[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11323-S11331]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT


                           Motion to Proceed

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I now move to proceed to the DOD 
authorization conference report.


                           Motion to Postpone

  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I send a motion to postpone the motion to 
proceed to the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], moves to postpone the 
     motion to proceed until January 15, 1998.

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President----
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me ask the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I am raising my hand to go ahead and give 
a second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.


                Amendment No. 1526 to Motion to Postpone

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I send an amendment to the motion to postpone to the 
desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I move to table the Gramm motion, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will first report the amendment from 
the Senator from Texas.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1526 to the motion by Mr. Gramm to 
     postpone the motion to proceed:
       Strike the date and insert ``January 18, 1998.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to table the Gramm motion, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded, only to ask unanimous consent 
that a staffer be allowed on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request? Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Texas.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent my staff member, Karen 
Knutson, be allowed access to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that, prior to the motion to table 
vote, there be 45 minutes of debate only,

[[Page S11324]]

equally divided between the time controlled by Senator Gramm and 
Senator Inhofe, or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, so 
in essence what we are agreeing to is to set aside 45 minutes, half of 
which would be ours, for people to talk about the issue. At the end of 
that 45 minutes, we would then vote on the motion to table----
  Mr. LOTT. That's correct.
  Mr. GRAMM. The underlying amendment. OK. Fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, just again for clarification of what we 
are doing here, there are very strong feelings and great ground for 
substantive disagreement on this issue. Before we start a series of 
procedural votes, I thought it made good sense for both sides, 
proponents and opponents of the position in the conference report, to 
sort of have a chance to lay out their positions. By doing it this way, 
the time will be actually controlled between the two sides. Then we 
will have some procedural votes. And it is my intent to also file 
cloture on this issue tonight.
  Beyond that, we will see what happens. So, for the next 45 minutes, 
then, we will have debate equally divided.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I yield the distinguished Senator from 
California 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
7 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator from Texas.
  Madam President, I rise to oppose the Defense authorization 
conference report. I oppose this conference report because it contains 
language that will effectively ban any further public-private 
competition of depot workload at McClellan and Kelly Air Logistics 
Centers. If this restrictive depot language remains in the bill, the 
President has said he will veto the bill. A letter is already in the 
Record, signed by Office of Management and Budget Director Franklin 
Raines, to that effect. I will read the letter in part:

       The bill includes provisions whose intent is to protect 
     public depots by limiting private industry's ability to 
     compete for the depot-level maintenance of military systems 
     and components. If enacted, these provisions, which run 
     counter to the ongoing efforts by Congress and the 
     Administration to use competition to improve DOD's business 
     practices, would severely limit the Department's flexibility 
     to increase efficiency and save taxpayer dollars.
       Both the Quadrennial Defense Review and the National 
     Defense Panel recommended repeal of current laws 
     constrain DOD's efforts to competitively outsource depot 
     maintenance workload. Rather than facilitating DOD's use 
     of competitive outsourcing, the bill attempts to further 
     restrict it.
  This so-called compromise essentially puts an end to the Defense 
Department's plan to conduct public-private competitions for the depot 
work currently done at both Kelly and McClellan. The possibility for a 
private company to win one of these competitions is the cornerstone of 
each community's reuse plan that resulted from the Base Realignment and 
Closure Act which will close both of these bases at the turn of the 
century.
  Continuing to quote from Director Raines' letter:

       The bill seeks to impose unique and inappropriate 
     requirements on DOD's process for allocating the work now 
     performed at San Antonio and Sacramento Air Logistics 
     Centers. The Department is conducting a fair and open 
     competition to determine the most efficient and cost-
     effective way to perform this work in the future. Both 
     private contractors and public depots are competing for the 
     work. By dictating how DOD should treat certain competitive 
     factors, this bill seeks to skew any competition in favor of 
     the public depots.

