack submarine program. And perhaps most important, includes the Missile Defense Act of 1995, a historic and long overdue refocusing of our Ballistic Missile Defense Program. Mr. President, the Missile Defense Act establishes a comprehensive program to counter the threats posed to our Nation by ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. The program has three key elements that I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues. First and foremost, the legislation accelerates the development and deployment of national missile defenses to protect all Americans against the threat of ballistic missiles. The Clinton administration has effectively killed the National Missile Defense Program, leaving the American people totally vulnerable to ballistic missile attack. The committee bill rejects the administration's misguided approach, and establishes a specific program and schedule to deploy a multiple site, ground based national missile defense by the year 2003. Second, the committee bill would codify the demarcation proposal that the Clinton administration offered in Geneva some 18 months ago. It establishes a demonstrated standard for evaluating compliance with the ABM Treaty. The bill specifies that theater missile defense systems would not be subject to the terms of the ABM Treaty unless they are flight tested against a ballistic missile with a range greater than 3,500 kilometers or a velocity in excess of 5 kilometers per second. This is a reasonable and appropriate standard that was suggested by the administration, and we have included it in this bill. Third, the committee bill establishes a cruise missile defense initiative to counter the threat posed by existing and emerging air breathing threats. The intelligence community estimates that at least 12 countries have land-attack cruise missiles under development. Although the Defense Department has a variety of programs underway to address these threats, there is poor coordination and synergy among the Department's programs. The bill would direct the Secretary of Defense to better coordinate the Pentagon's cruise and ballistic missile defense programs, prepare a plan for prompt deployment of these systems, and provide a substantial increase in funding. In addition, Mr. President, the bill advocates a cooperative transition to a post-cold-war regime that is responsive to the global threat environment. The committee heard testimony from many different witnesses this year urging the United States to move away from the cold war doctrine of mutual assured destruction toward a more flexible deterrent posture that integrates both offensive and defensive weapons. In particular, Henry Kissinger, who was a key negotiator of the ABM Treaty and a proponent of mutual assured destruction, indicated to the committee that this doctrine has been surpassed by events, and is no longer relevant or constructive in the post-cold-war world. The committee took this testimony very seriously, and has recommended that we work with our Russian counterparts to move cooperatively away from the confrontational policy of mutual assured destruction toward a more multipolar oriented deterrent posture. The committee bill also recommends the establishment of a select committee to conduct a 1-year review on the continuing value and validity of the ABM Treaty. The select committee would conduct hearings and interviews, review all relevant documents, and carefully consider the full range of policy issues surrounding the treaty. To support this initiative, the committee bill would require that the ABM Treaty negotiating record be declassified. This action would be consistent with the classification policy that was established by Executive order on April 17 of this year by the Clinton administration. Mr. President, these initiatives on ballistic missile defense are responsible, measured, and necessary to protect the national security of the United States. The American people overwhelmingly support the deployment of national missile defenses and highly effective theater missile defenses. Unfortunately, the Senate now appears poised to completely rewrite the Missile Defense Act. Although the Senate has voted twice to preserve key aspects of the legislation, a so-called compromise has been developed which totally changes the focus and content of the bill. As one who has dedicated a great deal of time and effort on this issue, I am deeply disappointed with this sudden change of course. The Armed Services Committee bill was the right answer to a very complex and urgent problem, and I am troubled that for nothing more than convenience sake, it appears this body is prepared to compromise its principles and our Nation's security. This is a terrible mistake, and I will not support it. The truth is, that contrary to the assertions of our friends who oppose missile defense, nothing in the committee bill, absolutely nothing, would violate the ABM Treaty. It merely begins preparations for the eventual deployment of a system to defend all Americans against the threat of ballistic missiles. The authors of the treaty expected evolutionary changes and incorporated provisions that would encourage cooperative modifications or, if necessary, withdrawal from the treaty after a 6-month notice. The Armed Services Committee bill does not prejudge the results of negotiations to amend the treaty, nor does it advocate a unilateral withdrawal from the treaty. It merely affirms the moral and constitutional requirement to defend all Americans, and initiates a comprehensive program to counter threats to our security. Mr. President, that is the fundamental issue at stake here. The American people are totally vulnerable to ballistic missile attack. They have no defenses. And the Clinton administration intends to keep it that way. The question for Senators today is whether you believe that all Americans deserve to be defended, or you support the Clinton policy which says no Americans should be defended. You can't have it both ways. But, sadly, that is what my colleagues are trying to do with this so- called bipartisan compromise. In an effort to prevent the President from vetoing the defense bill, they have agreed to water down the missile defense provisions, to soften the findings, to hedge on deployment dates, and to completely undermine the principles that were embodied in the committee bill. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues to try and find common ground, and to seek compromise in order to build consensus. But national security is not something to be compromised, and I refuse to associate myself with a policy which perpetuates the vulnerability of our citizens. I will oppose the so-called bipartisan compromise on missile defense, and any other amendment which undermines the excellent work of the Armed Services Committee. I yield the floor. Acquisition and Technology

