[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 127 (Wednesday, August 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11185-S11190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin holds the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Wisconsin to withhold.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield without losing my right to the floor.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Debbie Allen, a 
congressional fellow assigned to my office, be assigned privilege of 
the floor during pendency of the legislation now before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2082

  (Purpose: Sense-of-the-Senate resolution regarding Federal spending)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. 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 Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2082.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. 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:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FEDERAL SPENDING.

       It is the sense of the Senate that in pursuit of a balanced 
     federal budget, Congress should exercise fiscal restraint, 
     particularly in authorizing spending not requested by the 
     Executive and in proposing new programs.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 10 seconds to 
get some people on the floor?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes, I yield.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jack 
Kennedy and Floyd DesChamps, who are currently serving fellowship 
assignments on Senator McCain's staff, be granted the privilege of the 
floor during the Senate's consideration of S. 1026, the fiscal year 
1996 national defense authorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this is a simple sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment stating that Congress should exercise self-restraint in 
authorizing and appropriating funds for all Federal spending, including 
defense spending, especially in cases where the spending has not been 
requested by the applicable agency in the first place or is not 
directly related to national security needs.
  I will just speak very briefly, because I understand the managers 
intend to accept this, but I do want to make a brief point about it.
  I think every Member of this body is aware of the problem this sense-
of-the Senate is intended to address. Congress passed a budget 
resolution a short time ago that called for increased defense spending 
over the next few years of more than $58 million. We ought to 
understand that just because there is room in the budget resolution to 
spend that extra money, it does not mean that Congress has to or is 
forced to spend it on projects that are either unnecessary or not 
directly related to national security interests.
  In recent weeks, the reports, Mr. President, have been increasing. 
Media reports have documented what they have called a business-as-usual 
attitude in Washington, DC, as many of these so-called reformers have 
gotten in line not to decrease but to add defense spending for weapons 
systems that our military people have not even asked for. Why? Because 
the weapons systems are built in their districts or their home States. 
That is the simple answer.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the 
Monday, July 31, Washington Post, entitled ``Extra Pentagon Funds 
Benefit Senators' States,'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the articles was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, July 31, 1995]

             Extra Pentagon Funds Benefit Senators' States

                            (By Dana Priest)

       While Republicans talk about a revolution in the way 
     government spends taxpayer money, in at least one area, 
     according to a new study, the GOP is now the keeper of a 
     decades-old bipartisan tradition: funneling Defense 
     Department dollars to businesses back home.
       Of the $5 billion in weapons spending that the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee added on to President Clinton's budget 
     request, 81 percent would go to states represented by 
     senators who sit on the committee or on the Appropriations 
     defense subcommittee.
       This includes $1.4 billion for an amphibious assault ship 
     built by Ingalls Shipbuilding, a huge employer in Sen. Trent 
     Lott's state of Mississippi and partial funding of $650 
     million for two Aegis destroyers built by Ingalls and Bath 
     Iron Works in Sen. William S. Cohen's state of Maine. 
     Republicans Lott 

