[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 127 (Wednesday, August 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11191-S11199]
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.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, the cold war is over, and in some ways 
we all long for the old certainties it provided. The Armed Services 
Committee has grappled with the difficult task of matching our national 
security interests to the new realities of international politics, and 
I commend them for their hard work in this area.
  But I also want to take this opportunity to express serious concern 
about certain provisions in this legislation which, in my view, would 
discard a generation of progress toward arms control that serves our 
national security needs.
  In terms of arms control--and, in terms of our Nation's solemn 
commitment to its treaty obligations--I have strong reservations about 
the paths charted by the committee legislation. I hope the Senate fully 
appreciates the weight and implications of proposals now before us.
  I know that there are some negotiations that are going on regarding 
language, and I am pleased to hear that.
  By my count, this legislation puts at risk at least four important 
arms control agreements. It puts us on a path toward abrogating two 
treaties which the United States has ratified with the advice and 
consent of the Senate--agreements which, in accordance with the 
processes of our Constitution, our Nation has pledged to honor. It also 
takes policy steps that may jeopardize our chances to successfully 
conclude and implement at least two other important agreements that our 
Nation long has pursued.
  The stakes are high:
  The Anti-Ballistic Missile [ABM] Treaty has been in force in the 
United States since 1972. This bill would put us on a path to abrogate 
the ABM treaty by setting a date to deploy national ballistic missile 
defenses and by unilaterally imposing a line of demarcation to separate 
ballistic missile defenses, which are covered by the treaty, from 
theater defense systems, which are not. This important demarcation 
issue is the subject of ongoing negotiations--and, yet, this bill would 
have us act alone. Perhaps, as its critics suggest, the ABM Treaty no 
longer serves our national interests. But if that is so, we should 
review our commitment to the treaty through a deliberate process--we 
should not simply take steps toward no longer complying.
  The safeguards agreement between the United States and the 
International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] has been in force since 1980.
  This is another aspect of language in the agreement that I find 
troubling, and perhaps this has been addressed.
  This legislation would walk away from that agreement by setting 
unrealistic
 criteria that must be met before any IAEA safeguards inspection 

[[Page S11192]]


can take place. When the Senate ratified the safeguards agreement, we 
believed that placing many of America's nuclear materials under 
safeguards would strengthen our ability to press other countries to 
accept safeguards as well. Our national interests are well served when 
other countries accept safeguards, and our interests are at risk when 
safeguards are rejected, as we have learned bitterly in Iraq and in 
North Korea. If the Senate today walks away from our safeguards 
commitment, what message are we sending to those whose nuclear 
ambitions we oppose?
  The third concern I have is that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty 
[CTBT] to ban nuclear testing is on schedule for completion in 1996. 
Our negotiators have pursued this agreement for decades, and their hand 
was significantly strengthened by the decision of the United States 
during the Bush administration to impose a moratorium on our own 
nuclear tests. Yet, this legislation would commit funds to prepare the 
United States to resume testing, even before our own self-declared 
testing moratorium has expired. If we take this step, we will signal to 
the world that we are not serious about a test ban, and we will put the 
treaty's successful conclusion in serious jeopardy.
  Finally, we all are aware of the importance of START II, the basic 
agreement for implementing President Reagan's vision of deep cuts in 
the strategic nuclear arsenals of the United States and the former 
Soviet Union. The treaty now is pending before the Senate and before 
the Russian Parliament for ratification. Yet, the legislation before us 
today would halt for at least a year the retirement of U.S. strategic 
nuclear weapons, would substantially restructure our nuclear forces to 
retain greater capacity, and would strengthen our ability to quickly 
reconstruct weapons in excess of our treaty commitment. At a time when 
hard-line elements in the Russian Parliament are searching for reasons 
to kill the START II treaty--and when certain elements in Russia have 
stated clearly that they expect the United States to adhere to its 
commitments under the ABM treaty--any actions such as those proposed in 
this legislation would, I fear, significantly diminish the prospects 
for Russian ratification of the treaty.
  Perhaps this again is something that we do not want to undertake at 
this time. But I think that we ought to have then a more full-blown 
discussion of the importance of the START II treaty.
  Mr. President, I will oppose efforts that endanger these important 
agreements that serve the interests of our Nation. The provisions I 
have discussed do not serve our national security or foreign policy 
interests. I believe in a strong national defense, but I also believe 
that arms control has a place in America's national security strategy 
and that America should not lightly abandon its solemn treaty 
obligations. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard before 
proceeding with the courses of action this bill proposes.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Kansas 
for her remarks. And I made remarks this morning and went over most of 
the same items and expressed many--not all but many--of the same 
concerns, particularly in relationship between what I call an 
anticipatory breach of the ABM Treaty which is in this bill, and the 
relationship between that and the START treaties which are pending. But 
not only that; the START I Treaty which has not completely been 
implemented.
  I think it would be the height of folly if we end up increasing the 
threat that would otherwise be aimed at the United States by doing 
something in a bill that prevents the deep reductions that are taking 
place in both START I and START II.
  So I share the views of the Senator from Kansas on this. I think she 
is on point.
  I also share the concerns she has expressed about prematurely going 
back into manufacturing of nuclear weapons where we have not had 
decisions made yet by DOE on that point. I believe in prodding DOE to 
make sure we have nuclear safety and security. But I think we are 
making decisions in this bill that go too far at this time.
  It is my hope that we will be able to have amendments that will iron 
out each of these problems as we go through this bill. And on the ABM 
question, the question that the Senator from Kansas raised, we will 
have at least two or three amendments tomorrow--early, I hope--on those 
key questions because she has identified I think the major concerns 
with this bill.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I may, I appreciate the comments of 
the Senator from Georgia. I was in a markup all morning and did not 
hear his speech. I have the highest regard for the chairman, Senator 
Thurmond, and the ranking leader of Armed Services Committee, Senator 
Nunn. I know they know these issues well, and have great dedication to 
them.
  I appreciate the Senator's comments.
  Mr. NUNN. I have learned over the years that the Senator from Kansas 
does not necessarily need to listen to any of my speeches in order to 
come to the right conclusion.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, could I say to my distinguished colleague 
that I was not able to be present throughout the presentation of her 
statement. But I know it addressed several provisions that I was the 
author of in the bill. I will have an opportunity tomorrow after 
examining the statement in full, Mr. President, to reply I hope in full 
and perhaps to the satisfaction of my distinguished colleague.


