[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 119 (Friday, July 21, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10451-S10456]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS, 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee 
amendments be agreed to en bloc to H.R. 1817, provided that no point of 
order shall be considered as having been waived by reason of this 
agreement, and that the bill as thus amended be considered as original 
text for the purpose of further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the committee amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Bingaman be recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment, and 
that a time agreement has been reached, an hour equally divided on both 
sides, with Senator Bingaman in charge, and the managers in charge of 
the opposite side.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous-
consent request be amended to reflect that there be no second-degree 
amendment in order, except a perfecting amendment that the Senator has 
to offer, and the hour time agreement would apply to all--to the 
amendment and the perfecting amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, would the Senator agree, if a vote is 
ordered, to have a vote at the same time as the votes relating to the 
rescissions bill?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I advised the Republican manager earlier 
that I am glad to do that, except that I think I would like to reserve 
the right of each of the sponsors, Senators McCain and Senator Kerrey, 
to speak for a few moments about the bill.
  If they have not had a chance to do that, I want to have that 
opportunity.
  Mr. REID. That would be under the time that the Senator controls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1834

  (Purpose: To reduce by $300,000,000 the amount appropriated by the 
                                 bill)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. McCain, and Mr. Kerrey, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1834.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 22, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 127. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated by this Act for military 
     construction and family housing is hereby reduced by 
     $300,000,000.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I asked that the amendment be read 
because I think it is very straightforward. Members should not have any 
difficulty understanding what the amendment is. It is an amendment 
offered by myself, Senator McCain, and Senator Kerrey from Nebraska.
  What it does is it proposes to strike $300 million from this bill and 
to bring the level of spending in this bill back to the level that the 
President requested. That request from the President, from the 
administration, was not an insubstantial request. It was almost $2 
billion above last year's level. The budget request was for $10.698 
billion for military construction and family housing, which was an 
increase of $1.963 billion over the 1995 appropriation.
  The budget request included a major initiative on family housing, an 
increase of $605 million above the 1995 level. It also included $1.2 
billion in additional funding to carry out the base closure and 
realignment that has been ordered by current and past base closure 
commissions.
  So we are, in this amendment, not trying to interfere with a 
substantial increase in military construction funding over last year's 
level. The President felt that was appropriate. The administration felt 
it was appropriate. We are not, in this amendment, trying to attack 
that. What we are saying, though, is that we need to have some limit on 
the extent of the add-ons that we, in Congress, engage in, if, in fact, 
we do have a concern about deficit reduction--and we clearly need to 
have that concern.
  The committee was able to find about $400 million to reduce in what 
the President requested; another $57 million in rescissions from prior-
year appropriations. If the committee had stayed within the President's 
request, that would have given them an amount of $474 million to 
earmark for various items that are called to the attention of committee 
members of this body on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. President, $474 million did not appear to be enough for Member 
items. The committee added an additional $300 million to cover those 
items, and I believe this is a luxury that we cannot defend to the 
American people at a time when deficit reduction is paramount in the 
Nation's political agenda, and deserves to be paramount in the agenda 
of the Nation when our debt is ballooning to almost $5 trillion.
  The committee will argue that the projects that they have added, the 
$747 million in all that they have added, meet the criteria which the 
Senator from Arizona, my cosponsor on this amendment, has been in the 
forefront of establishing. That is, all of these projects are in the 
Pentagon's 5-year plan and they have merely moved up the execution of 
the projects for this next fiscal year. They will argue that the 
National Guard has come to rely on these add-ons because the Pentagon 
always leaves out things which are necessary for the National Guard.
  These arguments do have some merit, and I think they can be used to 
justify the most important $474 million of add-ons. But in my view, the 
arguments cannot justify the marginal $300 million that has been added 
to that. Unlike the cuts which we will make in future appropriations 
bills which come before the Senate in areas such as education and 
research and health, the projects which are ultimately cut if our 
amendment is approved will be in future defense requests, some next 
year, some as late as the year 2001. Essentially, these are projects 
which the administration said are meritorious, but we cannot afford 
them this year. What I am saying by this amendment, and what my 
cosponsors are saying, is we agree with that. We cannot afford the 
additional $300 million this year.
