[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 110 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           Amendment No. 2500

   (Purpose: To provide for a temporary waiver of the prohibition on 
 concurrent payment of disability compensation and uniformed services 
 retired and retainer pay for certain totally disabled career members 
          and former career members of the uniformed services)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 2500.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam 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:
       On page 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec.   . (a) The prohibition on concurrent award of 
     compensation and retirement pay (including naval pension) set 
     forth in section 5304(a)(1) of title 38, United States Code, 
     does not apply to a person who has a service-connected 
     disability if--
       (1) the person has completed at least 20 years of service 
     in the uniformed services that is creditable for purposes of 
     computing the amount of retirement pay to which the member is 
     entitled;
       (2) the disability was incurred or aggravated in the 
     performance of duty as a member of a uniformed service, as 
     determined by the Secretary concerned; and
       (3) the disability is a disability rated as total--
       (A) by the Secretary concerned as of the date on which the 
     person is retired from the uniformed services; or
       (B) by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs within four years 
     following the date on which the person is retired from the 
     uniformed services.
       (b) Notwithstanding section 1463(a) of title 10, United 
     States Code, the amount of retirement pay paid in accordance 
     with subsection (a) concurrently with the payment of 
     disability compensation to the recipients of such retirement 
     pay shall be paid out of funds appropriated by this Act.
       (c) Subsection (a) is not applicable to a person for any 
     period for which the disability of such person is not a 
     disability rated as total as described in paragraph (3) of 
     such subsection.
       (d) In this section:
       (1) The terms ``compensation'', ``service-connected'', and 
     ``Secretary concerned'' have the meanings given such terms in 
     section 101 of title 38, United States Code.
       (2) The term ``disability rated as total''--
       (A) means a disability that is rated as total under the 
     standard schedule of rating disabilities in use by the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs; and
       (B) does not include a disability for which the schedular 
     rating is less than total but for which a rating of total is 
     assigned by reason of inability of the disabled person 
     concerned to secure or follow a substantially gainful 
     occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities or 
     by reason of any other factor.
       (3) The term ``uniformed services'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 101(a)(5) of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       (e) This section shall take effect on October 1, 1994, and 
     shall apply to months that begin on or after that date and 
     before October 1, 1995.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Graham of Florida as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, for over 3 years now I have been engaged 
in fighting for a cause which I feel strongly about--the discrimination 
of disabled veterans who must forgo retirement benefits. Current law 
prohibits concurrent receipt, requiring a career military servicemember 
who retires with 20 years of service and is disabled, to offset his or 
her retirement pay with any VA disability compensation the member 
receives. Because the career Military servicemember receives no 
separate payment for his service-connected disability, our Government 
is effectively requiring career military retirees to fund their own 
disability benefits. Therefore, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
correct this gross inequity.
  Madam President, the amendment I have offered would waive the 
prohibition of concurrent receipt for a year and provide for concurrent 
payment of disability pay and retired pay if the following criteria is 
met:
  First, a veteran has completed 20 years of military service; and
  Second, the disability was incurred or aggravated in the performance 
of duty in military service; and
  Third, disability is rated as 100 percent at the time of retirement 
or within 4 years of the veteran's retirement date.
  According to recent figures from the Department of Defense, there are 
about 7,000 former servicemembers who are rated 100 percent disabled 
and have completed 20 years of service. The cost of paying concurrent 
receipt in this legislative provision is about $55 to $60 million and 
will affect about 3,500 veterans.
  Because the Office of Management and Budget has scored this change in 
concurrent receipt policy as a PAYGO cost, offsets elsewhere in the 
Department of Defense account must be found. However, although this 
task has become increasingly difficult, I believe that there are still 
some areas in the Department of Defense budget that can be cut and not 
have a detrimental effect on readiness in our Armed Forces.
  For example, the travel pay of senior-level officer and civilian 
executive travel of the Pentagon staff. This travel is primarily for 
Department of Defense civilians, Generals and Admirals and Members of 
Congress. Additionally, funds that are available for support to travel 
such as the operation and maintenance funds of the Air Force 89th 
Airlift Wing, the Marine Corps HMX-1 Squadron, and the Joint Chiefs and 
Service Secretaries executive transport aircraft should be considered. 
According to the Department of Defense's own figures, it seems 
outrageous that these costs for executive travel approach nearly $370 
million.
  Equally as astonishing is the exorbitant administrative costs that 
the Department of Defense spends each year processing travel orders. In 
fact the Department of Defense spends more each year to process travel 
orders than it does on travel itself. According to figures compiled by 
Vice President Al Gore and the National Performance Review [NPR], the 
Pentagon spends $2.3 billion each year processing $2 billion worth of 
travel vouchers.
  I do not believe it is necessary for me to list for the 
Appropriations Committee all the areas in the Defense budget which 
could be reapportioned to find funding to pay for concurrent receipt. 
Suffice it to say this should be done, not at the expense of readiness 
in our Armed Forces, but rather from defense accounts such as executive 
travel, university research, research, development, test, and 
evaluation, and military construction, for example.
  Concurrent receipt is a fairness issue. The present law simply 
discriminates against career military people. Career military retired 
veterans are the only group of Federal retirees who are required to 
waive their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability. This 
inequity needs to be corrected. Over the past several years the 
Congress and the Department of Defense have sought to deal with this 
issue in a variety of ways.
  I know personally the character of Americans who take up arms to 
defend our Nation's interests and to advance our democratic values. I 
know of all the battles, all the grim tests of courage and character, 
that have made a legend of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air 
Forces' devotion to duty.
  Let me remind this body of the grave sacrifice that our men and women 
who risk their lives for their country must endure. The United States 
has exerted military force more than 240 times since the end of World 
War II. That number will almost certainly increase in the future.
  We have seen the efficacy of U.S. military power in this new era 
displayed in Panama and the Persian Gulf. But we have also seen 
conflicts that reveal the limits of that efficacy, and for which we 
have few, if any, viable military answers. Such is the case in the 
horrible tragedy of Somalia and Bosnia.
  But be assured, we will continue to place our servicemen and women in 
harms way. When our vital interests are so threatened that such a grave 
step becomes necessary.

  It is also appropriate to note, Mr. President, that we know how 
important our Armed Forces have been to advancing the just influence of 
our values. The Iron Curtain did not collapse by accident. The triumph 
of freedom in the world today is a direct consequence of the blood shed 
by those in battles too numerous to mention. Their sacrifices protected 
more than a narrow definition of our national interest. They served, in 
Lincoln's words, as ``a beacon light of liberty'' to the most 
oppressive societies on Earth.
  We now have an opportunity to show a measure of our gratitude to 
these brave men and women. It is time for Congress to reverse the law 
that prohibits career military who are wounded during their service to 
our country from receiving earned retirement benefits.
  I have learned, through personal experiences, that our human 
resources are our most valuable asset. You cannot win a war on 
firepower alone. Our Armed Forces have the most technically advanced 
weapons in the world, but if you don't have skilled, experience to 
operate and the best trained soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen to 
operate them, then we are not adequately prepared to fight to defend 
our national interests.
  I believe we have prepared ourselves properly. Never has this Nation 
seen a better trained and better educated Armed Forces.
  However, we are moving to a smaller force structure, from 1.8 million 
to 1.2 million personnel by the turn of the century. Our service men 
and women are losing faith in the careers they have chosen. Draconian 
cuts in the defense budget negatively impact our active and retired 
military service members each day. In my nearly 25 years of military 
service and my continued close observation of the military since I 
retired, I have seen an erosion of benefits for active and retired 
service men and women each and every day. To opponents of concurrent 
receipt who make the argument that the military receives an abundance 
of benefits which should exclude them from any additional benefit, I 
can only remark that they are dead wrong.
  I cannot think of a more fitting way for Congress to appropriate some 
of the reduced defense expenditure, than to correct the policy of 
requiring American veterans, injured in service, to waive their earned 
retirement benefits in order to receive disability benefits. It is 
entirely inequitable that military retired pay is offset dollar-for-
dollar by veterans' disability compensation pay.
  I firmly believe that nondisability military retired pay is post-
service compensation for service rendered in the U.S. military. 
Veterans' disability compensation pay is not.
  In my view, the two pays are for very different purposes; one for 
loyal and selfless service to our country and the other for physical or 
mental pain and suffering; occurred in that service.
  Previously, I have cosponsored concurrent receipt legislation, like 
that sponsored by my friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Bob 
Graham, which required a sliding scale of offsets that would reduce 
compensation as disability ratings increase. Other proposals call for a 
phase-in over a number of years, a proposal only to individuals who 
have a 30 percent or less rated disability, and other variations on 
these themes.
  Because of the complexity of some of these proposals and the costs 
associated with them, I believe that most of the proposals compromise 
the basic philosophy behind the purpose for this legislation. Again, 
that philosophy holds that VA disability pay is for physical or mental 
pain or suffering and it should remain independent of career military 
service pay.
  Last year, it was involved in a very sad case where a career Arizona 
sailor lost his leg from injuries sustained while serving aboard a Navy 
guided missile destroyer. This young man lost his leg above the knee, 
yet only received 60 percent disability. So, with a veteran with 100 
percent disability, how can you say no? No, to his earned retirement 
pay for his 20 years of service to his country. No, to the disability 
compensation for mental or physical pain or suffering caused from 
service to his country. How can anyone deny a military retiree with 100 
percent disability from receiving his retirement pay and veterans' 
disability pay?
  I am very hopeful that, once the administration and the Pentagon 
finally understands that Congress will not allow it to ignore disabled 
military retirees, that the Department of Defense will provide the 
Congress with a fair and equitable plan to permanently and property 
compensate military retirees with disabilities.
  I hope my colleagues understand the grave injustice that we have 
subjected our most seriously injured veterans to. I hope that they will 
vote for this amendment as a first step to correct this inequitable 
policy and restore to our disabled service men and women the proper 
measure of our Nation's gratitude for their great sacrifices on our 
behalf.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for 
this legislation from the Military Coalition, a consortium of 25 
nationally prominent military associations, the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the 
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Uniformed Services Disabled 
Retirees be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                                       The Military Coalition,

                                   Alexandria, VA, August 6, 1994.
     Senator John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The Military Coalition, a consortium 
     of 25 nationally prominent military associations (signatures 
     enclosed) representing 3.75 million active, retired, and 
     reserve members of the seven uniformed services and their 
     families and survivors, strongly supports your proposed 
     amendment to the FY 1995 Defense Appropriations bill that 
     would provide concurrent receipt of military retired pay and 
     VA disability compensation for retired members with 20 or 
     more years of service, who are determined to be 100 percent 
     disabled, and whose disability was incurred as a direct 
     result of their military duties.
       The Military Coalition has long supported the concept of 
     concurrent receipt, but recognizes that funding constraints 
     may necessitate limiting eligibility to those whose 
     disability is most severe. This approach is consistent with 
     the recommendations made by the Coalition during testimony 
     before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Force 
     Requirements and Personnel on April 14, 1994. The Coalition 
     concurs that the required funding should not come from 
     readiness-related areas of the defense budget.
       We deeply appreciate your continuing advocacy of the need 
     to redress the compensation inequity imposed upon disabled 
     military retirees, and will continue to work with you toward 
     achieving this worthy goal.
           Sincerely,
     Paul W. Arcari,
       Colonel, USAF (Ret), The Retired Officers Assn., Co-
     chairman.
     Michael Ouellette,
       Sergeant Major, USA (Ret), Non Commissioned Officers Assn., 
     Co-Chairman.

