[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 92 (Friday, July 15, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to H.R. 4453, the military construction appropriations bill, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4453) making appropriations for military 
     construction for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported 
from the Committee on Appropriations, with amendments, as follows:
  (The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface 
brackets and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown in 
italic.)

                               H.R. 4453

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1995, for military construction 
     functions administered by the Department of Defense, and for 
     other purposes, namely:

                      Military Construction, Army

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, military 
     installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as 
     currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army 
     Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for 
     the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and 
     operation of facilities in support of the functions of the 
     Commander in Chief, [$623,511,000] $489,076,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 1999: Provided, That of this 
     amount, not to exceed [$67,700,000] $62,926,000 shall be 
     available for study, planning, design, architect and engineer 
     services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of 
     Defense determines that additional obligations are necessary 
     for such purposes and notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of his 
     determination and the reasons therefor.

                      Military Construction, Navy

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations, 
     facilities, and real property for the Navy as currently 
     authorized by law, including personnel in the Naval 
     Facilities Engineering Command and other personal services 
     necessary for the purposes of this appropriation, 
     [$462,701,000] $340,455,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1999: Provided, That of this amount, not to 
     exceed [$47,900,000] $43,380,000 shall be available for 
     study, planning, design, architect and engineer services, as 
     authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense determines 
     that additional obligations are necessary for such purposes 
     and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 
     of Congress of his determination and the reasons therefor.

                    Military Construction, Air Force

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, military 
     installations, facilities, and real property for the Air 
     Force as currently authorized by law, [$514,977,000] 
     $525,863,000, to remain available until September 30, 1999: 
     Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed [$55,900,000] 
     $53,886,000 shall be available for study, planning, design, 
     architect and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless 
     the Secretary of Defense determines that additional 
     obligations are necessary for such purposes and notifies the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of 
     his determination and the reasons therefor.

                  Military Construction, Defense-wide

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, installations, 
     facilities, and real property for activities and agencies of 
     the Department of Defense (other than the military 
     departments), as currently authorized by law, [$467,169,000] 
     $561,039,000, to remain available until September 30, 1999: 
     Provided, That such amounts of this appropriation as may be 
     determined by the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to 
     such appropriations of the Department of Defense available 
     for military construction or family housing as he may 
     designate, to be merged with and to be available for the same 
     purposes, and for the same time period, as the appropriation 
     or fund to which transferred: Provided further, That of the 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed [$45,960,000] $51,960,000 
     shall be available for study, planning, design, architect and 
     engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary 
     of Defense determines that additional obligations are 
     necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of his 
     determination and the reasons therefor.

               Military Construction, Army National Guard

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Army National Guard, and contributions 
     therefor, as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and military construction authorization Acts, 
     [$134,235,000] $170,479,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1999.

               Military Construction, Air National Guard

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air National Guard, and contributions 
     therefor, as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and military construction authorization Acts, 
     [$209,843,000] $257,825,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1999.

                  Military Construction, Army Reserve


                          (transfer of funds)

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Army Reserve as authorized by chapter 
     133 of title 10, United States Code, and military 
     construction authorization Acts, [$39,121,000] $40,870,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 1999: Provided, That 
     of the funds appropriated for ``Military Construction, Army 
     Reserve, 1992/1996'', $1,500,000 shall be transferred to 
     ``Military Construction, Army National Guard, 1992/1996'' for 
     the same purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.

                  Military Construction, Naval Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the reserve components of the Navy and 
     Marine Corps as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and military construction authorization Acts, 
     [$12,348,000] $18,355,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1999.

                Military Construction, Air Force Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air Force Reserve as authorized by 
     chapter 133 of title 10, United States Code, and military 
     construction authorization Acts, [$56,378,000] $45,840,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 1999.

           North Atlantic Treaty Organization Infrastructure

       For the United States share of the cost of North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization Infrastructure programs for the 
     acquisition and construction of military facilities and 
     installations (including international military headquarters) 
     and for related expenses for the collective defense of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized in military 
     construction Acts and section 2806 of title 10, United States 
     Code, [$119,000,000] $219,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                          Family Housing, Army

       For expenses of family housing for the Army for 
     construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition, 
     expansion, extension and alteration and for operation and 
     maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor 
     construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance 
     premiums, as authorized by law, as follows: for Construction, 
     [$160,602,000] $173,502,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1999; for Operation and maintenance, and for 
     debt payment, [$1,121,208,000] $1,065,708,000; in all 
     [$1,281,810,000] $1,239,210,000.

                 Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps

       For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine 
     Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement, 
     addition, expansion, extension and alteration and for 
     operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, 
     minor construction, principal and interest charges, and 
     insurance premiums, as authorized by law, as follows: for 
     Construction, [$269,035,000] $229,295,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 1999; for Operation and 
     maintenance, and for debt payment, [$853,599,000] 
     $937,599,000; in all [$1,122,634,000] $1,166,894,000.

                       Family Housing, Air Force

       For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for 
     construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition, 
     expansion, extension and alteration and for operation and 
     maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor 
     construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance 
     premiums, as authorized by law, as follows: for Construction, 
     [$276,482,000] $273,355,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1999; for Operation and maintenance, and for 
     debt payment, [$801,345,000] $824,845,000 [of which not more 
     than $14,200,000 may be obligated for the acquisition of 
     family housing units at Comiso AB, Italy; in all 
     $1,077,827,000] $1,098,200,000.

                      Family Housing, Defense-wide

       For expenses of family housing for the activities and 
     agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the 
     military departments) for construction, including 
     acquisition, replacement, addition, expansion, extension and 
     alteration, and for operation and maintenance, leasing, and 
     minor construction, as authorized by law, as follows: for 
     Construction, $350,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 1999; for Operation and maintenance, 
     $29,031,000; in all $29,381,000.

              Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part I

       For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure 
     Account established by section 207(a)(1) of the Defense 
     Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act 
     (Public Law 100-526), $87,600,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 1995: Provided, [That none of 
     these funds may be obligated for base realignment and closure 
     activities under Public Law 100-526 which would cause the 
     Department's $1,800,000,000 cost estimate for military 
     construction and family housing related to the Base 
     Realignment and Closure Program to be exceeded: Provided 
     further,] That not less than $66,800,000 of the funds 
     appropriated herein shall be available solely for 
     environmental restoration.

             Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part II


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure 
     Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the 
     Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law 
     101-510), $265,700,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not less than $138,700,000 of the funds 
     appropriated herein shall be available solely for 
     environmental restoration: Provided further, That, in 
     addition, not to exceed $133,000,000 may be transferred from 
     ``Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense'' to ``Base Realignment 
     and Closure Account, Part II'', to be merged with, and to be 
     available for the same purposes and the same time period as 
     that account.

             Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part III

       For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure 
     Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the 
     Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law 
     101-510), $2,322,858,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not less than $302,700,000 of the funds 
     appropriated herein shall be available solely for 
     environmental restoration.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts shall be expended for 
     payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract for work, 
     where cost estimates exceed $25,000, to be performed within 
     the United States, except Alaska, without the specific 
     approval in writing of the Secretary of Defense setting forth 
     the reasons therefor.
       Sec. 102. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for construction shall be available for hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles.
       Sec. 103. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for construction may be used for advances to the Federal 
     Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, for the 
     construction of access roads as authorized by section 210 of 
     title 23, United States Code, when projects authorized 
     therein are certified as important to the national defense by 
     the Secretary of Defense.
       Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to begin construction of new bases inside the 
     continental United States for which specific appropriations 
     have not been made.
       Sec. 105. No part of the funds provided in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts shall be used for purchase 
     of land or land easements in excess of 100 per centum of the 
     value as determined by the Army Corps of Engineers or the 
     Naval Facilities Engineering Command, except (a) where there 
     is a determination of value by a Federal court, or (b) 
     purchases negotiated by the Attorney General or his designee, 
     or (c) where the estimated value is less than $25,000, or (d) 
     as otherwise determined by the Secretary of Defense to be in 
     the public interest.
       Sec. 106. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts shall be used to (1) acquire 
     land, (2) provide for site preparation, or (3) install 
     utilities for any family housing, except housing for which 
     funds have been made available in annual Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 107. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts for minor construction may 
     be used to transfer or relocate any activity from one base or 
     installation to another, without prior notification to the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 108. No part of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts may be used for the 
     procurement of steel for any construction project or activity 
     for which American steel producers, fabricators, and 
     manufacturers have been denied the opportunity to compete for 
     such steel procurement.
       Sec. 109. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense for military construction or family housing during 
     the current fiscal year may be used to pay real property 
     taxes in any foreign nation.
       Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts may be used to initiate a 
     new installation overseas without prior notification to the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 111. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts may be obligated for 
     architect and engineer contracts estimated by the Government 
     to exceed $500,000 for projects to be accomplished in Japan 
     or in any NATO member country, unless such contracts are 
     awarded to United States firms or United States firms in 
     joint venture with host nation firms.
       Sec. 112. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts for military construction in 
     the United States territories and possessions in the Pacific 
     and on Kwajalein Atoll may be used to award any contract 
     estimated by the Government to exceed $1,000,000 to a foreign 
     contractor: Provided, That this section shall not be 
     applicable to contract awards for which the lowest responsive 
     and responsible bid of a United States contractor exceeds the 
     lowest responsive and responsible bid of a foreign contractor 
     by greater than 20 per centum.
       Sec. 113. The Secretary of Defense is to inform the 
     Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed 
     Services of the plans and scope of any proposed military 
     exercise involving United States personnel thirty days prior 
     to its occurring, if amounts expended for construction, 
     either temporary or permanent, are anticipated to exceed 
     $100,000.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 114. Unexpended balances in the Military Family 
     Housing Management Account established pursuant to section 
     2831 of title 10, United States Code, as well as any 
     additional amounts which would otherwise be transferred to 
     the Military Family Housing Management Account, shall be 
     transferred to the appropriations for Family Housing, as 
     determined by the Secretary of Defense, based on the sources 
     from which the funds were derived, and shall be available for 
     the same purposes, and for the same time period, as the 
     appropriation to which they have been transferred.
       Sec. 115. Not more than 20 per centum of the appropriations 
     in Military Construction Appropriations Acts which are 
     limited for obligation during the current fiscal year shall 
     be obligated during the last two months of the fiscal year.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 116. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for construction in prior years shall be available for 
     construction authorized for each such military department by 
     the authorizations enacted into law during the current 
     session of Congress.
       Sec. 117. For military construction or family housing 
     projects that are being completed with funds otherwise 
     expired or lapsed for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may 
     be used to pay the cost of associated supervision, 
     inspection, overhead, engineering and design on those 
     projects and on subsequent claims, if any.
       Sec. 118. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated to a military department or defense agency 
     for the construction of military projects may be obligated 
     for a military construction project or contract, or for any 
     portion of such a project or contract, at any time before the 
     end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal year for which 
     funds for such project were appropriated if the funds 
     obligated for such project (1) are obligated from funds 
     available for military construction projects, and (2) do not 
     exceed the amount appropriated for such project, plus any 
     amount by which the cost of such project is increased 
     pursuant to law.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 119. During the five-year period after appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense for military 
     construction and family housing operation and maintenance and 
     construction have expired for obligation, upon a 
     determination that such appropriations will not be necessary 
     for the liquidation of obligations or for making authorized 
     adjustments to such appropriations for obligations incurred 
     during the period of availability of such appropriations, 
     unobligated balances of such appropriations may be 
     transferred into the appropriation ``Foreign Currency 
     Fluctuations, Construction, Defense'' to be merged with and 
     to be available for the same time period and for the same 
     purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.
       Sec. 120. The Secretary of Defense is to provide the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives with an annual report by February 15, 
     containing details of the specific actions proposed to be 
     taken by the Department of Defense during the current fiscal 
     year to encourage other member nations of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization and Japan and Korea to assume a greater 
     share of the common defense burden of such nations and the 
     United States.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 121. During the current fiscal year, in addition to 
     any other transfer authority available to the Department of 
     Defense, proceeds deposited to the Department of Defense Base 
     Closure Account established by section 207(a)(1) of the 
     Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526) pursuant to section 
     207(a)(2)(C) of such Act, may be transferred to the account 
     established by section 2906(a)(1) of the Department of 
     Defense Authorization Act, 1991, to be merged with, and to be 
     available for the same purposes and the same time period as 
     that account.
       Sec. 122. The second paragraph under the heading, ``Family 
     Housing, Navy and Marine Corps'' in title XI of Public Law 
     102-368, is amended by inserting ``and the August 8, 1993 
     earthquake in Guam'' immediately after ``Typhoon Omar''.
       Sec. 123. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the 
     Department of Defense for military construction and family 
     housing accounts during fiscal year 1995, $10,421,000 are 
     permanently canceled.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall allocate the amount of 
     budgetary resources canceled among the Department's military 
     construction and family housing accounts available for 
     procurement and procurement-related expenses. Amounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses in 
     each such account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to 
     such account.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).

