[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 149 (Friday, September 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14107-S14114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
now proceed to the consideration of the conference report accompanying 
H.R. 1817, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     1817) making appropriations for military construction, family 
     housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and 
     for other purposes, having met, after full and free 
     conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of 
     the conferees.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 14, 1995.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Under the previous order, there will 
be 20 minutes of debate equally divided between the Senator from 
Montana [Mr. Burns], and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], or their 
designees. There will be 10 minutes under the control of the Senator 
from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], and there will be 20 minutes under the 
control of the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain].
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the 
conference report on military construction appropriations for fiscal 
year 1996.
  The conference report is within the 602(b) budget allocation for both 
budget authority and outlays. I would like to mention just briefly some 
of the provisions in this conference agreement.
  First, the conferees agreed with the Senate and approved $3.9 billion 
for the implementation of the base realignment and closure decisions. 
This amount includes $785 million for the 1995 round. There is also 
$457 million for environmental cleanup of these facilities. It has been 
a difficult year for all of us in this area, and I am hopeful that 
these funds will relieve some of 

[[Page S 14108]]
the burden that has affected the communities and what they are 
experiencing with these base closings.
  Mr. President, 38 percent of our bill is for family housing. We have 
included Secretary Perry's initiative for a new family housing program. 
We are hopeful that this will start to relieve some of the burden in 
keeping adequate housing for our service people.
  With regard to the barracks and dormitories, we provided $675 
million. We are hopeful that the Department will soon begin another 
program to provide alternative methods of housing our service members. 
We cannot afford to continue to build brandnew barracks when we still 
have people living in open bays.
  The conferees did agree to earmark 430 million dollars' worth of 
funds for the National Guard and Reserve. The Department continues to 
ignore the needs of our citizen soldiers, and we will not ignore them, 
because we are keenly aware of the vital role they play in the defense 
of this country.
  We did not fund any armories this year. This has been a difficult 
decision. However, we want the National Guard to take a hard look at 
where we are going with armories. There are about 3,000 armories in the 
United States, and we cannot keep adding new ones. In these austere 
times, the overhead has become too much of a burden.
  This is the first year for me on this subcommittee, and I look 
forward to the process next year. We have just begun to change on how 
we build and maintain our facilities for the military.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada, with whom I have 
worked closely on this bill, and the conferees in the House, because I 
think we have come through with a bill that is fair and balanced. We 
have kept everybody informed exactly on what we have been doing, and we 
have also taken a look at what the administration wants to do and some 
of the needs that might have been overlooked by the administration.
  So I yield the floor to my friend, the ranking minority member, the 
Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, at this time, I ask Senator Bingaman to go 
ahead and use his 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to speak on this 
legislation. I wish to speak in opposition to the conference report on 
H.R. 1817, which is the fiscal year 1996 Military Construction 
Appropriations Act.
  I opposed the bill when the Senate debated it in July, and now the 
conferees, in my view, have brought back an even worse bill with even 
more add-ons for Member interest projects.
  We hear much these days about the need for deficit reduction. 
Critical domestic programs, such as education and health care and 
energy assistance for the poor and civilian research are being 
decimated by the Republican Congress on the grounds that we absolutely 
must fulfill the electorate's mandate to balance the budget by the year 
2002.
  Committees throughout the Congress are busily reporting their 
contributions to the reconciliation bill and including provisions that, 
in my view, will do major damage to our Nation's health and future 
prosperity.
  We have already debated some appropriations bills that make major 
reductions in critical programs, such as Indian education and health. 
We will soon be debating others which decimate domestic programs in 
housing, education, and many other areas.
  While these domestic programs are being cut to the bone, we have 
before us now a conference report that includes 129 Member interest 
projects not requested by the Pentagon.
  The projects, totaling $795 million, are spread among 45 States--all 
except Connecticut, Maine, Delaware, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Texas 
tops the list with nine add-on projects, totaling $47 million. Kansas 
has five projects worth $33.5 million and, accordingly, is another big 
winner.
  Mr. President, this bill makes a mockery of all the protestations 
about deficit reduction coming from this Congress and leading 
Republican candidates. In my view, the President should veto this bill. 
The President was not stingy in his request for funding for military 
construction projects. His fiscal year 1996 military construction 
budget proposed a 22-percent increase; that is nearly a $2 billion 
increase above the 1995 level. He put particular emphasis on the needs 
for family housing and implementation of base closure and realignment 
recommendations.
  What this Congress is now proposing to send to the President is a 
pork-laden bill with a net addition of $479 million above the 
President's budget request. Essentially, this so-called fiscally 
conservative Congress is saying that a 22-percent increase in military 
construction is not enough, that the increase needs to be 28 percent.
  Mr. President, where else are we saying that this year? Outside of 
the defense budget, is there a single major discretionary or mandatory 
spending category that is growing 27 percent? I cannot think of a 
single one. I can think of a lot that are being cut at least 28 
percent. In reality, the increase is even larger because many of the 
so-called cuts made in the bill are phony. They will just pay the bills 
in future years. A few large projects are stretched out so that we can 
defer paying the total bill until some future fiscal year. For example, 
$92 million is postponed from the third phase of a project in the Army 
Institute of Research in Maryland out of $119 million requested.
  I could give other examples. Unfortunately, this bill has sailed 
through both Houses with bipartisan support. There is so much money 
available to spend in this area that there has been plenty to allocate 
to interest items on the Democratic as well as the Republican side. 
When Senators McCain, Kerrey, and I attempted on July 21 to trim $300 
million out of the Senate version of the bill that had at the time 
about 100 unrequested projects, we were defeated 77 to 18. That vote 
occurred minutes after the Senate had given final approval to the $16 
billion in rescissions in domestic programs for fiscal year 1995.
  The President has not condoned business as usual on this bill in the 
Congress. Throughout the budget process, the administration has 
expressed strong objections to the hundreds of millions of dollars in 
unrequested military construction projects. OMB Director Alice Rivlin 
told Senate Appropriations Chairman Hatfield on July 18 that ``with the 
Nation facing serious budget constraints, such a spending increase is 
not affordable.''
  The American people are not clamoring for additional spending for the 
Pentagon. What little support there is for increased Pentagon spending, 
in my view, will dwindle further when the public realizes how the 
additional funds would be spent by the Congress.
  Mr. President, I hope that President Clinton will not associate 
himself with this bill. He should use his bully pulpit to explain to 
the American people that there are better uses for this money, 
including deficit reduction and education and health.
  The American people want a strong defense. They also want a brighter 
future for their children through investments in education and 
research. They want a society that does not turn its back on those 
least able to fend for themselves. Our defense is not strengthened by 
squandering money on projects that the Pentagon has not requested. If 
Congress insists on doing so, the American people should hold us 
accountable for these misplaced priorities.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to set aside the narrow parochial 
interests and to resist the temptation of the easy press release about 
how good this bill is for bases in their home State, and to cast a vote 
against this conference report in the national interest.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from New 
Mexico have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has 3 minutes, 20 seconds.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator allow that time to be used by Senator 
Glenn?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am pleased to yield that time to Senator Glenn.
  Mr. GLENN. I appreciate that. Mr. President, I will be brief today.
  Mr. President, I rise today to raise my concerns over the pending 
fiscal year 1996 military construction conference report.
  The conference agreement provides a total of $11.2 billion in funding 
which is 