  I say to my Democratic colleagues who will bemoan cuts in various 
domestic discretionary programs--and I will agree with them that some 
of those cuts are inappropriate--but how can we in the Congress justify 
adding funds for marginal projects in this bill while we are making 
those cuts in domestic discretionary programs? And I 

[[Page S10452]]
would say to my Republican colleagues, many of whom, like the Senator 
from Arizona, feel the investment in defense is inadequate, is this the 
place where additional funding should be spent if we have additional 
funding to spend in defense?
  I do not believe the American people want us to conduct business as 
usual. It is always striking to me that when the Defense authorization 
bill passes, and we generally make significant policy decisions in that 
Defense authorization bill, unfortunately, in our hometowns and in our 
home States the headlines in the local papers are about the military 
construction projects that are funded in the Defense bill. So I 
understand there is a local imperative that drives the funding of these 
military construction projects.
  I do believe we need to at least hold the level of increase to the 
very substantial level that the administration has asked for and not 
add to it in this bill. The way we propose this legislation, it would 
be up to the Appropriations Committee to make a decision as to where 
the priority is and where it wants to spend that $474 billion of add-
ons. I have no argument with them on that. That is the nature of our 
committee structure, and I think they can make that decision.
  If we do not stop business as usual in this bill, then where are we 
going to? Mr. President, $474 million in add-ons is enough. I, for one, 
do not support going with an additional $300 million above and beyond 
that. I hope a majority of the Senate will agree, after all of the 
speeches have been made on deficit reduction, that the message sent by 
adding $774 million in add-ons is inappropriate, and the American 
people would not support it.
  Let me conclude by just reading a short statement from the 
administration on this. The administration says in this statement of 
administration policy:

       The Administration is committed to balancing the Federal 
     budget by the [fiscal year] 2005. The President's budget 
     proposes to reduce discretionary spending for [fiscal year] 
     1996 by $5 billion in outlays below the FY 1995 level. The 
     Administration does not support the level of funding assumed 
     by the House or Senate Committee 602(b) allocations.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The Administration strongly objects to $648 million in 
     funding for approximately 100 unrequested military and family 
     housing construction projects. With the Nation facing serious 
     budget constraints, such a spending increase is not 
     affordable.

  Mr. President, let me also point out there is an item in here that I 
think people just need to be aware of. That is, this subcommittee of 
Appropriations has been given the job of funding, as I understand it, 
the renovation of the Pentagon. There is $161 million in this bill for 
renovation of the Pentagon. I support that funding. Frankly, when I saw 
the figure, I was a little bit taken aback and thought maybe this is a 
bit excessive. I know that is a big building, but $161 million is a lot 
of renovation. Then I noticed in the bill, on page 20 of the bill, a 
provision which really did, I think, cause me to think we should focus 
on this. It says, ``None of the funds appropriated in this act may be 
transferred to or obligated from the Pentagon reservation facility 
renovation unless the Secretary certifies that the total cost for 
planning, design, construction, installation of equipment for the 
renovation of the Pentagon will not exceed $1.2 billion.''
  Mr. President, I thought the $161 million was a little excessive. Now 
I understand the $161 million is next year's installment on renovation 
of the Pentagon. It is $1.2 billion which this committee is saying is 
the total that they are going to agree to provide.
  So I make this point for my colleagues, just to make the point we are 
not being stingy with the military. This is not a case of the military 
being totally left unfunded. They are getting nearly a 20-percent 
increase from last year's funding in military construction. We are 
agreeing here to go up to $1.2 billion to renovate the Pentagon. In our 
amendment, we are not in any way interfering with the addition of $474 
million of Member interest items. We are just saying, let us draw the 
line someplace, and that someplace ought to be at the level that the 
administration requested. That means we ought to strike $300 million of 
those add-ons as part of this bill.