     [SEC. 124. COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT.

       [No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may be expended 
     by an entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the 
     assistance the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 
     of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly 
     known as the ``Buy American Act'').]


              (including rescission and transfer of funds)

       Sec. 124. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act, $25,100,000 is appropriated to 
     the Department of Defense and shall be available only for 
     transfer to the United States Coast Guard, to remain 
     available until expended, to defray expenses for the 
     consolidation of United States Coast Guard functions in 
     Martinsburg, West Virginia, including planning, acquisition, 
     construction, relocation of personnel and equipment and other 
     associated costs: Provided, That of the funds appropriated 
     for ``Military Construction, Naval Reserve'' under Public Law 
     102-136, $25,100,000 are rescinded.

     [SEC. 125. SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.

       [(a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this 
     Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving 
     such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase 
     only American-made equipment and products.
       [(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a 
     notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.]

                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 125. Of the funds provided in Military Construction 
     Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby rescinded 
     from the following accounts in the specified amounts:
       ``Military Construction, Defense Agencies, 1992/1996'', 
     $30,000,000;
       ``Military Construction, Defense Agencies, 1993/1997'', 
     $1,500,000.

     [SEC. 126. PROHIBITION OF CONTRACTS.

       [If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal 
     agency that any person intentionally affixed a fraudulent 
     label bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any 
     inscription with the same meaning, to any product sold in or 
     shipped to the United States that was not made in the United 
     States, such person shall be ineligible to receive any 
     contract or subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to 
     this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and 
     ineligibility procedures described in section 9.400 through 
     9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.]

     SEC. 126. LAND CONVEYANCE, NAVAL RESERVE CENTER, SEATTLE, 
                   WASHINGTON.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may 
     convey to the City of Seattle, Washington (in this section 
     referred to as the ``City''), all right, title, and interest 
     of the United States in and to a parcel of real property, 
     together with improvements thereon, consisting of 
     approximately 5.09 acres, the location of the Naval Reserve 
     Center, Seattle, Washington.
       (b) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the conveyance 
     under subsection (a), the City shall pay to the United States 
     an amount equal to the fair market value (as determined by 
     the Secretary) of the portion of the real property to be 
     conveyed under subsection (a) that is described in paragraph 
     (2).
       (2) Paragraph (1) applies to the portion of the parcel of 
     real property referred to in subsection (a) that consists of 
     approximately 3.67 acres and was acquired by the United 
     States from a party other than the City.
       (c) Condition.--The conveyance authorized by subsection (a) 
     shall be subject to the condition that the City accept the 
     real property in its condition at the time of conveyance.
       (d) Requirements Relating to Conveyance.--(1) The Secretary 
     may not make the conveyance authorized by subsection (a) 
     until the commencement of the use by the Navy of a Naval 
     Reserve Center that is a suitable replacement for the Naval 
     Reserve Center located on the property to be conveyed.
       (2) The Secretary may not commence construction of a 
     facility to be the replacement facility under paragraph (1) 
     for the Naval Reserve Center until the Secretary completes an 
     environmental impact statement with respect to the 
     construction and operation of the facility to be the 
     replacement facility.
       (e) Payment for Commercial Use.--If at any time after the 
     conveyance under this section the City ceases utilizing the 
     real property conveyed under subsection (a) for public 
     purposes, and uses such real property instead for commercial 
     purposes, the City shall pay to the United States an amount 
     equal to the excess, if any, of--
       (1) an amount equal to the fair market value (as determined 
     by the Secretary) of the real property referred to in 
     subsection (b)(2), and any improvements thereon, at the time 
     the City ceases utilizing the real property for public 
     purposes, over
       (2) the amount determined by the Secretary under subsection 
     (b)(1).
       (f) Use of Proceeds.--Proceeds from the sale shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury of the United States.
       (g) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the property to be conveyed under this section 
     shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the 
     Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the City.
       (h) Additional Terms and Conditions.--(1) The Navy may 
     scope more than one site.
       (2) The Secretary may require such additional terms and 
     conditions in connection with the conveyance under this 
     section as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the 
     interests of the United States.

     SEC. 127. LAND TRANSFER, WOODBRIDGE RESEARCH FACILITY, 
                   VIRGINIA.

       (a) Requirement of Transfer.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Army shall transfer, 
     without reimbursement, to the Department of the Interior, a 
     parcel of real estate consisting of approximately 580 acres 
     and comprising the Army Research Laboratory Woodbridge 
     Facility, Virginia, together with any improvements thereon.
       (b) Use of Transferred Property.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall use appropriate parts of this real property 
     for (1) incorporation into the Mason Neck Wildlife Refuge and 
     (2) work with the local government and the Woodbridge Reuse 
     Committee to plan any additional usage of the property, 
     including an environmental education center: Provided, That 
     the Secretary of the Interior provide appropriate public 
     access to the property.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Military Construction 
     Appropriations Act, 1995''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate 
today the military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1995, and also the report which will accompany that bill.
  Mr. President, this bill was reported out of the full Appropriations 
Committee just yesterday, and for the sake of time I will briefly 
summarize the work that was done in the subcommittee and the full 
committee.
  Mr. President, the bill recommended by the full Committee on 
Appropriations is for $8.837 billion for military construction projects 
worldwide, including family housing and base-closure activities of the 
Department of Defense for fiscal year 1995.
  This recommendation is $627 million, or 7 percent below the amounts 
appropriated last year. But it is $491 million over the budget request, 
and $20 million over the House bill.
  I am pleased to report to the Senate that the bill is within the 
committee's 602(b) budget allocation for both budget authority and 
outlays and conforms with the recently passed Senate Armed Services 
bill which was passed here on the floor slightly over 2 weeks ago, Mr. 
President.
  Now, the administration's request for military construction for 
fiscal year 1995 is a very lean request and reflects what the 
Department refers to as a ``pause'' year. The Department claims this 
pause is necessary because another round of base closures is coming and 
they do not want to take a chance and request funds for bases that may 
be closed.
  Now, while this appears to be a very well-justified reason for the 
steep cut in the Department's request in fiscal year 1995 and appears 
to be a very prudent approach to this problem, the facts are that the 
cuts that are in this military construction bill this year are simply 
not evenly distributed across all the services. And the National Guard 
and the Reserves are hit by far the hardest. For instance, the budget 
sought a 95-percent cut in the construction program of the Army 
National Guard, a $9 million request in 1995 compared to $102 million 
that was provided last year.
  Another example of the Department allocation of this cut from last 
year's level was that only one project for $2.4 million was requested 
for the Navy Reserve. The Army Reserve did not do much better in the 
priorities of the Department of Defense. The Department did not request 
a single military construction project for the Army Reserves for fiscal 
year 1995.
  Now, Mr. President, I believe, and I think the majority of our 
colleagues here believe, that the administration's request for military 
construction for fiscal year 1995 was unrealistic as submitted and was 
unbalanced in assigning its priorities.
  We came to this conclusion very early in the year and began to 
address this problem in the 602(b) process.
  Recognizing that the military construction request was underfunding 
the Guard and Reserve and failed to fund many high priority active 
projects, the committee allocated an additional $467 million over the 
President's request to this bill in the 602(b) process.
  Now, Mr. President, let me be crystal clear about this for all of my 
colleagues. What occurred in the Appropriations Committee is that the 
full committee, in assigning the various allocations of funds to the 
various subcommittees, all keeping below the budget caps that have been 
statutorily imposed, decided that the Military Construction 
Subcommittee should have a slightly larger allocation --the Department 
of Defense had cut it back too much for fiscal year 1995--and made the 
determination that the overwhelming majority of these cuts had been 
made in the National Guard and in the various Reserve construction 
activities.
  The subcommittee disagrees very strongly with the Department of 
Defense in this regard, as does the full committee. In a time of a 
shrinking defense establishment, at a time when the defense budget is 
continuing to shrink, there is a strong view which I hold that the 
National Guards and the Reserves are our most cost efficient and most 
effective bang for the buck in many instances in this declining area of 
the defense dollar.
  The various National Guard units, the service units, performed 
admirably in Operation Desert Storm. The Air Force National Guard units 
performed admirably in Operation Desert Storm. Indeed, the first kill 
in that war was by one of these the A-10 Warthogs flown by a USAir 
pilot, a civilian pilot, who had been activated just a few days before 
and was flying his National Guard A-10 Warthog and knocked down the 
first Iraqi aircraft, a helicopter, I believe.
  So in a time of shrinking defense spending, it appears to the 
subcommittee that it is not wise to ask the National Guard and the 
Reserve components to take the overwhelming majority of the cuts.
  Now, Mr. President, there is a great deal of interest in this bill 
every year by all of our colleagues. Sixty-one Members of the U.S. 
Senate have contacted the subcommittee and requested over 450 military 
construction projects in their States that are not on the President's 
budget, totalling over $2.1 billion. Obviously, we could not honor all 
of these requests. Some of them could not be fully justified. We would 
like to have honored all Senators' requests but it simply was not 
possible, and I think in most instances it would not have been cost 
effective to do so.
  But I can say, Mr. President, that the additional projects the 
subcommittee is recommending are all well documented, they are 
militarily justified, and most of the projects the committee added are 
for the National Guard and the Reserve which, as I explained earlier, 
were severely underfunded within the Pentagon's budget request.
  In the interest of time, I will conclude my remarks by saying, Mr. 
President, that this is a good military construction appropriations 
bill. I think it is one that expresses the desires of the Senate to 
increase funding for National Guard activities, for the various Reserve 
activities, and for high priority active military construction 
projects.
  It is a bill that continues the downward trend that we see in all of 
the funding for the Department of Defense. It is the judgment of the 
committee, however, that too many Guard and Reserve projects were left 
out of the Department's request and an addition to the Department's 
priorities was warranted.
  Mr. President, the Senate Budget Committee has examined H.R. 4453, 
the military construction appropriations bill and has found that the 
bill as reported out of committee does not exceed its 602(b) allocation 
in either budget authority or outlays.
  As the manager of the bill, I would like to compliment the 
distinguished ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee, 
Senator Slade Gorton, and the subcommittee staff for their excellent 
work in bringing this bill to the floor in a timely manner and under 
its 602(b) allocation.
  Mr. President, I have a table prepared by the Budget Committee which 
displays the official scoring of the military construction 
appropriations bill and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in 
the Record at the appropriate point.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

              SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE SCORING OF H.R. 4453              
 [FY 1995 Military Construction Appropriations--Senate-Reported Bill; in
                           million of dollars]                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Bill Summary                         BA    Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Totals:                                                   
  New spending in bill.................................   8,837    2,209
  Outlays from prior years appropriations..............  ......    6,545
  Permanent/advance appropriations.....................       0        0
  Supplementals........................................       0     -200
                                                        ----------------
    Subtotal, discretionary spending...................   8,837    8,554
                                                        ================
Mandatory Totals.......................................       0        0
  Bill total...........................................   8,837    8,554
  Senate 602(b) allocation.............................   8,837    8,554
                                                        ----------------
    Difference.........................................       0     -(*)
                                                        ================
Discretionary Totals above (+) or below (-):                            
  President's request..................................     491       28
  House-passed bill....................................      20        0
  Senate-reported bill.................................  ......  .......
  Senate-passed bill...................................  ......  .......
                                                        ================
    Defense............................................   8,837    8,554
    International Affairs..............................       0        0
    Domestic Discretionary.............................       0        0
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                 BILL HISTORY--H.R. 4453                                                                
                                         [FY 1995 Military Construction Appropriations; in thousands of dollars]                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    President's Request        House-Passed           Senate-Reported          Senate-Passed            Conference      
          Bill Summary           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      BA        Outlays       BA        Outlays       BA        Outlays       BA        Outlays       BA        Outlays 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Totals:                                                                                                                                   
    New spending in bill........   8,346,202   2,181,120   8,816,672   2,208,947   8,836,724   2,208,908  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    Permanents/advances.........           0           0           0           0           0           0  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    Outlays from prior years....  ..........   6,544,759  ..........   6,544,759  ..........   6,544,759  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    Supplemental................           0    -199,806           0    -199,806           0    -199,806  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, discretionary.   8,346,202   8,526,073   8,816,672   8,553,900   8,836,724   8,553,861           0           0           0           0
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Mandatory Totals:                                                                                                                                       
    Mandatory spending in bill..           0           0           0           0           0           0  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    Budget resolution adjustment           0           0           0           0           0           0           0           0           0           0
        Subtotal, mandatory.....           0           0           0           0           0           0           0           0           0           0
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Bill totals.....................   8,346,202   8,526,073   8,816,672   8,553,900   8,836,724   8,553,861           0           0           0           0
602(b) allocation...............   8,837,000   8,554,000   8,837,000   8,554,000   8,837,000   8,554,000           0           0           0           0
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Difference..................    -490,798     -27,927     -20,328        -100        -276        -139           0           0           0           0
                                 =======================================================================================================================
    Defense.....................   8,346,202   8,526,073   8,816,672   8,553,900   8,836,724   8,553,861           0           0           0           0
    International Affairs.......           0           0           0           0           0           0           0           0           0           0
    Domestic Discretionary......           0           0           0           0           0           0           0           0           0           0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I now would like to yield to my 
distinguished colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton. But before I 
do I would first like to say this. It has been a pleasure working with 
the very distinguished Senator from Washington again this year on the 
military construction bill.
  He serves very diligently, very competently, and very ably as the 
ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee. I am grateful 
for his very sound judgment and advice as we were bringing this bill to 
fruition and bringing it to the Senate.
  I now yield to Senator Gorton.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my distinguished friend and colleague from 
Tennessee has given a detailed outline of the provisions included in 
this bill. He has also made some very nice personal remarks which 
certainly deserve to be directed at him.
  In the 2 years in which I have served as ranking member of this 
committee, the process has been constructive, friendly, and I think 
very much in the best interest of the United States. Certainly the 
lion's share of the credit for those good results belong to the 
distinguished senior Senator from Tennessee.
  There are a few elements of the bill I would like to outline because 
I believe they deserve the attention of the Senate.
  First, the committee has agreed with the President's efforts to 
provide necessary funding for the planning, design, and construction of 
military facilities for the United States around the world. As we 
reviewed this budget, however, it became clear that there was not 
enough planning and design funds for the Reserve component, which the 
distinguished Senator from Tennessee has already pointed out. We, 
therefore, included an additional $34 million for the Guard and 
Reserves. This was in response to calls from all over the country. I 
hope that this will alleviate some of the problems the Reserve 
component has experienced. I might also add that these funds help 
finance the construction and operation of military family housing.

  Second, the request by the administration included $219 million for 
the NATO infrastructure account. I am still concerned over the way in 
which this money is being spent. The Department is going to have to 
show me how any of these funds are related to projects that help the 
United States participate in NATO. If this information continues to be 
unavailable, then I think this account will suffer in the course of our 
conference with the House. As I recall, the House has reduced this line 
by $100 million. We cannot continue to support our NATO allies when we 
are not adequately funding for our own national security here in the 
United States.
  Third, the administration requested 2.7 billion dollars' worth of 
base realignment and closure funding. Of that amount $1.4 billion is 
for specific projects. In past years we have seen that what is 
appropriated and what is actually accomplished can be very different. 
We have, therefore, put restrictions on this account so that all base 
realignment and closure projects will be treated as any other military 
construction projects. We have also listed each of these projects so 
that they face the light of day.
  While we made every effort, we were not able, obviously, to meet the 
requests of all Senators. The bill, of course, is not in its final form 
and will not be until we have met with the House and bring it back to 
the Senate. I am concerned that while we have come a long way in 
completing action on this measure, there still remains much that could 
be done or undone.
  The committee's military construction bill is just below our 602(b) 
budget allocation. We are $20 million over the House appropriation and 
$627 million under last year's appropriation.
  The House has a number of projects that we have not funded. We are 
not going to be able to fund everything. We will make significant 
changes to stay within our given allocations. I do ask all Senators to 
keep this in mind when we return from our conference with the House.
  Before I close, Mr. President, I once again want to express my thanks 
to the chairman, the distinguished senior Senator from Tennessee, and 
to other members of the subcommittee, and particularly to the 
subcommittee staff that has labored so long and hard. This includes Jay 
Kimmitt and Hallie Hastert, as well as Jim Morhard and Dona Pate on 
this side. I might note that, in addition to his duties on the defense 
subcommittee, this is Jay Kimmitt's first time as the majority clerk 
for Milcon. I would say he has started off by doing a great job.
  As I indicated, I think that the bill is a fair one, and I urge the 
support of my colleagues.
  Mr. SASSER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee 
amendments, except the language on page 19, line 22, through page 22, 
line 8, be agreed to en bloc, provided that no points of order shall be 
considered as having been waived by reason of this agreement and that 
the bill, as thus amended, be considered as original text for the 
purpose of further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do I hear an objection?
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my 
understanding that that section that was left out was the section with 
regard to land conveyance in Seattle that we discussed with Senator 
Gorton.
  Mr. SASSER. I say to the Senator from Ohio, that is correct.
  Mr. GLENN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the committee amendments were considered and agreed to en bloc, 
except the committee amendment on page 19, line 22, through page 22, 
line 8.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, after conferring with the distinguished 
ranking member here, it is our view that perhaps the amendment to be 
offered by the distinguished Senator from Ohio would be the first 
amendment to be considered.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum has been requested. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 19, Line 22, through Page 22, Line 
                                   8

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I call up the remaining committee 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending question. The clerk will 
report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       On page 19, line 22, insert new language through page 22, 
     line 8.