  This skewing of the outcome of these ongoing public-private 
competitions is what is unacceptable, and we will fight it to the 
bitter end.
  We tried to work with the committee toward an agreement. At one time, 
the Senators from Texas and California thought we had succeeded in 
reaching an agreement with the committee. We were ready to buy half a 
loaf. There were four points we wanted, but the agreement we thought we 
had only contained 2\1/2\ of those needs. We agreed to back off. 
Overnight those who wrote the bill put in technical language which 
essentially killed the ability for private contractors to bid. One of 
the ways they did it was by hiding their overhead costs.
  I think the Senators from Texas can well explain how this has 
happened in the past, and how great a disincentive this would be to any 
private company who might want to bid on our workloads.
  I find it amazing that this depot caucus language was still included, 
even after the first private-public competition held for Kelly's C-5 
air work workload was won by Warner Robins Air Logistics Center in 
Georgia.
  Members of the Depot Caucus have complained from the first day these 
competitions were announced by the Air Force that they would be unfair 
and biased. They said that public depots could not possibly win. But 
Warner Robins won. How did this happen?
  One of the reasons is that public depots can hide their overhead in 
other accounts when they bid against private industry for work, and 
members of private industry on numerous occasions have said this is 
exactly why they cannot compete under current law.
  Warner Robins, as I understand it, took advantage of this ability to 
hide overhead costs to help make their bid below that of their private 
competitors. In fact, the Air Force had to add approximately $170 
million to Warner Robins' bid for the 500 employees and other overhead 
that had been shifted to other accounts.
  The way the next two competitions are set up, under this bill, 
private industry will be very reluctant to bid, and probably will not 
bid, on the workloads at McClellan and Kelly. In fact, the Sacramento 
Bee quoted an industry representative who said, ``I can't conceive of a 
company that would bid for McClellan and Kelly under these 
circumstances.''
  Supporters of the depot language say this is a compromise that will 
allow fair and open competitions at McClellan and Kelly. I say baloney. 
How can I or my colleagues from California and Texas believe that these 
competitions will be fair and open when one of the authors of this very 
language, a Senator from Oklahoma, believes that this language shuts 
the door on private industry's ability to compete. Quoted in the Daily 
Oklahoman he said, ``I think it's highly unlikely any contractor would 
want to bid on it.'' Now, how are my colleagues and I supposed to 
believe it is a fair compromise with statements like this? We need fair 
and open competition for the depot work at McClellan and Kelly. As 
Secretary Cohen has stated repeatedly, this language just does not 
provide it.
  We need to allow public-private competitions in order to achieve the 
kinds of savings necessary to reach the procurement levels needed to 
fund the modernization of our weapons systems.
  Madam President, I have much more to say, but in the interest of time 
let me say this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 7 minutes have expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. We have tried to achieve a compromise. We are open to 
a compromise.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
distinguished Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Texas.
  We are open to a compromise. We are willing today to accept the very 
language that we thought we had agreed upon, which gave us the two and 
a half issues out of the four which would enable us to have public-
private competition at these bases. In order for this to occur, we must 
return to the earlier compromise language, before the changes were 
made.
  Madam President, I cannot tell you what a big deal this is in 
Northern California. The entire community has been mobilized around 
this concept of possibly being able to privatize the workload. All we 
are asking for is fairness. All we are asking is that the deck not be 
stacked against us. All we are asking is that public depots not have 
the opportunity to fudge bids by hiding costs. This conference report 
denies that, and we have decided that we will use every avenue open to 
us to fight

[[Page S11325]]

this bill until we either achieve a compromise or a veto.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's additional time has expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from 
Utah.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  I sat and listened to the senior Senator from Texas as I did some 
weeks, if not months, ago when he made similar speeches, and I want to 
respond to some of the comments he made.
  He said that his primary interest in life is preserving competition. 
I want competition, too. He said he wants fair competition. I want fair 
competition, too. I remember in his previous speech he said he was so 
concerned about fair competition that he would be willing to write the 
law in such a way as to outline the requirements to make sure there was 
fair competition and then allow the depots a 10-percent cushion. He 
said, if they came within 10 percent of the private sector, they would 
be given the opportunity to hold the work.
  We believe the language in this bill fulfills the requirement that he 
laid out on this floor at that time, that it does outline fair 
competition. He says many people think of depots as an entitlement, and 
he says, ``I reject that.''
  I agree with him 100 percent. Depots, or any defense facility, are 
not an entitlement, whether it is in California or Texas or Utah or 
Arizona. However, there is the question of the core capability of the 
Department of Defense in establishments that they have created over 
time. It is an established rule that core work is to be done in 
Government-owned facilities.
  What is core work? It is the work that has to be done in case we go 
to war, in case we are in the circumstance where a private contractor 
says, ``I don't want to interrupt my commercial business to do this 
military business just because there is a war going on.'' There is core 
work that must be done.
  Prior to the adoption of the language that is in this bill, the 
definition of what is core work and what is not was left entirely to 
the Secretary of Defense. That means if the Secretary of Defense wants 
to rule something as not core work and thereby rig the competition for 
political purposes, he has the right to do it.
  One of the things that appeals to me most about this language is that 
it puts sunshine on the process of determining what is core and what is 
not and requires the Secretary of Defense to report to whom? To the 
Congress, to the people who are appropriating the money, as to what is 
core and what is not.
  What can be wrong with that? The Senator from Texas wants 
competition. So do I. I think we have responded to the Senator's call 
for competition, and we have crafted language that produces that.
  Madam President, I have a document with responses to a floor 
statement that was made earlier by the senior Senator from Texas. This 
briefly addresses some of his primary objections, many of which have 
been repeated here today.
  I ask unanimous consent that the summary of those 11 statements, plus 
the responses to them, be printed in the Record at the end of my 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BENNETT. Now, Madam President, I have spent 5 years in the 
Senate. I have spent 40 years in the business community. I am a 
businessman who has run businesses. I would like to speak, in the 
remaining time, out of that experience rather than the political 
experience.
  What we are dealing with here from a business standpoint is a factory 
that is at overcapacity. The question is, How do we as competent 
managers deal with that excess capacity? Do we have competition? Of 
course, we do. If we have items that can be taken out of the factory 
and built more cheaply someplace else, we want them out of the factory 
and built more cheaply someplace else. But if we have the capital 
investment in the factory itself and we have excess capacity, we would 
not be wise stewards, we would not be intelligent businesspeople if we 
did not go out and look for things to be built in the factory to soak 
up that excess capacity as our first responsibility to the 
shareholders.