[[Page S 14109]]
$480 million more than the budget request; $775 million of that amount 
is for military construction projects for which the Pentagon made no 
request.
  I have mixed feelings about this conference report, Mr. President. I 
strongly disagree with the practice Congress has developed over the 
years, with the tacit assent of the Pentagon, that results in $770 
million in unrequested projects being included in the bill.
  Members are expected to get military construction projects added to 
each year's bill in order to demonstrate that he or she can bring home 
the bacon. This, in part, results from the Pentagon's recurring failure 
to adequately fund Guard and Reserve construction requirements. The 
Pentagon does not request these projects but, instead, expects Congress 
to add these projects to the budget.
  The result is a skewing of priorities, in my opinion, Mr. President. 
Rather than informing Congress of what is really needed, projects are 
funded based on a given member's ability to get the funding included in 
the authorization and appropriations bills. The Senator from Arizona 
and I contacted Secretary Perry earlier this year to express our 
concern over this practice and asked that the Guard and Reserve 
requirements be included in the budget request.
  As I mentioned, I have mixed feelings about this year's conference 
report because, even though we are still engaging in the practice of 
adding close to a billion dollars in projects, on the Senate side, we 
have adopted a set of criteria by which to measure add-on requests. I 
have worked on those criteria over the years with the chairman of the 
Readiness Subcommittee, the Senator from Arizona. And, I am pleased 
that the appropriators followed those criteria this year as well.
  I do not think it is too much to ask, Mr. President, that a military 
construction project meet certain minimum standards like being a valid 
military requirement, being in the service's 5-year program or having 
the project be sufficiently designed to be able to begin the project in 
the year in which it is authorized and appropriated. Quite frankly, if 
a project does not meet these criteria, we should not be including it 
as a military construction project.
  Unfortunately, there are projects in this conference report that do 
not meet the standards we have set. I understand that these projects 
came over in conference from the House, but there are several that are 
not included in the 5-year plan and there is one that the Army simply 
does not want. I hope we can continue our efforts to clean up the add-
on process so that we do not end up with these kinds of projects being 
funded in the future.
  I will add that I think we are making enormous progress in this area. 
We used to have sheets and sheets of these things that came over. 
Almost every member on the committees over there, and also here, wanted 
something put in to sweeten the pot to show back home that they made a 
special effort. This year we are down to very few--practically none in 
the Senate, and about a dozen or so, or 15 or 20 from over in the 
House.
  There are several important positive things about the conference 
report that are worthy of support. The BRAC accounts are fully funded--
these projects are important so that we can get closed back into 
productive use. Secretary Perry's housing initiative is fully funded--
we are hopeful that this new approach will work to leverage limited 
funds to get new housing for our troops and their families. And, there 
is a considerable number of barracks, family housing projects, health 
care centers, and child care centers that will add to service members' 
quality of life.
  All in all, I can support this conference report, Mr. President, but 
I felt compelled to outline my concerns on the add-on issue. I would 
hope next year we can see, for the first time, no add-ons that do not 
meet the criteria.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator yield so I can propound a unanimous-
consent request?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, first of all, I ask for the yeas and nays 
on the adoption of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur 
at 10:20 this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Ohio for all his 
efforts on behalf of bringing about a rational and reasonable process 
in allocating scarce taxpayer dollars for military construction 
projects. I also agree with my friend from Ohio that we have made 
significant progress. There has been a dramatic decrease in the numbers 
of MilCon properties that have been added--if I might say bluntly, pork 
barrel projects--over the years.