  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. I would ask clarification from the clerk. Does this 
amendment restore what was just left out of the committee amendments 
that were adopted en bloc?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This language inserts new material on page 19, 
line 22.
  Mr. GLENN. Well, the distinguished floor manager of the bill, Senator 
Sasser, asked that one portion be excepted from that en bloc agreement 
a little while ago. What I am asking is, is that the same thing we are 
restoring with this amendment now? It is my understanding it was. I 
just want to make sure we are certain we are not going beyond that 
agreement.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are 
restoring, beginning at line 22, captioned, ``Land Conveyance, Naval 
Reserve Center, Seattle, Washington.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SASSER. And it continues through line 8, page 22 with the 
paragraph ending, ``The Secretary may require such additional terms and 
conditions in connection with the conveyance under this section as the 
Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
States.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to discuss this to give just a bit 
of background as to why we have a disagreement on this particular 
provision that was adopted by the Appropriations Military Construction 
Subcommittee.
  I would like to give a little background to lay out just a few 
minutes of history about what I see as a loophole we are trying to plug 
in some of the issues surrounding disposal of Federal property. 
Ordinarily, the Federal Property Act, administered by the General 
Services Administration, provides very precise methods by which Federal 
property can be disposed of. Let us say I am in one of the departments 
of Government and I say we have used a piece of land, or we had a 
building, for a number of years. Now it is surplus; we do not need it 
anymore. It is not up to me as a member of that department; it is not 
up to me as a member of that agency, to just put that land up for sale 
and put the money back in our bank account for that particular agency. 
That does not protect the taxpayers of this country.
  So what we have done through the years is set up a very precise 
procedure by which the General Services Administration is permitted to 
dispose of public property. The general procedure is as follows. If 
there is a Federal piece of property and it is surplus, the law 
requires that the General Services Administration canvass the other 
agencies and departments of Government to see whether some other 
department of Government is, indeed, looking for a piece of property 
just like that. Because it makes very little sense for one department 
of Government to be selling a piece of property in a certain area where 
another department of Government may be looking for exactly the same 
kind of property, or kind of building.
  Lest anyone think this is some exercise in futility, it is not just 
an exercise. Let me give an example. We have a base being closed and 
there is a hospital on that base. This is an actual case. There is a 
hospital on that base and someone pointed out to us from that area, a 
friend of mine from that area, that, lo and behold, on the other side 
of town, the VA was buying property to build a VA hospital. So here we 
had one Federal agency closing up a hospital while another Federal 
agency, who did not know anything about the first hospital, is across 
town trying to buy another piece of property on which to build a 
hospital. That is just an example.
  Roger Johnson, who is head of the General Services Administration 
now, when I brought some of these things to his attention he, to his 
credit, is setting up a procedure now, a computerized system, whereby 
we now, for the first time in history, will have a computerized rundown 
on every part of the country where, as property is being sold, we can 
match it up with requests for new property or buildings, or whatever it 
is in that part of the country, so we save the taxpayers money. We make 
sure the taxpayer is made whole and make sure no Federal entity is out 
trying to buy property in the same place where we are trying to dispose 
of similar property. That just makes consummate sense, it seems to me.
  GSA runs that whole process. I want to make sure we understand 
another thing concerning the BRAC process, the base closure process. So 
many facilities were going to be closed that it was decided to give 
this authority to dispose property--for defense property, strictly 
defense property--over to the Department of Defense to run their own 
closure and disposal process, but still complying with the General 
Services Administration's rules on this. This is a big operation. We 
are closing up not only hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of bases 
and Federal property, but in the billions of dollars. What we have 
tried to do is set up a procedure on the Armed Services Committee that 
does the authorization of armed services work, to make sure that this 
new process is indeed followed.
  This year on the Armed Services Committee, we established an 
expedited process for screening specific property in which members had 
a particular interest.
  Senator McCain, my ranking minority member on that committee, and I 
have worked very, very closely in that area.
  If Federal screening is skipped, we cannot be sure that the taxpayers 
are getting the best value for their dollar. If we do not go through 
the screening process, if we just permit whatever the local Congressman 
or Senator says--``I think the best use of the land is so-and-so,'' if 
we have worked out an agreement here, however many buildings it is, or 
whatever it is, it may be to their best advantage and it may be to the 
best advantage of the Federal Government to do it that way. But what we 
have insisted on is that at the very least an expedited screening 
process is followed.
  So I am not against anything that is going to make a better 
relationship between the Federal Government and the local community, or 
make a disposal of land that is in the best interests of everybody 
concerned. But I am adamant in one thing, and this is where we have run 
into a lot of problems with a lot of Members of the Senate and some 
Members of the House, also, after we passed our bill. Because what we 
have insisted on is at least let the screening process go forward.
  It may sound a little crazy around this place sometimes, but what we 
are trying to do is save the taxpayers money. We are trying to make 
sure that Federal property is not disposed of just because a certain 
Member--and I am not referring to my distinguished colleague from 
Washington at all--but we are trying to make sure that these things are 
run through a process that guarantees that every Federal dollar that 
should come back into the Federal Treasury comes back into the Federal 
Treasury.
  If Federal screening is skipped, we are left open to the possibility 
that another legitimate Federal need for the surplus DOD property will 
have to be funded through a new appropriation. And we all know that it 
is highly likely that acquiring new land or property will result in 
additional, increased expense for the Federal Government. I can 
certainly guarantee that requiring the Government to purchase new lands 
and build new buildings will be a more expensive proposition.
  I am not saying that is the case in this issue that we have before us 
right now. But what I am saying is we should make certain that no 
bypass is permitted for this process. And this is tough doing this, 
because I can tell you, Mr. President, Members here and Members over in 
the House have for many years become accustomed to the idea that they 
go around and talk to a few of their colleagues and say we get this 
land disposed of here, we get a few thousand acres, we get whatever it 
is, and it is disposed of in the local community and that takes care of 
that.
  But it does not guarantee that the Federal Government--and the 
taxpayer, through a screening process, gets a fair shake. Or that other 
Federal entities that might want that particular property for a 
particular purpose--a quite legitimate purpose--are given a fair chance 
to acquire that property in the best interests of all the taxpayers of 
this country.
  What we provide in the process that we have instituted this year is 
an expedited screening process to help make sure that any legitimate 
Federal and State needs are quickly identified. I am more than willing 
to explore additional ways to improve the process.
  But what we have done is require GSA to complete all their screening 
for this Federal processing and the whole process, the challenges, the 
offers back and forth--I will not go through each step of it--but it 
requires they all be completed within 125 days, a few days over 4 
months.
  Presuming that no entity expresses a compelling need at the Federal 
level for the property, the Secretary or the GSA, then, in this case--
because this is not a BRAC process. This is not land that has been 
surplused by the Government under the base closure process. This is a 
proposal worked out by some of the people in Seattle and my 
distinguished colleague, to transfer lands for other purposes to the 
city in return for which there would be a reserve facility built.
  GSA has the authority to transfer the property. Once the Federal 
screening is completed, they can transfer the property to a State use, 
if the State wants the land, and negotiate a fair price for that. Or 
they can transfer it to a development group, a community reuse or 
development group at a fair market value, or, if considered in the 
overall best interest of everyone, they can transfer it at no cost as a 
public benefit. But that is up to them to work out.
  Again, though GSA is supposed to screen surplus properties for 
Federal use, that screening process takes only 60 days. Assuming the 
State has no immediate interest, it gets to the local community 
consideration, and then on an expedited basis, after the Federal 
screening, there is a short time for State and public entity use. And 
at this time, the community use group would make their interest 
officially known. The screening for the homeless occurs in here also, 
but that is run through HUD, and they administer that part of it.
  The purpose for these screening processes is to assure that the most 
pressing Federal, State, local, or homeless needs are met.
  I hope Senator Gorton, my distinguished colleague, will listen to 
this particular part because I think it is very important. GSA, in all 
this process, has the authority to bypass any Federal interest in the 
property if the Federal agency has not demonstrated an overwhelming, 
compelling need for the property. That is in law now. Or they can 
bypass any Federal interest if the local public reuse group has 
developed a reuse plan that is superior to anything they see the 
Federal agency might want it for. So GSA has authority for land 
conveyance if it is to be in the real major interest of a local 
community.
  Some people look at that as a loophole. I do not. I think that is 
just common sense. You still require the screening, but at any point, 
if GSA can be convinced that this is truly in the major interest of the 
local community, they can transfer that property. GSA has an open door 
to community reuse groups, and they are more than willing to work with 
these groups prior to and after the property in question is surplused 
in order to help assure that the community reuse plan does meet all the 
appropriate requirements.
  In this particular proposal today there certainly is a question of 
precedent as well. Making exceptions for community reuse groups, the 
subcommittee, of course, would be open, as we have seen in the past, to 
some additional requests in the future.
  We are not in a position, because we have taken a strong stand on 
this and because we think it is in the best interest of the taxpayers, 
to just automatically make an exception as would be made in this case. 
If we did that, we would, in fact, be opening up for the same kind of 
treatment a dozen or more other considerations that have come to our 
attention or we have been asked about during the process of putting the 
defense authorization bill through the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. President, I just do not see how we make an exception here. We 
have a provision in law that says, indeed, that if GSA is convinced 
that this is the best use for that land, then they have the authority 
right now to make the exception in this case, but it would be after 
they made that judgment, not me or not any one Member of the Senate or 
any Member of the House or by congressional staff. It would be after 
they made that best judgment in the interest of the community and made 
sure that everyone had been dealt with fairly.
  The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995 was 
passed by the Senate just 2 weeks ago. Just 2 weeks ago, we passed a 
provision that establishes these expedited procedures, that I mentioned 
a moment ago, for GSA to review all but one of the specific transfers 
contained in the bill under which land would be turned over to a non-
Federal entity.
  GSA will subject these transfers to screening for alternative Federal 
uses as well as State and local use. The screening process must be 
concluded within 125 days after enactment of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995.
  The new process, I believe, is a very, very important step. It 
represents a most important model for the future to ensure that 
conveyances of surplus DOD land and property are made in a way that 
fully protects the interest of the Federal Government and the taxpayers 
of this country as a whole and follows the general procedures for 
disposal of Federal property required of every other department of the 
Federal Government. I would add that the expedited process also 
gurantees that the community or interest group will receive the 
property should no priority agency demonstrate a compelling need for 
the property.
  So I object to the land transfer in this committee amendment because 
it does not follow the procedures that we set up for land transfers 
involving DOD property in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 1995.
  The committee of authorization, in this case the Armed Services 
Committee, set up a procedure in the bill we passed just 2 weeks ago to 
cover exactly these kinds of land transfers. This is not under the BRAC 
process--I repeat--it is under GSA, General Services Administration, 
with all the latitude they have for making the proper decision on 
whatever piece of land there is.
  There have been a number of our colleagues who were not very happy 
with the procedures we set up because this cut into some of the things 
that maybe people over in the House and here have become too accustomed 
to looking to as their prerogatives on disposal of Federal property in 
their area, something that I think is wrong. I think everything should 
go through this process that I have described briefly this afternoon.
  So we have this amendment that has been proposed. It takes one 
specific land conveyance and puts it outside of the orderly process we 
agreed to just 2 weeks ago for seven other land or real property 
transactions involving excess DOD property.
  I say to my friend that I hope we can work together on this; that we 
let it run through the regular process. I will be more than happy to 
work with him and the General Services Administration to get as 
expedited procedures as we can possibly get, because I know how 
important it is to him. With all that this would open up if we were to 
accept this, I think it would be a real mistake to go ahead and make 
exceptions in this particular case.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Ohio lists 
a process for a wide range of decisions relating to the disposal of 
excess Federal property which is, by and large, a sound process. It is 
a process which is designed, as the Senator from Ohio has said on 
several occasions, to see to it that the taxpayers of the United States 
of America are duly compensated for such transfers; that they are not 
inside deals; that the taxpayers of the United States do not have to 
turn around and buy, at large cost, another piece of property. This 
would be for the use formerly engaged in by the property in the process 
of being transferred.
  All of this is entirely true and entirely correct, and all of this is 
irrelevant to the transfer in question in the committee amendment. It 
is that irrelevance which accounts for the fact that this proposal was 
adopted unanimously by both the Subcommittee on Military Construction 
and the full Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. President, the reason we put this provision in the Senate 
appropriations military construction bill was that it would transfer 5 
acres of property currently owned by the Navy to the city of Seattle, 
and authorize a $10.4 million replacement facility at Fort Lawton for 
the Navy Reserve.
  This provision would ask that the city pay fair market value only for 
the 3.7 acres that it sold to the Navy. The remaining 1.4 acres--given 
to the Navy during World War II--would be returned to the city at no 
charge. The land transfers would not be effective until the Navy 
Reserve had its replacement facility in 1997 or 1998.
  Mr. President, I have pursued this project for the last year and half 
to help the citizens of Seattle realize a plan called the Seattle 
Commons. That effort, which has been promoted and funded almost 
entirely by private citizens, is an attempt to revitalize and beautify 
the South Lake Union area adjacent to downtown Seattle. The proposal 
would first create a 75-acre park--the only large green space near 
downtown Seattle--with open meadows, tree-lined bicycle and walking 
paths, and a natural beach area. Around the park, the plan would 
revitalize a 470-acre business and residential neighborhood, including 
affordable housing, new zoning for business, pedestrian-friendly 
streets, tree-lined boulevards, and improved public transportation.
  This project has received a groundswell of support from Seattlites. 
1,300 people have contributed money--including large companies like 
Boeing, and small contributors like the second-graders at the Epiphany 
School in Seattle--and 12,000 citizens have signed endorsement cards 
for the project.
  If the Commons is to move forward, however, it needs the 5.1 acres 
now owned by the Navy. This land is the capstone to the project, and 
its only access to Lake Union. Since a Federal agency owns this land, 
Congress must approve its sale.
  In the spring of 1993, I worked with the Navy on finding a suitable 
new location for the Navy Reserve Unit at Lake Union. After looking at 
a number of sites, including Paine Field in Everett and Puget Sound 
Naval Station at Sand Point, I am convinced that Fort Lawton, the 
current home of the Army Reserve, is the best alternative site for the 
Navy Reserve. As Secretary Dalton recently wrote to me, the Fort Lawton 
plan ``provides an opportunity to co-locate the Navy Reserve Center 
with an Army Reserve Center, and achieves the many efficiencies of 
operation inherent in a joint Armed Forces Reserve Center. 
Additionally, the Fort Lawton site keeps the assigned Navy Reserve 
Units central to their demographic base.'' To pursue this project, the 
fiscal year 1994 Defense authorization bill included $1.9 million for 
the planning and design of the new facility at Fort Lawton.
  As a resident of the Magnolia Community myself, I have closely 
watched the manner in which the Army planned this new facility. So far, 
it has done a marvelous job of listening to the concerns of the 
Magnolia community and in making sure that it will not be negatively 
impacted by this new facility. It has designed an entrance to the 
facility that removes military traffic from a residential street in the 
area, and plans extensive landscaping to ensure that the area's natural 
beauty is retained.
  The Navy and Army Reserve have also worked together to create a 
training schedule that ensures that at no time will there be more 
reservists on base than there are today during the busiest weekends. In 
fact, a couple of hundred fewer reservists will likely be present 
because the schedule now includes more weekends.
  In short, the project will help the city of Seattle receive the land 
it needs for the Commons project, while giving the Navy Reserve a 
satisfactory new home that won't hurt the surrounding community.
  No general law can cover every single instance and cover it well, and 
that general law does not cover this particular situation well. No 
additional property will have to be bought by the Navy if this land 
transfer goes through, and the taxpayers of the country are fully 
protected by the proposition that their property will be paid for by 
the city of Seattle at the full appraised value of that portion of the 
property which was donated, in the first place, by the city to the Navy 
for Reserve purposes.
  Mr. President, before any of this started, the Army had come to all 
of us and asked for new construction of a Reserve center and a place in 
Seattle which is already military property. At the same time, the city 
of Seattle has perhaps its most ambitious project for park purposes in 
the course of the 20th century, of which the present Navy Reserve 
property is the keystone, being the only waterfront.
  The Navy has been overwhelmingly cooperative with the city of Seattle 
and said that it would be happy to transfer this property to the city 
of Seattle for these park purposes if it had a new Navy Reserve center. 
The Navy Reserve was very happy to have that joint center with the Army 
on a plot already planned and in a building already planned. But, of 
course, that willingness is entirely dependent on the future use of 
this Navy property for the purposes of being the keystone of a very 
large park in the city of Seattle.
  But, the reason it is not appropriate to follow a valid general rule 
is, first, there is already the requirement in this bill that the city 
of Seattle pay the full appraised value of the property to the Navy. 
This is not a gift. It is the appraised value. It is obviously more 
than would be paid for by some other Federal agency or some other 
Government entity which might want to intervene in this process to 
frustrate the purposes of the city.
  No new land purchases are required on the part of the Navy. 
Therefore, the committee has approved of this project. This is a 
project that will not cost the taxpayers money, will not cost the Navy 
money, and is in the great interests of the community concerned. I 
assume that the GSA might well come out with this answer, but we cannot 
wait for that answer because what we have here is a deal which is an 
entire package for all of the elements that are involved. It is for 
exactly that reason we have agreed we are not going to get a sweetheart 
price; there is no special deal in this whatsoever. It is a sale at the 
appropriate and complete value of the property itself.
  The law to which the Senator refers was in order to prevent constant 
transfers for free, without any consideration whatsoever, at a 
considerable cost to the taxpayers. Since that is not the case here, 
the use of that process is simply a waste of the taxpayers' money 
rather than a saving of the taxpayers' money. Nor is it unprecedented 
even in the bill. The authorization bill which was passed here 2 weeks 
ago, included just such a transfer in connection with the State of 
Nebraska. The Senator from Ohio did not object to that provision in 
this Chamber and did not move to strike it in this Chamber.
  This is not going to be something which leads to a large number of 
transfers like this. It is a unique situation. The taxpayers will be 
fully compensated for the property, and as taxpayers of the United 
States they will end up having a better use of that property.
  Mr. President, the committee amendment is totally in order and the 
committee amendment should be accepted.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would first ask unanimous consent that 
the unanimous consent agreement be modified to vitiate the yeas and 
nays on final passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SASSER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Reserving the right to object--Mr. President, I am going 
to be compelled to object at the present time. Maybe we can take this 
up a little later after--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the only reason I had done that, I thought 
that was the wish also of the managers of the bill. But I will be glad 
to vacate that at this time.
  I will be glad to yield to the manager of the bill.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. We did 
have a conversation that perhaps a rollcall would not be necessary in 
this instance, and I did acquiesce in the Senator's request. However, I 
was not aware that on our side apparently a rollcall vote had been 
requested at the time the Senator and I were conversing.
  I will try to run this down and see if those who are requesting the 
rollcall on final passage are still of the opinion we ought to have 
one. If not, then we will certainly be agreeable to accede to the 
Senator's request.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, are rollcalls 
also ordered on my amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They are not. The Senator has a right to offer 
the amendments, but rollcalls have not been ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2300