                           Amendment No. 2084

   (Purpose: To authorize additional military construction projects)

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

       The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), for 
     himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Reid, Mr. Ford, Mr. Bond, and Mr. 
     Nunn, proposes an amendment numbered 2084.

  Mr. THURMOND. 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 404, in the table following line 10, insert before 
     the item relating to Fort Knox, Kentucky, the following 
     project in Kentucky:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Fort Campbell..............     $10,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 405, in the table following line 2, insert after 
     the item relating to Camp Stanley, Korea, the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Yongsan....................      $4,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 406, line 14, strike out ``$2,019,358,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$2,033,858,000''.
       On page 406, line 17, strike out ``$396,380,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$406,380,000''.
       On page 406, line 20, strike out ``$98,050,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$102,550,000''.
       On page 408, in the table following line 4, in the item 
     relating to Bremerton Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Washington, 
     strike out ``$9,470,000'' in the amount column and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$19,870,000''.
       On page 410, in the table preceding line 1, add after the 
     item relating to Norfolk Public Works Center, Virginia, the 
     following new items:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington......  Bangor Naval      141 units...........      $4,890,000
                   Submarine Base.                                      
West Virginia...  Naval Security    23 units............      $3,590,000
                   Group                                                
                   Detachment,                                          
                   Sugar Grove.                                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 411, line 6, strike out ``$2,058,579,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$2,077,459,000''.
       On page 411, line 9, strike out ``$389,259,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$399,659,000''.
       On page 412, line 3, strike out ``$477,767,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$486,247,000''.
       On page 415, in the table following line 18, in the item 
     relating to Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, strike out 
     ``$3,700,000'' in the amount column and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$5,200,000''.
       On page 415, in the table following line 18, in the item 
     relating to Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, strike out 
     ``$3,850,000'' in the amount column and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$7,850,000''.
       On page 416, in the table preceding line 1, in the item 
     relating to Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, strike out 
     ``$18,650,000'' in the amount column and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$25,350,000''.

[[Page S11193]]

       On page 416, in the table preceding line 1, in the item 
     relating to McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, strike out 
     ``$9,200,000'' in the amount column and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$16,500,000''.
       On page 416, in the table preceding line 1, insert after 
     the item relating to Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico, the 
     following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Holloman Air Force Base....      $6,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 416, in the table preceding line 1, insert after 
     the item relating to Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina, the 
     following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Dakota.................  Ellsworth Air Force Base....   $7,800,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 416, in the table preceding line 1, in the item 
     relating to Hill Air Force Base, Utah, strike out 
     ``$8,900,000'' in the amount column and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$12,600,000''.
       On page 418, in the table preceding line 1, insert after 
     the item relating to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, the 
     following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Nellis Air Force Base..  57 units.   $6,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 419, line 17, strike out ``$1,697,704,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,740,704,000''.
       On page 419, line 21, strike out ``$473,116,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$510,116,000''.
       On page 420, line 10, strike out ``$281,965,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$287,965,000''.
       On page 421, in the table following line 10, in the matter 
     relating to Defense Medical Facilities Offices, insert before 
     the item relating to Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, the 
     following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Maxwell Air Force Base,         $10,000,000
                              Alabama.                                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 422, in the table preceding line 1, in the matter 
     relating to the Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, 
     North Carolina, strike out ``$2,600,000'' in the amount 
     column and insert in lieu thereof ``$8,100,000''.
       On page 424, line 22, strike out ``$4,565,533,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$4,581,033,000''.
       On page 424, line 25, strike out ``$300,644,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$316,144,000''.
       On page 429, line 14, strike out ``$85,353,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$148,589,000''.
       On page 429, line 15, strike out ``$44,613,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$79,895,000''.
       On page 429, line 19, strike out ``$132,953,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$167,503,000''.
       On page 429, line 22, strike out ``$31,982,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$35,132,000''.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator 
Nunn, the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and 
Senators Burns and Reid, the chairman and ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Military Construction and Senators Bond and Ford in 
sponsoring this amendment which authorizes an additional $228 million 
for construction projects which are currently appropriated in the 
military construction appropriations bill for 1996. The amendment would 
authorize an additional 46 projects to enhance the readiness of our 
Armed Forces and improve the living and working conditions of soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines across the country.
  Mr. President, last Friday, I spoke against an amendment to the 
military construction bill that would have reduced the funding in the 
bill by $300 million. I will not repeat all the arguments I propounded 
at that time, other than to say that all the services acknowledge they 
have a significant shortfall and backlog in the repair and maintenance 
of the facilities. The facts also indicate that in excess of 70 percent 
of the family and unaccompanied housing does not currently meet 
Department of Defense standards.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the additional 
projects authorized be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     State/Country              Service            Installation name           Project title         (thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky..............  Army..................  Ft. Campbell..........  Whole Barracks Renewal, ph        10,000
                                                                         I.                                     
Korea.................  ......do..............  Yongsan...............  Child Development Center...        4,500
                                                                                                    ------------
      Total...........  ......................  ......................  ...........................       14,500
                                                                                                    ============
Washington............  Navy-FH...............  Bangor Naval Sub Base.  141 Units..................        4,890
    Do................  Navy..................  Puget Sound Naval Ship  Physical Fitness Center....       10,400
West Virginia.........  Navy-FH...............  Sugar Grove NSDG......  23 Units...................        3,590
                                                                                                    ------------
      Total...........  ......................  ......................  ...........................       18,800
                                                                                                    ============
Alabama...............  Air Force.............  Maxwell AFB...........  Computer Software Facility.        1,500
Alaska................  ......do..............  Eielson AFB...........  Boiler Rehabilitation......        4,000
Idaho.................  ......do..............  Mountain Home FB......  Base Civil Engineering             1,800
                                                                         Warehouse.                             
    Do................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Avionics Shop..............        4,900
Nevada................  Air Force-FH..........  Nellis AFB............  57 Units...................        6,000
New Jersey............  Air Force.............  McGuire AFB...........  Dormitory..................        7,300
New Mexico............  ......do..............  Holloman AFB..........  Learning Center............        6,000
South Dakota..........  ......do..............  Ellsworth AFB.........  Consolidated Administrative        7,800
                                                                         Support Complex.                       
Utah..................  ......do..............  Hill Air Force Base...  Depot Fire Protection......        3,700
                                                                                                    ------------
      Total...........  ......................  ......................  ...........................       43,000
                                                                                                    ============
Alabama...............  Defense Agencies......  Maxwell AFB...........  Ambulatory Healthcare             10,000
                                                                         Center, phase I.                       
North Carolina........  ......do..............  Fort Bragg............  SOF Barracks...............        5,500
                                                                                                    ------------
      Total...........  ......................  ......................  ...........................       15,500
                                                                                                    ============
Arkansas..............  Army National Guard...  Camp Robinson.........  Military Operations in             2,853
                                                                         Urban Trg Facility.                    
Florida...............  ......do..............  Camp Blanding.........  Wastewater Treatment Plant,        5,300
                                                                         Phase II.                              
    Do................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Water Distribution System          4,200
                                                                         Upgrade.                               
Louisiana.............  ......do..............  Plaquemine............  OMS rehabilitation/                  776
                                                                         renovation.                            
    Do................  ......do..............  Ruston................  OMS........................        1,638
Maryland..............  ......do..............  Camp Frettard.........  ......do...................        2,700
Minnesota.............  ......do..............  Camp Ripley...........  CSMS, phh II...............        8,150
Mississippi...........  ......do..............  Camp Shelby...........  Multipurpose Range Complex,        5,000
                                                                         ph I.                                  
Missouri..............  ......do..............  Jefferson City........  Multipurpose Baffle Range..        2,236
Montana...............  ......do..............  Ft. Harrison..........  Training Site Support              7,854
                                                                         Facility.                              
Nebraska..............  ......do..............  Hastings Training       Instructional Facility.....          761
                                                 Range.                                                         
Oregon................  ......do..............  Camp Withycombe.......  CSMS.......................        4,769
    Do................  ......do..............  Salem.................  Airfield Operations                2,972
                                                                         Building.                              
Tennessee.............  ......do..............  Johnson City..........  OMS, AMSA & VMF............        1,937
Utah..................  ......do..............  Camp Williams.........  Replace/Upgrade Portable             800
                                                                         Water Distrib. Syste.                  
Wisconsin.............  ......do..............  West Bend.............  Army Aviatio Complex.......        5,235
Wyoming...............  ......do..............  Camp Guernsey.........  Utility Upgrade............        6,055
                                                                                                    ------------
      Total...........  ......................  ......................  ...........................       63,236
                                                                                                    ============
Kansas................  Army Reserve..........  Witchita..............  HQ 89th ARCOM..............        8,389
Nevada................  ......do..............  Las Vegas.............  Armed Forces Reserve Center/       9,000
                                                                         OMS.                                   
New Hampshire.........  ......do..............  Manchester............  AFRC/AMSA/OMS..............       17,893
                                                                                                    ------------
      Total...........  ......................  ......................  ...........................       35,282
                                                                                                    ============
Alaska................  Air National Guard....  Eielson AFB...........  AIrcraft Engine Shop.......        2,550
    Do................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Base Engineer Maintenance          4,400
                                                                         Facility.                              
Arkansas..............  ......do..............  Little Rock AFB.......  Base Supply Complex........        4,800
Iowa..................  ......do..............  Sioux City Gateway AP.  Upgrade Access Taxiway.....          750
Kansas................  ......do..............  McConnell AFB.........  B-1 Fuel Maintenance Hangar        7,900
Missouri..............  ......do..............  Jefferson Barracks....  Upgrade Sewer System.......        2,700
South Dakota..........  ......do..............  Joe Foss Field........  Vehicle Maintenance and            4,400
                                                                         Storage Complex.                       
Tennessee.............  ......do..............  McGhee Tyson Airport..  Squadron Operations                4,400
                                                                         Facility.                              