[[Page S11186]]
     and Cohen are members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Cohen 
     chairs its seapower subcommittee, nicknamed the 
     ``shipbuilders subcommittee,'' which decides the fate of most 
     sea-related military equipment.
       Defense officials admit they do not need either ship to be 
     ready to fight two wars nearly simultaneously, which is the 
     standard set for all branches of the military by the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff. But, said a senior defense official, ``If I 
     don't get some of these ships, I'm going to have to keep some 
     older ships in the fleet.''
       The ships are just the most expensive examples of 
     congressional add-ons to the $258 billion presidential budget 
     request, which all the Republican chairman of House and 
     Senate defense-related committees believe is too low. The 
     Senate Armed Services Committee added about $7 billion to 
     Clinton's request. The House added nearly $10 billion. The 
     full Senate is to take up the defense spending bill in 
     August.
       Of the 44 military construction projects that the Senate 
     Armed Services Committee added to the defense budget, 32 of 
     them--and 73 percent of the $345.8 million in add-ons--went 
     to states represented by senators on one of the two defense 
     committees, according to the same study. The study is a 
     culling of the defense bill programs compiled by the Council 
     for a Livable World, a Washington-based organization that 
     advocates decreased defense spending.
       ``They have added [these programs] not for national 
     security reasons, but to help members of Congress,'' said 
     Council President John Isaacs. ``It is absolutely business as 
     usual. This is a practice as common among Republicans as 
     Democrats. Changes of parties, changes of ideology don't 
     matter.''
       Technically, the Defense Department is supposed to 
     wholeheartedly support the president's budget request. But 
     when the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate defense 
     committees asked the services this year to come up with a 
     wish list if they had more money, not one balked.
       That is the one reason, defense officials said, they did 
     not want to be named in this article, or even identified as 
     Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine.
       Many items at the top of the services' wish list showed up 
     on the Senate committee's list. Among them: 12 extra F-18 
     Hornet fighter jets for $564 million, built in the states of 
     Sens. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) of the Appropriations 
     subcommittee on Defense and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) of 
     the Armed Services Committee; 20 extra Kiowa Warrior 
     helicopters for the Army, built by companies in states of 
     Armed Services Committee members Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-
     Tex.) and Dan Coats (R-Ind.). Sen. Phil Gramm (R), the other 
     senator from Texas, is on the Appropriations defense 
     subcommittee.
       ``To be very honest, yes, Senator Coats certainly is very 
     concerned when there are Indiana companies that have a tie-
     in--that is a consideration,'' said Coats's press secretary, 
     Tim Goeglein. ``But if Senator Coats feels that is money the 
     Armed Services Committee should not be budgeting, he would 
     not support it.'' A spokeswoman for Cohen's office sent a 
     copy of the committee's bill to explain why Cohen had voted 
     to spend more money than requested. It says the committee 
     believes ``the procurement of basic weapons and items of 
     equipment has been neglected during the decline in defense 
     spending'' and that it would be cheaper to order more now 
     than wait until a time when production costs could be higher.
       Kennedy was not the only Democrat who benefited in the 
     committee bill. The committee decided to buy three CH-53 
     Super Stallion helicopters for the Marines at a cost of $90 
     million. They are produced by General Electric Co. in 
     Massachusetts and United Technologies Corp. in Democratic 
     committee member Joseph I. Lieberman's state, Connecticut.
       Kennedy did not support adding money to the president's 
     request, said a spokesman for the Massachusetts senator, but 
     when he realized Republicans were going to do it anyway, ``he 
     wanted to see the money spent as best as possible.'' He said 
     Kennedy believes the helicopters will help the Marines 
     improve their countermine warfare efforts.
       ``All politics is local,'' one defense official said. ``If 
     I'm a defense contractor I'm going to do everything I can to 
     locate in a powerful chairman's district because I have 
     immediate access. Jobs are important on the Hill.''

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am not suggesting that we should only fund weapons 
systems requested by the Pentagon, or that because the Pentagon has 
asked for something, that Congress should automatically vote to provide 
them with their wish list.
  What I am saying is that when Members of Congress start adding things 
to the Department of Defense spending list, we ought to give extra 
special scrutiny to those items that the administration never even 
requested.
  I think we ought to be looking carefully to make sure those 
additional items, in fact, are related to national security needs, not 
just a source of jobs back home. There are better ways to provide those 
jobs than building new weapons that we do not need, are not wanted by 
the military, and further drain our National Treasury.
  Mr. President, my sense of the Senate is simply intended to make a 
commonsense statement. We do not have to spend it all just because the 
budget allows it. Let us apply some fiscal discipline and restraint in 
all budget areas, including the Department of Defense.
  I do hope the amendment will be accepted, as has been indicated to me 
previously. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we will accept the amendment on this 
side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the amendment makes sense. I urge our 
colleagues to accept it on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2082) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 2083

 (Purpose: To prohibit a waiver of the time-in-grade requirement for a 
  retirement in grade of an officer who is under investigation or is 
   pending disposition of an adverse personnel action for misconduct)