 (Purpose: To establish criteria for Senate consideration of military 
    construction projects not included in the annual budget request)

  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
  At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment so I may propose my amendment, on which I intend to 
talk briefly, which I am informed is acceptable to both managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2300.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING FOR MILITARY 
                   CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS NOT REQUESTED IN THE 
                   PRESIDENT'S ANNUAL BUDGET REQUEST.

       (a) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that, to the maximum extent practicable, the Senate should 
     consider the appropriation of funds for a military 
     construction project not authorized or included in the annual 
     budget request of the Department of the Defense only if:
       (1) the project is consistent with past actions of the Base 
     Realignment and Closure process;
       (2) the project is included in the military construction 
     plan of the military department concerned incorporated in the 
     Future Years Defense Program or is authorized;
       (3) the project is necessary for reasons of the national 
     security of the United States; and
       (4) a contract for construction of the project can be 
     awarded in that fiscal year.
       (b) Views of the Secretary of Defense.--In considering 
     these criteria, the Senate should obtain the views of the 
     Secretary of Defense. These views should include whether 
     funds for a military construction project not included in the 
     budget request can be offset by funds for other programs, 
     projects, or activities, including military construction 
     projects, in the budget request and, if so, the specific 
     offsetting reductions recommended by the Secretary of 
     Defense.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this provision shall 
     be construed as modifying the provisions of section 2802 of 
     title 10, United States Code.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of both 
Senators from Washington and the managers of the bill.
  I especially wish to thank the managers of the bill for agreeing to 
this amendment. I will not be seeking a rollcall vote.
  The fact is, Mr. President, the hour is late. There are many people 
who have already had to depart for other reasons, so I do not intend to 
ask for it. I am appreciative of the agreement of the managers of the 
bill.
  Mr. President, basically, what this amendment does is use exactly the 
language that was adopted by the Senate as part of the 1995 defense 
authorization bill and is very similar to the criteria about which I 
wrote to my colleagues last April.
  The amendment states that the Senate should consider approving 
military construction projects not included in the President's defense 
budget request only if four criteria are met.
  Those criteria are: The project is consistent with the base closing 
process, known as BRAC; the project is included in the 5-year military 
construction plan of the military department concerned; the project is 
necessary for reasons of the national security of the United States; 
and a contract for construction of the project can be awarded in that 
fiscal year.
  In addition, it requires the Senate to consult with the Secretary of 
Defense to obtain his views concerning the relative merits of military 
construction projects not included in the Department of Defense budget 
request. The Secretary will be asked to comment on the four criteria 
outlined above and also if funds are required to be offset from other 
projects.
  The Senate will then be able to make an informed decision whether to 
appropriate funds to any of these unrequested projects.
  Mr. President, the amendment addresses the process of evaluating 
Members' requests for additional funding. I wish to stress I am not 
condemning every project that is added as unnecessary and wasteful. 
Many of the unrequested projects recommended may very well be 
meritorious and militarily necessary.
  What I am trying to do, Mr. President, is put some order in the 
process, and a process which meets certain criteria, no matter in which 
base, which State, which congressional district these projects happen 
to be located.
  Mr. President, I had planned on giving a long talk about what has 
happened in the past--for example, in the past 5 years, over $4.4 
billion in unrequested military construction projects have been added 
to the defense budget. This year's budget cut $500 million to start 
with and then $490 million was transferred in the appropriations 
process to additional military construction projects.
  Mr. President, I strongly disagree with that. There is a problem in 
the military today, as recently as last week, articulated by Secretary 
Perry.
  The Air Force depot maintenance backlog is currently at $868 million; 
the Marine Corps is suffering from severe cutbacks in combat training 
and in sustainability; Navy float inventories have been reduced by 40 
percent since 1989; Army aviator training is only funded at 76 percent; 
cuts in base operations funding; reduced standard of living of our 
troops; on and on and on.
  Mr. President, readiness of the military in the United States today 
is suffering, and it is suffering badly. And it is suffering from lack 
of funding while we add more and more military construction projects, 
period.
  In the meantime, Mr. President, because of these continued cuts in 
defense spending, we now are treated to the sight which graphically 
demonstrates the problem better than any I know, and that is the 
Inchon, the U.S.S. Inchon, which came back from 6 months' deployment 
off Mogadishu, and was rushed to its home port. Ten days these young 
people were allowed to be with their wives, husbands, youngsters, and 
they turned around and had to send them down off Haiti because we do 
not have enough ships.
  Mr. President, we have an All Volunteer Force. We are not going to 
keep these people in the military. We are not going to keep the high-
quality men and women if you do that to them--6 months away from their 
families sitting on ships off Somalia, come home for 10 days with their 
families, and then they are sent off again for an unlimited period of 
time. Why? Because we do not have the ships. But we are spending 
billions of dollars on military construction projects. You cannot do 
that.
  If I sound angry it is because I am, and I would suggest that this is 
not going to cure the problem. But this amendment, which I am, I say 
again, grateful to both managers for, will bring some order in the 
process.
  Also, two additional points. One, you cannot go to any base in 
America without seeing a military construction project going on.
  Second, we are all aware that there is going to be a base-closing 
commission that is going to report out sometime next year, the biggest 
base closing in history. I guarantee you that many of these military 
construction projects that we are approving will be on bases that are 
being closed. They will be on bases that are being closed, and there 
will be millions and millions and millions of dollars wasted because 
the construction projects were already let for contracts, and they have 
already begun.
  That is wrong. We should be cutting down dramatically much more in 
the military construction this year in anticipation of the largest base 
closing in the history of this Nation, at least in this century.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I feel very strongly that reductions 
should be taken in other military construction projects to offset the 
costs of these new projects. This year, the Senate Armed Services 
Committee asked the Department of Defense to identify offsetting 
reductions for the unrequested projects contained in that bill. DOD 
failed to do so in any but a very few cases. But what incentive does 
the Department have to offer up cuts in other programs when they know 
full well that Congress will add the projects anyway? This amendment 
expresses the Senate's view that DOD should be asked to identify 
specific offsets for military construction add-ons. I trust DOD will do 
so in the future.
  Mr. President, the criteria in this amendment are essentially the 
same as those I proposed to my colleagues in April of this year. I 
realize that this procedure represents a significant change in the 
Congress' review of the military construction budget. However, I firmly 
believe that Congress must exercise restraint in adding unrequested 
military construction projects to ensure that limited defense dollars 
are spent for high priority military requirements necessary to our 
ability to fight and win any future conflict.


                      why the amendment is needed

  As I said earlier, I doubt that many of my colleagues are fully aware 
of the magnitude of the congressional add-ons in the military 
construction budget in recent years. Let me restate some enlightening 
information.
  In the past 5 years, from fiscal year 1990 through 1994, Congress 
added over $4.4 billion in unrequested military construction projects 
to the Defense budget. This equates to $880 million every year in 
special interest projects designated for Members' districts or States. 
And every dollar added for these pork-barrel projects had to come from 
some other program--weapons procurement, military research and 
development, combat training or other high-priority military 
requirements.
  This year, the fiscal year 1995 budget resolution cut $500 million in 
outlays from the overall discretionary spending account, all of which 
was taken from the defense bills in the Appropriations Committees' 
allocations. Then, to compound the problem, the Appropriations 
Committees cut the allocation for the Defense Subcommittee and 
increased the allocation to the military construction Subcommittee by 
$490 million. This transfer was made solely to accommodate 
Congressional add-ons. Rather than protecting high priority military 
programs, we are instead protecting our political positions.
  True to form, the House of Representatives has already passed both 
the fiscal year 1995 Defense authorization bill and the fiscal year 
1995 military construction appropriations bill, which include $695 
million in Member add-ons. The fiscal year 1995 Defense authorization 
bill which passed the Senate on July 1 includes over $700 million in 
add-ons requested by Senators. The fiscal year 1995 military 
construction bill before the Senate today contains $910 million in 
unrequested projects. The pork barrel is again being filled to the 
brim.
  Mr. President, the nearly one billion dollars in the bill before the 
Senate does little, in my view, to enhance our national security. It 
goes a long way, however, to improving the political stature of the 
projects' proponents in their home States.


           our overall budget priorities are seriously askew

  Mr. President, every time we seek to cut the budget, we turn to the 
Defense Department and end up cutting vital defense-related programs. 
Yet at the same time we continue, virtually unabated, to fund waste and 
unnecessary Government programs. I ask, where are our priorities?
  When the Senate has been presented with legitimate efforts to 
eliminate non-Defense programs, the Senate scoffs. Apparently, the 
Senate believes we need: Full funding for extravagant courthouses and 
other Federal buildings that cost hundreds of millions of dollars each.
  This year, we will spend $733.2 million for construction and 
acquisition of buildings. Last year, we spent $998 million.
  And we wasted this money on projects such as the $218 million Boston 
Courthouse--which I might add was approved by the President's Supreme 
Court nominee Judge Breyer--which contains: A six story atrium; 63 
private bathrooms; 37 different law libraries; 33 private kitchens; 
custom designed private staircases; and a $1.5 million dollars floating 
marina with custom-made park benches.
  And the $300 million Foley Square, New York Courthouse original 
design included 100 percent deluxe wool carpet; operable windows--not 
normally included in any Federal building--marble lined 
elevators; mahogany, instead of regular hardwood paneling; custom brass 
fixtures; and custom designed lighting.