[[Page S11194]]
                                                                                                                
Vermont...............  ......do..............  Burlington Airport....  Add/Alter Operations and           2,650
                                                                         Training Facility.                     
                                                                                                    ------------
      Total...........  ......................  ......................  ...........................       34,550
                                                                                                    ============
Colorado..............  Air Force Reserve.....  Peterson AFB..........  Composite Maintenance              3,150
                                                                         Facility.                              
                                                                                                    ------------
  ....................  ......................  ......................  ...........................        3,150
                                                                                                    ============
      Grand Total.....  ......................  ......................  ...........................      228,098
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Mr. THURMOND. I further ask that because the Senate has previously 
approved these projects by an overwhelming vote of 84 to 10, we can 
agree to a time limit on the debate and a vote on this amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this is a military construction amendment 
which we have discussed. This amendment has been worked carefully on 
both sides of the aisle, with Senator Thurmond's staff and my staff and 
the staff of other members of the committee, and I am in favor of this 
amendment and certainly hope it will pass.
  It is my understanding that each of these projects meet the committee 
criteria. Those criteria are that it has to be a part of the 5-year 
defense plan of the Department of Defense. So these are high-priority 
projects. They must be the highest priority in the State or the base in 
question. Each one of the projects must be executable in fiscal year 
1996. It must be consistent with the BRAC process and they must be 
mission essential.
  So this is a list of projects for which the appropriators have 
already appropriated the money. It fits within the 602(b) funding 
allocation, and this would make the authorization committee and the 
Appropriations Committee in sync as I understand it. So I think that 
this amendment should be accepted. I hope it will be accepted.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. I understand the distinguished Senator from Arizona 
[Mr. McCain] will be in in a little bit to speak against this 
amendment. I wanted to make that announcement now.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I just wanted to clarify, if I could, 
exactly what the amendment is and then make a short statement.
  Am I correct, if I could address a question to the chairman or 
ranking member, either one, this amendment brings up the amount of 
funds authorized for military construction to the level that we decided 
to appropriate to last week in the appropriations bill? Is that 
essentially what is being done here?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, that is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Am I also correct that the level of funding for 
military construction this year in this bill, the 1996 authorization 
bill as requested by the administration, was about $2 billion over what 
was requested and appropriated in the 1995 bill?
  Mr. THURMOND. That is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Am I also correct that what we are essentially doing 
here is authorizing what the House has already appropriated, or the 
House appropriation/authorization provides, and that is about $500 
million more than the administration request?
  Mr. THURMOND. They appropriated $500 million. We are only 
appropriating here about $300 million.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. We are going above the administration's request by this 
amount, is that correct?
  Mr. THURMOND. Correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the Senator's responses very much.
  Mr. President, this is the same vote we cast last week where I 
indicated my opposition to adding additional money. I think the figures 
we had last week were that we were adding $474 million to what was 
requested by the administration, and in addition another $300 million. 
I tried to persuade my colleagues to not add the additional $300 
million and was unsuccessful. We had a vote on it.
  I understand that the Senate supports the amendment that the Senator 
from South Carolina is offering here, and I will not ask for a rollcall 
vote, but I would like the record to show that I oppose the amendment 
and have me recorded in opposition at the time this is voted by voice.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Senator McCain I believe is ready now.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is with disappointment that I come to 
the floor. I do not know where my colleagues have been lately. I do not 
know if they have been seeing what is being written in the newspapers 
and editorials all over America about spending too much money on 
unneeded projects out of defense dollars.
  You know what we are running the danger of here? We are running the 
danger of losing support for defense spending if we keep this up, if we 
keep spending money on things that we do not need.
  If the chairman and the distinguished ranking member of this 
committee can find me one military leader, one military leader that 
would come over and say this $228 million is a priority, I would like 
to meet that person. What they will say, if you ask the military 
leaders what they need the money for, they will say they need it for 
depot maintenance; they will say they need it for force modernization, 
they need it for readiness, more ammunition. I can give you 20 things, 
20 priorities that rank above more military construction.
  My colleague from New Mexico last week tried to stop additional 
military construction money. We got a total of 17 votes, or was it 19? 
I do not remember. Seventeen votes. It is a little embarrassing to lose 
a vote by that much. But this is wrong. This is wrong.
  I do not understand who we think we are kidding here. We have 54,000 
young men, military families today on food stamps--on food stamps--and 
we are going to build more MilCon. Before the subcommittee, of which I 
am the Chair, the outgoing Commandant of the Marine Corps said the 
following. He said, yes, we want our military families to live in good 
housing, but I do not want the widow of a Marine living in a good house 
when we come to tell her that her husband has been killed because we 
did not supply him with the right equipment.
  That is what the Commandant of the Marine Corps said. What he was 
saying was that they have a higher priority, they have a number of 
higher priorities than additional MilCon.
  The Senate appropriators added a great deal already, $200 million, in 
response to the request of the Secretary of Defense that we improve the 
standard of living and the military housing situation for both married 
and unmarried military personnel. And we did that. And they were 
pleased.
  Then we added another $125 million in the markup. Now we are adding 
another $228 million. I guess my question to the chairman and ranking 
member is, how much is enough? How much is enough? If I sound 
frustrated by this, it is because I continuously talk to people in the 
military who say to me: What are you guys doing adding all this MilCon 
money? I get that from captains and lieutenants and majors and 
lieutenant commanders. They say, why is it--we have a depot maintenance 
backlog of 3 and 4 years, and yet you guys keep adding MilCon money.
  I have been around this body long enough to know, Mr. President, 
where the votes lie.
  I have been around this body to know that we would probably get 
another 17 votes if a recorded vote on this was called for. And I do 
not particularly feel like putting the body through this drill. But I 
want to tell you, Mr. President, I want to tell you in all sincerity, 
more and more and more stories are coming out about defense pork. And 
the confidence and commitment of the American people for us to spend 
money on defense where it is truly needed is getting less and less and 
less. So, I guess--I do not know if the ranking member can answer, the 
distinguished Senator from Georgia. I would like to 