       The letter was also signed by representatives of the 
     following organizations:
       Air Force Sergeants Assn.
       National Association for Uniformed Services.
       The Retired Enlisted Assn.
       Enlisted Assn. of the National Guard Assn. of the US.
       Marine Corps Reserve Officers Assn.
       National Military Family Assn.
       Commissioned Officers Assn.
       Marine Corps League.
       CWO & WO Assn., USCG.
       Jewish War Veterans of the USA.
       United States Armed Forces Assn.
       Naval Enlisted Reserve Assn.
       Navy League of the US.
       The Military Chaplains Assn.
       US Army Warrant Officers Assn.
       US Coast Guard CPO Assn.
       National Guard Assn. of the US.
       Naval Reserve Assn.
       Reserve Officers Assn.
       Air Force Assn.
       Assn. of Military Surgeons.
       Fleet Reserve Assn.
       Assn. of US Army.
                                  ____

                                          Veterans of Foreign Wars


                                         of the United States,

                                                  August 10, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 
     United States (VFW) strongly and unconditionally supports 
     your proposed amendment to the FY 1995 Defense Appropriations 
     Bill that would provide concurrent receipt of military 
     retired pay and VA disability compensation for retired 
     members who have served on active duty for 20 or more years 
     and who were subsequently determined to be 100 percent 
     disabled as a result of illness and/or injury incurred in the 
     line of duty.
       The VFW has had a nationally approved resolution reflecting 
     the collective judgment of our 2.2 million member 
     organization for each of the past eight years asking Congress 
     to grant concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and 
     veterans disability compensation to all disabled retirees. 
     Given the present budgetary constraints this Congress is 
     working under, we believe your amendment is absolutely the 
     right course of action to take today. We wholeheartedly agree 
     that the required funding should not be taken from the 
     readiness related areas of the defense budget.
       In closing, we again thank you for all your efforts on 
     behalf of disabled veterans in general and disabled military 
     retirees in particular. The VFW will continue to work closely 
     with you and your professional staff to achieve our common 
     goals.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Bob Manhan,

                                               Assistant Director,
                                     National Legislative Service.
                                  ____



                                          The American Legion,

                                   Washington, DC, August 9, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: For many years The American Legion has 
     believed that the professional members of the Armed Forces of 
     the United States throughout their careers, have made 
     repeated sacrifices for their country in ways neither found 
     nor expected in a civilian profession. They live under 
     circumstances of adverse environmental conditions, suffer 
     through long periods of family separation while deployed in 
     military operations, work in foreign lands under hostile 
     weapons fire with insufficient personnel to meet mission 
     requirements and receive little recognition for a job well 
     done. It is that unquestioned loyalty, commitment to ideals 
     and reaction to danger throughout a career that can result in 
     permanent physical impairment and a requirement to fund their 
     own disability compensation from their retired pay.
       The American Legion supports your proposed legislation to 
     award concurrent receipt of both retired and disability pay 
     to those professional career veterans who are adjudged to be 
     100 percent disabled after their 20 year retirement, or 
     within four years afterwards, and are disabled because of 
     service-connected or line-of-duty service. The numbers of 
     retirees who meet these criteria are estimated at less than 
     3,500, but are the most deserving because of their sacrifices 
     and the reduction or negation of their earning potential for 
     follow-on employment.
       It is recognized there are other circumstances and criteria 
     that cause military retirees to become 100 percent disabled. 
     Under your proposed criteria some of them may be exempt from 
     this bill. However, even though they are no less deserving, 
     and even though The American Legion continues to support 
     concurrent receipt for all disabled military retirees, the 
     fiscal realities of today's budget may for now, prohibit 
     coverage of all retirees who are 100% disabled. But, as a 
     grateful nation this small initial step should be taken for 
     the most seriously disabled who have unselfishly served their 
     country.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Thiesen,
                                               National Commander.
                                  ____



                                   Disabled American Veterans,

                                  Washington, DC, August 10, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the more than 1.4 million 
     members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and its 
     Women's Auxiliary, I take this opportunity to express our 
     support for your proposed amendment to the Fiscal Year 1995 
     Defense Appropriations Bill. Your amendment would provide 
     concurrent receipt of military longevity retirement pay and 
     Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation 
     for totally disabled veterans.
       As you are aware, the DAV has long supported the principle 
     of concurrent receipt for military longevity retirement pay 
     and VA disability compensation. While your amendment does not 
     grant concurrent receipt to all service-connected disabled 
     military longevity retired veterans, it would provide 
     meaningful assistance to our nation's most seriously disabled 
     service-connected military retirees.
       Your efforts on behalf of America's disabled veterans are 
     greatly appreciated. If there is anything my staff can do to 
     assist you in achieving this worthy goal, please do not 
     hesitate to contact them.
           Sincerely,
                                                Richard E. Marbes,
                                               National Commander.
                                  ____



                                Paralyzed Veterans of America,

                                  Washington, DC, August 10, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The Paralyzed Veterans of America 
     (PVA) wholeheartedly supports your proposed amendment to the 
     FY 1995 Defense Appropriations Bill which would enable 
     service-connected disabled veterans to receive both 
     retirement and disability pay. This concurrent payment would 
     only be applicable to those veterans whose disability is 
     rated 100 percent, and is granted upon their 20 year 
     retirement, or within four years afterwards. Although PVA 
     would like to see this benefit extended to all 100 percent 
     service-connected retired members, the need to limit the 
     number of beneficiaries due to budgetary constraints is 
     appreciated.
       PVA appreciates the support you have extended to the 
     disabled veterans in the past and again thank you for your 
     efforts in this proposed amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                               Richard F. Johnson,
                                               National President.
                                  ____

                                                Uniformed Services


                                            Disabled Retirees,

                                 Albuquerque, NM, August 10, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The Uniformed Services Disabled 
     Retirees (USDR) represents all service-connected disabled 
     military retirees who served in not only one (1), nor two 
     (2); but in three (3) of our Nation's wars. It also includes 
     the Cold War.
       We strongly support your proposed amendment to the FY 1995 
     Defense Appropriations Bill. We realize that the Bill would 
     provide concurrent receipt for those retired members with 20 
     or more years of military service and determined to be 100 
     percent disabled by the Department of Veterans' Affairs as 
     being incurred in the line of duty. I would hope that under 
     the determination of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, 
     that they would include those who are rated as 100 percent 
     disabled for unemployability.
       The issue of concurrent receipt denial is a Century old 
     law. In its original state, the law was written to make it 
     unfair and unjust besides discriminatory towards the service-
     connected disabled military retirees. Today, it places a 
     financial hardship upon this group of America's disabled 
     veterans, especially those rated as 100 percent disabled for 
     total disability and or unemployability.
       USDR encourages the United States Congress to accept your 
     amendment and finally partially end the unfairness and 
     injustice.
       We of USDR greatly appreciate your continued advocacy to 
     address the unfairness and place an end to the injustice 
     pertaining to concurrent receipt.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Stephen Wolonsky,
                                                        President.

  It is my understanding that this amendment may be accepted by the 
managers. If not, I will request the yeas and nays.
  I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors Senator Dole, Senator 
Gramm, Senator Ford, Senator Pressler, Senator Bingaman, Senator Mack, 
Senator Akaka, Senator Daschle, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator 
Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the pending committee amendments are set aside.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise in support of the McCain 
amendment which addresses a fundamental matter of fairness and equity 
for a group of 100 percent disabled military retirees who incurred 
their disability in the performance of duty. In my view there is no one 
more deserving of the full benefits they earned than these individuals 
who each served our Nation at least 20 years and now are generally 
unemployable as a result of disability.
  The amendment would, for this carefully selected group, allow 
concurrent receipt of their military retired pay and their VA 
disability benefit without the currently mandated dollar for dollar 
reduction in their retired pay. As the Senator from Arizona has pointed 
out, career military retired veterans are the only group of Federal 
retirees who are required to waive a portion of their retirement pay in 
order to receive VA disability compensation.
  I commend the Senator from Arizona for his perseverance in trying to 
find a way to address this inequity within the budget constraints we 
face. He has designed a narrow exception to the current statute that 
will begin to deal with this inequity by focussing on those most 
needing these benefits. The cost, estimated at $55 million, is paid for 
through nonreadiness reductions, particularly in the travel area where 
recent reports have indicated the Pentagon is spending an inordinate 
amount of money on administrative expenses.
  I am delighted to be part of this effort to ensure those military 
retirees with 100 percent disability as a result of the performance of 
their duty for the Nation over a 20-year career can receive the full 
benefits they earned through their service. I hope the amendment will 
be broadly supported by our colleagues.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I also rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. There is a perversity 
here in that two military veterans, both of whom have suffered an 
injury in the course of service to their Nation, both of whom are 
receiving disability payments, one of whom elects to continue in 
military service until retirement. That individual, upon retirement, 
will see his or her retirement benefits reduced proportionate to the 
receipt of disability payments.
  The second serviceman or woman who elects to leave the service and go 
into other employment, including employment with another Federal agency 
and serves until retirement, continues to get their full disability 
payment and the retirement that they have earned.
  So the practical effect of this is to penalize those persons who, 
after having suffered a disability in the service to the Nation, then 
continue that service until retirement. It is a very perverse set of 
incentives in terms of maintaining the loyalty and service of 
outstanding people for our Nation's military.
  It is, I think, an inexplicable example of unfairness to a group of 
citizens who, if anything, deserve our special commendation, both for 
having suffered an injury in service of the Nation and then having 
continued to serve until retirement.
  I hope this Senate will end that unfairness this year with the 
adoption of the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. I am 
very pleased to join him in this effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is not clear to me yet whether the 
managers of the bill will choose to accept the amendment or at the 
appropriate time I will seek the yeas and nays. At this time, I yield 
to the distinguished manager of the bill, the Senator from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if the Senators will indulge us, may I 
suggest the absence of a quorum?
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask the Senator to withhold that? I ask for 
recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Hawaii withhold his 
request for a quorum call?
  Mr. INOUYE. I just suggested the absence of a quorum to discuss this 
matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has asked that the 
Senator from Hawaii withhold that.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 2501