  So that is a brief explanation. My colleagues from Arizona and Nevada 
wish to speak on this. I, therefore, reserve the remainder of my time, 
and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I think the Senator from New Mexico raises 
a couple of good points. If you look to see what we have done in the 
past, we have been very negligent in providing housing, especially for 
our enlisted personnel in the military. When we changed the philosophy 
on how we were to maintain our military forces, when we went to an all-
military Army, Navy, and Marine force, we made a covenant with those 
people that if they are volunteering and they make this a career, we 
are going to provide some kind of quality of life. I think this is the 
first time that we have made an investment this large in the 
infrastructure for the quality of life for our enlisted people.
  I was shocked when visiting some of the bases that we actually have 
people who are living off base, who have to go to lease a house, or 
rent a house, or even purchase a house. This has caused them to qualify 
for food stamps. I do not think this is very good when we ask those 
people to stand in harm's way for this country and to represent us in 
some areas where maybe some of us would refuse to go.
  I am very much aware that for the first time we have changed the 
thrust of military construction.
  Then let us look at another end of it. In the base closing and the 
realignment, we are trying to move some of the facilities that we have 
closed into private hands, to dispose of that property. But due to some 
environmental laws, like third-party liability, those properties are 
not worth anything until we clean those properties up. And that is 
where the big expense is coming in with base realignment. We have 
chosen to close military facilities to save money. We are having to 
shift some funds over into BRAC in order to close those facilities and 
make them available to either private sales or to be used for some 
other part of Government operations.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from Montana if 
he would yield for a question?
  Mr. BURNS. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I want to be sure there was understanding between us. 
Our amendment does not cut any of the funds that are being appropriated 
to carry out the BRAC recommendations, either the previous BRAC 
recommendations or these BRAC recommendations. They are strictly add-
ons in other areas and not in BRAC.
  Mr. BURNS. I would respond to the Senator and say this: Because we 
had to use up so much money in that, we had to have money for the Guard 
and Reserves. The President's request had very little for the support 
of our Guard and Reserves and facilities around the country outside of 
the normal activity of our military because so much of the original 
request is taken up by base closure and realignment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me ask one additional question of my 
colleague. He understands also that our amendment does not interfere 
with the appropriation of $474 million in add-ons which would totally 
satisfy the Guard money or Reserve money add-ons, as I understand it. 
What we are saying is that above and beyond, if the Appropriations 
Committee chose to give that a priority, there would be funding to do 
all the Guard and Reserves. It is just a question of whether or not we 
are going to add $300 million more to that.
  So I want to be sure that was clear, Mr. President.
  Mr. BURNS. I appreciate the concerns of the Senator from New Mexico, 
but the shift of trying to direct our dollars into quality of life 
caused some of that in some areas.
  So with that, I really believe that there is as much fairness and 
thrust in this bill as we could possibly have and still complete the 
mission of military construction.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Arizona. 

[[Page S10453]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Burns and Senator 
Reid for a very fine piece of legislation. I would like to talk about 
some of the details of it. But the issue before us is the Bingaman 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I support the Bingaman amendment. I want to just point 
out one simple fact. If you asked the military leadership in this 
country what their priorities are, ``If you had $300 million, what 
would you do with that money,'' I promise you, Mr. President, that 
military construction would be somewhere around seventh or eighth on 
their priority list. And the fact is that we add money for military 
construction because it helps us as Members of the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. President, if I had $300 million in addition, I would take it and 
modernize the force, I would provide more steaming hours and flying 
hours, and I would try to reduce the backlog of depot maintenance, 
which in some cases is 3 or 4 years. There are myriad uses that I could 
find for this money before military construction, and the military 
leadership in this country will tell you the same thing. If they had 
requested $300 million in addition, it is nowhere to be found.
