[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 136 (Tuesday, September 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12527-S12530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 1026, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1026) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1996 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Brown amendment No. 2125, to clarify restrictions on
assistance to Pakistan.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to advise all Senators that the
Senate is on the Defense authorization bill, and the unanimous-consent
agreement we propounded before adjourning on August 11 requires us to
remain on this bill until all debate is completed and we have a final
vote. This bill is essential to our national security and must be
passed today.
Let me start the discussion by alerting everyone of today's plans.
First, from now until 5 p.m. we plan to debate those amendments that
are in order under the unanimous-consent agreement of August 11.
Second, we plan to stack the votes on those amendments and dispose of
them immediately after the vote on the Defense appropriations bill
scheduled for 5 p.m. today.
Third, after the stacked votes, we plan to proceed to consideration
of the bipartisan missile defense amendments. This debate is scheduled
for 3 hours. When that debate concludes, we plan to vote on the
amendment and then vote on the bill itself.
This means all amendments that are in order under the unanimous-
consent agreement should be raised and debated prior to 5 p.m. today to
ensure
[[Page S 12528]]
they are given appropriate consideration. If amendments are not offered
early, they may have to wait until after 9 p.m. this evening. Keep in
mind that the unanimous-consent agreement we are operating under states
that we will not adjourn or recess until final vote is taken on the
authorization bill.
Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to come forward with their
amendments, limit debate, and work toward a timely vote on this bill.
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. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily set aside so that I can offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2427
(Purpose: To revise the applicability of the Atomic Energy Community
Act of 1955 to Los Alamos, NM)
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), for himself and
Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 2427.
Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 570, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
SEC. 3168. APPLICABILITY OF ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ACT OF
1955 TO LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO.
(a) Date of Transfer of Utilities.--Section 72 of the
Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955 (42 U.S.C. 2372) is
amended by striking out ``not later than five years after the
date it is included within this Act'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``not later than June 30, 1998''.
(b) Date of Transfer of Municipal Installations.--Section
83 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2383) is amended by striking out
``not later than five years after the date it is included
within this Act'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``not later
than June 30, 1998''.
(c) Recommendation for Further Assistance Payments.--
Section 91 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2391) is amended--
(1) by striking out ``, and the Los Alamos School Board;''
and all that follows through ``county of Los Alamos, New
Mexico'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``; or not later than
June 30, 1996, in the case of the Los Alamos School Board and
the county of Los Alamos, New Mexico''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``If
the recommendation under the preceding sentence regarding the
Los Alamos School Board or the county of Los Alamos, New
Mexico, indicates a need for further assistance for the
school board or the county, as the case may be, after June
30, 1997, the recommendation shall include a report and plan
describing the actions required to eliminate the need for
further assistance for the school board or the county,
including a proposal for legislative action to carry out the
plan.''.
(d) Contract To Make Payments.--Section 94 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 2394) is amended--
(1) by striking out ``June 30, 1996'' each place it appears
in the proviso in the first sentence and inserting in lieu
thereof ``June 30, 1997''; and
(2) by striking out ``July 1, 1996'' in the second sentence
and inserting in lieu thereof ``July 1, 1997''.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering on
behalf of myself and Senator Domenici is a modification of the
amendment that we originally filed, amendment No. 2159. We have made
several modifications in the original amendment to accommodate the
desires of the managers on both sides to speed the day that assistance
payments to Los Alamos County and its school board can be brought to a
mutually agreeable conclusion.
Mr. President, the amendment would extend assistance payments under
the Atomic Energy Community Act to Los Alamos County and the Los Alamos
School Board for 1 year, until June 30, 1997. It would require a report
from the Department of Energy by June 30, 1996 on how and whether a
plan could be drawn up to end these payments at that time.
The original amendment would have had a 2-year extension. The pending
amendment would also require the utilities and municipal installations
now run by Department of Energy be transferred to the county by June
30, 1998, instead of June 30, 2001, as in the original amendment.
Mr. President, the two Los Alamos governmental entities are the last
remaining recipients of payments under the Atomic Energy Community Act
of 1954. That law originally encompassed the Hanford area and the Oak
Ridge area in Tennessee as well. When those communities ceased to
receive payments under the act, substantial settlements were reached
with the communities to put them on a firm financial footing.