  (Purpose: To require reimbursement of the Department of Defense for 
  funds made available by the Department for civilian sporting events)

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so that I may send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2501.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 8121. REIMBURSEMENT FOR FUNDS PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF 
                   CIVILIAN SPORTING EVENTS.

       (a) Agreement for Reimbursement.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, funds made available to the Department of 
     Defense under title II of this Act may not be expended either 
     directly or indirectly to support the World Cup Soccer Games, 
     the Goodwill Games, an Olympiad, or any other civilian 
     sporting event until the Secretary of Defense--
       (1) enters into an agreement with the entity or entities 
     that are to receive the funds to provide for such funds to be 
     reimbursed to the Department under terms and conditions 
     established by the Secretary; and
       (2) certifies to Congress that the agreement ensures that 
     such reimbursement will be made.
       (b) Terms of Agreement.--An agreement entered into under 
     subsection (a)--
       (1) may not require any reimbursement until after the 
     sporting event is complete and all event-related contractual 
     obligations have been met by the entity or entities with 
     which the agreement was made;
       (2) shall provide that the amount reimbursed may not exceed 
     25 percent of surplus funds; and
       (3) shall provide that no reimbursement is required if the 
     entity or entities with which the agreement was made has no 
     surplus funds after all other contractual obligations have 
     been met.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``surplus 
     funds'' means the amount equal to the excess of the total 
     amount of revenues (other than tax revenues) and 
     contributions received by the entity or entities referred to 
     in subsection (b) over the total amount of the expenditures 
     made by the entity or entities.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment is a rather simple, 
straightforward amendment. It requires that the Department of Defense 
be reimbursed for expenditures entailing the use of Department of 
Defense personnel and equipment to provide security for any civilian 
sporting event, but that the Department of Defense only has to be 
reimbursed if there is a profit and if there is a profit, only on 25 
percent basis of that profit.
  What I am saying is that if the taxpayers' dollars are spent in the 
World Cup, the Olympics, the Goodwill Games or any other, and a profit 
is made, as happened in the Los Angeles Olympic Games which made a 
staggering $222 million profit, if there is a profit, then this 
amendment says that on a 25-percent basis of that profit, that the 
Department of Defense would be reimbursed.
  I want to make it clear that I strongly believe that security needs 
to be provided for any of these games. The memory of the 1972 Olympics 
tragedy in Munich haunts all of us, and I would not want to reduce that 
security in any way. But I do believe that since we are spending 
taxpayers' dollars and sending Department of Defense personnel and 
equipment to be used, that if that Olympic game or that civilian 
sporting event makes a profit, then some of the money of the profits 
should be returned to the Department of Defense.
  It is pretty straightforward, and I think it is logical and I think 
it is reasonable. I know that the Senators, especially from the State 
of Georgia, and other places, object to this amendment.
  Let me also point out, Madam President, that most of these games do 
not make profits. The Senior Olympics, the Special Olympics--all of 
those--and the Olympics in Atlanta, I am told, do not expect to make a 
profit. So I do not expect the Department of Defense to be reimbursed 
if they do not make a profit.
  I am only saying if they do make a profit, at least on a 25-percent 
basis that the Department of Defense should be reimbursed.
  Madam President, on this amendment, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, the announcement that the city of 
Birmingham had been selected to host the preliminary competition in the 
1996 Olympic soccer tournament was an occasion for all the citizens of 
Alabama to rejoice. We were even more delighted to learn that 
Birmingham was one of two host cities for the quarterfinal games.
  Thousands of people turned out in August of 1993 when members of the 
Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games, the U.S. Soccer Federation and 
the Federation of International Football Association visited 
Birmingham. I think the spirit and enthusiasm which were so evident 
that day had a great deal to do with the decision to award these games 
to Birmingham.
  I assure you this spirit is even stronger today. The citizens of 
Alabama will put forth every effort and dedicate every resource to 
guarantee that the athletes and spectators to these games receive an 
Olympic welcome that is second to none. I am told that as much as 60 
percent of the world's population will watch these games on television. 
We know well the opportunity this presents to put our State on display 
around the world, and State leaders have assured me it will be taken 
full advantage of.
  Hosting these prestigious games means much more than games run 
efficiently and people being welcomed. Those attending the games must 
be kept safe. The bitter memories of Munich in 1972, when terrorists 
scarred this celebration of the human spirit, remain with us still. We 
simply cannot afford to take a chance on anything like that happening 
on American soil.
  The resources of the Department of Defense and other agencies 
involved in this security--the FBI, State Department, and Department of 
Treasury--are vital to the success of this mission. We cannot do it 
without them, and providing this assistance is clearly within one of 
Government's basic responsibilities--that of protecting its citizens 
and visitors to our shores.
  Mr. President, my distinguished colleague from Arizona maintains that 
adoption of this amendment will not compromise security. However, I 
know that Senator Nunn, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is 
opposed to this amendment. He clearly does not believe it to be in the 
best interests of the Olympic Games being held in Atlanta. I also 
understand that the Defense Department itself does not support the 
amendment. Existing DOD policy allows for reimbursement in appropriate 
cases.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Planning is 
simply too far along, and the success of that planning is too critical 
for the process to be changed now. It is a risk we cannot afford to 
take.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my distinguished colleague from Arizona. My colleagues know 
that I am a strong supporter of national defense, and have always 
supported efforts to make sure that our men and women in uniform have 
the resources needed to perform their mission. I think this amendment 
could have disastrous results, and I must therefore oppose it.
  I share the pride felt by all Alabamians at the decision to designate 
Birmingham, AL as the host city for preliminary Olympic soccer games. 
Alabama, as well as the rest of the South, will be on display in July 
of 1996 for the entire world to see. These games will build on the 
momentum generated by the recently held World Cup Games in this 
country, and the added prestige afforded by the Olympic rings will 
assure that thousands of people will assemble in Birmingham to watch 
the preliminary Olympic soccer games.
  Security is unfortunately a vital part of the modern Olympics. We all 
remember the tragedy of the Munich Olympics, and no one wants to see 
any repeat of that in our own country. Local and State officials are 
going to need significant help in preparing for the complex threat 
posed to these games by the increasingly sophisticated and numerous 
groups of terrorists springing up around the world. The majority of the 
entire world will be watching these events, and this affords tempting 
opportunity for these evil and dangerous groups to elbow their way into 
the spotlight of world attention.
  Madam President, I too want to help DOD husband its resources, but 
this amendment is wrong. In fact, I am told that DOD does not support 
this amendment. As I understand it, existing DOD policies allow for 
reimbursement for security expenses whenever it is appropriate, and DOD 
does not feel the need for any added protection.
  The distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee 
opposes this amendment because he fears that it may adversely impact 
the complicated process that is necessary to develop and implement a 
plan with the flexibility and sophistication to meet the serious threat 
of international terrorism. I concur in that judgment.
  Madam President, those who have planned for the Atlanta Olympic Games 
have relied for more than 4 years on the continued ready availability 
of certain limited DOD resources. Introducing a new and complicated 
reimbursement process at this late date gains us little, and could cost 
our Nation much.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, on previous occasions I have come to 
the floor of the Senate to speak about a program which helps people 
across the country and the world demonstrate courage, build self-
respect, and feel the pride which comes from doing one's best even in 
the face of adversity. As you well know, the program I am speaking 
about is the Special Olympics which is the result of the vision, 
energy, and efforts of a very special woman, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, 
some 25 years ago.
  This coming year, July 1 to 9, 1995 to be exact, the Ninth Special 
Olympics World Summer Games will bring over 6,700 special athletes from 
over 135 countries along with 2,000 coaches, 15,000 family and friends, 
45,000 volunteers, 1,500 media representatives, and over half a million 
spectators to Albert Magnus College, Quinnipiac College, Southern 
Connecticut State University, the University of New Haven, and Yale 
University. For 9 exciting days, these Special Olympic games give men 
and women with mental retardation the opportunity to compete in Olympic 
athletic events and to feel the reward of their hard work, training, 
perseverance, and courage. These games will, in fact, be the largest 
sports event in the world in 1995.
  I know that no one in this body wants to deny these Special Olympians 
their days of competition and celebration and that the amendment which 
we are currently debating is not aimed exclusively at the Special 
Olympics. But I am compelled by my strong feelings for these games to 
point out the difficulties which would befall the Special Olympics if 
this amendment passes.
  The Special Olympics is being organized through a network of 
volunteers throughout the country. As a 501(c)(3) charitable 
organization, it relies on corporate sponsorships, philanthropic 
donations, and individual contributions to fund the events. The 
organizing committee has sought assistance from governments at the 
local, State, and Federal levels. It has no alternative. Response to 
its calls for help have been resoundingly positive. The White House 
welcomed the participation of the organizing committee in the 
activities of the Federal task force organized to support the 1966 
Olympic Games and the 1994 World Cup Games. The Department of Defense 
has guidelines in place for determining the degree to which the 
Department can assist such activities. We should note that DOD has 
provided ``in-kind'' services with the consent of the Congress for such 
past events as the Los Angeles and Lake Placid Olympic Games, and the 
World Cup USA.
  The Department of Defense has worked with the Special Olympics 
Organizing Committee to identify specific needs which it cannot fulfill 
by other means--such things as security, traffic support, medical 
support, emergency ordinance disposal, water resupply, and some limited 
transportation. The Department is prepared to provide these services 
and estimates that the in-kind costs will not exceed $3 million. Many 
of these tasks will be performed by the men and women of the 
Connecticut National Guard in conjunction with training; the leadership 
of the Connecticut Guard is proud and eager to have the opportunity to 
provide these services. The cooperative efforts of the Department of 
Defense and the organizing committee have produced a plan to provide 
those services which the military does best and would do if called on 
in a military action. It is the view of those responsible officials in 
the DOD that providing these services will not attrit the readiness of 
our military forces or deplete DOD funds for a cause totally unrelated 
to national security.
  The pending amendment would establish reimbursement requirements and 
procedures which supplement, or perhaps replace, existing DOD policies 
which already allow the Department to request reimbursement for any 
service or mission that resides with another public or private entity. 
The proposals would result in detailed reimbursement negotiations and a 
process which will make it very difficult for the organizing committee 
of this event to concentrate their efforts on making these important 
games a reality in less than a year from now. This process is 
unnecessary and will, in reality, complicate the efforts of thousands 
of volunteers trying to do a noble task. Further, it could result in 
the negation of agreements already reached on particularly vital 
services such as security. I believe this amendment is not necessary 
and would be counterproductive to these Special Olympics.
  Madam President, I fully agree with the desire of the amendment's 
sponsor to seek ways to protect the readiness of our vital military 
forces. If I thought that the $3 million of in-kind services which we 
have already authorized and now seek to appropriate would denigrate the 
ability of our forces to respond to a call to arms, I would not support 
it. I do not believe this is the case. Support of these games is 
consistent with past practices of the Department of Defense as approved 
by the Congress. Moreover, it is consistent with the best traditions 
and values of the people we represent. I will vote against this 
amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I would like to raise a few concerns 
about the McCain amendment. I understand his concern about shrinking 
defense budget. His concerns are valid. However, I am not convinced 
this amendment will result in a boost to DOD coffers.
  On its face, this amendment appears reasonable. It requires that DOD 
be reimbursed for providing security at international sporting events, 
provided they make a profit. However, I believe, this amendment will do 
more damage than good. In fact, the McCain amendment may have the 
unintended effect of reducing the level of reimbursement that DOD 
currently receives.
  Since winning an Olympic bid is of great interest to many in my 
State, I took the time to look into exactly what providing security at 
the Olympic games entails. I was astounded. My colleague from Atlanta, 
Senator Coverdell, has already outlined the onerous process, so I will 
not recount it now. However, I think it is important to reiterate that 
their is a reimbursement mechanism currently in place. Where it is 
appropriate, DOD can negotiate reimbursement agreements to individual 
entities, on an ongoing basis. Under the McCain amendment, contracting 
would be required up front. When 34 different agencies are involved, 
contracting with every entity can only add time and expense to an 
already complex process that is based on good faith negotiations.
  This amendment would also provide DOD reimbursement in the event a 
profit is made. However, this may never occur in some instances. It 
would seem to me that ongoing reimbursement is likely to benefit the 
military far more than the alternative.
  The Department of Defense, the supposed beneficiary of this change in 
procedure, opposes this amendment. I think that is a good indication 
that the promise of improved or increased reimbursement under this 
amendment is suspect.
  If the McCain amendment held the promise of dramatically improving 
current practice, I would assuredly vote for it. However, this is not 
the case, so I will oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I reluctantly oppose the amendment as 
offered by my good friend and colleague from Arizona.
  First let me say to the Senator from Arizona that I share, as I am 
sure every American does, the deep commitment that he has made and does 
make to the men and women of our military and the sacrifice that they 
make on a day-to-day basis for the welfare of our Nation.
  But I have believed in the context of Government and its relationship 
with business, and Americans as citizens, and taxes that we should 
never get in the business of changing the rules in the middle of the 
road.
  This is an American Olympiad, not a Georgia Olympiad. Georgia is the 
house, so to speak, of a great accomplishment that America would 
entertain the centennial Olympiad. We are well over, well over half of 
the way through the planning process for the Olympics that occur in the 
summer of 1996 in Atlanta, in America. Over half the planning has been 
exhausted. We are deep into the process. We have only 700 days until 
the torch is lighted in America and in Atlanta.
  This is not the right time to upset or interrupt or convolute the 
process of the arrangements in terms of the financials nor in terms of 
the security.
  I personally think that the international community has begun to have 
questions about this Nation's commitment to the international Olympiad. 
We are one of the only nations that does not fund it. This is privately 
funded in the United States, and that has always raised questions. So 
to begin at this point, halfway through the planning process, on the 
Olympics to occur in this country in 1996, not only do we destabilize 
the planning and preparation for this massive event, this massive world 
event, but we also send signals about the planning process in other 
cities that are negotiating for the Winter Olympics, like Salt Lake 
City, UT.
  Disruption of a multibillion dollar event halfway through the process 
is a very serious issue for this country and for those planning the 
Olympics.
  Now, Madam President, there are 34 different governments involved 
with the planning of the 1996 Olympics. They are not all in Georgia--34 
different Olympic venue sites and governments affected.
  Now, I wish to read from the amendment. It states, Madam President, 
that no funds made available to the Department of Defense under title 
II of this act may not be expended, either directly or indirectly, to 
support the World Cup soccer games, the Goodwill Games and Olympiad--
that is the 1996 Olympics--or any other sporting event until--and this 
is the pertinent language, Madam President--``until the Secretary of 
Defense enters into an agreement with the entity or entities that are 
to receive the funds, to provide for such funds to be reimbursed to the 
Department under terms and conditions established by the Secretary and 
certifies to the Congress that the agreement ensures that such 
reimbursement will be made.''
  So with 700 days to go, the Secretary of Defense--and we know the 
pace with which the Federal Government moves--700 days away from the 
torch being lit--would begin discussions on terms of the financing for 
security of the world's athletes in Atlanta, I suppose sometime in the 
next month or two, and I have to only envision that we would not be 
able to resolve all these agreements until the moment of the games, 
which would not allow for the appropriate planning and disposition of 
resources that have already been agreed upon.
  Madam President, I will urge my colleagues not to vote for this 
amendment at the time we take the yeas and nays, not in disagreement to 
the intent or purpose of the Senator from Arizona. But in this case, to 
introduce this kind of interruption in the process of planning for the 
World Olympics I believe is not appropriate given the timing that we 
are facing.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be temporarily set aside so that I might offer an amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I say to my friend from Nevada, we are 
in the middle of the debate on this amendment, and I ask his 
indulgence. I am sure we can get it finished very quickly, return to 
the original amendment which was set aside, dispense with that, because 
I am sure it has been agreed to, and then my friend from Nevada can 
proceed.
  I hope he understands I just wanted to respond to the Senator from 
Georgia.
  Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. BRYAN. My only concern is that at 6:50 the time for offering 
amendments is cut off unless one does so through the managers.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I understand better now the concern of 
the Senator from Nevada, and I would remove my objection to the 
unanimous consent request of the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank my friend from Arizona.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.