[[Page S11195]]
ask him, How much is enough? How much MilCon money is enough? But I 
guess there is not any answer because there may not be enough. Because 
if there is another billion or couple million, we will probably put it 
in MilCon.
  So I want to strongly object to this. I think it is wrong. I think 
that there are other priorities. Those have been made clear time after 
time by our military leaders. And we are making a serious mistake 
because the time is going to come when we really need to spend some 
money on defense or some project and we will have lost the confidence 
of the American people in our ability to spend those funds wisely.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I hope that my colleague from Arizona will 
understand that there are some of us that just sincerely disagree with 
him--and I will be glad to yield to the Senator--that we disagree and 
sincerely disagree. And so I hope that somehow or other we can look at 
the defense of our country in another light.
  Now, this MilCon, as I understand it, met the criteria of the mission 
essential. It met the criteria of highest priority. And, Mr. President, 
one of the things we see as we downsize, we must support and improve 
the position of our Reserve, our National Guard. We have 66 Members of 
this Senate that are members of the National Guard Caucus. When we go 
back home we see the 130-H's and see them in Panama or Somalia or 
Bosnia and those places. Those are the National Guard. Those are the 
ones we want to train. These are the people in this MilCon that we are 
trying to support. So we are trying to strengthen the National Guard 
and give them the kind of training centers, the ranges, those things 
that would make them better military personnel.
  And I understand that you do not want to go to a fine house and talk 
to a widow. But I also understand that if you are going to have quality 
personnel in the military, if you are going to continue to get, keep 
and recruit high-quality personnel, then we have to have a quality of 
life for the military personnel. And housing is one of the most 
important things that you can do.
  And so, Mr. President, under this bill we have an appropriated 
amount. And we voted on that, 80-some-odd votes approving this 
particular amendment.
  Now, we want to approve this amendment in the authorization part of 
the DOD bill. And I think it is only fair that we put it in the 
authorization now so that we can go on with supporting the quality of 
life of our military personnel, to strengthen the National Guard and 
the Reserve to meet our highest priority and mission essential. So I 
hope that we will vigorously support this amendment as I believe and 
sincerely believe it is in our best interest in the defense of our 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am glad that we are using the criteria 
that we established in the Readiness Subcommittee on the Armed Services 
Committee over the last couple of years, the criteria for setting the 
ground rules for how we move forward on items like this. I must, 
however, join my friends, Senator McCain and Senator Bingaman, in their 
concerns about what we are doing. I recognize fully that we did vote 
for the appropriations bill last week that had these things in it, but 
it was done on the contingency, as I understand it, that we pass the 
authorization. Senator Bingaman disapproved of it then and wanted to 
move that money out of that appropriations bill and into contingency 
operations. And I supported that amendment of his.
  Now we have $228 million we seem to have found here. It seems to me 
that that money would be better spent for what Secretary of Defense 
Perry has called one of his highest priorities; that is, getting the 
money to pay for Bosnia and Iraq and the other operations that we have 
going all around the world. So it would lessen the amount they would 
have to come up in the supplemental one of these days.
  The criteria that were established says that if an item is on the 
FYDP, the 5-year defense plan, that we can move it forward. But one of 
the hurdles that would have to be jumped would be that one of having it 
on the 5-year defense plan. As I understand it, all of these items that 
are on the proposal for the $228 million expenditure do comply with 
those criteria being on that plan.
  However, to me, we have so many other things that we are contending 
with on the defense budget this year. We have depot maintenance that is 
required. We are shortchanging that. We are shortchanging military 
housing. We are shortchanging a lot of other things and, in effect, 
moving these items forward to a higher priority than some of those 
items. We are moving things forward on what was going to be taken care 
of somewhere out in the 5-year defense plan.
  We are moving it forward basically because some Members want these 
things in their districts, as I see it. And I can appreciate that. I 
have no quarrel with people wanting things in their particular 
districts or their particular States. But I just think that we are 
getting our priorities a little bit out of line when we move things 
forward on that 5-year defense plan and move them ahead of other 
requirements that I think are much more pressing than most of the 
things that this $228 million would be spent for.
  So I appreciate the fact that we are using the criteria that has been 
established. I do not think we are setting our priorities right, 
though, when we move this $228 million ahead of some of the other 
priorities where money is more desperately needed in the defense budget 
than for these items. I realize they have already been put through the 
appropriations process. But I think they are wrong. And I would follow 
my colleagues earlier and ask that, if this is to be passed on a voice 
vote--I am not asking for a rollcall vote on this; I do not believe 
that has been done--but I would follow the lead of Senator Bingaman and 
say, if there is to be a voice vote, I wish to be recorded against it. 
I know that will be probably a losing effort. But I think that we have 
to stand up on some of these things. We have established a pattern in 
the Armed Services Committee of opposing some of these things the last 
couple of years. And I would want to do the same thing here even though 
we did pass the appropriations bill a week or so ago. So I would ask 
that, if there is a voice vote on this, that I be recorded in 
opposition.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. I would just like to point out to the Senator from Ohio--
and I appreciate his leadership in this area and his remarks--that 
there are a number of these projects that are family housing projects. 
There are a number of these projects that are barracks. That was one of 
the high priorities that was mentioned. That is one of the things we 
talked about. There are three of these projects that are day-care 
centers and fitness centers. We are talking about high-quality, 
priority projects. None of these have been drawn out of the air. As I 
understand it, all of them are on the 5-year priority list for the 
defense plan.
  I think people ought to understand, as we hear this talk about waste 
and so forth, that the reason the military construction add-ons are 
having to occur here is because the administration itself has requested 
a whole lot less money in military construction over the last couple of 
years because the BRAC process was going on. We now know what happened 
in BRAC. We did not know that, the administration did not know that, 
when they submitted their defense budget this year or last year. So 
that defense request, that is going to be the measurement.
  If anything is going to be labeled waste that goes over the 
administration request in military construction, I think that is really 
a misleading kind of portrayal, because the BRAC process was ongoing 
when the administration put the budget together. They did not request a 
number of projects that are now high-priority projects. An awful lot of 
this money is going to barracks and to housing and to daycare, and to 
quality-of-life projects. We have one project on here, for instance, in 
Joe Foss Field in South Dakota, a World War II facility, a vehicle 
maintenance and storage complex. It is of World War II vintage. And it 
does not meet the 