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my amendment, I do not think, will be 
controversial. I hope it has been cleared on both sides. I believe it 
has. My amendment will modify section 505 of the bill.
  Section 505 of the bill streamlines the procedure for retiring our 
most senior military officers. That means admirals and generals who 
hold three- or four-star rank. Under current law, the President must 
nominate the most senior officers for retirement, which involves 
senatorial confirmation under existing law. If a three-star or four-
star officer is not nominated or not confirmed under current law, that 
individual then, as we all know, reverts to his or her permanent grade, 
which, obviously, is lower.
  For a three-star general, as an example, this could mean retirement 
with a two-star, or even a one-star grade, I believe. I hope I 
understand it well. section 505 would eliminate Senate confirmation. 
That means section 505 of this bill would do away with Senate 
confirmation of three-star and four-star officers who are retiring.
  When Senator Hutchison and Senator Nunn, and others, first introduced 
this measure, it was introduced as S. 635 and introduced on March 28 of 
this year. At that time, I very much opposed the idea, and I joined 
Senator Boxer and Senator Murray in signing a letter to the committee 
on May 11 of this year expressing opposition to the bill by Senators 
Hutchison and Nunn. We felt that S. 635 would undermine congressional 
oversight, that it would undermine civilian control of the military, 
and would undermine accountability.
  Our most senior military officers, we felt--because they are 
entrusted with tremendous power and responsibility--ought to, in all 
instances, be proven to do that. So, for that reason, and that reason 
alone, we feel that they must be held to the very highest possible 
standards.
  Well, section 505 of this bill is not much different from the 
original S. 635. The language has not changed much, but I can say that 
we have changed as we viewed the intent of the Nunn-Hutchison bill.
  Our initial reaction to S. 635 was tempered by several very difficult 
and controversial retirement nominations last year. Remember Admiral 
Kelso, Gen. Buster Glosson, General Barry, Admiral Mauz. We thought 
that we had good reason to question those nominations for retirement. 
We thought our concerns were justified. We still do.
  Well, after the Hutchison-Nunn bill was introduced, I asked the 
American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service to assess 
all of the bill's implications. Mr. Bob Burdette, legislative attorney 
with the division, was kind enough to prepare a very thoughtful and 
helpful analysis of the proposed changes to the law, as suggested by 
our colleagues. Mr. Burdette's report helped to lay most of my concerns 
to rest.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that report printed in the Record at 
this point.

[[Page S11187]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Congressional Research Service,


                                          Library of Congress,

                                  Washington, DC, July 20, 1995.  
     To: Hon. Charles E. Grassley. Attention: Charlie Murphy.
     From: American Law Division.
     Subject: The Legal Effect of Enacting Section 505 Of S. 1026, 
         104th Cong., 1st Sess., Respecting Retirements of 
         Commissioned Officers Who Have Served At Grades O-9 and 
         O-10.
       This memorandum explains the legal effect of enacting 
     Section 505 of S. 1026, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995). This 
     section of the proposed legislation would make four changes 
     in the provision presently codified at 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1370. 
     By way of ``conforming amendments,'' this section would also 
     repeal provisions presently codified at 10 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 3962(a), 5034, and 8962(a).
       The proposed legislation would not amend paragraph (1) of 
     subsection (a) of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1370. That is, regardless of 
     whether the proposed legislation is enacted, this paragraph 
     will still specify a general rule that a commissioned officer 
     of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine corps shall, except 
     as provided in paragraph (2) of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1370(a), be 
     retired in the highest grade in which he served on active 
     duty satisfactorily for at least six months.


                     section 505(a)(1) of the bill

       The first change, which would be made by section 505(a)(1) 
     of the bill, is substantive in nature. It would strike out 
     the words ``and below lieutenant general or vice admiral'' 
     which presently appear at 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1370(a)(2)(A). With 
     such words excised from subparagraph (A) of Sec. 1370(a)(2), 
     that subparagraph would read, as follows:
       In order to be eligible for voluntary retirement under any 
     provision of this title in a grade above major or lieutenant 
     commander [...], a commissioned officer of the Army, Navy, 
     Air Force, or Marine Corps must have served on active duty in 
     that grade for not less than three years, except that the 
     Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a 
     military department to reduce such period to a period not 
     less than two years in the case of retirements effective 
     during the nine-year period beginning on October 1, 1990.
       As a consequence of the excision, commissioned officers 
     serving, or who have served, at the grades of O-9 and O-10 
     would be eligible to retire at such grades only after serving 
     at them for at least either three years or, if authorized by 
     both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the 
     military department concerned, as little as two years in the 
     case of retirements occurring during the specified nine-year 
     window.
       Subparagraph (B) of Sec. 1370(a)(2) would not be amended by 
     the proposal. Hence, it would still confer none-delegable 
     authority on the President to ``waive subparagraph (A)'' in 
     individual cases involving either extreme hardship or 
     exceptional or unusual circumstances. In other words, a 
     relevant presidential waiver made under the conditions 
     specified could render a particular commissioned officer 
     above the grade of O-4 (albeit now including officers 
     serving, or who have served, at the grades of O-9 and O-10) 
     eligible to retire at the highest grade at which that officer 
     had served without regard to the length of time he had served 
     at that highest grade.