  I say to my friend from Ohio, we have a long way to go. There are in 
this bill 21 projects that came from the House of Representatives that 
had no--no--relation to any national security requirement, was not on 
any person's list, was not any requirement by the Defense Department 
and simply was added on because it clearly related to members of the 
committee of oversight.
  Let me also point out there is one here on the Senate side which 
jumps out to me. It is from the State of West Virginia.
  Now, there is no rationale for that project. There is no rationale 
for the 21 that are from the House. There is also a distortion in the 
process which Senator Glenn and I are working on with the Secretary of 
Defense, and that is that when we take from the future years defense 
plan MilCon projects we are given a list of several thousand projects 
that would be proposed over the next 5 or 6 years.
  What Senator Glenn and I are proposing to Secretary of Defense Perry 
is that now the Department of Defense prioritize their list 1 through 
2,000 or 10,000 or whatever it is, so when we pick additional 
projects--and Mr. President, I deeply regret the reality there will be 
additional add-ons which I will talk about, whether we should be adding 
on money for military construction projects or other priorities as 
articulated by the Secretary of Defense, the President of the United 
States, and all of the Joint Chiefs--when we do have add-ons, at least 
there will be a priority list.
  Now, some of these additions that meet the criteria that Senator 
Glenn and I were working on come from projects that were not planned by 
the Pentagon until the year 2001. That is not appropriate, either, I 
say to my dear friend from Ohio. We have to narrow this down and make 
it a lot better.
  Again, I appreciate the fact that Senator Glenn and I have been able 
to work on this issue in a bipartisan fashion now for some 8 years. I 
do believe that we are making some progress.
  I do not mean my remarks to be critical about the hard work of the 
chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking member from Nevada. I 
believe that they have done a very dedicated job and I appreciate their 
efforts.
  I point out that there are $706 million of add-ons in this bill, $480 
million above the President's request and there are 110 new projects.
  Mr. President, I wrote a letter on August 9 to the four military 
service chiefs and I asked them to comment on their priorities for add-
ons. I want to talk about this because I hear from people who support 
these additional projects. ``Well, we are doing this for the good of 
the men and women of the military. We have to improve their lifestyle. 
We have to make sure that their living conditions are better,'' et 
cetera, et cetera. No one is more dedicated to that proposition than 
the service chiefs.
  The service chief priorities, all four I wrote to, with the exception 
of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, said their priorities are 
different than those of the members of the Military Constructions 
Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Admiral Boorda said, ``* * * there is no issue more important to Navy 
than our long-term shipbuilding and TACAIR procurement requirements.''
  General Krulak, ``My first program priority is for those initiatives, 
both ground and air, that will enable us to out-maneuver and out-shoot 
our opponents on tomorrow's battlefield.'' 

[[Page S 14110]]

  General Fogleman, ``At the top of the list are * * * F-22, * * * 
strategic airlift, * * * additional six F-15E's and six F-16 block 50 
aircraft * * .''
  On and on and on. I got the same response from the Secretary of 
Defense.
  So, we should not be a little deceived at our zeal for the betterment 
of the men and women in the military. All of us share that commitment 
and desire. But the fact is that this is not in keeping with the 
priorities of the service chiefs and the Secretary of Defense.
  Since 1990, we have had $5 billion--billion, Mr. President--add-ons 
which are not requested by the Secretary of Defense for military 
construction projects.
  Now, we have done some good things. There is a new effort at better 
housing conditions for the men and women in the military, and military 
families.
  In the Readiness Subcommittee and in the Personnel Subcommittee we 
worked very hard on seeing that initiative move forward. We took a step 
forward on improvement of barracks. That is the rational way to do it.
  It is not rational, Mr. President, to add 21 projects which have no 
requirement whatever by the Department of Defense. Hypervelocity 
ballistic range facility at Redstone Arsenal, AL; a fire station at 
Grissom Air Force Reserve Base in Indiana; electrical system upgrade at 
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ; Stallion Range Center water development project 
at White Sands Missile Range; infantry platoon battle course and 
antiarmor tracking and live-fire range at Fort Drum, NY; Coscom health 
center and SOF barracks at Fort Bragg.
  Notice, Mr. President, most of the 21 add-ons that came from the 
other body have nothing to do with quality of life. There are some, but 
most of them in my view are simply pork barrel projects.
  A foundry renovation at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard; modified record-
fire range at Tullahoma Training Site in Tennessee; dining facility at 
Fort Bliss; a highway overpass at Fort Sam Houston; a BEQ expansion in 
Corpus Christi; small craft berthing pier at Ingleside; dormitory at 
Fairchild Air Force Base, WA; family housing at several other places.
  Mr. President, I think it is important to point out 37 States are 
represented on the Defense Committee or 74 percent of the total States. 
Mr. President, 34 of these States got add-ons in this bill, 84 projects 
totaling $537 million, representing 75 percent of the total adds that 
were awarded to those 34 States. Mr. President, I do not think it is 
coincidence.
  Mr. President, General Shalikashvili, responding to questions from 
the Armed Services Committee was clear and unequivocal in his 
prioritization of additional funding, did not mention military 
construction. He said:

       Contingency funding is at the top of the list for any 
     additional funding provided by Congress. . . priorities for 
     additional 1996 funding would include the accelerate of 
     warfighting enhancements identified in the Bottom-Up Review. 
     . . other priorities would include funding critical 
     modernization and procurement requirements that have slipped 
     in the future year's defense plan.

  None of the service chiefs or the Chairman cited any specific 
military construction projects as a high priority for additional 
funding.
  Now when we stand up here and talk about how this bill is for the 
betterment of the men and women in the military, I repeat, the service 
chiefs and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary 
of Defense have the same zeal and dedication to their betterment.
  They also know that they have to have the weapons with which to fight 
and die. General Mundy, before my subcommittee, stated he wanted the 
wife of a marine officer or enlisted person to be living in a very 
decent house but he did not want that person to be living in a decent 
house when the chaplain came to tell her that her husband was killed 
because he did not have the proper war-fighting equipment with which to 
save his life.
  I think that is as important a statement as I have ever heard and 
encapsulates my opposition to the $5 billion we have added since 1990 
in unneeded and unwanted military construction add-ons.
  Last year, the Congress added over $1 billion for specific 
unrequested military construction projects, and I believe this bill is 
too high, but it is only two-thirds of that amount, and I believe that 
is progress of a sort.
  I want to talk a moment about two projects which demonstrate the 
illogic of the decisions of funding add-ons. One is an add-on of $6 
million for renovating a foundry at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. 
The funds are used to bring the facility up to occupational standards 
to be utilized by the Navy at some point in the future.
  This project was not requested by the Navy, nor was it included in 
the Navy's long-term funding plan. It does not meet the Senate's 
criteria, and not included in the Senate's version of the bill, but it 
survived in the conference agreement. I do not understand why this 
project was chosen as a high-priority military requirement by the 
conferees.
  The other probability that I want to talk about is the addition of 
$10 million for the Barstow-Daggett Airport facility. This project was 
not requested. In fact, it was specifically rejected by the Army in a 
letter dated September 12 in which the Secretary of the Army stated 
that the project was not necessary because of better, cheaper and more 
readily available facilities at Edwards Air Force Base, yet the House 
added $10 million for the projects for the conferees and the conferees 
included in their agreement.
  Let me note that I do not intend to include this project in the 
military construction authorization conference report and I believe 
Secretary Perry should include both of these projects in his list of 
rescissions of low-priority military construction projects.
  Mr. President, I want to tell the chairman and the manager of the 
bill and the distinguished minority member, the Senator from Nevada, I 
intend to send a letter to the Secretary of Defense and the President 
seeking for him to submit to Congress a list of rescissions. I hope we 
will have passed that line-item veto legislation by then so that the 
President could simply line-item veto it.
  Mr. President, I cannot point solely to the Appropriations Committee 
for continuing the egregious practice of adding funding for unrequested 
military construction projects.
  With the addition of $7 billion to the overall defense budget 
request, I must admit that the Armed Services Committee was not able to 
resist the temptation to fund Members' special interest projects. One 
authorization conference report will likely authorize most of the added 
projects in this bill, even over my objection.
  The American people sent a message to Congress last year that things 
in Washington had to change, but unfortunately this bill shows just how 
much they have not changed.
  I mentioned already the amounts of money. Mr. President, 37 States 
are represented on either or both the Armed Services and Appropriations 
Committees, and 34 of those States got projects. Mr. President, 84 
State projects totaling $503.7 million, or 75 percent of the total add-
ons, are awarded to those 68 percent of the States which are 
represented on the committee. The list goes on and on. The bottom line 
is 86 percent of the States receiving add-ons in this bill are 
represented in the committee.
  It seems to me there is a shift occurring, and I am glad to see some 
of it happening, though. The $700 million added for unrequested 
projects as well as more than $5 billion added over the past 5 years 
were added directly for high priority programs supported by the armed 
services.
  As I noted before, the services need money for modernization, 
readiness, and other valid military requirements, not for military 
construction projects selected by Members of Congress. I recognize the 
futility of expecting Congress to stop adding money for military 
construction projects, but I think it is time to make those allocations 
based on the military services' priorities rather than location.
  This year is the first year, as Senator Glenn pointed out, the Senate 
used, or was supposed to use, the evaluation criteria for Member add-
ons which were adopted last year in the 1995 Defense Authorization Act. 
These criteria were set forth in a sense-of-the-Senate provision, and 
were designed to allow the Senate to evaluate Members' requests for 
additional military construction projects. Now that we have completed 
most of the review cycle, I 