  So, Mr. President, the point is that it is not that these are not 
good and worthwhile projects that the committee has earmarked for. In 
fact, they meet the criteria. And I want to congratulate Senator Burns 
and Senator Reid for adhering to the criteria that we have laid down in 
the authorizing committee and now has been adopted by the appropriating 
committee. It is not that they are not good projects. It is all a 
matter of priority as to where we spend the taxpayer dollars.
  The Bingaman amendment, in my view, Mr. President, has nothing to do 
with the quality of the projects for which these moneys are being 
spent. It all has to do with the priorities of where we spend taxpayer 
dollars that are earmarked for defense.
  This bill is $300 million more than that requested by the President 
of the United States and requested by the Pentagon.
  Mr. President, the issue is very much more complicated than that. I 
want to say again that Senator Burns, Senator Reid, and the 
subcommittee have come up with a good bill. They made progress over the 
last year, and begin to limit add-ons of unrequested military 
construction projects.
  Last year, the Congress added over $1 billion for specific 
unrequested military construction projects. This bill, although I 
believe it is too high in total, adds only about half of that amount.
  I am particularly pleased that the committee apparently, as I 
mentioned, adhered to the stringent criteria adopted in last year's 
Defense authorization bill. And there are many laudable provisions in 
the bill, including approval of the new family housing initiative; 
increased emphasis on environmental restoration funding for the BRAC 
accounts; no funding for the requested Army museum; they deleted land 
transfer language which was contained in the House bill; authorization 
for the Services to use barracks construction funding for renovation, 
if that would be a less costly alternative; and a specific requirement 
that all projects must be specifically authorized, since the bill 
contains projects which are not in the Senate version of the 
authorization bill.
  Finally, I am particularly pleased that the Appropriations Committee 
chose to give more visibility to the ongoing efforts to renovate the 
Pentagon complex.
  There are two areas where I am very disappointed in the 
recommendations of the Appropriations Committee. First, the $300 
million add-on--and, as I repeat, I have not heard from one of the 
military service chiefs that military construction is their highest 
priority. And it is about time, I say to my colleagues, that we listen 
to the military as to their priority rather than our own.
  Mr. President, at the full committee markup, an amendment was offered 
to add another $250 million in unrequested projects to the military 
construction budget above the request and above the subcommittee's 
mark. I argued against the amendment at the time because I believed 
that these additional funds would be better used for higher priority 
requirements of our military service chiefs or to meet the must-pay 
bills for ongoing contingency operations. Secretary Perry requested $1 
billion in order to pay for ongoing contingencies which will not be 
canceled in the upcoming year. We authorized $125 million, not the $1 
billion. That is one area where these additional add-ons could have 
gone.
  Ultimately, the Armed Services Committee chose to authorize half that 
amount, an additional $125 million of the total of $7 billion added to 
the budget request for military construction above the total amount 
requested in these accounts. While all of these additional projects 
also met the established criteria, I continue to believe unrequested 
military construction projects should not be funded while validated 
military requirements go unfunded.
  I will work very hard during floor consideration and conference with 
the House National Security Committee to limit the total amount of add-
ons to not more than the level recommended by the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. Therefore, I urge the appropriators to make those reductions 
in the bill today in the form of the Bingaman amendment.
  Mr. President, the bill language directs the Department of Defense to 
include funding in 1997 budget requests for three specific projects:
  A new national range control center at White Sands missile range in 
New Mexico; a child development and galley facility at Fallon Naval Air 
Station in Nevada; and a new construction project at Fort Lawton, WA.
  Mr. President, we do not need to do those kinds of things. Let us let 
the Pentagon make the recommendations themselves.
  Mr. President, during this first year using the evaluation criteria 
for Member add-ons which was adopted last year, I have discovered an 
oversight which I hope to correct for next year's budget review. I 
intend to add to the established criteria a requirement that requests 
for add-ons be screened for priority against the relevant service's 
unfunded military construction priorities.