                     section 505(a)(2) of the bill

       The second change, which would be made by section 505(a)(2) 
     of the bill, is likewise substantive in nature. It would 
     strike out the words ``and below lieutenant general or vice 
     admiral'' which presently appear at 10 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1370(d)(2)(B). Subsection (d) of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1370 
     relates generally to retirements of reserve officers under 
     chapter 1225 of Title 10. Paragraph (1) of 10 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1370(d) specifies that a person entitled to retired pay 
     under chapter 1225 is to be credited with satisfactory 
     service in the highest grade in which that person served 
     satisfactorily at any time. With the relevant words excised 
     from subparagraph (B) of Sec. 1370(d)(2) as indicated in the 
     proposed legislation, that subparagraph would read, as 
     follows:
       In order to be credited with satisfactory service in an 
     officer grade above major or lieutenant commander [...], a 
     person covered by paragraph (1) must have served 
     satisfactorily in that grade (as determined by the Secretary 
     of the military department concerned) as a reserve 
     commissioned officer in an active status, or in a retired 
     status on active duty, for not less than three years. A 
     person covered by the preceding sentence who has completed at 
     least six months of satisfactory service in grade and is 
     transferred from an active status or is discharged as a 
     reserve commissioned officer solely due to the requirements 
     of a nondiscretionary provision of law requiring that 
     transfer or discharge due to the person's age or years of 
     service may be credited with satisfactory service in the 
     grade in which serving at the time of such transfer or 
     discharge, notwithstanding failure of the person to complete 
     three years of service in that grade.
       As a consequence of the excision, reserve commissioned 
     officers serving, or who have served, at the grades of O-9 
     and O-10 would be eligible to retire at such
      grades only after serving at them for at least either three 
     years or, in the specified circumstances, as little as six 
     months.
       It might be pointed out that no authority is presently (or, 
     under the proposed legislation, would be) conferred on the 
     President to ``waive subparagraph (A)'' in individual cases 
     involving either extreme hardship or exceptional or unusual 
     circumstances. Thus, eligibility for high-grade retirement 
     presently does (and under the proposed legislation would 
     continue to) differ as between regular and reserve officers.


                     section 505(b)(1) of the bill

       The third change, which would be made by section 505(b)(1) 
     of the bill, is nonsubstantive. It would amend subsection (c) 
     of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1370 by replacing certain words with 
     certain other words. That is, the words ``Upon retirement an 
     officer'' would be stricken out and replaced by the words 
     ``An officer.'' All this amendment does is simply remove 
     excess verbiage.