[[Page S11196]]
fire and safety standards. It is in violation.
  So I think people ought to be very careful and look at this on a 
project-by-project basis. I know the Senator from Ohio has done that, 
or will do that. But an awful lot of this effort here goes directly to 
the very areas that are a priority.
  Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NUNN. Yes.
  Mr. GLENN. I do not quarrel with the fact that some of the funding in 
this goes to MilCon projects that are good and under the 5-year plan 
would be fine. But if we found $228 million to spend, it seems to me if 
we want to spend that on MilCon projects, we should have gone back to 
the Defense Department and said, where do you need it most, where are 
the worst barracks, where are the people living in the most intolerable 
conditions, and let them prioritize where the greatest needs are.
  I submit most of these items were placed back on this agenda and 
moved ahead on the 5-year plan because of a personal interest of a 
particular Senator, and this was not done on a priority basis where the 
greatest needs are in the military. That is my objection to it.
  I know that we followed some of the criteria on the 5-year defense 
plan that we used as one of our criteria. I think if we can find this 
kind of money, it should be put to use in places where the Pentagon 
says they need it most, not just in those areas where the Members were 
getting something back for their particular States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I want to thank my ranking minority member 
on the subcommittee because we worked together on this. I want to 
assure the Senators, not only did we follow the criteria, but the 
suggestions of the different services that appeared before our 
committee. This is where they wanted housing built. This is where they 
wanted the construction.
  We increased family housing $111 million, in family housing alone, 
and this touches every service. There is no one service, but these were 
the high priority units requested by each of the services. We have a 
total deficit of 273,000 units which are inadequate or entirely 
unavailable.
  When we went to the all-volunteer Army, in all the services, we 
changed our relationship with our military personnel.
  As my friend from Arizona pointed out, he is hearing from captains 
and lieutenants about the construction, ``Why are we getting this 
money?'' I will tell you that there is not a lot of it that is going 
into officer's quarters. If you will look at where this money is going, 
it is going to the enlisted personnel. We have a deficit of barrack 
spaces. We are 161,000 units short of that.
  Then Dr. Perry, when we talked to him, the Secretary of Defense, 
said, ``I have a new housing initiative, but give me a little money and 
I can lever in the private sector.''
  He wants a pilot program on that to see if it will work on off-base 
housing for some of our married personnel. We gave that to Dr. Perry 
because it is very high on his priority list.
  He said maybe we can double the availability of housing that we have. 
So when I say that my friend from Nevada and I, when we had the 
hearings and our staffs got together--and there has been nobody better 
to work with on this committee in trying to prioritize what we do with 
this money than Senator Reid--we know that the BRAC has taken a lot 
more money out of MilCon than we first thought it ever would, because 
of the environmental cleanup. We are not through that yet. In fact, we 
do not really know what the bottom line is going to be on that or what 
the cost is going to be before these bases that are being closed and 
bases are being realigned, before those bases become available and can 
be moved into the private sector, because right now they have no value 
to us at all until we complete the mission of environmental cleanup.
  So when we look at the totality of what we have, the dollars are very 
well invested and all meet the criteria that was set forth by the Armed 
Services Committee.
  I want to thank the Armed Services Committee, because they have done 
an excellent job in setting priorities on this particular piece of 
legislation.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind comments of the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the junior Senator from Montana.
  I support this amendment that has been offered by the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, this conforms the military 
construction projects in the authorization bill to those already 
approved by the Senate in the military construction appropriations 
bill. I am a cosponsor of this amendment and hope the Senate will 
support it as strongly as it did, an identical provision, by a vote of 
77 to 18 a week or so ago when we considered the military construction 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, these projects are critical, worthy, well-scrubbed, 
quality-of-life projects which are needed in this era of an all-
volunteer force. The chairman of the subcommittee very well outlined 
how our military force has changed. We depend much more today than we 
did 5 years ago, 10 years ago on a Reserve and Guard component, as we 
should. Any suggestion, as indicated by the senior Senator from Ohio in 
his remarks just a short time ago, that military housing is 
shortchanged is certainly true. That is what we are trying to rectify 
partially in this bill, and this amendment will allow us to do that.
  Military housing has been shortchanged. I agree with the Senator from 
Ohio. We built many homes for the military during the Second World War. 
Those homes were to last for 5 years, 10 years at the most. People are 
still living in them after 50 years.
  In many places, the military cannot live in the houses provided. No. 
1, some of them are so bad they cannot live in them with their 
families, and at other times they just do not exist. So they have to 
live off base. Because housing is so expensive, they have to go on food 
stamps. One out of every 10 of our military is on food stamps. Why? 
Because housing is so outrageously expensive, they have no choice.
  What the chairman of the subcommittee did and the ranking member is 
try to do a little bit to solve that problem--dormitories, barracks 
where single military can live. We did not go for officer's quarters. 
We looked to the enlisted men, what we could do to help the enlisted 
men and women of this country live a little better.
  There is a tremendous backlog. We only do a little bit, but that 
little bit will help those people concerned.
  I have to say, Mr. President, if you are in the military and you want 
to live and live decently, you are really more concerned about that 
than some new weapons system. If we are going to have a strong 
military, one of the things we must have are people who feel good about 
being in the military; they have a decent place to live.
  So I strongly endorse the remarks made by the chairman of the 
Military Construction Subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from 
Montana, my friend, Mr. Burns. He has done a great job on this 
subcommittee.
  As he has said, each project meets strict criteria. First, these 
projects are all mission essential.
  Second, each of these projects has already been programmed in the 
Department's outyear budget.
  Third, a construction site has been selected for each of these 
projects, not by members of the subcommittee, not by members of the 
committee, but by the military.
  Fourth, each project is considered by the base commander as their 
highest priority, not a priority, but their highest priority.
  And fifth, each of these projects can be awarded in this 1996 fiscal 
year.
  As I have said on the floor in the past, I do not think anyone would 
consider the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the senior 
Senator from South Carolina, as a big spender. I have never heard the 
senior Senator from South Carolina referred to as a big spender. I do 
not know of anyone in the history of the U.S. Senate that has gained a 
stronger reputation for watching how the money of this country is spent 
than the Senator from South Carolina, the sponsor of this amendment. 
And probably running a close 