[[Page S 14111]]
discovered an oversight in the criteria, which I mentioned before, and 
we need to correct that. I hope we can correct it soon.
  I intend to add to the established criteria a requirement that 
requests for add-ons be screened for priority against the relevant 
services' unfunded military construction priorities. In this way, the 
highest priorities can be funded first.
  Another serious concern I have about this bill concerns the inclusion 
of projects which do not meet the criteria of last year, and I have 
already discussed that.
  We still have a long way to go in the fight to eliminate pork barrel 
spending from the military construction bill in both the authorizing 
and appropriating cycles. The good news is that the total amount of 
military construction add-ons this year will be only two-thirds of the 
$1 billion added last year. In just 1 year, that is progress.
  The bad news is that when additional funds are available for Defense, 
it is difficult to argue successfully that none of these additional 
funds should be spent for military construction projects. My colleagues 
should also consider that it will be even more difficult next year to 
provide additional funding for Defense. Balancing the budget has become 
the most urgent priority facing the country.
  Another consideration of which my colleagues should become aware is 
the potential of a veto of the 1996 Defense appropriations bill. The 
President has threatened a veto in large part because of the additional 
$7 billion added to Defense. If the Defense bill is vetoed, Congress 
may be forced to cut back on some of the added spending in that bill, 
spending which was allocated principally to the modernization program 
so important to our military service chiefs.
  The question I put to my colleagues is: What share of any reduction 
in defense spending will be allocated to military construction? That 
may be a very important question.
  The conference report in some ways represents a significant 
improvement, but I believe we have a long way to go. I am glad to see 
the conferees did not add funding for any projects which were not 
included in either the House or the Senate versions of the bill. Of 
that I am deeply appreciative. There are many other laudable provisions 
in the bill, particularly the new family housing initiative which will, 
I believe, begin to solve the daunting problem of undertaking a massive 
overhaul of military housing across the Nation.
  I want to summarize by saying, in case some of my colleagues have not 
recognized it, defense spending overall has come under intense scrutiny 
and intense criticism throughout America. Many Americans do not 
understand why we are spending as much money as we are on defense in 
light of the fact that the cold war is over. They do not understand why 
we are purchasing post-cold-war relics such as the B-2 bomber and 
Seawolf submarine. They certainly do not understand why we add on 
military construction projects which have no relevance to national 
security requirements.
  The problem that we are facing, all of us, is maintaining the 
confidence of the American people that their tax dollars which are 
earmarked for defense are being spent wisely. If we continue to fund 
unneeded and unwanted projects, we will see further cuts in defense, 
which in my view will endanger our ability to defend this Nation's 
vital national security interests.
  I urge my colleagues to take that into consideration as they consider 
projects which are relevant only to their home State or district.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Montana 
have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 5 minutes. The 
Senator from Nevada has 10 minutes. And the Senator from Arizona has 3 
minutes left.
  Mr. REID. How much time does the distinguished President pro tempore 
require?
  Mr. THURMOND. About 4 minutes.
  Mr. REID. I will yield him 2 minutes of my time and the Senator from 
Montana will yield 2 minutes of his time.
  Mr. BURNS. That will be good.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to compliment Senator Burns and 
Senator Reid for their leadership in arriving at this conference. This 
military construction bill mirrors the construction priorities and 
criteria for projects established by the Armed Services Committee. I am 
particularly pleased by the emphasis placed on projects that will 
enhance the quality of life of the men and women in our military and on 
projects which will enhance the readiness of our Armed Forces. The bill 
also fully funds the base closure account request and provides the 
necessary funds to support environmental compliance projects. Both are 
areas which have historically been used as sources of funds for other 
projects.
  Mr. President, I believe overall this is a good conference report, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Although I urge the adoption of this conference report, I do not 
favor every item in it. If I had my way, I would have eliminated some 
of the add-ons, and other parts of the report. But this Appropriations 
Committee--and I am not a member of that committee--has studied this 
matter well. They have come up with this report. It is not perfect. No 
report is perfect. No report pleases everybody. But as a whole, this 
report will provide for the needs of the Defense Department and the men 
and women of our Armed Forces. I think it is important to our Nation 
and to our defense.
  I urge the Senate to adopt the report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Burns from Montana, in presenting 
this conference report on military construction for the next fiscal 
year. I also want to extend my appreciation to the distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina, the President pro tempore of the Senate, 
for his statement in support of this conference report.
  There is no one in the Senate who has more authority, more 
experience, and more ability in speaking about military readiness of 
this country than the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. It 
means a lot to the two managers of this bill to have him on the floor 
supporting this conference report.
  This conference report fulfills an obligation to fund downsizing of 
our extensive military overhead, extensive basing system, and fully 
funds the implementation of the Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission. That is a sizable chunk of this bill, almost $4 billion. 
More than a third of the dollars appropriated in this measure go to the 
Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
  So the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Nevada really were 
in an uphill battle in arriving at the conference report we did, when 
we start out using approximately one-third of the dollars appropriated 
for base closing and realignment.
  There are two other aspects of the bill which merit the Senate's 
attention. It goes a long way to getting our hands around the long-
neglected problem of housing for our military families and for our 
single soldiers. Housing has always taken a back seat to more urgent 
near-term military requirements.
  But it is the feeling of the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from 
Montana that housing is an important element of maintaining a safe, 
secure, and contented military.
  This year, as the distinguished chairman has pointed out, some 38 
percent of the bill is for housing. The new initiative by Secretary for 
private sector participation in new housing is included in the bill. 
Indeed, the committee has included about $179 million above the 
President's request for this housing. All of it, and more if we could 
afford it, is needed to bridge the gap that must be overcome in order 
to be able to maintain a high quality All-Volunteer Force in the years 
ahead. The request by the administration could have been higher, and I 
will give you an example. There were zero dollars in the request for 
whole barracks 