                     section 505(b)(2) of the bill

       The fourth change, which would be made by section 505(b)(1) 
     of the bill, is substantive in nature. It would amend 
     subsection (c) of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1370 by striking out the 
     words ``may, in the discretion'' and all that follows and 
     replacing them with certain other words. This amendment would 
     alter the thrust of the subsection entirely. At present, 
     subsection (c) is the provision which allows officers serving 
     at grades O-9 and O-10 while on active to duty to be retired 
     at those grades, at the discretion of the President and 
     subject to Senate confirmation. The proposed amendment would 
     change the subsection, as already amended by section 
     505(b)(1) of the bill, to read, as follows:
       ``An officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps 
     who is serving in or has served in a position of importance 
     and responsibility designated by the President to carry the 
     grade of general or admiral or lieutenant general or vice 
     admiral under section 601 of this title may be retired in the 
     higher grade under subsection (a) only after the Secretary of 
     Defense certifies in writing to the President and the Senate 
     that the officer served on active duty satisfactorily in that 
     grade.''
       One obvious effect of this change would be to eliminate the 
     requirement of Senate confirmation for officers retiring at 
     grades O-9 and O-10. Another effect of this change is less 
     obvious.
       As noted at the outset of this memorandum, paragraph (1) of 
     subsection (a) of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1370 presently specifies a 
     general rule that a commissioned officer of the Army, Navy, 
     Air Force, or Marine Corps shall be retired in the highest 
     grade in which he served on active duty satisfactorily for at 
     least six months. The language setting out that general rule 
     is preceded by the caveat ``[u]nless entitled to a higher 
     retired grade under some other provision of law.'' The words 
     ``higher grade'' used in this caveat are not used anywhere 
     else in subsection (a). Consequently, when the new language 
     that would be added to subsection (c) of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1370 
     refers to ``the higher grade under subsection (a),'' it 
     clearly implies that there may be instances in which officers 
     who would not otherwise be entitled to retire at higher 
     grades under the terms of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1370 (e.g., because 
     they have not served long enough at those higher grades) 
     could under some unspecified ``other provision of law'' be 
     entitled to retire at those higher grades so long as the 
     Secretary of Defense ``certified'' served satisfactorily for 
     an unspecified period of time in the grade concerned and 
     supplied such certification to the President and to ``the 
     Senate.'' The transmittal of such a certification to ``the 
     Senate'' is of unknown significance.
                                               Robert B. Burdette,
                                           Legislative Attorney.  

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is very hard to argue with the 
fairness and the justice embodied in Section 505 of the bill. Under 
Section 505, the retirement of three-star and four-star officers will 
be considered under the same standards and under the same procedures as 
the retirement of one-star and two-star generals. In fact, the 
retirement of all officers above the rank of major or lieutenant 
commander will be handled in the same way.
  Under the new law, then, assuming this bill is enacted, once these 
officers have served 3 years in grade, they would be allowed to retire 
with their highest grade without Senate confirmation. I cannot argue 
with that, and it seems to me that that is the right way to do it. But 
in investigating this, I came up with this concern that I hope my 
colleagues feel is legitimate.
  Under the law, the Secretary of Defense and service secretaries will 
still have broad discretionary authority to waive time in grade 
requirements. That is a potential loophole, as far as I am concerned. 
Hence my amendment.
  I would like to offer a hypothetical scenario. Say a three-star 
general, with only a few months in grade, gets caught violating a 
regulation or law. The IG is called in to investigate. The IG finds 
that the general has violated the law and lied about it to his 
investigators. The IG then recommends disciplinary action. The service 
secretaries reject the IG's recommendation, as is too often the case. 
The secretaries 