Senator Jackson and Senator Magnuson won approval of an amendment of
a settlement for the Hanford communities in the late 1970's. Senator
Howard Baker, then the majority leader, spearheaded the Oak Ridge
settlement in the early 1980's during the Reagan defense buildup when
defense funds were plentiful.
Mr. President, unfortunately, the Los Alamos community and DOE did
not reach agreement at that time on a transition plan. The Department
of Energy told Congress in a 1986 report that the existing arrangement
should be continued. So Senator Domenici and I in 1986 offered an
amendment extending the payment for 10 years to June 30, 1996.
Mr. President, we do not have the option today of making a
substantial one-time payment to the Los Alamos entities. The Department
of Energy has been discussing possible land transfers and other
arrangements with the county.
These arrangements will involve other Federal agencies and other
local entities, and will require time and will probably require that
legislation be enacted.
The Department of Energy also must negotiate a new contract with the
University of California to run the laboratory in 1996, and there is a
possibility that the Department of Energy will decide to compete that
contract. The details of that contract could also affect the county and
the school board significantly.
For those reasons, Senator Domenici and I are proposing to give these
processes time to work and have the Congress revisit this issue late
next year, or more likely in 1997, with specific Department of Energy
proposals in hand.
The provision that we are offering has been worked out between the
Department of Energy and the community leaders and has the support of
both as an interim step toward a comprehensive solution within the next
2 years.
Mr. President, I understand this is acceptable to both the majority
and the Democratic sides, and I urge support of the amendment.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have no opposition to this amendment
and are willing to accept it. As I understand, the amendment is offered
not only by the distinguished Senator who is speaking, Senator
Bingaman, but also Senator Domenici. They are both in favor of the
amendment, and we are willing to accept it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the
amendment, without objection the amendment is agreed to.
So the amendment (No. 2427) was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2157
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to take such actions as
are necessary to reduce the cost of renovation of the Pentagon
Reservation to not more than $1,118,000,000)
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
[[Page S 12529]]
amendment 2125 be temporarily laid aside so that I can offer an
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up for consideration amendment
No. 2157.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself,
Mr. Feingold, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Lott, proposes an
amendment numbered 2157:
The amendment is as follows:
On page 515, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 2864. RENOVATION OF THE PENTAGON RESERVATION.
The Secretary of Defense shall take such action as is
necessary to reduce the total cost of the renovation of the
Pentagon Reservation to not more than $1,118,000,000.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
myself, Senator Feingold, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Lott. It is a
very simple amendment. The amendment sets a new target for the total
cost of renovation of the Pentagon over a multiyear period. The target
that we set in here is $1.118 billion. That is $100 million less than
the level previously set.
Mr. President, in 1990, Congress took the Pentagon out of the hands
of the General Services Administration and put it in the hands of the
Department of Defense. The reason was that the GSA was doing nothing to
renovate the building, which was in disrepair, and was getting paid a
lot more than maintenance costs. The 1990 law set the course for
Pentagon renovation. Such renovation is desperately needed. There is no
question about that. The building is over 50 years old. Its utilities
are totally outmoded. Power outages are routine. Rats roam the
basement. There is no question that we need to move ahead, and we are
moving ahead.
In recent years, the Appropriations Committee has required the
Secretary of Defense to certify that the total cost of Pentagon
renovation will not exceed $1.218 billion. Secretary Perry sent the
last such certification to Senator Byrd on December 19, 1994.
In March of this year, Secretary Perry appointed a steering committee
chaired by Dr. Kaminski to review plans for the Pentagon renovation and
to make recommendations on options available for cost reductions,
transition of personnel, and ultimate tenancy of the building.
It is my understanding that Deputy Secretary White has now taken over
that committee. The March Pentagon news release says that--
This review will include a reexamination of all lower cost
options. At a time when the Secretary has initiated efforts
to improve housing for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines, we need to do all we can to insure that dollars
being spent for other infrastructure projects are not being
taken away from the very high priority of improving the
lifestyle of our men and women in uniform. It is also prudent
at this stage in the project to take a new look to insure
that costs are being contained and that we won't end up with
more money being spent than initially estimated.
Mr. President, my cosponsors and I agree with that statement from the
Pentagon. We are spending $161 million this year for Pentagon
renovation. The Secretary is right that it is time to assess where we
are. There is evidence that we can get a better price than the $1.218
billion previously estimated for the renovation.