                           Amendment No. 2502

     (Purpose: To withhold funds allocated for construction of the 
headquarters buildings of the National Reconnaissance Office which were 
 unobligated as of the date of enactment of this act until a review of 
that construction project is completed and Congress is informed of the 
                         results of the review)

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], for himself, Mr. 
     Boren, and Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 2502.

  Mr. BRYAN. 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:

       On page 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.   . Of the funds made available by this Act for the 
     National Reconnaissance Office under the classified Schedule 
     of Appropriations accompanying this Act, funds allocated for 
     construction of the headquarters buildings of the National 
     Reconnaissance Office which were unobligated as of the date 
     of enactment of this Act may not be obligated or expended 
     until the Director of Central Intelligence and the Secretary 
     of Defense have completed a review of that construction 
     project and the results of such review have been disclosed to 
     the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives.

  Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I will be brief because I know there are 
other amendments pending. I think most of my colleagues were as 
surprised as I was yesterday morning in reading the Washington Post 
story on page 1 entitled, ``Spy Unit's Spending Stuns Hill.''
  I have reference, Madam President, to the $310 million facility that 
is being used to house the National Reconnaissance Office. This is a 
project of incredible magnitude, a million square feet, which will cost 
us about $175 per square foot, well beyond what any comparable 
commercial building might require.
  Let me just say, Madam President, that the genesis of this building 
dates back to the late 1980's when the Senate Intelligence Committee 
and its counterpart in the other body encouraged the National 
Reconnaissance Office to begin planning to colocate facilities that 
were scattered around the country. There is no objection in concept to 
that.
  I was not on the committee until last year, so when I saw this in the 
paper yesterday, I asked for a briefing from the staff.