[[Page S11197]]
second is the Senator from Georgia, the senior Senator from Georgia, 
the ranking member, formerly the chairman of this full committee. The 
senior Senator from Georgia, on all issues, not only military issues, 
watches where the pennies are spent.
  Well, Mr. President, during the floor action to approve the military 
construction bill, we heard from both cochairmen of the National Guard 
Caucus. We heard from Senator Bond of Missouri today and then we heard 
from Senator Ford of Kentucky. Their statements reflect the degree to 
which the active services tend to protect their own. The Pentagon 
always looks out for their own and not very often do they look out for 
the guard and reserve. That is an obligation traditionally that we have 
had, and I do not shirk that responsibility. Their statements, I 
repeat, reflect the degree that the active services tend to protect 
their own, neglecting adequately to consider and promote the National 
Guard and Reserve components. The active services can, therefore, 
budget their forces in the active force request and they traditionally 
underfund the guard and reserve. This year is no different. That is not 
the way it should be, but that is the way it is.
  The guard and reserve deserve more than what the Pentagon and 
administration requested in this budget and in budgets in the past. 
When the going gets tough and there is a potential crisis on the 
horizon, the guard and reserve are called. I recently received a call 
from my friend who is a major in the Nevada National Guard. This man 
left his business during the gulf crisis to serve his country for 1 
year. He was a combat veteran from Vietnam. He wanted to go to combat 
again in Iraq. They would not let him do it. They needed his service in 
the Pentagon. He has now been asked to go to Germany because he is an 
expert in something they need. That is what the guard and reserve is 
all about. They deserve more than what the administration and Pentagon 
requested in this budget. My friend, Maj. Evan Wallot, is debating in 
his own mind whether he is going to go to Germany. We in Congress are 
traditionally forced into the position of putting the priorities into a 
better balance--I am glad we have done that--which means adding needed 
funds to projects in the guard and reserve. These funds are for nothing 
lavish.
  The amendment helps emphasize the importance of housing for our 
military families. This amendment replaces housing that suffers. Some 
places have suffered more than 50 years of neglect; they were built 
around the Second World War as temporary structures, built just for 
that war era.
  It was not for the Second World War, not for Korea, not for Vietnam, 
not the cold war, or for Iraq, not for Haiti. Although that Second 
World War is long since gone, our military personnel continue to 
survive in these outdated residences. These projects are not budget 
busters. Each Senator should understand that the Military Construction 
Subcommittee was totally within our 602(b) allocation. Every penny was 
within the 602(b) allocation. It is just this simple. The committee 
evaluates rather than the Pentagon.
  The budget requested by the Department of Defense has been, once 
again, as in past years, neglected, and I use that word pointedly to 
address the military construction needs of the National Guard. It is 
$182 million for guard and reserve military construction, as compared 
to $574 million appropriated just last year. When approved, this 
amendment will authorize 20 percent less than last year, some $452 
million.
  Once again, I emphasize this amendment addresses the long, overlooked 
quality of life initiative, particularly, Mr. President, in family 
housing and barracks, the initiative making up nearly one-third of the 
total military construction authorization. I repeat, as the senior 
Senator from Ohio said, military housing is usually shortchanged. We 
recognize that. That is why a third of what we are talking about here 
goes to military housing.
  Mr. President, these programs are wasteful. The chairman of the full 
committee has sponsored this amendment and has come here to say that 
these that these projects are important. We must do a better job with 
the persons defending our country. We must recognize the necessity of 
the total bill and the effect of this amendment will help to authorize 
its completion.
  Mr. COATS. The Senator from Arizona and I have joined together on a 
number of items. This is an area where we happen to disagree.
  Mr. NUNN. If the Senator will yield, I thank my friend from Nevada 
for his leadership in this military construction area and for his 
remarks on the floor, and also my friend from Montana, chairman of that 
subcommittee. They have done a splendid job, and we have enjoyed 
working with them.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, some time ago, I contacted the Department 
of Defense raising my concerns about the status of military housing. As 
chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee and someone that is charged with 
looking out for the quality of life of our military personnel, survey 
after survey, inquiry after inquiry, letter after letter kept raising 
the issue of the quality, or lack thereof, of military housing, both 
family housing and single soldier housing. And so I contacted the 
Department of Defense, and they confirmed my worse suspicions and gave 
me information that, frankly, was far worse than what I thought I would 
hear. That is, that military housing is in a deplorable State.
  Much of the housing is more than 30 years old. It has suffered from 
lack of adequate maintenance and repair because funds have been 
diverted to other uses. Whenever there is a crunch on the utilization 
or need for funds, it seems like housing has always been pushed aside 
to be dealt with next year.
  The Secretary of Defense saw that problem in his travels around the 
world in talking with troops, commanders, and others, and he identified 
this as a priority and has testified before our committee that this is 
one of his top priorities. He has articulately drawn the link between 
quality of life and readiness, and he has displayed for us and outlined 
for us the very sad state of military housing throughout our military. 
It has been neglected.
  We have young men and women who are committing a career to service 
for this country, who are given the very best of training; they are 
given the very best of leadership that this country can offer; they are 
given the very best of equipment to operate and to utilize that this 
country can produce. We are attracting some of the very best people 
that our institutions are graduating to the services today. But when it 
comes to providing for their living conditions, they are given not the 
best, not anywhere close to the best, but some of the worst housing you 
can find in any of our cities across the country.
  I have personally visited a number of barracks and a number of family 
housing units and a number of different bases. These are facilities 
that do not begin to measure up to minimum standards that we would 
expect. Some of the statistics are stunning: 60,000 Air Force housing 
units do not measure up to contemporary standards, and they are 
probably the best of the services; 75 percent of the Army's family 
housing does not even meet Department of Defense standards.
  I just want to inform my colleagues that Department of Defense 
standards are not standards that you normally find outside of the 
military. They are lower; they are smaller in square footage; they 
require less in terms of quality construction than what is normally 
found.
  I think it is a disgrace that we are putting some of our military 
people in some of the kind of housing that we find in our military 
bases.
  Nearly 85 percent of the Army's barracks--facilities that house 
single sailors and soldiers and Air Force and marines--80 to 85 percent 
of the Army's barracks do not meet current Department of Defense 
standards. So we have a huge backlog of dilapidated housing in which we 
are putting our Army families and putting our system military people.
  We have leaking roofs, air conditioners that do not work. We have 
latrine facilities that do not begin to meet the needs of those living 
in the units. Four shower heads, usually two that are not working, for 
about 60 to 65 soldiers. We have toilets that do not flush. We have 
mold that is rotting away the tile and rotting away some of the walls. 
We have windows that do not provide adequate seals. We have rooms that 
are of such small square footage 

