[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]

 
 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

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

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment to the bill (H.R. 4453) a bill 
     making appropriations for military construction for the 
     Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 1995, and for other purposes, having met, after full and 
     free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses this report, signed by all of the 
     conferees.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of July 27, 1994.)
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate version of the fiscal year 1995 
military construction appropriations bill included an amendment, which 
I authored, which would have appropriated $25.1 million to the 
Department of Defense, to be transferred to the Coast Guard, to defray 
the expenses for a consolidation of activities at the Coast Guard's 
operations systems center at Martinsburg, West Virginia. These funds 
would have been completely offset by the rescission of $25.1 million 
previously appropriated for a Navy military construction project, which 
was canceled. The bill, as so amended, passed the Senate on July 15. 
The conferees agreed to the amendment. However, the managers on the 
part of the House decided to delete, without prejudice, the 
appropriation proposed by the Senate for the Coast Guard, inasmuch as 
the matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee. Therefore, the conference agreement at 
issue does not include any funds for the Martinsburg Coast Guard 
project, and I do not plan to offer an amendment at this time to 
restore the funds.
  By way of explanation, Mr. President, the purpose of the Senate 
amendment was to provide funds for construction of facilities in 
connection with a consolidation at the Coast Guard Operations System 
Center at Martinsburg sought by Coast Guard officials in their quest to 
streamline operations.
  The Coast Guard Commandant has indicated that that agency has 
undertaken a number of cost-benefit studies that could result in the 
centralization of certain information functions at the Coast Guard's 
Operations Systems Center. The Commandant indicated his belief that 
such consolidations will prove to be cost effective to the taxpayer.
  Mr. President, the Coast Guard has developed a program to streamline 
its vessel documentation function at an eventual savings of 
approximately 20 personnel and $1 million per year. The Coast Guard 
advises that this initiative would consolidate 14 regional 
documentation offices in one location. A centralized vessel 
documentation processing facility will produce significant 
efficiencies. Currently, with 14 regional documentation offices, the 
representatives of industry, law enforcement, and other users must 
often make several inquiries to more than one office to gather 
information on a vessel. Additionally, service delays are inherent 
whenever a vessel's records are required to be forwarded to a new 
office as a result of the vessel's changing its port of documentation. 
Under the consolidated office concept, only one inquiry will be 
necessary and customer service delays will be significantly reduced.
  In summary, the Coast Guard has embarked upon a program to 
consolidate and streamline its operations, and it has expressed its 
desire to expand upon its successful experience in Martinsburg.
  The location of the Coast Guard Operations Systems Center at 
Martinsburg is not unique. Other examples of Coast Guard support 
facilities which are not located at coastal sites include the Coast 
Guard Pay and Personnel Center located in Topeka, Kansas, and the Coast 
Guard Institute, located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
  The Navy also has support facilities which are not located at coastal 
sites, including the Naval Weapons Support Center in Crane, Indiana, 
the Naval Ships Parts Control Center in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 
and the Navy Finance Center in Cleveland, Ohio.
  Mr. President, the Coast Guard provides a valuable service, 
nationally and internationally. This funding would have helped the 
Coast Guard to consolidate, to operate more efficiently, and to save 
the taxpayer money in the long run. I support those efforts.


                                  vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
conference report to H.R. 4453.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 272 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

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

                                NAYS--5

     Brown
     Gregg
     McCain
     Roth
     Smith
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________