            bryan amendment on the nro headquarters facility

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator Byran as a 
cosponsor of his amendment concerning the NRO headquarters facility in 
northern Virginia. In my opinion, this amendment represents a 
reasonable check on this construction project.
  Twenty-five years ago, as under Secretary of the Navy, I first 
started my public service responsibilities of overseeing Intelligence 
functions. Throughout my 5 years plus in DOD I was specifically tasked 
to operate the Department of the Navy's program which are now part of 
the NRO.
  The NRO is essential to our Nation's security. To the extent that the 
United States is a superpower today, that status is dependent to a 
large part on the work of the NRO.
  But the question before the Congress and the executive branch is 
whether the plans for consolidation and expansion of the NRO facility, 
as conceived in the cold war era, were properly reviewed in the 
aftermath of the demise of the Soviet Union.
  Given that the DOD budget, which contains the overall Intelligence 
budget, has gone down from 15 to over 25 percent in various categories 
over the past 5 years, to what extent was the NRO facility scaled back?
  Or, conversely, given that Intelligence is a force multiplier of our 
Defense forces, is there justification for level or increased NRO 
funding?
  How did this controversy of today start?
  On July 26, I chaired a Senate Intelligence Committee briefing on the 
NRO facility. Chairman DeConcini joined that briefing later and 
reviewed the same facts. We jointly agreed to send a letter to the 
Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence demanding 
more information. That letter was sent on July 29.
  Then, on August 4, the chairman and I decided to have a formal 
hearing and seed declassification of as much material as possible. We 
joined in a letter to that effect on August 4.
  Next, we made a field trip to the NRO construction site this Monday. 
Later that day, you informed me that public disclosure of this project 
would be immediate because of White House, DOD, and CIA decisions. Only 
today did I learn that the President was involved in this decision. The 
administration issued press releases at 5:00 on Monday. Our press 
conference followed shortly thereafter.
  It had been my intention that the Intelligence Committee would at 
least have an opportunity to gain a full understanding of the executive 
branch response to our inquiry of July 29 before public disclosure. 
That, in my judgment, would have lessened to some extent the public 
confusion that exists today.
  The NRO facility which I toured on Monday morning is truly a massive 
installation--a series of four modern towers comprising 1 million 
square feet. By rough comparison, the Pentagon consists of 5 million 
square feet of usable space.
  I am concerned that this facility, which was conceived during the 
cold war, is now disproportionate to the needs of the NRO. I have been 
unable to find any information which indicates that a scrub was done of 
this project following the collapse of the Soviet Union. At every step 
along the way, this project continued to expand. For example, in the 
summer of 1992, long after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the 
collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the NRO decided to expand this project 
from three to four towers.
  I am also concerned about the basic issue of fairness to other 
Government employees, intelligence as well as others, who are working 
in facilities which are not as comfortable. In the Pentagon, I know 
from personal association, most employees work in cramped, aged 
quarters. Some perform the same high-level intelligence work as to the 
NRO employees. Why should NRO personnel be treated differently?
  These are some of the issues which we must explore in detail.
  Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to correct a 
misperception which I have seen in press reporting on this issue. It 
has been reported that the Congress knew nothing about this 
construction project--that the CIA built this facility without 
informing the Congress. In fairness, that is simply not true. We knew 
that the NRO was building a new headquarters facility in northern 
Virginia. In fact, I played a role in bringing the NRO building to my 
State. Our complaint is that we were not adequately informed about the 
scope or the cost of the facility.
  In fairness to the executive branch, this raises a legitimate 
question of whether the Intelligence Committee and perhaps other 
committees were forceful enough in their requests for more details. We, 
as the Congress, had the ultimate leverage to cut off funding until our 
informational needs were met. So we have a measure of self-examination 
to perform. I add that as a question to this debate.
  Let us look at a specific example. The fiscal year 1991 Intelligence 
Authorization Act conference report stated that the NRO's ``land and 
facility acquisition will remain subject to the prior approval of the 
appropriate congressional committees.'' This did not happen with regard 
to this facility. The NRO did not seek specific prior congressional 
approval for the Westfields project--instead, funding for the facility 
was buried in the base portion of the budget, an unspecified aggregate 
of various O&M costs.

  This base funding for the Westfields project continued despite 
specific congressional direction to the NRO in the fiscal year 1994 
intelligence authorization act conference report which stated, ``The 
conferees also explicitly stipulate that each individual program must 
provide complete details for the entire request--not simply any changes 
from the base level provided in the prior fiscal year. Despite this 
requirement, the fiscal year 1995 budget request for the new NRO 
facility was once again buried in the base budget. Following this, the 
staff of the Intelligence Committee acted to initiate our audit and 
recommended a full briefing for committee members.
  The NRO decided to bypass both GSA regulations and military 
construction procedures for the construction of the headquarters 
facility, opting instead to operate under the DCI's ``special 
authorities.'' Did the Intelligence Committee sanction this approach? 
If so, under what conditions? Were those conditions followed? We need 
answers to these questions.
  Madam President, does the Congress share a measure of responsibility 
for this problem? Could we have been more diligent in following up on 
our demands for more detailed and complete information at an earlier 
stage? Perhaps, but we should not have to be investigators. It is 
incumbent on the executive branch to be forthcoming in providing budget 
details to the congress. We do not have the resources to conduct in-
depth investigations on every item in the budget, nor should we have 
to. Detailed information on this project should have been provided to 
the Intelligence Committee and the Appropriations Committee.
  In my opinion, this project should and will go forward. The facility 
is nearing structural completion. It will be an asset to the 
Intelligence Community, and indeed to the Nation, upon completion. Our 
task now is to ensure that the remaining construction on this facility 
is conducted in the most cost effective manner for the American 
taxpayer.
  Fortunately, this project is at a stage where decisions can be made 
to invoke savings, achieve greater efficiency, and maximize utilization 
of this prime space by additional defense or Intelligence-related 
activities. During a hearing on this issue earlier today, the 
Intelligence Committee received assurances from top NRO officials that 
the NRO will allow maximum utilization of this facility by other 
elements of the Defense and Intelligence communities. Indeed, the NRO 
has already begun work on such options. It is now our responsibility to 
monitor the completion of this project and ensure that cost-saving 
options are pursued.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor 
of the Bryan amendment to withhold funds for the construction of a 
National Reconnaissance Office [NRO] headquarters.
  Frankly, I was extremely troubled to learn that more than $300 
million is being spent to secretly construct an NRO facility in 
northern Virginia to consolidate personnel located in California and 
throughout the country.
  Apparently, construction of the NRO facility was begun in 1990 and 
undertaken without the full knowledge and approval of Congress. This 
raises serious concerns about congressional oversight of this project 
and the entire NRO organization. In my opinion, the credibility of the 
NRO has been damaged, and Congress will be forced to more closely 
scrutinize its budget and activities.
  Last week, my staff contacted Pentagon offices to inquire about 
speculation that NRO personnel were moving from offices at Los Angeles 
Air Force Base [AFB] in California to a new NRO headquarters building 
near Dulles International Airport. The Air Force denied all knowledge 
of such a proposed consolidation, and inquiries to the NRO went 
unanswered. The way these inquiries were handled leads me to believe 
that the intelligence community was trying to deceive Congress or, at a 
minimum, me. This is simply unacceptable.
  Still today, after Pentagon officials testified before the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, the NRO has not provided me or my office any 
information, except a joint statement that was released to the press.
  Apparently, construction of the NRO facility was originally planned 
for a partial consolidation of NRO headquarters personnel that are 
scattered throughout the Washington area. This would have allowed for 
construction of a building with two office towers at substantially less 
cost than current estimates.
  However, sometime in 1992, after the fall of the Soviet Union--the 
primary target of NRO activities--the intelligence community decided to 
proceed with a full consolidation of NRO personnel nationwide. This 
decision caused the estimated cost for the new facility to near $350 
million as two additional office towers were added, for a total of four 
huge towers. I am unclear why additional funds were allocated for this 
new structure at a time when defense and intelligence budgets were 
declining.
  My staff still has not been able to determine exactly what type of 
consolidation is being proposed or the details of the approval process. 
Specifically:

  When and how was the decision made to shift from only partial 
Consolidation to full consolidation?
  How many military, civilian and contractor personnel are being 
affected?
  Where are these personnel currently located?
  When is the proposed consolidation occurring?
  What implications does the proposed consolidation have on the base 
realignment and closure [BRAC] process?
  Because NRO is partly a Defense Department agency, is it subject to 
the BRAC process?
  Was a true cost-benefit analysis completed to determine whether the 
associated costs of the NRO facility and full consolidation justified 
any national security or fiscal gain?
  I have already written to Defense Secretary Perry expressing my 
concern over this matter and submitted some of these questions to him. 
I expect answers to these questions as soon as possible. I also expect 
the review currently being undertaken by the Director of the CIA and 
Deputy Secretary of Defense to address these and other issues.
  In addition to my concerns regarding general congressional oversight 
of the project, I am particularly troubled that, though the 
consolidation was approved years ago and the Intelligence Committee was 
notified, I was never made aware that jobs would be moved out of 
California. Also, I am concerned that the consolidation of personnel 
from Los Angeles AFB may have an adverse impact--direct or indirect--on 
the upcoming 1995 base closure process, especially considering that 
this is just one of a number of planned consolidations out of Los 
Angeles AFB.
  Mr. President, this matter needs to be thoroughly looked into and I 
hope that much of the information surrounding the project can be 
declassified so the public and taxpayers will have full knowledge of 
what is being built near Dulles International Airport.
  I fully support this amendment which withholds unobligated funds for 
the NRO headquarters building until a full review has been completed 
and questions have been answered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would state to the Senator that 
under a previous order, in 30 seconds, the floor will return to the 
Senator from Alaska, who will be able to offer amendments for the 
Republicans for 5 minutes, and then it will go to the Senator from 
Hawaii.
  So the Senator from Nevada has 30 seconds remaining to present the 
case for his amendment.
  Mr. BRYAN. May I make a parliamentary inquiry?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. BRYAN. Am I protected under the previous unanimous-consent 
agreement by having offered my amendment in a timely fashion? If so, I 
would be happy to yield the floor and simply ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska is recognized under a previous order for 5 
minutes in which to present the Republican amendments.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, could I ask the Senator from Alaska to 
yield for a request?
  Mr. STEVENS. I only have 5 minutes. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCAIN. Would it be in order to go ahead and dispose of my 
previous amendment that I understand is agreed to?
  Mr. STEVENS. It would be contrary to the time agreement. We must get 
these done by 7 o'clock.
  Madam President, I have a series of amendments. Let me just read them 
by name of the sponsor. If there are any further ones to come, we will 
put them in.
  I have an amendment by Senator Specter; another amendment by Senator 
Specter; a third amendment by Senator Specter; an amendment by Senator 
Domenici and Senator Bingaman; another by Senator Domenici; an 
amendment proposed by Senator Helms; an amendment proposed by Senator 
Chafee; another amendment by Senator Grassley; an amendment by Senator 
Murkowski for himself and Senator Dole; an amendment by Senator Hatch; 
an amendment by Senator McConnell; an amendment proposed by Senator 
Dole; another by Senator Dole for himself and Senator McCain; an 
amendment by Senator Cohen; a second amendment by Senator Cohen; an 
amendment by Senator Dole for himself, Senator Lieberman, Senator 
McCain and others; an amendment by Senator Cohen; an amendment by 
Senator Thurmond and Senator DeConcini; an amendment by Senator Roth; 
and an amendment for myself.
  That is the extent of the amendments that have been presented.
  I also have an amendment by Senator McConnell.
  I ask that all those amendments be submitted in accordance with the 
time agreement. I have 2 minutes remaining. I would like to reserve 
those.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The time 
remaining will be reserved for the Senator from Alaska.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I have a series of amendments that I 
would like to submit in behalf of my Democratic colleagues. First, by 
Senators Nunn and Mitchell on Bosnia and Herzegovina; second, by 
Senator Harkin; third, by Senator Lieberman; fourth, by Senator Shelby; 
fifth, by Senator Boren; sixth, by Senator Simon; seventh, by Senator 
Bingaman; eighth, by Senator Levin; ninth, by Senator Wellstone; and 
another Bingaman amendment. Senator Bingaman has two amendments. I have 
another amendment by Senator Feinstein; two by Senator Inouye; and one 
proposed by Senator Dodd.
  Mr. STEVENS. May I have time back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will send those amendments to the 
desk. Without objection, they will remain in order. Does the Senator 
from Hawaii reserve the remainder of his time.
  Mr. INOUYE. If I may.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have an amendment by Senator 
Kempthorne and two separate amendments by Senator Helms. I send those 
to the desk and add those to the ones I previously submitted.
  I, too, would like to reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, those amendments will be 
added to the list of amendments to be considered.
  The Senator reserves the remainder of his time.
  The Chair informs the Senators that Senator Inouye has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining and Senator Stevens has 2 minutes 20 seconds remaining.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk for 
Senator Dole.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it will remain in order.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment proposed 
by Senator Mitchell and Senator Cohen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order. That will 
be added to the list of amendments.
  Mr. INOUYE. I have an amendment proposed by Senator Johnston.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order.
  Mr. INOUYE. I have an amendment by Senator Bumpers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk in 
behalf of Senator Wallop.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it will be in order.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I send an amendment by Senator DeConcini 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it will be in order.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk in 
behalf of Senator Cohen and state that it may be duplicative of the one 
I previously submitted, and I ask the clerk to eliminate it if it is a 
duplicate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I have an amendment by Senator Breaux.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, Senator Breaux's amendment 
will be added to the list of amendments to be considered by the Senate.
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry. It is my understanding that there 
will be a period after we have offered the amendments for review of the 
amendments. Will the Chair have these amendments indicated so that each 
of us may have the others' amendments as quickly as possible?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be the normal course that will be 
followed.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would state, Madam President, that to the best of our 
knowledge those are the submissions for this side of the aisle.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I believe they are complete here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that the hour of 7 p.m. 
having arrived, there will be no further amendments allowed under the 
unanimous-consent agreement.
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry: Those amendments will be called 
up by the individual Senators under the time agreement. That is the 
understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has no agreement on how the 
amendments will be disposed of. But the Chair assumes they will be 
disposed of in due course.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is this Senator's understanding that those are the 
only amendments that may be considered now under the bill as pending 
business, is that correct--subject to the leaders having the right to 
offer amendments if they desire to do so?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The Senator from Alaska is 
entirely correct in his understanding.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. If I might address, through the 
Chair, the Senator from Arizona; the majority manager and myself will 
be considering the amendment of the Senator from Arizona concerning the 
disability for retired members of the armed services.


                           Amendment No. 2500

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending 
McCain amendment concerning the Olympics and return to the previous 
amendment on concurrent receipts, and I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Domenici be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
question before the Senate is amendment No. 2500.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the managers of the bill have had the 
opportunity to study the amendment of the Senator from Arizona, and we 
find it to be acceptable. It will not be subject to a point of order.
  So accordingly, may we have a vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. NUNN. What amendment is this? I did not hear the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2500.
  Mr. STEVENS. It deals with the retirement.
  Mr. NUNN. Is this a new retirement program? I would like to ask a 
couple of questions. Is this a new entitlement program? And if it is, 
how much does it cost? I just heard about the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has the floor. Is he 
yielding the floor or asking a question?
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I would like to ask the Senator from 
Arizona if this is a new entitlement program.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as the Senator from Georgia knows, 
current law requires a career military service member who retires after 
a length of service and is disabled to offset his or her retirement pay 
with any VA disability compensation that the member receives. I do not 
believe you would call this a new entitlement program. What it does is 
provides for concurrent payment of disability pay and retired pay if 
the following criteria are met: A veteran has completed 20 years of 
military service; the disability was incurred or was aggravated in 
performance of duty in the military service; the disability is rated 
100 percent at the time of retirement or within 4 years of veteran's 
retirement date.
  And in response to another question the Senator asked, the costs are 
approximately $55 million to $60 million in additional costs incurred 
with this change in the law. This is $55 million to $60 million 
additional.
  Mr. NUNN. Is that per year?
  Mr. McCAIN. That is correct.
  Mr. NUNN. If the Senator will yield, I think I will ask a further 
question. Is this a 1-year program, or is this a program that is 
intended to continue?
  Mr. McCAIN. It would be intended to continue right now. It affects 
approximately 7,000 military retirees who are rated 100 percent 
disabled and have completed 20 years of service. I would estimate that 
obviously there would be very few additional people, enrollees, in this 
program, since one of the criteria is that the disability was incurred 
or aggravated in the performance of duty. That, obviously, is a very 
small number of people.
  Mr. NUNN. I understand. The way it is worded, it is only for 12 
months, but it is the Senator's intent to continue it year after year?
  Mr. McCAIN. At this time, it is a temporary waiver. It is 12 months.
  Mr. NUNN. So it is a 12-month period, but it is the intent to start 
this as a continuing program?
  Mr. McCAIN. That would be my intent.
  Mr. NUNN. Where does the money come from--out of the Department of 
Defense? Is it Department of Defense money that would pay for this?
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from Georgia, yes, it comes from 
travel pay of senior level officers, and civilian executive travel of 
Pentagon staff, estimated to be approximately $370 million a year at 
this time.
  Mr. NUNN. I have not had a chance to study this amendment. I do not 
want to interfere with whatever the managers of the bill may decide on 
the amendment, but I hope they will take a very careful look at it now 
in the conference. I think we have to be extremely careful about 
starting programs which, though they are intended for even the most 
deserving possible beneficiaries, become entitlement programs.
  We all know that the entitlement programs are eating us alive, eating 
the budget apart. We are really not going to have any discretionary 
money at all from year to year. We are going to have it all wrapped up 
in entitlement programs. I am not sure exactly what this one is and how 
it is going to be structured, where the money will come from. And what 
are the implications for people less than 100 percent disabled, say, 85 
percent disabled or 90 percent? Do we exclude them? If they are 50 
percent disabled, are they not counted? I do not know where this leads 
or how much money is involved.
  I hope my friends from Alaska, Hawaii, and Arizona will look very 
carefully at this amendment--even if it is accepted here on the floor--
in conference, because the cost implications could be rather serious, 
particularly when these programs have a tendency to grow and grow and 
grow and open up eligibility beyond original intent. Before you know 
it, you have a first-class, sure-enough entitlement program that costs 
millions each year, hundreds of millions, and it goes into billions, 
and then we wonder why we cannot get them under control.
  I know the Senator from Arizona has looked at this, but I hope 
everybody will do so in terms of the fiscal consequences of it, and 
also what it does.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the amendment being offered today seeks to 
provide a temporary waiver of the prohibition on the concurrent payment 
of both disability compensation and retired pay for fiscal year 1995. 
The amendment would pay for these additional entitlement costs out of 
the discretionary funds appropriated in this bill. This amendment 
appears to address an inequity that is worthy of redress. However, this 
is an issue for the authorizing committee to decide, and to pay for, 
out of spending in its jurisdiction.
  Last year, we had before the Congress a budget resolution and a 
reconciliation bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted 
against the resolution and the reconciliation bill. They argued that 
those measures cut defense too much, and other spending too little. 
Many came to the floor during that debate to decry that entitlement 
spending was out of control and that the President and Congress were 
not doing enough to control these mandatory programs.
  The amendment, in effect, cuts other programs in the bill to pay for 
the increased benefit costs. So, let us be clear about this point, the 
effect of this amendment to cut available discretionary defense funds 
to pay for an increase in an entitlement. It is hard for me to believe 
that this can be right. How many times have we been told that we cannot 
cut defense any further? How many times have our colleagues decried the 
growth in entitlement spending and chastised the majority for failing 
to control mandatory increases?
  Madam President, the amendment by the Senator from Arizona is a well-
meaning amendment. It promises only fairness to our well-deserving 
disabled, military retirees, by eliminating a disparity between 
military retirement other federal retirement programs. Who can fault 
the logic? Are not our disabled, military retirees worthy of the best 
benefits we can afford to provide? Of course they are.
  I feel that if we establish a pattern of using discretionary funds to 
correct problems in mandatory programs, however, we will find ourselves 
entering a thicket that will impose increasing problems for us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2500) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2501