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering would authorize $5 million from within the Army research, development, test and evaluation account to continue development of the depressed altitude guided gun round [DAGGR] system. DAGGR is a surface-to-air weapon that could provide an effective defense against low-altitude threats, both in rear areas and for maneuver forces in forward areas. It has an all-weather capability, and could be mounted on either standard trucks or an armored [[Page S 12537]] chassis such as the AGS or M113A. DAGGR would integrate an existing radar guided 60 millimeter gun round, developed by the Navy, with an interferometric radar, developed by the Army. As currently envisioned, DAGGR could address mortars, short range rockets, unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise missiles, and helicopter delivered air-to-ground missiles. The Army currently has little or no direct capability against these threats Mr. President, this program is not part of the Army budget. However, the committee was contacted by the Army after markup and apprised of their strong interest in the program. I have been fully briefed on the potential application of this technology and believe that it has merit. It would complement other ongoing efforts to provide 360-degree coverage for our maneuver forces, and enhance the warfighting capabilities of our frontline units. I believe that this amendment has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. First of all I want to commend the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii for their fine work in formulating this appropriations bill. I know that the subcommittee was confronted by some significant fiscal challenges, and I appreciate their outstanding work in balancing resources with our military requirements. One issue that I am concerned with, however, is the Marine Corps maritime preposition ship [MPS] enhancement program. As my colleagues know, the MPS enhancement program would add an additional ship to each of three Marine Corps preposition squadrons. These ships would be loaded with an expeditionary airfield, two M1A1 tank companies, a fleet hospital, Navy mobile construction equipment, a command element package, and additional statement. These assets will provide tremendous flexibility for crisis response and contingency operations. Last year, under the leadership of the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii, the committee appropriated $110 million for the first ship in the MPS enhancement program. This was an important statement of support for the preposition concept in general, and the Marine Corps program in particular. The Armed Services Committee has sustained the momentum on the MPS Enhancement program by authorizing $110 million in fiscal year 1996 for the second ship in the program. In reviewing the legislation before us, I am unclear as to what the recommendation of the committee was with respect to the second MPS enhancement ship. I wonder if the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii could comment on this issue. Mr. Stevens. The Senator from New Hampshire is correct in his review of the legislative record on this issue. The Appropriations Committee did fund the first ship last year, and is supportive of the Marine Corps MPS enhancement program. At the time the committee marked up its legislation for fiscal year 1996, it was unclear whether the Navy was moving forward with the program established in the fiscal year 1995 authorization and appropriations bills. The committee was concerned over the lack of noticeable progress in acquiring and converting the first ship under the program. The committee was also confronted by some significant funding shortfalls in the shipbuilding and conversion accounts. However, the committee did direct that the Secretary of the Navy may obligate appropriations up to $110 million for the procurement of a second MPS ship in fiscal year 1996. Mr. Inouye. Let me assure the Senator from New Hampshire that the committee did carefully consider this matter. It is the view of Senator Stevens and myself that the language in our legislation provides authority to move forward with the second ship in the MPS enhancement program. I expect this issue will be further explored during conference, as well. Mr. Smith. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member for their comments. I gather from their statements that the Appropriations Committee continues to support the Marine Corps maritime preposition ship enhancement program, but is concerned over delays by the Navy in moving forward to implement the program established last year in the authorization and appropriations bills. Is it fair to say that if the Navy can convince the committee that their program is sound, and that they can demonstrate that they are fully exploring means to reduce overall program costs, such as multiple ship contracts, that the committee would be inclined to support a second ship in fiscal year 1996? Mr. Stevens. I think that is an accurate description. Mr. Inouye. Yes. That is correct. Mr. Smith. I thank my colleagues for their comments, and fine work on this bill. I look forward to working with them on this important program. revise the availability of funds for defense conversion loan guarantees