[[Page S11188]]
choose, instead, to waive time in grade requirements, allowing the 
officer to retire with full rank, as a three-star general. This would 
end the controversy, but it would give the officer an unearned 
promotion.
  Mr. President, once we do away with the confirmation of three-star 
and four-star retirements, this scenario might be more than 
hypothetical. It might be very real.
  My amendment, then, is meant to plug that loophole. Under my 
amendment, time in grade requirements could not be waived if an officer 
were under investigation for an alleged misconduct or if adverse 
personnel action was pending.
  Mr. President, this would address the concerns that we have --meaning 
Senator Murray and Senator Boxer and myself--arising out of the 
controversial retirement nominations we wrestled with last year and, 
hence, our letter to the Armed Services Committee in May of this year.
  Mr. President, with that one minor modification that will be in my 
amendment, I would support Section 505. We will still have ample 
opportunity to scrutinize the performance and conduct of our most 
senior military officers through the regular confirmation process.
  All three-star and four-star active duty promotions and assignments 
will still be subject to Senate confirmation.
  Mr. 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 Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2083.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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 159, line 3, before the end quotation marks insert 
     the following: ``The 3-year time-in-grade requirement in 
     paragraph (2)(A) of subsection (a) may not be reduced or 
     waived under such subsection in the case of such an officer 
     while the officer is under investigation for alleged 
     misconduct or while disposition of an adverse personnel 
     action is pending against the officer for alleged 
     misconduct.''.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Grassley 
amendment, which seeks to modify section 505 of this bill. Section 505, 
which is almost identical to S. 635, would eliminate Senate 
confirmation of retiring three-star and four-star officers.
  Currently, the President nominates senior officers for retirement and 
they come before the Senate for confirmation. As we all know, in recent 
years, there has been great cause for Senate involvement in the 
confirmation of retiring officers. This new section would allow 
officers who have served 3 years in grade the ability to retire with 
their highest grade without action by the Senate.
  On May 11 of this year, I joined Senators Grassley and Boxer in 
sending a letter to the Armed Services Committee outlining our concerns 
with the provisions in S. 635. At a minimum, we asked that public 
hearings be held before proceeding with this action. Obviously, my 
concerns with this section have not been alleviated.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of the 
letter sent to the Armed Services Committee be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 1995.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Armed Services,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to express our concern 
     regarding S. 635, legislation recently introduced to 
     eliminate the Senate's role in confirming the retirement 
     nominations of military officers who hold three- and four-
     star rank and who have served three years or more in grade.
       As you know, the law governing the Senate role in approving 
     the retirement nominations of three- and four-star military 
     officers was enacted in 1947 and has been amended several 
     times since. Available information on the legislative history 
     of this issue indicates that the introduction of Senate 
     confirmation of senior military officers in 1947, for 
     promotion or retirement, was principally an issue of 
     separation of powers. One of the goals of the original 
     statute, the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, was to reinforce 
     civilian control over the military and increase Congressional 
     purview over what had once been an exclusive function of the 
     Executive Branch. We believe these principles are as valid 
     today as they were in 1947.
       Perhaps even more importantly, Congress' governing power 
     and authority over the Nation's armed forces is clearly set 
     out in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Of 
     additional relevance is Article II, Section 2, which 
     describes the Advice and Consent role of the U.S. Senate with 
     regard to Presidential appointments.
       Therefore, we would like to take this opportunity to 
     outline our concerns regarding S. 635 and to respectfully 
     challenge the rationale behind its introduction.
       Upon introduction of S. 635, the argument was made that our 
     Nation's highest ranking military officers should be treated 
     like their civilian superiors and other government officials. 