[[Page S 14112]]
renewal at one major western Army facility.
  It is in Hawaii. The structures are some 50 years or more old. They 
have had it. The conference committee wisely included $30 million for 
this project, money which was in the 5-year defense program, but only 
in future years. When we asked the Army why the barracks had no funding 
at all in fiscal year 1996, there was no coherent answer. So the 
subcommittee took what I think was a prudent step in beginning this 
project. This is but one example of actions which we took that put our 
final bill above the budget request by about $480 million over the 
President's request.
  Mr. President, a similar story can be told for the funding of the 
Reserve and Guard Forces of our country.
  Mr. President, it is traditional that the Pentagon never asks for 
money for the Guard and Reserve. I repeat: It is traditional. When we 
have this bill before us, we have an obligation to our Guard and 
Reserve Forces to fund them. It really is unfair what this 
administration has done and past administrations have done in funding 
the Guard and Reserve.
  If we are going to continue to be ready to deploy and fight in the 
Persian Gulf, or Korea, or elsewhere, and reduce the size of our Active 
Forces, we must maintain robust Reserve and Guard Forces. 
Unfortunately, the administration followed past practice this year and 
seriously underfunded these accounts.
  I cannot understand why this administration and past administrations 
ignore the Guard and Reserve. I do not understand. Well, I do. They do 
it because they know that we are going to take care of it. And I say 
this, Mr. President, we are going to continue, as long as I am part of 
this committee, to try to take care of our Guard and Reserve Forces 
regardless of how the administration ignores them, because it is an 
important and it is becoming a more important part of the national 
security of this country.
  Consider these figures--in fiscal year 1995 the Congress appropriated 
$574 million for the Reserves and Guard, while for fiscal year 1996 the 
administration requested only $182 million.
  They did not even ask for a third of what was given last year to the 
Guard and Reserve.
  So the committee had little choice but to dramatically increase the 
funding for projects in these accounts not requested for fiscal year 
1995, and appropriated some $430 million. So on the one hand we ended 
up some 25 percent below fiscal year 1995, we were still $248 million 
above the President's request. If we had just met the President's 
request, we would soon have a Reserve Force not ready to fight. That is 
clearly the case.
  Mr. President, the administration wrote to me and the chairman, 
providing its views on the bills passed by each Chamber and before we 
went to conference.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                               Washington, DC, September 14, 1995.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Subcommittee on Military Construction Appropriations, 
         Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: The purpose of this letter is to provide 
     the Administration's views on H.R. 1817, the Military 
     Construction Appropriations Bill, FY 1996, as passed by the 
     House and by the Senate. As you develop the conference 
     version of the bill, your consideration of the 
     Administration's views would be appreciated.
       The Administration is committed to balancing the Federal 
     budget by FY 2005. The President's budget proposes to reduce 
     discretionary spending for FY 1996 by $5 billion in outlays 
     below the FY 1995 enacted level. The Administration does not 
     support the level of funding assumed by the House or Senate 
     Committee 602(b) allocations. The Administration must 
     evaluate each bill both in terms of funding levels provided 
     and the share of total resources available for remaining 
     priorities. Both the House and Senate versions of this bill 
     exceed the President's request by over $450 million.
       The Administration has recognized the need for significant 
     funding increases for military construction programs by 
     proposing an overall increase of 22 percent over the FY 1995 
     enacted level. However, the Administration believes that 
     further increases, as provided by both the House and the 
     Senate, are unwarranted, particularly when other legislation 
     is drastically cutting programs that are vitally important to 
     a higher standard of living for all Americans. Because the 
     Administration has serious concerns about the overall 
     priorities reflected in the appropriations process, we 
     believe that it is essential to reduce the total funding 
     level provided in this bill.


                           funding priorities

       The Administration appreciates the support of the House and 
     Senate for funding the request for the base realignment and 
     closure program, the family housing program, and requested 
     construction projects. The Administration particularly 
     appreciates the approval of funding for the family housing 
     improvement program. The funding provided will enable the 
     Department of Defense to improve the quality of life of our 
     military members.
       The Administration notes, however, that both the House and 
     the Senate have provided approximately $650 million in 
     funding for unrequested construction projects. Many of these 
     projects are funded at the expense of high-priority requested 
     projects, and a number of these unrequested projects are not 
     included in the Defense Department's long-range plan. The 
     Administration strongly urges the conferees to eliminate 
     unrequested funding for low-priority programs.