  Are these extravagances necessary? I do not think the public believes 
so. But the Senate believes they are.
  We fully funded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, even though 
programs like ``Barney'' are making millions of dollars in profits. 
Last year, when the Senate had the opportunity to adopt an amendment to 
cut $28 million from the $320 million budget of the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting and fund it at the level requested by the 
President, it defeated the amendment 25-72. (September 23, 1993.)
  The Congress has not yet been able to cut funding for subsidies to 
wealthy peanut farmers, honey producers, and the like. These give-away 
programs continue while military readiness declines.
  And what does the Senate do when a true, across-the-board budget 
reduction proposal is raised? One that does not just target defense? It 
defeats it.
  When the Kerry-Brown Budget Cutting Amendment which would cut $98 
billion distributed evenly across all programs was offered, it was 
tabled 65-31. (February 9, 1994.)


           military readiness is the highest defense priority

  Let me restate my strong feelings on the high priority of military 
readiness for scarce defense dollars. I am seriously concerned about 
the deleterious impact of the rapidly declining defense budget on the 
readiness of our military forces, as well as on the daily lives of the 
men and women who serve in our Armed Forces and their families. The 
practice in Congress of adding unrequested programs and projects to the 
defense budget only serves to exacerbate the difficulty of stretching 
scarce defense dollars to fund military requirements. We must exercise 
restraint in our fiscal practices and instill discipline in our review 
of Members' requests for approval of unrequested military construction 
projects.
  For the past 10 years, the defense budget has declined every year. 
Defense budget authority has declined since 1985 by almost 41 percent. 
At the same time, however, military construction budget authority has 
been reduced only 29 percent. This mismatch of infrastructure funding 
with the topline decline in the defense budget accounts for the pork 
factor of unnecessary military construction projects. Congress' 
proclivity for adding politically advantageous spending to an already 
stretched defense budget has contributed greatly to this funding gap. 
It is time to move forward with the base closure process and to permit 
DOD to maintain its overall budget priorities.
  Additionally, the Congress has developed a proclivity to set aside 
slush funds to preserve so-called defense industrial bases. This 
practice started with the Seawolf submarine, when Congress provided 
$540 million to preserve the submarine industrial base. Today, the 
American taxpayer is burdened with paying for two $5.2 billion 
submarines, and possibly a third boat, which have no military utility 
in the post cold war world. This year, industrial base funds have been 
set up for bombers, tanks, and armored vehicles. and even for meals 
ready to eat [MREs]. Mr. President, this is an absurd waste of money to 
prop up faltering industries which may or may not represent vital 
sectors of American industry necessary for our future defense 
requirements.
  Serious readiness shortfalls are now evident. Earlier this week, 
Secretary Perry testified as follows:

       * * * I see many trends which make me worry about readiness 
     in the future. * * * things we can do now to protect medium-
     term readiness are a matter of substantial concern to me * * 
     *.

  The nearly $1 billion in Member add-ons for unrequested military 
construction projects would go a long way toward offsetting the cuts in 
these vital readiness accounts.
  Mr. President, this $1 billion in military construction pork could be 
applied to the costs of restoring fairness in retirement COLAs between 
civilian and military retirees. The Senate adopted a provision on the 
defense authorization bill to restore COLA equity which will cost 
nearly $400 million--which I am told the appropriators may not have 
available at this time. We must not break faith with those men and 
women who served in the military by denying them the same COLA as 
civilian retirees receive. I suggest to my colleagues that it is far 
more proper to fund COLA equity than it is to ensure political 
popularity at home.
  Mr. President, there are many pressing military requirements that 
lack sufficient funding. The Senate should not use scarce defense 
dollars to fund unnecessary military construction projects.


            hearings illustrate military construction waste

  Mr. President, a few weeks ago, the Senate Governmental Affairs 
Committee held a hearing on the Department of Defense process of 
budgeting for military construction projects. At that hearing, I asked 
the Department of Defense Inspector General to comment on the process 
of congressional add-ons to the military construction budget request. 
Mr. VanDer Schaaf commented that every military construction project in 
the Department is suspect and that military construction projects 
should be minimized until the base realignment and closure process is 
completed. I fully agree with the Inspector General's comments, and I 
urge my colleagues to heed his caution.

  The 1995 BRAC round will be more extensive than all of the previous 
rounds combined, in order to balance force structure and infrastructure 
levels. By adding nearly $1 billion in unrequested programs, the 
Congress is potentially creating a situation where new construction is 
slated to begin at a base which is likely to be ordered closed next 
year. It may even be that Members expect to protect bases in their 
States by adding these military construction funds.
  Mr. VanDer Schaaf pointed out a specific example of wasteful military 
construction spending. Even when it was apparent to many at DOD, 
including the inspector general, that the Navy's planned homeport at 
Staten Island would never become a reality, the Navy refused to limit 
its contracting to a smaller number of units. Later, the Navy was 
unable to terminate these contracts for 1,200 new family housing units 
on Staten Island because it had failed to include standard language 
allowing the government to terminate for convenience. Mr. VanDer Schaaf 
stated:

       They went ahead with the whole darn thing and now we have 
     got a mess * * * because we * * * have no use for 1,200 sets 
     of family quarters on Staten Island.

  Mr. President, this type of wasteful spending and faulty contracting 
must be stopped in order to save millions of dollars in unnecessary 
construction.
  As a result of that hearing, I intend to ask, with the concurrence of 
Senator Glenn, that the General Accounting Office conduct an audit of 
all military construction projects underway and planned in the 
Department of Defense 5-year plan to ensure that these projects are 
being executed in a timely and fiscally responsible fashion. I also 
will ask the GAO to review the Department's process of reviewing 
Congressional add-ons to the military construction budget with respect 
to the criteria established in this amendment. Unfortunately, I believe 
it is necessary to acquire an independent assessment of DOD's ability 
to screen out unnecessary projects and to prioritize all projects 
within the amount of money allocated for military construction each 
year.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, I firmly believe that high-priority military 
requirements, particularly military readiness, must take precedence 
over military construction pork. I had initially intended to propose an 
amendment to strike out all of the unrequested military construction 
projects contained in this bill. However, I am a realist. I fully 
recognize that the Senate is not currently inclined to put the brakes 
on its pork barrel spending race. Therefore, I chose instead to propose 
this amendment, which is virtually identical to the language adopted by 
the Senate on July 1 as part of the fiscal year 1995 Defense 
authorization bill. That amendment was cosponsored by Senator Glenn and 
set forth the criteria we believed to be appropriate for considering 
unrequested military construction projects.
  Mr. President, this amendment requires a comprehensive review, by 
both the Department of Defense and the Senate, of any military 
construction project not included in the budget request for which 
funding is requested by an individual Senator. These reviews will 
ensure that only the most meritorious and militarily necessary projects 
are funded.
  Let me also clarify that the amendment is not intended in any way to 
modify the provisions of current law regarding separate authorization 
and appropriation for military construction projects. Each military 
construction project for which appropriations are provided must be 
authorized in an act other than an appropriations act. That is the law, 
and this amendment in no way alters that arrangement. It merely imposes 
an additional level of review on the existing process.
  It is time to stop the congressional building spree. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, as Yogi Berra was fond of saying, ``This 
seems like deja vu all over again.'' The import of the Senator's sense-
of-the-Senate amendment on the military construction bill here is 
essentially identical to the amendment that was placed on the 
Department of Defense authorization that passed through the Senate 
about 2 weeks ago.
  That amendment establishes criteria for reviewing Senate funding of 
military construction projects not contained in the President's budget 
request. It was adopted by the managers of the authorization bill about 
2 or 3 weeks ago.
  I am not going to oppose the amendment of the distinguished Senator 
from Arizona as it has been modified. The modification makes it clear 
that authorized Senate projects can be included even if they are not in 
the Department's future year defense plan.
  I think this is very important because this modification ensures that 
the sense-of-the-Senate that the Senator is advancing does not undercut 
the Congress' constitutional responsibility for oversight 
responsibilities. It allows the Congress to fulfill that 
responsibility, oversee military spending, and, if necessary, to 
reprioritize military construction projects if military necessities or 
fiscal priorities require congressional intervention.
  Our Founding Fathers determined over 200 years ago that the final 
authority on many of these matters, particularly those dealing with 
appropriations, should reside right here in the Congress. I think that 
is very, very important. I think when the Department of Defense sends 
up their request for military construction, certainly it ought to be 
given great credence. And the burden of proof ought to be on the 
authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee, if we overrule 
them or do not follow their particular prerogatives. But in the final 
analysis, the last word must be left to the duly elected legislative 
people, and that is the Congress of the United States.
  Let me say to my friend from Arizona that I will, although I am not 
enthusiastic about his sense-of-the-Senate resolution as he knows, I 
will in good conscience be steadfast in trying to support it in 
conference. I will at the same time be monitoring how our colleagues on 
the Armed Services Committee are faring with this same provision in 
their conference.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Arizona is on the 
floor at the present time. We have no objection to the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution as offered by the distinguished Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. SASSER. Before yielding, Mr. President, could we dispose of this 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution? It is acceptable on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, all time is yielded 
back.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Before you do that, I want to agree with the sentiments 
expressed by the Senator from Tennessee on this amendment. We approve 
of it.
  Mr. SASSER. Before yielding back all time, I think the distinguished 
Senator from Ohio would like to make a comment on this particular 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I just want to indicate my support for 
this. I will not speak long. I know Senator McCain has been on this 
subject for a long time. So have I. We worked very closely together on 
the Armed Services Committee on this matter. I think it is a move that 
is long overdue. It is an effort to get back into responsible budgeting 
and responsible handling of the military construction projects. I am 
glad he brought this. I am glad to give it my full support, and I want 
to be listed as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is further debate? If not, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
  The amendment (No. 2300) was agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the remaining committee 
amendments.


                           Amendment No. 2301

 (Purpose: To provide alternative authority for the land conveyance of 
                 the Naval Reserve Center, Seattle, WA)