     We believe that civilian comparisons are not relevant to this 
     situation. The military, and indeed the Committee, have often 
     taken the position that civilian rules and laws are not 
     appropriate when applied to the unique role and mission of 
     our Nation's armed forces. It is precisely for these reasons 
     that we have concluded that requiring our highest ranking 
     military officials to come before the Senate for their 
     retirement
      nominations provides an important safeguard for their 
     civilian leadership and the American taxpayer.
       Likewise, we disagree with the argument that standards 
     acceptable in the private sector are relevant to the 
     military. For a variety of reasons, including the involvement 
     of taxpayer funds, public service really bears no comparison 
     to private sector service when it comes to standards of 
     accountability and compensation.
       Perhaps most importantly, we are concerned with this issue 
     as it relates to leadership and command accountability in our 
     Nation's armed services. The central issue in considering 
     retirement nominations has been, and remains, that service in 
     our Nation's military, especially at the highest levels, is a 
     privilege and an honor. We continue to believe that the 
     military should be governed by the highest standards, and 
     that command accountability to those standards should in no 
     way be compromised.
       An additional argument made in support of S. 635 is that 
     this legislation will ``reduce the administrative work load 
     of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Department of 
     Defense.'' We are sympathetic with this goal, but we believe 
     that S. 635 fails to provide an effective and prudent 
     response to this problem. We understand that in fiscal year 
     1993, for example, the Committee was asked to review just six 
     grade 0-10 officers for retirement, and less than twenty at 
     grade 0-9. In total, these retirement nominations represented 
     just a fraction of the total number of nominations reviewed 
     by the Committee--which we have been told numbered in the 
     thousands. According to the Congressional Research Service, 
     the numbers for 1993 are typical of the work load presented 
     in other years by these retirement nominations.
       Moreover, we reject the idea that military nominations, be 
     they for promotions or retirements, are nothing more than 
     routine ``administrative workload.'' Reviewing military 
     nominations is one of the Armed Services Committee's most 
     important responsibilities. It is a Constitutional 
     responsibility and an important tool for maintaining civilian 
     control and accountability. It is also a way of keeping the 
     Senate involved in the crucial process of nurturing military 
     leadership.
       Since the passage of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, 
     your Committee has held the view that the top-most military 
     and naval officers in the Nation should be subject to Senate 
     approval. The reason for this is quite simple: the question 
     of who gets the ``top rank'' will in the log-run determine 
     the overall quality of
      the leadership in the Armed Forces. And having top quality 
     military officers is probably the single most important 
     ingredient of military strength.
       Keeping the Senate involved in the promotion and retirement 
     process as the final, independent check will help to ensure 
     that only the best are rewarded with top-level promotions. 
     Most of those promotions go to future leaders, but some are 
     given as rewards at retirement for outstanding service.
       Retirement nominations are no less significant than others 
     handled by the Committee. As you know, retired members of the 
     armed forces can be recalled to active duty at any time, 
     voluntarily or involuntarily, and therefore the status 
     conferred on those individuals at the time of retirement 
     carries much more than ceremonial significance.
       Finally, last year we were encouraged by the Senate's 
     almost unanimous support of the Moseley-Braun/Murray 
     amendment to the FY 1995 Defense Authorization Act which 
     required that the armed services improve the procedures by 
     which discrimination and sexual harassment complaints are 
     processed. In part, the amendment states:
       ``The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Department 
     of Defense regulations governing consideration of equal 
     opportunity matters in evaluations of the performance of 
     members of the Armed Forces include provisions requiring as a 
     factor in such evaluations consideration of a member's 
     commitment to elimination of unlawful discrimination or of 
     sexual harassment in the Armed Forces.''
       This statutory language reflects an important public 
     policy, but we are concerned that 