                         overseas construction

       The House version of the bill provides $65 million, as 
     requested, for high-priority prepositioning projects at 
     classified locations overseas. The Senate has recommended 
     eliminating funding for these projects. Failure to pursue 
     these projects would increase military response time to areas 
     of particular importance to the U.S. and discourage further 
     cooperation by affected countries. Prepositioning on land is 
     a cost-effective way to permit our armed forces to react to 
     threats quickly and with the necessary military capability. 
     The conferees are urged to adopt the House position and to 
     provide the funding requested for these projects.


                         environmental cleanup

       The Administration objects to the House and Senate language 
     that would limit funding for environmental cleanup at base 
     realignment and closure sites. The Base Realignment and 
     Closure (BRAC) accounts were created with a great deal of 
     flexibility to permit DOD to allocate BRAC funds to the 
     programs and locations with the greatest need at the moment. 
     Constraining DOD's ability to apply BRAC funds to 
     environmental cleanup could, if estimated requirements 
     change, delay the transfer of base property to local 
     redevelopment authorities, worsening the economic impact on 
     the affected communities. The Administration urges the 
     conferees to uphold the flexibility of the BRAC accounts and 
     to support the affected communities by removing these 
     artificial ceilings.


                       chemical demilitarization

       The House version of the bill provides $95 million, as 
     requested, for continued construction of two chemical 
     demilitarization facilities at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and 
     Umatilla, Oregon. The Senate has recommended eliminating 
     funding for these two projects in the belief that unobligated 
     appropriations for construction of a chemical 
     demilitarization facility at Anniston, Alabama, would be 
     available for the projects. Contract award for the Anniston 
     facility, however, is scheduled during FY 1996. To help 
     maintain the construction schedule and prevent cost increases 
     in the chemical demilitarization program, the conferees are 
     urged to adopt the House position and to provide the funding 
     requested for these two facilities.
       The Administration believes that the suggested changes 
     discussed above would result in a fiscally responsible bill 
     that funds programs of national significance. We look forward 
     to working with the conferees to address our mutual concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Alice M. Rivlin,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the conference committee did make the 
serious effort to accommodate the administration on a number of items. 
We added some $65 million for an overseas construction item, in the 
Middle East, which the Senate had zeroed out in order to give the 
administration some incentive to secure matching funds of some kind 
from the recipient country.
  We did not get those matching funds. But we acceded to the 
President's request, and the request of the House, and met that $65 
million figure in conference. Such funds have not been secured, but we 
acceded to the administration's request in any event. Second, the 
administration asked to be relieved of a statutory ceiling on the 
amounts to be appropriated for environmental cleanup in the BRAC 
process. Here too we completely acceded to that request in the 
conference. Third, the administration wanted to reinstate funding for 
chemical demilitarization facilities which the Senate eliminated. In 
this case, the conference included planning and design funds for the 
projects. So I think it is fair to say we made a good faith effort to 
meet the administration's objections to the Senate bill. 

[[Page S 14113]]

  I say to the administration that they are making a mistake even 
thinking about vetoing this bill. This bill passed the House 326 to 98. 
It does not take much math to understand that is not very good material 
for vetoing. I believe this bill will pass the Senate by the same large 
margins because it is a good bill. It meets the problems of this 
country.
  Therefore, I think the administration should look hard and 
sympathetically at the committee's efforts to adequately fund the Guard 
and Reserve, and to adequately fund our housing needs in considering 
whether there was arguable justification for going above the 
President's request in its final appropriations recommendation. Nearly 
all the additional funds the committee added above the President's 
budget were dedicated to quality-of-life housing and Guard and Reserve 
projects. Therefore I strongly encourage the President to sign this 
bill and join with us in attacking the problems which the committee 
recognized as important to our Nation's national security.
  Mr. President, every project in this bill is for the national 
security of this country. I believe if we look at the Guard and 
Reserve--and we had a caucus on the Guard and Reserve which was 
bipartisan and chaired by Senator Bond and cochaired by Senator Ford. 
They support this legislation.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill. It is a bill that meets the 
demands of our national security interests.
  I would like to say it has been a pleasure to work closely with the 
distinguished chairman on this measure. We have had an open, bipartisan 
approach to the problems of base closure, family housing, Reserve and 
Guard forces, and the other matters in this bill. It could have been a 
difficult conference. I think the work we did in pre-conferencing made 
it a relatively easy conference. We have not had any significant 
disagreements.
  I thank the chairman for his support and for the chairman's staff 
director, Jim Morhard, and his assistant, Warren Johnson, as well as 
Dick D'Amato assigned to me by the full committee leadership. I also 
appreciate the work of B.G. Wright, a congressional fellow working on 
this bill, and also Peter Arapis of my staff.
  Mr. President, this legislation could never have been accomplished 
without the leadership of the chairman, the distinguished Senator from 
Oregon, Mr. Hatfield, and the ranking member, the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. I extend to them also my 
appreciation.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank the chairman 
of the Armed Services Committee, the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina, for his comments, because all of these issues were talked 
about in the Armed Services Committee and have been authorized by that 
committee.
  Mr. President, the ranking member, the Senator from Nevada, is 
exactly right on target. We worked very hard on this because we took a 
look at the inventory of housing that we had for our armed services. We 
found that half of that housing was substandard. It would not even be 
qualified to be inhabited under today's standards.
  We have taken a giant step toward this with this piece of 
legislation. So I appreciate his cooperation and enjoyed working with 
Senator Reid on this.
  I appreciate the work of Dick D'Amato and his staff, and also Jim 
Morhard and Julie Lapeyre, who worked hard to make this a very good 
bill and a balanced bill.