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in the 
second degree, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2301 to the pending committee amendment.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the pending amendment, strike out everything after the 
     section heading all that follows through the end of the 
     amendment, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       (a) In General.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Administrator of General Services shall--
       (A) transfer jurisdiction over all or a portion of the 
     parcel of real property described in subsection (b)(1) to 
     another executive agency if the Administrator determines 
     under subsection (c) that the transfer of jurisdiction to the 
     agency is appropriate;
       (B) convey all or a portion of the parcel to a State or 
     local government or nonprofit organization if the 
     Administrator determines under subsection (d) that the 
     conveyance to the government or organization is appropriate; 
     or
       (C) convey all or a portion of the parcel to the entity 
     specified to receive the conveyance under subsection (e) in 
     accordance with that subsection.
       (2) The Administrator shall carry out an action referred to 
     in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) only upon 
     direction by the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary shall 
     make the direction, if at all, in accordance with subsection 
     (g).
       (3) Upon the direction of the Secretary of Defense, the 
     Secretary of the Navy shall transfer jurisdiction over an 
     appropriate portion of the parcel of real property referred 
     to in paragraph (1) to the Administrator in order to permit 
     the Administrator to carry out the transfer of jurisdiction 
     over or conveyance of the portion of the parcel under this 
     section.
       (b) Covered Property.--(1) The parcel of real property 
     referred to in subsection (a)(1) is a parcel of real 
     property, together with any improvements thereon, 
     consisting of approximately 5.09 acres, located in 
     Seattle, Washington, the location of the Naval Reserve 
     Center, Seattle, Washington.
       (2) The exact acreage and legal description of the real 
     property referred to in paragraph (1) that is transferred or 
     conveyed under this section shall be determined by a survey 
     satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall 
     be borne by the Secretary. The transferee or conveyee, if 
     any, of the property under this section shall reimburse the 
     Secretary for the cost borne by the Secretary for the survey 
     of the property.
       (c) Determination of Transferees.--(1) Subject to 
     subsection (a)(2), the Administrator shall transfer 
     jurisdiction over all or a portion of the parcel of real 
     property referred to in subsection (b)(1) to an executive 
     agency if the Administrator determines under this subsection 
     that the transfer is appropriate.
       (2) Not later than 5 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Administrator shall inform the heads of the 
     executive agencies of the availability of the parcel of real 
     property referred to in subsection (b)(1).
       (3) The head of an executive agency having an interest in 
     obtaining jurisdiction over any portion of the parcel of real 
     property referred to in paragraph (2) shall notify the 
     Administrator, in writing, of the interest within such time 
     as the Administrator shall specify with respect to the parcel 
     in order to permit the Administrator to determine under 
     paragraph (4) whether the transfer of jurisdiction to the 
     agency is appropriate.
       (4)(A) The Administrator shall--
       (i) evaluate in accordance with section 202(a) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 
     U.S.C. 483(a)) the notifications of interest, if any, 
     received under paragraph (3) with respect to a parcel of real 
     property; and
       (ii) determine in accordance with that section the 
     executive agency, if any, to which the transfer of 
     jurisdiction is appropriate.
       (B) The Administrator shall complete the determination 
     under subparagraph (A) with respect to the parcel not later 
     than 30 days after informing the heads of the executive 
     agencies of the availability of the parcel.
       (d) Determination of Conveyees.--(1) Subject to subsection 
     (a)(2), the Administrator shall convey all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to all or a portion of 
     the parcel of real property referred to in paragraph (2) to a 
     government or organization referred to in paragraph (3) if 
     the Administrator determines under this subsection that the 
     conveyance is appropriate.
       (2) Paragraph (2) applies to any portion of the parcel of 
     real property referred to in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) for which the Administrator receives no notification of 
     interest from the head of an executive agency under 
     subsection (c); or
       (B) with respect to which the Administrator determines 
     under paragraph (4)(B) of that subsection that a transfer of 
     jurisdiction under this section would not be appropriate.
       (3)(A) In the case of the property referred to in paragraph 
     (2), the governments and organizations referred to in that 
     paragraph are the following:
       (i) The State government of the State in which the property 
     is located.
       (ii) Local governments affected (as determined by the 
     Administrator) by operations of the Department of Defense at 
     the property.
       (iii) Nonprofit organizations located in the vicinity of 
     the property and eligible under Federal law to be supported 
     through the use of Federal surplus real property.
       (B) In this paragraph, the term ``nonprofit organizations'' 
     means any organization listed in subsection (c)(3) of section 
     501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501) that 
     is exempt from taxation under subsection (a) of that section.
       (4) Not later than 5 days after completing the 
     determination under subsection (c)(4)(B), the Administrator 
     shall determine if any portion of the parcel of property 
     referred to in subsection (b)(1) is available for conveyance 
     under this subsection and shall inform the appropriate 
     governments and organizations of the availability of the 
     parcels for conveyance under this section.
       (5) A government or organization referred to in paragraph 
     (4) shall notify the Administrator, in writing, of the 
     interest of the government or organization, as the case may 
     be, in the conveyance of all or a portion of the parcel of 
     real property to the government or organization. The 
     government or organization shall notify the Administrator 
     within such time as the Administrator shall specify with 
     respect to the parcel in order to permit the Administrator to 
     determine under paragraph (6) whether the conveyance of the 
     parcel to the government or organization, as the case may be, 
     is appropriate.
       (6)(A) The Administrator shall--
       (i) evaluate in accordance with section 203 of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     484) the notifications, if any, received under paragraph (5) 
     with respect to a parcel of real property; and
       (ii) determine in accordance with that section the 
     government or organization, if any, to which the conveyance 
     is appropriate.
       (B) The Administrator shall complete the determination 
     under subparagraph (A) with respect to the parcel not later 
     than 70 days after notifying the governments and 
     organizations concerned of the availability of the parcel for 
     conveyance.
       (e) Additional Conveyance Authority.--(1) Subject to 
     subsection (g)(2), the Administrator shall, in lieu of 
     transferring jurisdiction over or conveying the parcel of 
     real property referred to in subsection (b)(1) in accordance 
     with subsections (c) and (d), convey the parcel in accordance 
     with this subsection.
       (2) The Administrator may convey to the City of Seattle, 
     Washington (in this section referred to as the ``City''), all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     parcel of real property referred to in subsection (b)(1).
       (3)(A) As consideration for the conveyance under this 
     subsection, the City shall pay to the United States an amount 
     equal to the fair market value (as determined by the 
     Administrator) of the portion of the real property to be 
     conveyed under this subsection that is described in 
     subparagraph (B).
       (B) Subparagraph (A) applies to the portion of the parcel 
     of real property referred to in paragraph (2) that consists 
     of approximately 3.67 acres and was acquired by the United 
     States from a party other than the City.
       (4) The conveyance authorized by this subsection shall be 
     subject to the condition that the City accept the real 
     property in its condition at the time of conveyance.
       (5)(A) The Administrator may not make the conveyance 
     authorized by this subsection until the commencement of the 
     use by the Navy of a Naval Reserve Center that is a suitable 
     replacement for the Naval Reserve Center located on the 
     property to be conveyed.
       (B) The Secretary of the Navy may not commence construction 
     of a facility to be the replacement facility under 
     subparagraph (A) for the Naval Reserve Center until the 
     Secretary completes an environmental impact statement with 
     respect to the construction and operation of the facility to 
     be the replacement facility.
       (6) If at any time after the conveyance under this 
     subsection the City ceases utilizing the real property 
     conveyed for public purposes, and uses such real property 
     instead for commercial purposes, the City shall pay to the 
     United States an amount equal to the excess, if any, of--
       (A) an amount equal to the fair market value (as determined 
     by the Administrator) of the real property referred to in 
     paragraph (3)(B), and any improvements thereon, at the time 
     the City ceases utilizing the real property for public 
     purposes, over
       (B) the amount determined by the Administrator under 
     paragraph (3)(A).
       (7)(A) The Administrator shall deposit in the special 
     account established under section 204(h)(2) of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     485(h)(2)) the amount received from the City under paragraph 
     (3)(A) and the amount, if any, received from the City under 
     paragraph (6).
       (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) of such section 
     204(h)(2), the Secretary shall use the entire amount 
     deposited in the account referred to in subparagraph (A) of 
     this paragraph for the purposes set forth in subparagraph (B) 
     of such section 204(h)(2).
       (8)(A) The Navy may scope more than one site.
       (B) The Administrator may require such additional terms and 
     conditions in connection with the conveyance under this 
     section as the Administrator considers appropriate to protect 
     the interests of the United States.
       (f) Report by Administrator.--Not later than 125 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator 
     shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives and to the Secretary of 
     Defense a report on the activities of the Administrator under 
     this section.
       (2) The report shall include with respect to the parcel of 
     real property referred to in subsection (b)(1) the following 
     information:
       (A) The interest, if any, for all or a portion of the 
     parcel that was expressed by executive agencies under 
     subsection (c) or by governments or nonprofit organizations 
     under subsection (d).
       (B) The use, if any, proposed for the portion of the parcel 
     under each expression of interest.
       (C) The determination of the Administrator whether a 
     transfer or conveyance of all or a portion of the parcel, as 
     the case may be, to the agency, government, or organization 
     was appropriate.
       (D) The other disposal options, if any, that the 
     Administrator has identified for the parcel.
       (E) Any other matters that the Administrator considers 
     appropriate.
       (g) Designation of Authority To Be Used.--(1) If the 
     Administrator submits the report required under subsection 
     (f) within the time specified in that subsection, the 
     Secretary of Defense may direct the Administrator under 
     subsection (a)(2) to carry out the transfer or conveyance 
     under subsection (c) or (d) of all or a portion of the parcel 
     of property referred to in subsection (b)(1) in accordance 
     with the determinations made by the Administrator with 
     respect to the transfer or conveyance of the parcel under 
     subsection (c) or (d), respectively.
       (2) If the Administrator does not submit the report 
     required under subsection (f) within the time specified in 
     that subsection, the Secretary may direct the Administrator 
     to carry out the conveyance of the parcel of property that is 
     authorized under subsection (e) in accordance with such 
     subsection (e).

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I would hope we can at this late date, late 
on a Friday afternoon, get agreement on this. It takes all the 
provisions that are in the amendment by my distinguished colleague, but 
at the same time protects the taxpayers of the country by running this, 
as we do with everything else, through an expedited process.
  Let me emphasize one thing again. GSA at any point in this process, 
if this proposal has all the merit that it is purported to have--I do 
not question that, I have never been to see the property nor have I 
looked at it myself--GSA has authority to say this really is in 
everyone's best interests, the whole proposal, and can make that 
decision.
  If they are not willing to make that decision, then I must stand on 
what the Senate passed just 2 weeks ago that says that this should run 
through an expedited screening process that protects the taxpayers of 
this country. We have had eight or ten other proposals brought to us 
where people decided, OK, they would like to have a direct transfer in 
legislation, but they were willing to go through this process. I cannot 
in good conscience break faith with them and break faith with what the 
Senate passed just 2 weeks ago and say that we will now make an 
exception in this case.
  So the second-degree amendment I hope will be accepted. If it is not, 
then we will have to ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time. 
I very much hope that it can be accepted as a way that protects the 
taxpayers of this country, deals fairly with all the other Senators who 
wish to have separate treatment also, and at the same time makes 
certain that all interests of the Federal Government and of the people 
of this country are protected.
  This has not been an easy process to institute. I dislike very, very 
much getting up on the floor and opposing the wishes of some of my 
colleagues as I did in committee, and as I have done over in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, which I chair, where we have instituted 
some of these GSA processes and worked very hard on this through the 
years. We did not add that before. But this is not just a matter of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee with me; it is also the process we have 
set up for disposal of Federal property all across Government. We 
worked hard on this in the Governmental Affairs Committee for a number 
of years. We worked with the GSA [General Services Administration] on 
the land disposal processes, what is fair for everyone, what protects 
the taxpayer dollar. I cannot break faith with that and give exception 
in this case.
  So I hope that, with the protections built into the amendment I have 
proposed, my distinguished colleagues will be willing to accept this.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, again, the Senator from Ohio speaks about 
the taxpayer protection. Again, we point out that the taxpayers are 
protected by the payment of full market value for the portion of this 
property that was not originally owned by the city--an identical 
situation to that which the Senator from Ohio accepted 2 weeks ago in 
connection with a transfer to the State of Nebraska. The whole point of 
the process is to see to it that something is not given away which is 
of value. That is already a part of the committee amendment, that the 
property will be paid for.
  Mr. President, I earnestly request of the Senator from Ohio to allow 
the committee amendment to be passed unchanged. I have to oppose his 
amendment. It is inconsistent with the entire process. I mentioned in 
my earlier speech that there has already been close to $2 million 
authorized to be spent on the planning for this project, which took 
place in last year's military construction bill. This is to exalt form 
over substance. The Senator from Ohio may well be correct; perhaps the 
substance would be the same if this amendment would be passed. It would 
simply cost more of the Federal Government's money and more time. It is 
unnecessary because of the way in which this project has been 
organized, and the payment which is required in order to meet the 
requirements of the committee amendment as it stands.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we will not belabor this long. But I will 
spell out that the fair market value point my colleague makes is valid. 
This is not a giveaway. His proposal was structured so that there was 
fair market value.
  The point I make in insisting on an orderly process is that I do not 
know whether any other Federal entity may be out there now looking for 
land in this same area, and of the same type; I do not know. All we 
need is a 30-day screening to find out if any other Federal entity is 
interested in the property. It seems to be so common sense that I do 
not see why there is objection to it.
  At any point along the way, we can work with the General Services 
Administration, and I would be more than happy to do that, have them 
look at the property. And if this appears that it has not been declared 
surplus, but it may be a better use of the land than we have right now, 
particularly the addition of a new reserve base, that would be part of 
this disposal. This was not something declared surplus. The services 
have not been fighting to get rid of this land.
  Is any other Federal entity looking for property like this in this 
area, or is going to buy new property if we dispose of this in this 
way? I do not know. This provides a 30-day process to look at that. It 
is hard to see that that is not the best way to go.
  As far as the statement that I accepted a proposal that was similar 
to this in Nebraska, that is just not true. I fought this in committee, 
very hard. We had a committee vote, and I flat lost in committee on 
that particular issue for that committee member. There was some 
unhappiness over that one. But the committee having spoken, we came to 
the floor and made that same fight on the floor again with the 
committee having voted in the other direction. I thought there was 
little chance of getting reversed. If I had been certain I could get it 
reversed on the floor, I would have fought it on the floor.
  We have established a process I hope we can follow. I do not think 
there is much more to say about this. We are either going to follow a 
process like this and make sure the Federal tax dollars are protected--
I see this as something we can probably resolve within maybe 60 days 
after passage of this act, by having GSA go out and make their 
assessments, a determination of what is best, and perhaps what the 
Senator is suggesting is the best way to go, and I will be glad to work 
with him on that.
  So I hope that we will have acceptance of this proposal which I made 
in the second degree.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, if there is no further debate on this, I 
ask for the yeas and nays on my second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question occurs on amendment No. 2301.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], the 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from North Dakota 
[Mr. Dorgan], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], the Senator 
from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell], and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Chafee], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell], the Senator from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], and the 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] is absent 
on official business.
  The result was announced--yeas 16, nays 72, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