On page 33 of the annual status report on Pentagon renovation
submitted March 1, 1995, it is noted that--
Favorable bids on the Basement Phase I renovation were
received on August 10 of 1994. The contract was awarded
August 30, 1994 to Hyman Construction Company for
$48,043,871. The original bid was about 36 percent below the
Government estimate.
The amendment we are offering today gives the Pentagon steering
committee a target to aim for in their cost reduction efforts, and I
for one hope they can do even better than this target. When we are
asking Americans in all walks of life to tighten their belts, the
Pentagon can do its fair share at the renovation of its headquarters.
That is what this amendment attempts to achieve.
Mr. President, as I understand the situation, the majority has agreed
to this amendment, and on the Democratic side Senator Glenn has
indicated opposition and a desire to speak to the amendment.
Until he comes and has that opportunity, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold his quorum call
request?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do withhold the quorum call request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Colorado?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I will yield such time as the Senator
requires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWN. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee.
Mr. President, I will shortly offer an amendment with regard to
Fitzsimons Army Hospital located just outside Denver, CO. I thought I
would take advantage of the lull here for a moment and just share a few
thoughts about Fitzsimons.
It is with some sadness that I offer an amendment with regard to
Fitzsimons. This hospital is one that has played an important role in
Colorado and in the Rocky Mountain region for many, many years.
It is on the Base Closure Commission's list of facilities to be
closed. And thus the community has sought, on a rapid basis, to find
another use for this facility. That will be the subject of the
amendment that I will offer. But I wanted to share a few thoughts with
the Chamber also about Fitzsimons because it is an important faculty
for Colorado as well as the entire region.
It was built during World War I in response to a number of casualties
that came in from the fronts in Europe and provided treatment for our
military personnel. It is an area that I know well. The place where it
is built is just east of the city of Denver and is an area where my
grandfather fed cattle prior to and during World War I. It is a
hospital that has long served the people of the Rocky Mountain region.
It is where my great-grandfather passed away. He was a Civil War
veteran and received treatment at that facility and then passed away
prior to World War II, where my father took his enlistment physical
just after Pearl Harbor in 1942. It is where I took my enlistment
physical when I entered the Navy in 1962.
It is sad that it is closing. And I say that because our delegation
was interested in saving money and has several times----
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from
South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. On the question of time, how does the Senator want his
time charged? Is he going to offer an amendment? Does he want time
charged to himself?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, Mr. President.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, is that clear now? The time he uses will
be charged to him when he offers this amendment and not to the present
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. What is the pending business of the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment 2157 offered
by the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside so I may offer an amendment to the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2428
(Purpose: To urge the Secretary of the Army to move expeditiously to
lease the Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Colorado, slated for closure
1995)
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment and send it to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment
numbered 2428.
Mr. BROWN. 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:
At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new
section:
[[Page S 12530]]
SEC. . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING FITZSIMONS ARMY
MEDICAL CENTER, COLORADO.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) Fitzsimons Army Medical Center in Aurora, Colorado has
been recommended for closure in 1995 under the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990;
(2) The University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and
the University of Colorado Hospital Authority are in urgent
need of space to maintain their ability to deliver health
care to meet the growing demand for their services;
(3) Reuse of the Fitzsimons facility at the earliest
opportunity would provide significant benefit to the cities
of Aurora and Denver; and
(4) Reuse of the Fitzsimons facility by the local community
ensures that the property is fully utilized by providing a
benefit to the community.
(b) Sense of Congress.--Therefore, it is the sense of
Congress that upon acceptance of the Base Closure list--
(1) The federal screening process for Fitzsimons Army
Medical Center should be accomplished at the earliest
opportunity;
(2) The Secretary of the Army should consider on an
expedited basis transferring Fitzsimons Army Medical Center
to the Local Redevelopment Authority while still operational
to ensure continuity of use to all parties concerned;
(3) The Secretary should not enter into a lease with the
Local Redevelopment Authority until he has established that
the lease falls within the categorical exclusions established
by the Department of the Army pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(4) This section is in no way intended to circumvent the
decisions of the 1995 BRAC;
(c) Report.--180 days after the enactment of this Act the
Secretary of the Army shall provide a report to the
appropriate committees of the Congress on the Fitzsimons Army
Medical Center that covers--
(1) The results of the federal screening process for
Fitzsimons and any actions that have been taken to expedite
the review;
(2) Any impediments raised during the federal screening
process to the transfer or lease of Fitzsimons Army Medical
Center;
(3) Any actions taken by the Secretary of the Army to lease
the Fitzsimons Army Medical Center to the local redevelopment
authority;
(4) The results of any environmental reviews under the
National Environmental Policy Act in which such a lease would
fall into the categorical exclusions established by the
Secretary of the Army; and
(5) The results of the environmental baseline survey and a
finding of suitability or nonsuitability.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this amendment is one that we have worked
with members of the Armed Services Committee to tailor. It is only a
sense of the Senate, but it expresses a strong hope that this country
will move quickly to develop another use for the Fitzsimons hospital.