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I think there is further debate on the 
amendment that was previously set aside on the Olympics. The Senator 
from Pennsylvania has three short amendments. I do not know if the 
Senator from Georgia wants to continue debate on that amendment. I 
would just as soon yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I would like to be able to make a 
statement on the amendment of the Senator from Arizona that relates not 
just to the Olympics, but other international athletic events that are 
in the United States. I will do it whenever it is appropriate. I do not 
know when that one is going to be voted on.
  Is there any order decided by the managers of the bill on this 
amendment?
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Under the 
unanimous-consent agreement, will the vote on the amendment of the 
Senator from Arizona come up at 9 o'clock tonight?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the agreement, no votes are in order 
until 9 o'clock.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, what would be the order of debate then? I 
would like to be recognized to make about a 5-minute statement if I 
could. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania may want to present other 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all the Pastore time has expired, the 
debate need not be germane to the pending question.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I would like to make a statement on the 
Olympic amendment if I could be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the floor.
  The Chair would like to add one thing. On amendment 2500, the motion 
to reconsider the motion to lay on the table is agreed to.
  The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I oppose the amendment of the Senator from Arizona 
relating to international games and reimbursement.
  The Armed Services Committee has been working very closely with the 
Defense Department for a number of years on the conditions and 
procedures under which the Department of Defense provides unique 
security support to major international athletic events held in the 
United States. These procedures have been refined over the years 
through DOD support for major international athletic competition in the 
United States going back to the Lake Placid Olympics in 1980.
  The procedures are working well. They recognize a legitimate and very 
important, indeed, a unique Federal responsibility that cannot be 
carried out in any other level, and they should not be changed on the 
spur of the moment, as this amendment would do.
  Ever since we had the attack on the Israeli athletes at the 1972 
Munich Olympics, which was a terrible tragedy, it has been recognized 
that our large international athletic events pose unique and major 
security problems. Very few communities in the United States maintain 
the security and public safety resources to provide security for a 
major international athletic event.
  DOD has unique resources and expertise that can be used to assist 
planners in staging international events in order to protect the U.S. 
national security interests and avoid incidents like the terrible and 
tragic 1972 terrorist attack in Munich.
  DOD support consists primarily of security and public safety-oriented 
support that is not available from any other Federal, State, or local 
law enforcement agency. This support is provided only under conditions 
that do not affect the Department of Defense's ability to carry out its 
military mission particularly for National Guardsmen and reservists, 
such as military police and a communications unit. DOD support for 
these events is often carried out as a part of a unit's normal training 
cycle. And what we try to do is encourage the Department of Defense and 
the National Guard units to get out in front with their planning so 
that the Olympic event itself can be part of the annual training of the 
National Guard people, which does not add budgetary cost and which give 
themselves good training.
  Examples of this support include communications, explosive ordnance 
details, aviation support, for security and emergency response, as well 
as training.
  The Department of Defense does not provide direct funding to these 
events. What the Department does provide is in-kind support for DOD 
stocks of equipment that is returned to DOD after the event is 
completed.
  The amendment mistakenly assumed that the Department of Defense 
provides security support for the organization or entity staging the 
event, such as Atlanta's Committee for the Olympic Games, called ACOG.
  What DOD actually provides is security support directly to the State 
and local law enforcement agencies that are responsible for providing 
the security for the event. The support does not go through the 
organizing committee. In the case of the Olympics, DOD provides 
security support through the Olympic security support group. Any 
support provided by the Department of Defense to an organizing 
committee is generally provided on a different basis, a noncost or 
reimbursable basis.
  If the intent of the McCain amendment is that any of the law 
enforcement agencies to which DOD provides security support must 
reimburse the Department of Defense, I think that would be a serious 
mistake. The unacceptable outcome would be that these agencies would 
only request the assistance from the Department of Defense that they 
were able to afford, that they were able to budget, instead of asking 
for what they need to provide a safe and security environment for the 
games.
  If the intent of the McCain amendment is somehow to require the 
organizing entity of an event like the Olympics to reimburse the 
Department for security support, I think that would also be a serious 
mistake. If we require the organizing entity to reimburse DOD for 
security support that goes to local and State law enforcement agencies, 
it would mean the ultimate decision for what security measures are 
needed would leave. That would put those decisions in the hands of the 
organizing committee rather than local law enforcement agencies. This 
could lead to a situation where the organizing committee makes a 
decision for security support based on what they can afford rather than 
what law enforcement agencies feel is needed to provide for a safe and 
security environment for these events.
  Madam President, the international climate has a huge effect on what 
kind of security we need, for instance, in the 1996 Olympics, but this 
amendment would apply to all international games. It would apply to 
games like the Goodwill Games that will be held in, I believe, New York 
in 2, 3, or 4 years. It will apply to events that have taken place in 
places like California. It would apply to any international event.
  And I will assure anyone whoever aspires to have an international 
event will have a very hard time complying with the amendment here and 
still staging that event in a security environment.
  We should understand events like the 1996 Olympics are truly a 
national event involving the entire Nation. If we have a terrible 
tragedy of the kind of terrorist attack in 1996 or any other 
international games held in the United States, the damage is going to 
be done to the entire Nation, not simply to one State or one city.
  The United States is the host for all of the countries of the Olympic 
movement. If security for the Olympics is not adequate, it reflects 
poorly on the U.S. ability to host international events in an 
environment where security is a concern.
  If DOD support is provided on a reimbursable basis, it will, I think, 
leave some State and local governments in a position where they simply 
are not able to afford the security arrangement and the precautions 
that are truly needed based on terrorist threats and other threats.
  This is not the time to send a message to the world the U.S. 
Government is going to pinch pennies when it comes to providing 
essential security support for a major international event like the 
1996 Summer Olympics. The Federal Government and all in this country 
have a major stake in and responsibility for the security of 
international athletic events held in the United States. The modest 
support the DOD provides to these events is a recognition of this 
Federal responsibility.
  Madam President, the Defense Department supports the current process 
and opposes this amendment.
  I urge our colleagues to vote against this amendment because it could 
be very destructive not only to the Olympics but to other international 
events.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
or in relation to the McCain amendment No. 2501 occur at 9 p.m. this 
evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I think 
there may be debate on it yet. I have no objection if all debate is 
over by that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I will just take a moment more. I will 
just give examples of the games that we have had help with from the 
Department of Defense in the past.
  We had help in the Lake Placid Olympics in 1980. We had help from DOD 
for the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984. We had help from DOD for the Pan 
Am games in 1987. We had help for the Goodwill Games in 1990. We had 
help for the World University Games in 1993. We had help for the 1994 
World Cup. We will have DOD help for the Special Olympics in 1995, and 
also we plan help for the Summer Olympics in 1996.
  These are matters of I think great importance. I do not think the 
amendment really is an amendment that is appropriate under any 
conditions, but certainly we should put any effective date of this 
amendment way out in the future, because these events are already 
underway and are being planned.
  I can assure anyone that this would have a disruptive effect not only 
on the Olympics in the State of Georgia that I represent but also on 
the forthcoming events like the Special Olympics in 1995 and other 
events that may be coming to this country.
  I believe the Senators from Idaho will also have an interest on this 
based on their own aspirations for international events.
  So, Madam President, I yield the floor. But I would ask clarification 
if the Senator from Alaska can tell me when this will be voted on and 
if the yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, it is my understanding the yeas and 
nays have been ordered, and we will vote at 9 o'clock under the 
agreement just entered into.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Domenici be added as an original cosponsor of the amendment previously 
adopted offered by the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, with regard to the pending amendment 
that has been offered by the Senator from Arizona dealing with the 
Olympics, I have had the honor to be associated with the Olympic 
movement for many years and have made many trips to the sites where we 
have provided some military assistance to the Olympic movement that 
really is in the form of security of some type.
  Much of that in the past has been done by National Guard units. 
Others have been done by arrangements with the basic sponsoring entity. 
I remember the Lake Placid games, for instance.
  But, I must tell my friend from Arizona, I must oppose his amendment, 
because I believe that, as stated by the Senator from Georgia, one of 
our basic responsibilities as the host country is to assure the safety 
of the athletes who come to our country. And we have done this. We did 
it in the Indiana games. We have done it in the Los Angeles games. We 
have done it almost in every one of the international games I know of. 
And the reason is that in this country of ours, where there is great 
freedom and opportunity and openness, there is more of an opportunity 
for people to endanger the lives of some of these athletes or to 
disrupt the games in their own personal pursuits.
  I do not believe we should have an amendment like this on this bill. 
We do have money in this bill. I would point out to the Senator, there 
is an appropriation of $10 million to cover the costs of providing 
logistical and other support for the 1996 Summer Olympics to be held in 
Atlanta. We also have funds in here for the Special Olympics, which 
have a different type of problem as far as the ability of the 
Department of Defense to assure the logistic support for those games in 
New Haven, CT.
  This has been an ongoing arrangement. It does maintain the 
relationship of the Department of Defense to these Olympic sports and 
to our international games. I think it is absolutely essential that we 
maintain that relationship and that we have people involved in the 
planning process from the very beginning to assure that we do meet our 
national responsibility for assuring the safety of the people involved 
in the games and maintaining the peace of this country.
  It is, in my opinion, one of the best functions the Department of 
Defense has, in terms of its relationship to international sports.
  It is not, I must say, something that could be reimbursed. I remember 
one time when there was a force of the Department of Defense standing 
by in case something went wrong. Nothing went wrong. Who is going to 
pay for that? That is part of our national responsibility. I think it 
must be maintained. The moneys provided in this bill are to assure 
those responsibilities will be met in Atlanta. I support that 
wholeheartedly and hope that the Senate will take that into account 
when we vote at 9 o'clock.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I had sought recognition and have been 
here for a little more than an hour to take a few minutes on three 
accepted amendments. I wonder if my colleague from Arizona would yield 
for that purpose.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will not. I have to respond to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I have just recognized the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. If you wish to yield, that is up to you.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that, at the 
conclusion of Senator McCain's comments, I be recognized for a few 
moments to offer three amendments, setting the present amendment aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Very briefly, Madam President, I say to the Senator from 
Alaska, I do not disagree with anything that he said. I urge him to 
read the amendment. The amendment says that if the games make a profit, 
25 percent of that profit would go to reimbursing the Department of 
Defense. Only if they made a profit.
  In Los Angeles, they made a profit of $122 million; $50 million went 
for security. I am all for that security. The Special Olympics will not 
make a profit, the Senior Olympics will not make a profit, and they are 
saying that the Atlanta Olympics will not make a profit. So I do not 
see where they have a problem. It is only if they make a profit, then 
25 percent of that.
  None of us want any derogation of security. None of us want anything 
but the strongest possible security which only the Department of 
Defense can provide.
  I am just saying, if they make a profit, 25 percent of that profit 
would go back to the main mission of the military, which is defending 
the national security interest, where we do not have enough ships. We 
have people on food stamps, we do not have enough ships, airplanes, and 
guns and we are spending this money on things like Olympics, which make 
$122 million in profit and do not reimburse the Government for it at 
all.
  Let us be clear on what this amendment is Madam President. It is if 
they make a profit, which they say they are not going to do, and it is 
25 percent of the profit, not the entire profit of these Olympic games, 
in order to reimburse the taxpayers of America for the Department of 
Defense money and equipment and manpower that was expended.
  I want to apologize to my friend from Pennsylvania who has been very 
patient throughout this debate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                           amendment no. 2503

   (Purpose: To provide for the reassignment of members of the Army 
 affected by the restructuring of the Army National Guard and the Army 
                  Reserve under the offsite agreement)

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, consistent with the unanimous-consent 
agreement just entered into, having set aside the pending agreement 
under that agreement, I call up amendment No. 2503.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2503.