[[Page S11198]]
that the military personnel cannot begin to put their stereo, their TV, 
or just a basic dresser drawer to put their clothes in.
  We are looking at a program here that is going to take a number of 
years, at least a decade, to begin to bring the facilities up to 
standard.
  When we have been able to come up with some additional funds, I think 
one of the top priorities for those funds needs to be adequate housing 
for our military personnel.
  I cannot speak to the portion of the military construction budget 
that goes to fund other items. I know we have infrastructure and other 
maintenance problems throughout the military. I cannot speak to that, 
but I can speak to the portion that goes to the housing.
  I am pleased that the committee has designated this as a priority. I 
am pleased they have adopted the criteria established by the Senate 
Armed Services Committee for evaluating these needs. I have had a 
number of discussions with the chairman of the MilCon Appropriations 
Subcommittee, and he has outlined for me that they have faithfully 
followed the criteria and the recommendations to try to get at some of 
the worst housing on a priority basis.
  To the extent that we can accelerate some funding for this crucial 
area, I think we ought to do that. I am supportive of this particular 
effort. There is a housing initiative that has been undertaken by the 
Department. We granted some new authority for that to the Department of 
Defense.
  Passage of this authorization bill and acceptable conference of the 
item will provide the Department of Defense with needed new authority 
to privatize some of this construction and maintenance effort, 
rebuilding efforts, and renovation effort. That is necessary if we are 
ever going to provide the kind of housing on a decent timetable for our 
military personnel.
  The combination of the military construction funds that are utilized 
now for building new and renovating military family housing and 
barracks housing and the initiative that has been undertaken by the 
Department of Defense with both the inside task force group and an 
outside task force group headed by former Secretary of the Army John 
Marsh, a two-pronged effort to try to deal with a very significant 
problem that exists today in our armed services.
  We have directed considerable funds to a number of tactical systems, 
to modernization, to readiness. If we had more, we could direct more. 
We wish we had more.
  We cannot continue to defer the construction of housing and the 
renovation of housing for our military personnel and claim that we are 
providing the necessary quality of life for themselves and their 
families, that will attract the kind of people we want for our 
military. We cannot continue to do that. We are forfeiting the future.
  We have postponed this now for more than a decade. It is time we 
undertook this project. I am thankful for the work by the chairman and 
the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee. I hope that we 
can successfully move this forward as we attempt to finalize the 
legislation on this effort.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I just want to remind the Senate that 
the House has already passed $500 million for these facilities. In this 
amendment we are asking only for $228 million. The defense 
appropriations has approved this amount already.
  We are ready to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion? If there is no 
further discussion, the question is on agreeing to amendment numbered 
2084, offered by the Senator from South Carolina.
  The amendment (No. 2084) was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COATS. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2085

(Purpose: To exclude the Associate Director of Central Intelligence for 
 Military Support from grade limitations applicable to members of the 
                             Armed Forces)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask it 
be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2085.

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

       On page 403, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 1095. ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE FOR 
                   MILITARY SUPPORT.

       Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     403) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) In the event that neither the Director nor Deputy 
     Director of Central Intelligence is a commissioned officer of 
     the Armed Forces, a commissioned officer of the Armed Forces 
     appointed to the position of Associate Director of Central 
     Intelligence for Military Support, while serving in such 
     position, shall not be counted against the numbers and 
     percentages of commissioned officers of the rank and grade of 
     such officer authorized for the armed force of which such 
     officer is a member.''.