Mr. President, I might point out that it was my wish we offer
legislation on this bill to transfer the hospital so it could be
immediately turned over to another beneficial use. Unfortunately, I am
advised that it is the wish of the committee that we not proceed in
that fashion. While that alternative use is desirable, both for the
Federal Government and for the community, it is the wish of the
committee to follow a procedure set forth in law.
The problem with doing so, Mr. President, is that a delay could cause
the loss of this alternative use. Fitzsimons Medical Center is a vital
and important part of our economy. It will be shut down. It will be
closed. It is the thought of the community that it should be
immediately put to new use. And, fortunately, the University of
Colorado's Health Science Center happens at the moment to be looking
for an alternative facility. It is a serendipitous circumstance that
this reuse is available just at the time the facility is being shut
down.
So, what we had hoped to have is an immediate authorization for it to
be used by the University of Colorado Health Science Center. It could
provide significant savings because you would not have the long delay
and expense of the shutdown and the closedown. It could provide
immediate and beneficial use of the facilities, saving not only the
University of Colorado money but the Federal Government money as well.
Mr. President, that is not what this amendment does. I wish it did.
What this amendment does is simply express the sense of Congress that
this alternative has merit and ask for its prompt consideration. My
hope is, though, that we will see the Pentagon act expeditiously in
developing this as the alternative use. It is of enormous benefit to
the community to have this facility reused as a medical center. It not
only makes the best use of the facility, but it also helps the
community by saving jobs, medical jobs, that had been at Fitzsimons.
Many of them can be saved by this alternative use by the University of
Colorado.
Mr. President, last, let me close with this thought. The delegation
from Colorado did not come in as others have in some areas and said,
``No, do not look at our facility. Do not consider us in trying to save
money.'' We said, if closing down Fitzsimons makes sense, it ought to
be done. But if it does not, if it is not the most cost-effective
alternative to save money, then do not do it. And our delegation itself
asked for studies to indicate whether or not it was economically
feasible to keep it open.
The objective studies done by the Pentagon independently indicated it
was cost effective to keep the facility open. It provides medical
services for the entire region.
After that objective study was done, questions were again raised. We
again asked for a second objective study. That second objective study
came back. Again, it identified that it was cost effective to keep this
facility open. Fitzsimons was one of those facilities kept open between
World War I and World War II. It was kept open, I believe, because it
services an entire region of the country in terms of health care for
our veterans and for our service men and women. It was kept open
between World War I and between World War II and kept open after World
War II and before Korea and kept open after Korea and before Vietnam
and kept open after Vietnam.
When it was put on the closure list, we asked one thing of the
Commission: to review the independent studies, and if they disagreed
with those studies, tell us where they did disagree. Mr. President,
they did not do that. All the objective studies that looked at
Fitzsimons indicated it was responsible to keep it open and
functioning. When the Base Closure Commission looked at it, they did
not address those studies.
Mr. President, this is a mistake. It is a mistake to close the
facility. It is not a cost-effective move on the part of the military.
What is more, the Base Closure Commission has never addressed the
independent studies and findings that showed it was cost effective.
Mr. President, I support the Base Closure Commission. I will vote for
their report. But, Mr. President, I do not agree with all of their
suggestions. It will be a sad day when this facility is closed. I am
happy, though, to see that there is a positive, significant,
alternative use for it. It has the broad support of the full delegation
of Colorado and the broad support of the entire community. But, Mr.
President, I continue to feel it is a mistake for the U.S. military to
close a facility that is a most cost-effective alternative to health
care needs that they are committed to supply.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we would like more time to look into
this amendment. We cannot go undermining what the Base Closure
Commission has done, but we would like to study this amendment further.
I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside and let us consider it
further during the day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, since there is a
lull on the floor, that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________