  For this year's bills, I have asked my staff to work with the 
military services to verify that each of the unrequested military 
construction projects added by Congress are the next highest priority 
projects for the services. I also believe it would be useful for the 
Department of Defense to do their part and temporarily withhold 
obligation of funds for unrequested military construction projects 
which are determined to be low priority. I am preparing a letter to the 
Secretary of Defense suggesting that he request congressional approval 
to transfer any funds appropriated for low-priority projects to higher 
priority military construction projects.
  Mr. President, the good news is that the total amount of military 
construction add-ons this year will be significantly less than the $1 
billion added last year. In just 1 year that is significant progress. 
The bad news is that when additional funds are available for defense, 
it is difficult to argue successfully that none of these additional 
funds should be spent for military construction projects. But even with 
the additional defense funding, must-pay bills and high-priority 
military requirements go unfunded. We still have a long way to go in 
the fight to eliminate unnecessary spending from the military 
construction bill.
  I wish to congratulate Senator Burns for a good bill and the fine 
work that he and his staff and Senator Reid and his staff have done. We 
do not need the $300 million in addition.
  If the Bingaman amendment fails, then, Mr. President, I will be 
compelled to vote against the bill.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote for the Bingaman amendment.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Senator from Arizona has 1 
minute 20 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time to 
Senator Bingaman.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana.
  
[[Page S10454]]

  Mr. BURNS. I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to compliment Senator Burns and 
Senator Reid for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. 
They have done a good job.
  In large part this military construction appropriations bill mirrors 
the construction priorities and criteria for projects established by 
the Armed Services Committee. I am particularly pleased by the emphasis 
placed on projects that will enhance the quality of life of the men and 
women in our military and on projects which will enhance the readiness 
of our Armed Forces. The bill also fully funds the base closure account 
request and provides the necessary funds to support environmental 
compliance projects. Both are areas which have historically been used 
as sources of funds for other projects.
  Mr. President, I believe this is a sound bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Because I believe this is a good bill, I oppose the Bingaman-McCain 
amendment.
  There should no longer be any doubt that the administration's 
proposed defense budget is underfunded. Although Secretary Perry 
increased funding for quality of life construction projects over the 
next 6 years by $2.7 billion, there are very serious shortfalls in the 
Department's military construction programs. Let me identify just a few 
of the most startling:
  According to the Congressional Research Service the current backlog 
of deferred maintenance and repair for family housing alone totals over 
$2 billion; Air Force Housing units do not measure up to contemporary 
standards; 75 percent of the Army's family housing does not adequately 
meet Department of Defense Standards; 80 to 85 percent of the Army 
barracks do not meet current Department of Defense Standards; the 
Navy's current funding requirement for revitalization of family housing 
is $1.7 billion; and, at current funding levels it would take over 40 
years to eliminate the space and revitalization backlog for Navy and 
Marine Corps housing.
  Mr. President, in addition to these startling figures, there are 
requirements for new mission facilities that are not being addressed in 
the administration's budget request. There are both active and reserve 
units which have been assigned new missions or new equipment but have 
not been provided the facilities to accomplish their new missions or 
support that equipment. This military construction appropriations bill 
provides for some of those shortfalls.
  Because there are always allegations that some of the projects in the 
bill may be wasteful, I had my staff review each project. They reported 
that to the best of their knowledge each project that is in this bill 
but not in the Armed Service Committee's bill meets the same rigorous 
criteria that Senator McCain and Senator Glenn, the chairman and 
ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee, impose on projects 
included in the Armed Services Committee's bill.
  Mr. President, some of my colleagues may not appreciate the 
additional funding and construction projects included in this bill. 
However, I am confident that the men and women of our armed services 
and their families who will benefit from these projects will be most 
appreciative.
  I ask my colleagues to support the bill and vote against the 
Bingaman-McCain amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair and I thank the managers of the bill for 
giving me this opportunity.