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for yielding me this time. Numerous potentially hostile nations now do have indigenous satellite capabilities, contrary to what has been said. Adversaries can use space assets for intelligence, communication, navigation, weather and, yes, targeting. U.S. military commanders, including General Horner, the man who ran the air campaign in Desert Storm, have stated unequivocally ASAT capability is essential to protect our forces in the field. It is a contingency capability. And to say on the floor of the U.S. Senate we should not use ASAT technology because it is going to create space debris is simply incorrect. It does not create space debris. It disables the satellite. It does not blow it up. That is simply wrong, I say to the Senator from Iowa. It is totally wrong to make that kind of representation on the floor of the Senate. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we have demonstrated in Desert Storm that space will forever be an asset that is essential in military warfare. We have to preserve it. This program is essential to preserving the security of our forces and to say we would expose our forces, for the sake of not creating space debris--which it does not create in the first place--is really remarkable, that such a statement would be made. That is exactly why the kinetic energy ASAT program is so important. It is the capability to enable us to literally blind our adversaries, protect our troops, and ensure we can decisively prevail in future conflicts. I urge my colleagues to please pay very careful attention to what they are doing and please table this amendment.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I wonder if I might engage the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee in a brief colloquy.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I wonder if I might engage the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee in a brief colloquy.

Mr. SMITH. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member for their comments. I gather from their statements that the Appropriations Committee continues to support the Marine Corps Maritime Pre-position Ship Enhancement Program, but is concerned over delays by the Navy in moving forward to implement the program established last year in the authorization and appropriations bills. Is it fair to say that if the Navy can convince the committee that their program is sound, and that they can demonstrate that they are fully exploring means to reduce overall program costs, such as multiple ship contracts, that the committee would be inclined to support a second ship in fiscal year 1996?

Mr. SMITH. First of all I want to commend the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii for their fine work in formulating this appropriations bill. I know that the subcommittee was confronted by some significant fiscal challenges, and I appreciate their outstanding work in balancing resources with our military requirements. One issue that I am concerned with, however, is the Marine Corps Maritime Preposition Ship [MPS] Enhancement Program. As my colleagues know, the MPS Enhancement Program would add an additional ship to each of three Marine Corps preposition squadrons. These ships would be loaded with an expeditionary airfield, two M1A1 tank companies, a fleet hospital, Navy mobile construction equipment, a command element package, and additional statement. These assets will provide tremendous flexibility for crisis response and contingency operations. Last year, under the leadership of the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii, the committee appropriated $110 million for the first ship in the MPS Enhancement Program. This was an important statement of support for the preposition concept in general, and the Marine Corps program in particular. The Armed Services Committee has sustained the momentum on the MPS Enhancement Program by authorizing $110 million in fiscal year 1996 for the second ship in the program. In reviewing the legislation before us, I am unclear as to what the recommendation of the committee was with respect to the second MPS enhancement ship. I wonder if the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii could comment on this issue.

Mr. SMITH. I thank my colleagues for their comments, and fine work on this bill. I look forward to working with them on this important program.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, yesterday during consideration of S. 1026, a statement by Senator Roth was inadvertently left out of the statements that were made at the time Senator Cohen introduced his amendment entitled the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1995. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Roth's statement be printed in today's Record and that it be printed in the permanent Record for Friday, August 4, 1995, immediately following Senator Cohen's statement on the information technology amendment.