                                YEAS--16

     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Graham
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Metzenbaum
     Moynihan
     Nunn
     Pryor
     Robb
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--72

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Riegle
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Boren
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coverdell
     Dorgan
     Gregg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     McCain
     Pell
     Reid
     Wallop
  So the amendment (No. 2301) was rejected.


     the fiscal year 1995 military construction appropriations bill

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering H.R. 4453, 
the fiscal year 1995 military construction appropriations bill.
  The bill provides a total of $8.8 billion in budget authority and 
$2.2 billion in new outlays for the military construction and family 
housing programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1995.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the bill totals $8.8 billion in budget 
authority and $8.6 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. President, the bill provides $491 million more in budget 
authority and $28 million more in outlays for military construction 
activities than requested by the President with nonetheless, according 
to CBO scoring, the bill falls within the subcommittee's 602(b) 
allocation.
  I want to convey my thanks to the committee for the support given to 
several priority New Mexico projects. These include several important 
projects at the Kirtland Air Force Base, and an Army National Guard 
armory in Taos.
  I commend the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the Senator from 
Tennessee, and the distinguished ranking Republican member, the Senator 
from Washington, for bringing this bill to the floor within the 
subcommittee's section 602(b) allocation.
  I urge the adoption of this bill.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
clarify my position with regard to a provision contained in the fiscal 
year 1995 military construction appropriations bill which authorizes a 
land conveyance of Seattle's Naval Reserve center and further 
authorizes funds for a military construction project in connection with 
that conveyance.
  The provision transfers 5 acres of Navy Reserve property along Lake 
Union to the city of Seattle. That land will be used for the Seattle 
Commons project, which I support. The Commons plan, developed by a 
nonprofit citizens group, calls for a revitalized mixed-income 
neighborhood and business community surrounding a park between downtown 
Seattle and Lake Union.
  The most important part of the provision we are considering today is 
the direct transfer of the land from the Navy to the city of Seattle. 
This is by far the best approach to take, and the city has agreed to 
pay fair market value for the land as required by the legislation.
  While I am supportive of the Commons project, I do have concerns that 
not all of the longterm questions associated with this project have 
been thoroughly considered by the city of Seattle and the communities 
to be affected. Projects of this magnitude and importance need the 
participation of all citizens affected and I will continue to 
facilitate their involvement in the process.
  However, there is one part of the provision we are passing today that 
I simply do not agree with. That section essentially provides that the 
naval station, once moved, will relocate to Fort Lawton in Discovery 
Park. I am opposed to this because I strongly believe that a number of 
sites should be evaluated before the Navy Reserve decides on its future 
home. There are several other sites that I believe may serve both the 
Navy and the community better in the long run than Discovery Park. I do 
not want to see us serve one good purpose--relocating the Navy station 
to make way for the commons--at the expense of another.
  Thus, I would have clearly preferred that the provision be written 
more broadly with regard to the relocation of Seattle's Naval Reserve 
center, so that the Navy would be required to review more than one site 
when considering the future location for the Naval Reserve station. The 
way the povision is written in this bill, the Navy has the option to 
consider more than one site when assessing where to relocate, but they 
are not required to do so.
  I want the Navy and all involved to understand that as we move 
through this process, I shall be meeting with the Navy and members of 
the community to ensure that two or more possible relocation sites are 
identified and evaluated during the scoping of the environmental impact 
statement, which is required to be completed before the navy can move.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as we turn to consideration of the military 
construction appropriations act for fiscal year 1995, I want to commend 
the distinguished chairman, Senator Sasser, and the distinguished 
ranking Republican, Senator Gorton for their hard work in crafting this 
bill and their efficient management of the legislation while on the 
floor. I also want to thank Mr. Jim Morhard, a member of the 
Appropriations Committee staff, who has been very helpful to me and 
whose expertise and professionalism are a real asset to the committee.
  The bill before us appropriates $8.8 billion in the coming fiscal 
year for military construction, the NATO infrastructure program, and 
base closures and realignments. Now, I know that there are some who 
feel that we're spending too much on defense. But defense spending has 
made its contribution to deficit reduction. This year's bill is $627 
million less than last year's spending level.
  While the Congress and the administration continue to slash away at 
the defense budget, we still have a responsibility to ensure that our 
defense infrastructure remains the best in the world. I am especially 
pleased that the committee saw fit to add a number of projects for the 
Guard and Reserve. The administration's original request for Guard and 
Reserve projects was unreasonable, and I hope that next year's budget 
request more accurately reflects the needs of our Guard and Reserve 
forces.
  Whether its an operations center for a bomber squadron, a runway for 
the Air National Guard, or housing for the families of our military 
personnel, each is critical to the ability of our Armed Forces to 
fulfill their mission. That being the case, the Congress has the 
responsibility of ensuring that our Armed Forces have the best 
facilities possible. This legislation goes a long way toward meeting 
that responsibility.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman of the Military 
Construction Subcommittee, Mr. Sasser, and the ranking member, Mr. 
Gorton, for their expeditious and outstanding work on this bill.
  As always, Senator Sasser's depth of understanding of this bill is 
evident. He has demonstrated his dedication to duty, and has done so in 
a cooperative and cheerful manner.
  I urge all Senators to vote for the adoption of this bill.
  (Mrs. MURRAY assumed the chair.)
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, just a couple of words on the last vote.
  We have worked a long time on setting up the Federal screening 
processes. I know it is not customary to continue the debate after the 
vote, but I just want to make a couple of comments on it because I 
would hate for this to be used as a precedent of the Senate's 
nonacceptance of this principle into the future. I think it is very, 
very important.
  I have probably had 12 or 15 people come to me and say, ``You are 
right on principle but * * *'' and then vote in the other direction. I 
only got 16 votes, and that is not a very sterling performance. There 
are a lot of things cooking here as to why people vote the way they do, 
and I understand that. But we have in place right now screening 
processes that save this country billions upon billions of dollars. I 
may have lost by only getting 17 votes, but I tell you I am proud of 
the fact and proud of those who stood with me on this, because in 
principle I do not have any doubt we are right.
  We cannot continue taking Federal property--although the merits of 
this case have been decided now by a vote of the Senate --but we have 
set up a process where we screen Federal property to make sure the 
taxpayers of this country get back a fair dollar value and are fairly 
dealt with in a screening process, not only through the BRAC process, 
the base closure, but through the other means of disposal of Federal 
property. We have a system set up at GSA where we are matching Federal 
property--trying to match closing facilities with facilities we want to 
open. That is new. It is taking effect. We stopped the building of a 
new veterans hospital because across town, in one place, there was a 
hospital on a base that was being closed. So we saved how much, $75 
million, $100 million, $200 million, just in that?
  So what we are trying to do in this process here, in spite of this 
last vote, I believe, is absolutely correct. I just hope Senators do 
not get themselves locked into where it is customary that on something 
like this, for friendships or whatever, we bring something to the floor 
and say, ``Just for me, it is just a little land transfer.'' We are 
trying to set up a process that is absolutely right for the people of 
this country.
  So we will have more votes like this. I hope as people look at the 
wisdom of this thing, they will see we should send it through this GSA 
process and the BRAC process--the base closure process--that follows 
that same GSA process.
  So I am optimistic enough that I do not accept this vote as an 
expression of the will of the Senate for this principle. We will 
revisit this. We worked on it very hard in the Governmental Affairs 
Committee over several years. We worked on it very hard in the Armed 
Services Committee. I think it is right. I understand the loyalties of 
committee and the managers of the bill and so on, coming out of the 
Appropriations Committee together. But I just hope we can consider this 
thing in fairness. And next year when some of these proposals come up 
again they are going to be subjected to this same process. This vote 
should not be taken as a refutation of that whole process, as much as 
it was just an expression on this particular vote. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. I yield all time and I urge the underlying committee 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the committee 
amendments.
  The committee amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, this is all the amendments to be offered 
on this bill. I urge we go to third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
committee amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill, having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? On this question the yeas and nays 
have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], the 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from North Dakota 
[Mr. Dorgan], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], the Senator 
from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell], and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Chafee], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell], the Senator from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], the 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. 
Murkowski], and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] are necessarily 
absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] is absent 
on official business. I further announce that, if present and voting, 
the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--2

     Brown
     Roth
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Boren
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coverdell
     Dorgan
     Gregg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Pell
     Reid
     Wallop
     Warner
  So the bill (H.R. 4453), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay 
on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its 
amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair appoint the conferees on 
the part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer (Mrs. Murray) 
appointed Mr. Sasser, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Byrd, Mr. 
Gorton, Mr. Stevens, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Hatfield conferees on the 
part of the Senate.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent at the time the 
Senate voted on the fiscal year 1995 Military Construction 
Appropriations Act. I oppose the bill for two reasons.
  First, this bill contains $910 million in military construction 
projects which were not included in the budget requests. These programs 
were included in the bill because individual Senators requested them. 
These projects were not requested by the Department of Defense because 
they did not meet the standards and priorities established by the 
Services. However, the Senate voted to approve nearly $1 billion in 
Congressional add-ons. I cannot support that action.
  Second, total funding in the bill is $490 million more than the 
budget request for military construction--nearly half a billion dollars 
which was taken from high-priority military requirements, like 
readiness, modernization, training, and quality of life for military 
personnel. Military readiness is declining as the Congress continues to 
fund pork barrel spending. I cannot support this dangerous narrow 
approach to allocating Federal taxpayer dollars.
  The bill does contain a number of excellent provisions, including a 
provision adopted unanimously to establish criteria for reviewing 
members' requests for add-ons to the military construction budget. 
However, overall, the bill represents another spending spree on 
Members' special interests, and I oppose the bill.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I express my appreciation for the work 
done on this bill by Jay Kimmitt, the staff director of the Military 
Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Hallie Hastert, for there 
excellent work, and Jim Morhard, of the minority staff. All have done a 
terrific job in bringing this military construction appropriations bill 
to us this afternoon.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I join with the distinguished Senator 
from Tennessee in those thanks and once again thank him for all his 
advice and support.

                          ____________________