  I rise as a Senator from Missouri and, as important, as cochairman of 
the National Guard Caucus to register strong objections to this 
amendment. I appreciate very much the thoughtful comments of the 
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I think his 
report on the review done by his staff on these projects should allay 
any fears that any of our colleagues may have about the projects in 
this bill.
  As has already been noted, the Senate this year was again forced by 
the administration to make sure that defense infrastructure would be 
adequately funded. Active force infrastructure has traditionally been 
adequately funded, or at least better funded, whereas the National 
Guard forces traditionally have been underfunded. Why has it been this 
way, many have asked? The answer which is whispered through the halls 
of this building is that the Department of Defense relies on 
Congressmen and Senators to take care of the Guard. It is no accident 
that most of the people in the Pentagon are active military, and they 
realize that if they take care of their needs, they hope those of us 
who live in the real world will take care of our citizen soldiers. We 
have done so before. We are trying to do so now and we will in the 
future, because most of us--I think a significant majority of this 
body--care about the welfare and the readiness of the National Guard 
and the Air National Guard even if there are some who do not.
  Now, this year the administration proposal funded the Army Guard 
infrastructure to the tune of $18 million--$18 million for the entire 
Army Guard infrastructure for all 50 States and Puerto Rico;
 $18 million for the entire Army Guard as against $473 million for the 
Army, which in and of itself was shortchanged by some $38 million by 
the administration.

  If the Senators respect our citizen soldiers and the vitally 
important missions that they provide in our States, as well as in 
support of our national defense mission, then they must rectify this 
shoddy treatment of those who protect us.
  My colleague from Montana, the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, and his ranking member, the Senator from Nevada, have 
done just that. They have done it with strict adherence to the rigorous 
set of standards for the necessary quality of life and readiness 
projects included in the mark of the bill that came out of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  The Air National Guard received $85 million, approximately half of 
the funding required for much-needed projects.
  Let me state that in my State of Missouri, for instance, we had 
sought money, and this bill provides money, to improve sewer systems in 
order to ensure that our disaster relief headquarters, located at an 
Air National Guard facility, can be utilized during flood disasters. Do 
the sponsors of the amendment want to deny the citizens of Missouri 
adequate protection?
  I found with great interest, as I looked on page 45 of this bill, 
that the State of New Mexico has this same kind of project. It happens 
to be that the storm drainage system and other storm drainage system 
provisions, two different provisions for New Mexico, are included 
because they happen to be at active bases.
  I do not believe that our needs for disaster relief protection and 
services are any less because they happen to be at an Air National 
Guard facility rather than an active base.
  The distinguished chairman of this committee considered each of the 
programs added to this military construction bill for the practicality 
of it being executed in fiscal year 1996, assured it was the highest 
priority for the base commanders and the National Guard tags, site 
availability, its inclusion in the FYDP and its overall quality of life 
and readiness importance. These are critically important projects, and 
I am very pleased that the managers of the bill decided to include 
these measures in this appropriations measure.
  If any of my colleagues are thinking about voting for this amendment, 
let me assure you, it is to turn your back on our National Guard 
personnel. Currently, this is the only place we have to maintain the 
infrastructure readiness and the quality of life necessary to make sure 
our National Guard can function in its civil and national defense 
mission. We are trying to get the administration to acknowledge the 
Guard's requirements, but let us not hamstring our Guard for the 
administration's shortsightedness. 

[[Page S10455]]

  I urge my colleagues to support the managers of the bill and to 
defeat this amendment.
  I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment to 
reduce funding in the military construction appropriation bill by $300 
million.
  The committee used stringent criteria for producing this bill. As I 
understand them, projects were selected if they met one of the 
following minimum criteria.
  The project is included in the Defense Department's future year's 
defense plan; the project can be executed in fiscal year 1996; the 
project is authorized in fiscal year 1996; or the project is the 
highest priority for the base.
  Mr. President, I think these criteria are reasonable and I believe 
the subcommittee has done an excellent job in producing this bill.