[[Page S11189]]
     without strong enforcement mechanisms DoD will not get the message. It 
     is our understanding that so far DoD has missed every 
     deadline for reporting to Congress and adopting the new anti-
     discrimination regulations required under the Amendment. This 
     foot dragging underscores the need to maintain congressional 
     oversight, including the Senate confirmation of retirement 
     nominations where relevant leadership can be questioned on 
     these types of matters. We believe it would be very unwise to 
     relinquish this important tool for assuring compliance with 
     national anti-discrimination policies and others critical to 
     military readiness. In addition, less senior members of our 
     armed forces who cannot turn to an independent judiciary with 
     an unresolved but persistent discrimination or whistleblowing 
     complaint deserve to know that their leadership is routinely 
     held accountable to the highest standards.
       In short, we have serious reservations about S. 635, and we 
     hope you will consider our views carefully when reviewing 
     this legislation. At a minimum, we strongly urge the 
     Committee to hold a public hearing on this issue before any 
     further action is taken.
       Thank you very much for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Patty Murray.
     Charles Grassley.
     Barbara Boxer.

  Mrs. MURRAY. At this time I would like to outline a few of my 
concerns as described in the letter with this section.
  Several arguments have been made in support of this section. For 
instance, it has been argued that military officers should be treated 
as their civilian counterparts. However, civilian comparisons are not 
relevant because of the unique role and mission required of our 
Nation's Armed Forces.
  It has been argued that the confirmation of retiring officers 
increases the administrative workload of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. In fiscal year 1993, the committee reviewed just six grade 
0-10 officers for retirement and less than 20 at grade 0-9. I do not 
believe that is an unreasonable number. In addition, reviewing military 
nominations is a constitutional responsibility that helps maintain 
civilian control and accountability.
  Most importantly, by removing Senate involvement in the confirmation 
of retiring officers, we remove congressional oversight. We remove our 
ability to play a role in the very process that has been so troublesome 
in recent years.
  Mr. President, Senator Grassley's amendment would prohibit waiving 
time in grade requirements if an officer is under investigation for 
alleged misconduct or if adverse personnel action was pending. While I 
do not feel this is the ultimate solution to this problem, I do feel it 
is a move in the right direction toward making this section more 
acceptable.
  There is no reason for an officer to receive a promotion while an 
investigation into alleged misconduct is pending.
  As I have stated, I still have concerns with the wholesale repeal of 
congressional oversight as it relates to the confirmation of retiring 
officers. I believe we have a duty and an obligation to ensure that 
there are standards of accountability.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Grassley 
amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we will accept the amendment on this 
side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I want to make sure that I understand the 
amendment. I believe I do. The Senator from Iowa can check me on this. 
This basically would preclude the waiver by the President of time in 
grade requirements that exist in the law for three-star and four-star 
retirements if there is an investigation or disciplinary action pending 
at that time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. That is my intent, a narrow application of exception to 
the purpose of your original bill.
  Mr. NUNN. As I understand it, Mr. President, the waiver in this 
amendment would actually--by the President--would not happen on very 
many occasions, but if it does not happen, it should not happen when 
there is an investigation or disciplinary action pending. That is what 
the Senator is trying to accomplish. This would nail it down and make 
sure that does not happen.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. At that point, if the President wanted to retire them 
under those circumstances, it would have to come before the Senate for 
approval.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I think that we should not compromise on 
accountability in this area. If the Senate confirmation is going to be 
changed in the three- and four-star area, then I think we must make 
sure that the waivers are not granted when, at any point, it would 
undermine accountability of the officer in question. I therefore think 
it is a good amendment, and I urge its approval.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2083) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we are ready to go forward with other 
votes. If Members have any amendments, we are glad for them to come 
forward.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes the DOD authorization bill at 9 a.m. on Thursday, 
Senator Dorgan be recognized to offer his amendment, and there be 90 
minutes equally divided in the usual form, with no second-degree 
amendments in order, and following the conclusion or yielding back of 
time, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the Dorgan 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
                          sections 631 and 632

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to express some concerns I have 
about sections 631 and 632 of the Department of Defense authorization 
bill for fiscal year 1996, S.1026. These two sections Nos. 631 and 632, 
will grant unlimited commissary shopping privileges to ready 
reservists, certain retired reservists and to all their dependents.
  Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the men and women who serve 
this Nation, including those who serve in the Ready Reserve. Their 
commitment to this Nation's security is strong, and they deserve our 
support. My concerns about sections 631 and 632 are not about the Ready 
Reserve, but rather about the budgetary impact of these proposed 
changes.
  In total, Mr. President, these sections give an estimated 2 million 
people unlimited access to military grocery stores here in the United 
States and overseas.
  This is quite a dramatic expansion over current law, which limits 
reservists to shop at commissaries while on active duty plus an 
additional 12 shopping trips during the course of a year.
  Up until now, only active duty, career military men and women enjoyed 
unlimited commissary shopping privileges. However, under section 631 
and 632 the Congress will be bestowing this special benefit to 2 
million civilians. Stated differently, if we adopt this language, 
civilian reservists will have the same compensation benefit as career 
active duty military personnel.
  Mr. President, I have been advised that according to the Department 
of Defense, there will be no budgetary implications associated with 
granting unlimited shopping privileges to the ready reservists, retired 
reservists, and their families. I hope this is in fact true, because 
this is not the same message that we heard when such an expansion was 
contemplated in the fiscal year 1994 defense authorization bill.
  According to Pentagon testimony just 3 years ago in 1992, every 
dollar of sales in a commissary store requires about 16 cents in 
appropriated funding. In other words, it takes roughly 16 cents of 
taxpayer money to subsidize a dollar sale in a commissary store. Back 
in 1992, the Defense Department also told Congress that $24 million in 
tax dollars is needed for every additional 100,000 commissary patrons.
  Now, here we are in 1995, and all of a sudden, everything has 
changed. Now, 

[[Page S11190]]
according to the Pentagon, it won't cost the American taxpayer a single 
dime to grant 2 million civilians unlimited access to commissary 
stores. If this is true, and commissary stores have become efficient, 
streamline operators, this has to be one of the most astounding success 
stories in recent memory for the Pentagon.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that many of us in this 
Chamber have been working very hard to reduce the Federal deficit and 
to achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002. Therefore, it is my 
concern that section 631 and section 632 may be taking us in the wrong 
direction if this expansion results in the need for greater 
appropriations and taxpayer subsidies next year. This is especially 
true in light of the multitude of needs we are trying to fulfill for 
both active personnel and reservists, within growing budget 
constraints.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________