  Mr. SPECTER. 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:

       On page 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC.   . IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT ON THE RESTRUCTURING OF 
                   THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD AND THE ARMY RESERVE.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the implementation of the 
     off-site agreement may result in the loss to the Armed Forces 
     of military personnel who have significant military 
     experience and expertise.
       (b) Reassignment of Members.--(1) To the maximum extent 
     practicable, the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that 
     members of the Armed Forces who would otherwise be separated 
     from service as a result of the deactivation of military 
     units of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve under 
     the off-site agreement be reasigned instead to units that are 
     not being deactivated.
       (2) The reassignment of a member under paragraph (1) shall 
     not affect the grade or rank in grade of the member.
       (c) Reports.--Not later than 15 days after the end of each 
     calendar quarter while the off-site agreement is in effect, 
     the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report on the number of members of the 
     Armed Forces who were reassigned under subsection (b)(1) 
     during the preceding calendar quarter.
  (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``congressional defense committees'' means the 
     Committees on Armed Services and the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) The term ``off-site agreement'' means the agreement on 
     the restructuring of the Army National Guard and the Army 
     Reserve.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this is an amendment which seeks to 
preserve military skills which might otherwise be lost under extensive 
arrangements which have been made by the Army Reserve and the Army 
National Guard.
  The issue came to my attention as a result of the threatened loss of 
expertise and experience of some 4,000 dedicated troops who are members 
of the 157th Separate Infantry Brigade, which is an Army Reserve unit 
headquartered in Horsham, PA. Under the arrangement between the Army 
National Guard and the Army Reserve, this unit would be deactivated and 
these 4,000 troops, who have considerable expertise, would be lost for 
our national defense.
  After looking into the issue, it had been proposed that the 
deactivation be delayed until there had been a GAO study, but the 
Department of the Army had a considerable problem with awaiting that 
GAO study to carry out this agreement, the agreement being necessary 
because of the reduction in the Department of Defense appropriations, 
something that I think is necessary and in the national interest. These 
arrangements between the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard are 
entirely understandable.
  So this amendment would accomplish retaining the expertise to the 
maximum extent possible by calling upon the Department of the Army to 
see to it that there be a reassignment of those who would be 
deactivated, either from the Army National Guard or the Army Reserve. 
This would save the expertise and would accommodate the many people, 
not only among the 4,000 in Horsham, PA, but across the country. It 
would have applicability beyond my State and I think it would be very 
good for the national defense and accommodate the interests of many 
thousands of Army National Guard men and women, National Guard 
personnel, and Army Reserve personnel.
  As I understand it, this amendment has been cleared by both managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2503) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2504

(Purpose: To delay the implementation of the Antler Military Operations 
                                 Area)

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2504.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam 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, insert the following:
       ``No funds appropriated under this Act may be obligated or 
     expended for the purpose of establishing the Antler Military 
     Operations Area, Pennsylvania, for the purpose of conducting 
     aerial combat training operations until:
       ``(1) Region III of the Environmental Protection Agency has 
     completed its currently ongoing Environmental Impact 
     Review.''

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this is an amendment which would delay 
the implementation of low-altitude flights in a training corridor over 
central Pennsylvania until the regional office of the Environmental 
Protection Agency has reviewed the environmental impact of these 
flights.
  This proposed flight pattern has caused enormous distress over some 
1,200 square miles in central Pennsylvania where these low-level 
flights would have an enormous impact on the quality of life of the 
people who live there.
  Central Pennsylvania is a beautiful place. It is essentially rural, 
although there are some cities in the Harrisburg, PA area. There has 
been an enormous public concern about how such flights would impact on 
the quality of life there.
  And there is a study, which is being undertaken in region III of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and the implementation of these low-
level flights would be delayed until region III has an opportunity to 
review the environmental impact.
  Again, it is my understanding that this amendment is acceptable to 
both of the managers.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2504) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Another one-vote victory.


                           Amendment No. 2505

 (Purpose: To designate funds for the Vectored thrust combat agililty 
                             demonstrator)

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:
       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2505.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam 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 title IV of the bill, under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'', strike out the 
     period at the end and insert in lieu thereof ``: Provided 
     further, That of the amount of funds appropriated under this 
     paragraph to be allocated to the aircraft technology program 
     element, $5,000,000 of this amount may only be obligated for 
     the completion of Phase I of the Vectored Thrust Combat 
     Agility Demonstrator''.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this amendment calls for the allocation 
of some $5 million, which is now appropriated under this bill from the 
aircraft technology development funds within the Department of the 
Navy, to be used to complete phase I of the advanced rotorcraft 
vectored thrust combat agility demonstrator. This is a program which 
was established in 1991 to assess the capability of the Piasecki 
ringtail to improve helicopter speed, range and survivability and 
reduce operations and support costs.
  This technology has already been subjected to very considerable 
expenditures, some $11.76 million of public funds and approximately $15 
million by the private contractor.
  This is a very highly sophisticated technology which has been 
developed by Mr. Frank Piasecki, whose company is conducting the 
research and development on this technology. Mr. Piasecki is a world-
renowned developer of the helicopter. Indeed, the first helicopter a 
visitor encounters in the helicopter section of the Smithsonian Air and 
Space Museum is a Piasecki machine. He is world renowned and has done 
an enormous amount of work, and this technology, if it proves effective 
and reliable--and that is the purpose of these tests--would be crucial 
to protect troops transported by the new V-22's. It would turn more 
tightly, thereby enabling it to survive potential enemy attack and be 
operated at lower cost than existing helicopters and at a considerably 
greater speed.
  This is an issue which I think would be very, very important for 
combat operations, as I say, especially in support of the new V-22's. 
And the $5 million will enable this technology to go forward. It does 
not call for the appropriation of any new funds, but will come out of 
appropriations already in existence from the aircraft technology 
development funds within the Department of the Navy.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent my colleague Senator Wofford 
be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Arizona for yielding time for 
these brief amendments.
  Madam President, I am advised the managers find this amendment 
acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2505) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I note another one-vote victory. I 
thank my colleagues for that, and I move to reconsider.
  Mr. INOUYE. 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 Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2528

  (Purpose: To require specific authorization and appropriations for 
construction projects for intelligence facililties and improvements to 
such facilities having an estimated Federal cost of more than $300,000)

  Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment 
originally sent to the desk by the Senator from Hawaii, amendment No. 
2528, be modified under the terms of the modification I will send to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.


                    Amendment No. 2528, As Modified

  Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment as 
modified be considered under the previous request and the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I ask the clerk read the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:
       On page 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.  . (a) No project for the construction of any 
     facility, or improvement to any facility, having an estimated 
     Federal cost in excess of $300,000, may be undertaken in any 
     fiscal year unless specifically identified as a separate item 
     in the President's annual fiscal year budget request, if such 
     facility or improvement would be used primarily by personnel 
     of the intelligence community.
       (b) As used in this section, the term ``intelligence 
     community'' has the same meaning given that term in section 
     3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     401a(4)).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. BOREN. Madam President, this amendment, which is offered on 
behalf of myself and the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, Senator DeConcini, is aimed at preventing the 
situation which has recently developed and which is well known to all 
of us now because of media coverage of these events. I refer to the 
project, the headquarters project under construction for the National 
Reconnaissance Office, which has now run to approximately $300 million, 
in excess of $300 million, in projected costs.
  I have endeavored to go back over the record on this matter, some of 
which is still classified, as to how this project could have grown to 
such proportions. I must say it alarms me, and I was appalled to find 
that the project had grown to these proportions. In reviewing the 
record, I am convinced that the reason for this project becoming this 
large without sufficient congressional control is that in every year, 
starting in 1990 until the present time, no itemized request was made 
for this construction project. Instead, the costs of this construction 
project were buried in the budget of the agency in question under more 
generalized functional groupings.
  Madam President, this has never been the case with other intelligence 
agencies. We always had separate items. We looked at those items. We 
considered the request for construction and for land acquisition. We 
had task forces within the Intelligence Committee, and I know the 
Appropriations Committee as well carefully reviewed all of these 
projects. That process was, in my opinion, subverted in a way by not 
having specific itemized requests for these construction projects 
presented by the NRO. The CIA, the National Security Agency, the 
Defense Intelligence Agency--all other intelligence agencies in the 
past have gone through the normal procedures of requesting items of 
appropriations for construction projects and have in essence gone 
through the same procedures required by military construction projects.
  This amendment which I have just offered, which I have discussed with 
the ranking member and the chairman and staffs of both, would in no way 
want to cause these projects to be considered in a way that would not 
protect classified information. I think it is just essential, whether 
we are dealing with a classified project which cannot be openly 
discussed on the Senate or House floor or whether we are dealing with a 
project that can be openly discussed, that the taxpayers' interests 
must be protected. I think, for us to be able to protect the taxpayers' 
interests, we have to make sure separate itemized requests are made.
  So, that is the reason for this amendment. I have discussed it with 
the current chairman of the Intelligence Subcommittee. It is based on 
my own experience of 6 years with that committee trying to make sure 
funds were appropriately appropriated and we kept tight control over 
any unnecessary spending. I think this is simply legislation that is 
needed to prevent in the future what has happened over the past 4 years 
because of the failure of this agency to make an itemized request, 
which actually did not come to the attention of the Senate Intelligence 
Committee fully until the independent audit unit which we established 
some 3 years ago began its own inquiry into the matter.
  Madam President, I think this is a matter that has been cleared in 
terms of general agreement by both sides. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

                          ____________________