  The 1996 budget resolution provided an additional $7 billion in 
budget authority and $2 billion in outlays above what the President 
requested.
  These additional funds can only be used for defense activities.
  Certainly some of these funds should be used to adequately fund 
military construction and family housing projects which are key to 
readiness and quality of life for military personnel--and this is 
exactly what the Appropriations Committee did.
  I urge my fellow Senators to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time at 
10:20 be extended for 5 minutes; that the proponents of the bill have 5 
minutes and those opposing the bill have 5 minutes and that will close 
debate. We will yield back the rest of that time.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on or in relation to the 
Bingaman amendment No. 1834 immediately following the stacked votes 
relating to the rescissions bill, which will begin at approximately 11 
a.m. this morning.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Reserving the right to object, I just want to be sure I 
will get the opportunity to sum up and make the case for my amendment 
last.
  Mr. REID. That is appropriate.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think the last two statements have told it 
all. I do not think anyone would consider the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, the senior Senator from South Carolina, a big 
spender. I do not know of anyone in the history of the U.S. Senate that 
has had more of a reputation for watching where the pennies go than the 
Senator from South Carolina, and he has stated that this amendment 
should be resoundingly defeated.
  We also have heard from the chairman of the National Guard Caucus 
and, in effect, he has also said that the Pentagon tends to protect its 
own and they do not really consider their own the National Guard and 
the Reserve component of the military. They would rather use the money 
on their own and, therefore, traditionally what they do is nothing 
regarding the Guard and Reserve. We for many years have had to be the 
spokesperson for the Guard and Reserve. That is not the way it should 
be, but that is the way it is. The Guard and Reserve deserve more than 
what this administration and what the Pentagon has given them in this 
budget and budgets gone by.
  Mr. President, this add-on, as we call it, is not for anything that 
is lavish. What we are saying is that we believe that family housing is 
important. Family housing is important. We have people living in homes 
with their families, homes over 50 years old, built during the Second 
World War and built to last during that war. The war is long since gone 
and people are still living in those homes.
  As the chairman of the subcommittee has announced, there are 
facilities in the United States where people cannot live on base. They 
are living off base. Because it costs so much money, they have to draw 
food stamps, even though they are part of the U.S. military. That is 
wrong.
  We also are concerned in this bill about single soldier barracks. We 
think they deserve more. Facilities were constructed very rapidly 
during the Second World War and were to last through the war, and now 
50 years later, soldiers are living in the same places. They deserve 
more.
  We have been very frugal as it relates to officers housing. There 
were numerous requests for housing for general officers that we did not 
honor. We went and looked at family housing and single soldier 
barracks.
  These add-ons are not a budget buster. All Members should understand, 
we are not busting any budget. We are totally within our 602(b) 
allocation, but we felt our Guard and Reserve deserve more than what 
they were given by the Pentagon and by this administration.
  The committee evaluates rather than the Pentagon. It is as simple as 
that. That is not the way it should be, but, Mr. President, that is the 
way it is. The budget requested by the Department of Defense has, once 
again, in past years neglected to address the military construction 
needs of the National Guard, both Army and Air.
  I say to the senior Senator from Arizona, there are lots of other 
places these moneys could be spent, but this is a Military Construction 
Subcommittee budget and that is where we are obligated to spend the 
money, not on giving the Navy more days to practice their specialities 
in the water, doing all the things that the Senator from Arizona 
indicated should be done. We recognize there is a lot more need in the 
military, but in the Military Construction Subcommittee, we have put 
the money where it should best be spent. I have not heard anyone say 
these projects are not worthwhile. They are needed.
  The administration requested only $182 million for the Guard and 
Reserve, compared--listen to this--to $574 million appropriated last 
year. This year's recommendation is 20 percent less than last year, 
$452 million.
  Also included in this bill, as I have indicated and as has been 
spoken by the Senator from New Mexico, is a $161 million appropriation 
to begin renovation of the Pentagon.
 That, too, was put up earlier as part of the history of this country. 