                      gulfport air national guard

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, would the distinguished chairman and manager 
of the bill yield for a clarification?
  Mr. BURNS. I would be pleased to yield to the assistant majority 
leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank my friend from Montana. I note that the conference 
report includes funding for a road relocation project at the Gulfport 
Air National Guard base in Gulfport, MS. The funding level associated 
with this project in the conference report is half the amount required 
for the entire project.
  The conference report, however, does not note that the funding 
provided for this important project is only half the total required. Is 
my understanding correct that the funds provided for this project in 
the conference report is specifically designated for phase 1 of this 
effort--and that next year phase 2 of this project will be addressed?
  Mr. BURNS. I appreciate my friend from Mississippi raising this issue 
and I am pleased to clarify the scope of this project. The funds 
provided in this conference report for the road relocation project in 
Gulfport, MS, are intended to pay the first half of the cost for the 
total road relocation effort. This phase 1 effort is intended to begin 
the job of relocating the road. It is my hope that the second phase of 
this funding effort will be in the 1997 military construction 
appropriations request.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if I could join my colleague, Senator 
Lott, in this discussion, I would like to add that the full amount of 
the project was included in the Senate reported military construction 
appropriations bill. I know very well the difficult negotiations 
required to move this appropriation bill through the conference 
committee. I know that great effort was made to secure this funding for 
the road relocation project and I appreciate his diligence on this 
issue.
  I would like to ask the chairman of the committee if this phase 1 
funding will allow the Department of Defense to initiate actions, 
contractual or otherwise, to start this project in fiscal year 1996?
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the conference committee's decision to 
include funding for phase 1 of this project was intended to initiate 
actions to execute this project in fiscal year 1996, including contract 
award and initial construction. I would note that the project is in the 
Senate defense authorization bill currently in conference, and under 
the authority which will be provided by the adoption of that conference 
bill, the Department should proceed in due course to execute all 
actions required to perform this work. We hope to pay for this work in 
two phases--not just one.
  Mr. LOTT. I appreciate the attention of the chairman to this 
important project, as well as the invaluable assistance of my colleague 
from Mississippi, Senator Cochran.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I join Senator Lott in expressing appreciation to the 
chairman for his diligent efforts on this issue and many others in this 
important bill. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering the 
conference agreement accompanying H.R. 1817, the fiscal year 1996 
military construction appropriations bill.
  The bill provides a total of $11.2 billion in budget authority and 
$3.1 billion in new outlays for the military construction and family 
housing programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996.
  When outlays from prior year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the bill totals $11.2 billion in budget 
authority and $9.6 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. President, the bill provides for readiness and quality of life 
programs for our service men and women. The bill is at the 
subcommittee's 602(b) allocation in budget authority and the bill is 
below the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation in outlays.
  I wish to convey my thanks to the committee for the support given to 
several priority projects in New Mexico, including a learning center at 
Hollomon Air Force Base.
  I commend the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the Senator from 
Montana, for his efforts on this bill.
  I urge the adoption of this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Budget Committee table 
showing the final scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                   MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUBCOMMITTEE                   
  [Spending totals--Conference report (fiscal year 1996, in million of  
                                dollars)]                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Budget           
                      Category                       authority   Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense discretionary:                                                  
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed.......................................  .........     6,486
  H.R. 1817, conference report.....................     11,177     3,110
  Scorekeeping adjustment..........................  .........  ........
                                                    --------------------
      Adjusted bill total..........................     11,177     9,597
                                                    ====================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
  Defense discretionary............................     11,178     9,693
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate Subcommittee                     
 602(b) allocation:                                                     
    Defense discretionary..........................         -1       -96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                    

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 
printed in 

[[Page S 14114]]
the Record a communication to the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Construction, the Committee on Appropriations, 
the Honorable Conrad Burns, signed by the Assistant Secretary of the 
Navy, explaining the need for housing at Sugar Grove, WV.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       Department of the Navy,

                               Washington, DC, September 21, 1995.
     Hon. Conrad Burns,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Committee on 
         Appropriations,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your inquiry 
     regarding the requirement for family housing at NSGA Sugar 
     Grove, WV.
       As you are aware, adequate housing is the top quality of 
     life issue the Navy faces today. We currently have a deficit 
     of 44 housing units at NSGA Sugar Grove. The remote location 
     of this base makes it extremely difficult for the private 
     sector to accommodate the housing needs of Navy personnel. 
     The project added to this year's military construction 
     appropriations bill will meet approximately half of our need.
       With a total family housing deficit of 14,700 we were 
     unable to program this project within the resources 
     available. While this does not diminish the need for these 
     units, they were not included in the President's budget.
       I trust this answers your question. As always, if I may be 
     of further assistance, please let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                              Robert B. Pirie, Jr.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I know of no other debate on this piece of 
legislation. I urge passage of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 459 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--14

     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Brown
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Roth
     Wellstone
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BURNS. 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. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________