  Mr. NUNN. This amendment to the National Security Act of 1947 
provides, in the event neither the director or deputy director of 
Central Intelligence is a commissioned officer of the Armed Forces, a 
commissioned officer of the Armed Forces appointed to the position of 
associate director of Central Intelligence for Military Support, while 
serving in such position, shall not be counted against the numbers and 
percentages of commissioned officers of the rank and grade of such 
officers authorized for the Armed Force of which such officer is a 
member.
  Mr. President, the law now provides that a commissioned officer of 
the Armed Forces appointed as either the Director or Deputy Director of 
the Central Intelligence Agency shall not be counted against the 
numbers and percentages of commissioned officers of the rank and grade 
of such officer authorized for the Armed Force of which such officer is 
a member.
  At the present time, neither the Director nor Deputy Director of the 
CIA is a commissioned officer. At the same time, an important new 
position of Associate Director of the CIA for Military Support is being 
created. The incumbent of the new position, who will be a three-star 
admiral, will serve as the principal advisor to the Director and Deputy 
Director of the CIA on military issues, with particular emphasis on 
Intelligence Community support for military forces and operations. This 
will include serving as liaison between the Intelligence Community and 
senior military officers of the Joint Staff and the unified combatant 
commands; evaluating the adequacy of intelligence support for all 
military purposes, including operations, training, and weapons 
acquisition; reviewing intelligence resources in the light of military 
needs; representing the Director of Central Intelligence on various 
boards and interagency groups established for crises and issues that 
potentially involve the deployment of U.S. military forces; and serving 
as the Director's principal liaison with foreign military 
organizations.
  This new position will be of critical importance under the 
circumstances when, as now, neither the Director nor Deputy Director of 
CIA are commissioned officers. However, because of Congressionally 
mandated grade limitations, the Navy, which will be providing the 3-
star officer for this position, does not have a 3-star number available 
and has had to borrow a number from the Army. The Army will need that 
number in a couple of months.
  This amendment, by enabling the assignment of a three-star officer 
without counting against that officer's Armed Force, would facilitate 
the performance of this critically important function at times when, as 
at present, neither the Director nor Deputy Director of CIA is a 
commissioned officer.
  What this amendment does, since there is no military officer either 
as director or deputy director, it simply shifts over and allows this 
exemption on counting against the officers in the military services to 
apply to the new position, which is the associate director for military 
matters.
  This is a new position. It will carry out the spirit of what we had 
done in the past with this exemption. 

[[Page S11199]]

  I believe this amendment is acceptable to both sides. I hope it would 
be supported.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have no objection to this amendment. 
It will make it possible for one qualified service military officer to 
be assigned to the CIA without counting against the limit on senior 
officers within the Department of Defense.
  I join the distinguished Senator from Georgia in supporting this 
amendment and urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further discussion, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment numbered 2085, offered by the 
Senator from Georgia.
  The amendment (No. 2085) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2086

(Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance, Naval Surface Warfare Center, 
                              Memphis, TN)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thompson, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     Thompson, proposes an amendment numbered 2086.

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

       On page 487, below line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 2838. LAND CONVEYANCE, NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER, 
                   MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE.

       (a) Authority To Convey.--The Secretary of the Navy may 
     convey to the Memphis and Shelby County Port Commission, 
     Memphis, Tennessee (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Port''), all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to a parcel of real property (including any 
     improvements thereon) consisting of approximately 26 acres 
     that is located at the Carderock Division, Naval Surface 
     Warfare Center, Memphis Detachment, Presidents Island, 
     Memphis, Tennessee.
       (b) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance of 
     real property under subsection (a), the Port shall--
       (1) grant to the United States a restrictive easement in 
     and to a parcel of real property consisting of approximately 
     100 acres that is adjacent to the Memphis Detachment, 
     Presidents Island, Memphis, Tennessee; and
       (2) if the fair market value of the easement granted under 
     paragraph (1) exceeds the fair market value of the real 
     property conveyed under subsection (a), provide the United 
     States such addition consideration as the Secretary and the 
     Port jointly determine appropriate so that the value of the 
     consideration received by the United States under this 
     subsection is equal to or greater than the fair market value 
     of the real property conveyed under subsection (a).
       (c) Condition of Conveyance.--The conveyance authorized by 
     subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance with the 
     provisions of the Land Exchange Agreement between the United 
     States of America and the Memphis and Shelby County Port 
     Commission, Memphis, Tennessee.
       (d) Determination of Fair Market Value.--The Secretary 
     shall determine the fair market value of the real property to 
     be conveyed under subsection (a) and of the easement to be 
     granted under subsection (b)(1). Such determinations shall be 
     final.
       (e) Use of Proceeds.--The Secretary shall deposit any 
     proceeds received under subsection (b)(2) as consideration 
     for the conveyance of real property authorized under 
     subsection (a) in the special account established pursuant to 
     section 204(h) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 485(h)).
       (f) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) and the easement to be granted under 
     subsection (b)(1) shall be determined by surveys satisfactory 
     to the Secretary. The cost of the surveys shall be borne by 
     the Port.
       (g) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance authorized by subsection (a) and the 
     easement granted under subsection (b)(1) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.

  Mr. THURMOND. The committee has reviewed the amendment. It provides 
for the exchange of property at fair market value, which ensures that 
the Federal Government is fully compensated.
  The amendment appears to be in the best interest of the Navy and the 
communities.
  I recommend approval of the amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment is supported by the 
Department of Navy.
  I have a letter dated July 28 from the principal deputy of the 
Department of Navy, Office of the Assistant Secretary, and I ask it be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Department of the Navy,


                            Office of the Assistant Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 1995.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond: Based on the inquiries from your 
     staff, this is to advise you that the Department of the Navy 
     would support the proposed legislation pertaining to a 
     proposed land agreement involving the Naval Surface Warfare 
     Center, Memphis Detachment and Memphis and Shelby County Port 
     Commission. The property is located at Presidents Island, 
     Memphis, Tennessee.
       The proposed legislation will provide a buffer zone between 
     the river and the Cavitation Channel facility, which will 
     increase mission efficiency. In addition, the Navy has no 
     immediate need for the crane which if transferred to the 
     Ports Authority will be maintained in operable condition and 
     available for our use in the future if required.
       If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate 
     to call.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Cheryl Kandaras,
                                                 Principal Deputy.

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment will allow a transfer of 
property between the U.S. Navy and the Port of Memphis, TN. The Navy 
will receive 100 acres of land to act as both a security and acoustic 
buffer zone for its Naval Service Warfare Center in Memphis. In return, 
the port will obtain from the Navy a 1,250-ton stiff leg derrick crane. 
The crane will give the port a facility to load and offload specialty 
cargo. In fact, no other port in the Central United States will have 
such lifting capabilities. This will be a great benefit for recruitment 
of future industry to Memphis and Shelby County.
  This is something the Navy wants and the Port of Memphis and others 
in the community want. Local officials say it will bring new industry 
and more jobs to the Memphis area. As this is beneficial for both sides 
and there are no new costs involved, I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge approval of the amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2086) was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. 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. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________