It is badly in need of repair, and we are beginning that. That is also 
a burden on this budget.

  This bill, I again indicate and emphasize, is a long-overlooked 
quality-of-life initiative, particularly in family housing and 
barracks. These initiatives make up nearly one-third of the total 
military construction markup.
  We should be given some credit for that, Mr. President. These are not 
programs that are wasteful. The chairman of the full committee, the 
Armed Services Committee, has come here and said this is important. We 
must do a better job for the people that are defending our country. 
During times of crisis, the Guard and Reserve are called upon, and in 
the future, with the cutbacks we have had, they will be called upon 
even more. We must recognize that it is necessary to fund this bill as 
outlined.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises that the manager's time has 
expired.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, am I correct that there is an additional 
5 minutes reserved for me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me make the obvious point here that 
this is not a question of whether people support the military, or the 
National Guard, or family housing, or money for base realignment and 
closure. The President, in the budget sent to this Congress, asked for 
an increase of just about 20 percent in military construction from last 
year for military construction and family housing both.
  There is a request for $605 million--an additional $605 million--for 
family housing, above what we had last year. There is over $1.2 billion 
in additional funding to carry out base realignment and closure.
  The amendment that I am offering in no way interferes with any of 
that 

[[Page S10456]]
funding. The amendment that I am offering says that, in addition to 
what the President requested, the subcommittee can add $474 million of 
add-ons. But they should not be able to go above that. It should not be 
$774 million of add-ons. That is all I am saying. Let us keep the 
amount spent in this area within the confines of what the 
administration requested.
  Mr. President, we have two standards in this Senate and in this 
Congress. It is one standard when it is military spending and a totally 
different standard when it is domestic spending. You are seeing a very 
good example of it in the arguments being made around here right now.
  Deficit reduction was a big issue in this Senate last month. I 
remember lots of speeches last month, the month before that, and the 
month before that, about how we have to make tough decisions. The time 
has come, and business as usual cannot continue. The American people 
want some change; they do not want excessive spending in these areas. 
Well, that is what this amendment is about.
  All this talk about the National Guard--all of the requests for the 
National Guard that are being funded could be funded in the $474 
million of add-ons that we are not in any way interfering with. The 
family housing--the $605 million there--we are not interfering with 
that. The simple fact is, Mr. President, the additional $300 million 
that is in this bill, which I am now proposing we strike, is not a 
priority for the military; it is not a priority for the country.
  The Senate needs to go on record about whether we are serious about 
deficit reduction. We are very good at giving speeches, going home and 
saying, boy, we are really doing the right thing, and we are making the 
tough decisions. This is not that tough a decision, Mr. President. This 
is $300 million that the military says is not a priority. There is no 
reason why we need to be going ahead and spending it. That is the 
simple issue.
  I believe the taxpayers of this country would support our amendment 
to delete this $300 million and have it available for a higher 
priority--military use, or have it able for some domestic use, which 
would be a higher priority--or apply it to deficit reduction, which is 
what the amendment calls for. It essentially says let us not spend that 
$300 million which is not a priority.
  So that is the amendment. I hope very much the Senate will support 
it. I think the people send us here to Congress to make tough decisions 
about what our priorities are. If deficit reduction is a priority, 
people ought to vote for this amendment.
  I appreciate the chance to explain the amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, one-third of this BRAC is living 
conditions, and the rest of it is for readiness. We must never forget 
about that. By a previous order, this vote will come in the stack with 
the rescissions votes.
  I move that this amendment be tabled, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, how many 
votes are being stacked?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from West 
Virginia that according to this agreement, there would be four.
  Mr. BYRD. Would there be an explanation of the vote just prior to 
taking that vote?
  Mr. BURNS. I say to my friend from West Virginia, that has not been 
established. But I have no problem with that. Do we need a minute on 
each side?
  Mr. BYRD. Four minutes equally divided, how about that?
  Mr. BURNS. I have no problem with that.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________