  We here in the Senate are responding not to shareholders but to 
taxpayers. We are responding to military people who are depending upon 
these facilities to provide the necessary skills in time of war, and we 
are facing a circumstance where we have excess capacity.
  I am as dedicated as anybody else to the idea that we need to move 
ahead with competition and save taxpayers' money. But to ignore the 
question of our existing capacity and overcapacity in the name of a 
theoretical argument in favor of competition, which sounds good in the 
classroom, is to be irresponsible.
  One final comment, Madam President, and then I will yield back the 
remainder of my time. The Senator from Texas has said on this occasion 
and repeatedly that this for him is not a parochial issue, that it is a 
matter of principle and that he is standing on this principle even if a 
base in Texas were not involved. I will accept that. I will respect 
that. I want to make it equally clear, however, Madam President, that 
there are those of us on the other side of the argument who feel just 
as strongly that we are standing for a principle where the principle is 
integrity in the contracting process in the Department of Defense, 
which integrity we feel has been attacked.
  I was asked, on the record, would you still be fighting this fight if 
Hill Air Force Base were not involved, and would you stand to protect 
Hill Air Force jobs if it cost the taxpayers extra money? I said to the 
reporter in the hometown where Hill Air Force Base is located, if we 
cannot demonstrate that the Air Force is better off financially by 
having the work done at Hill Air Force Base, I cannot as a Senator say 
the work should still be done at Hill Air Force Base at a higher price.
  I believe the position we are taking is sound management practice, 
sound business practice. It is what I would do if I were a businessman 
charged with the responsibility of running this factory that is at 
overcapacity, and I believe that we have just as solid reasoning to 
stand on principle as the Senator from Texas believes he has.
  I hope everyone will recognize that it is not appropriate to attack 
anybody else's motives. Now, if he attacks the motives of the folks in 
the House, that is fair game. I will let him do it with the people in 
the House; that is kind of the way we do it here. But I wanted to make 
my statement with respect to where we are in the Senate.

                               Exhibit 1

             Competition--Statements of Senator Phil Gramm

       1. ``What the Department of Defense wants to do is have a 
     competitive bidding between the three depots in the Air Force 
     that are doing maintenance work and private contractors.'' 
     (The bill specifically authorizes such competitions and 
     requires that the Department allow all qualified bidders and 
     teams to participate.)
       2. ``Now, what Senator Hutchison and I want is simply to 
     allow private contractors in our State or anywhere else to 
     have the right to compete for this work and, if they can do 
     it better, if they can do it cheaper, they would have an 
     opportunity to do it.'' (The bill specifically authorizes 
     such competitions and requires that the Department allow all 
     qualified bidders and teams to participate.)
       3. ``Why should we not have price competition.'' (We 
     should, and this bill makes that happen. The compromise 
     language requires that the Department has to take into 
     account the total direct and indirect costs when comparing 
     the offers.)
       4. ``If Republicans believe in anything, it is 
     competition.'' (The bill reflects this belief, and 
     specifically authorizes such competitions and requires that 
     the Department allow all qualified bidders and teams to 
     participate on an even playing field.)
       5. ``Obviously, if you wanted to be reasonable on this 
     issue, you would simply say to the Defense Department, look, 
     here are a set of criteria for looking at a fair competition 
     with a level playing surface.'' (The bill does this. It 
     authorizes competitions and establishes a few of the criteria 
     that must be considered in evaluating the various proposals. 
     The Department of Defense would retain the flexibility to 
     establish any additional criteria that the Department 
     believes would ensure a level playing surface.)
       6. ``But we could set out simple criteria for a level 
     playing surface to have competition between the public sector 
     and the private

[[Page S11326]]

     sector to do this work.'' (Again, this bill does this. It 
     establishes a few of the criteria that must be considered in 
     evaluating the various proposals. For example, it states 
     private and public bidders can team. This is good for 
     competition. The Department of Defense would retain the 
     flexibility to establish any additional criteria that the 
     Department believes would ensure a level playing surface.)
       7. ``Have competitive bidding after you first set out the 
     criteria for competitive bidding. If you want to look at the 
     cost of facilities they are using, to make adjustments for 
     it, then look at everything--look at retirement costs, look 
     at every single cost, come up with a way of measuring it, and 
     have a competition. And then, even if the depots lose the 
     competition by less than 10 percent, give it to them 
     anyway.'' (The criteria specifically includes the cost of 
     facilities (land, plant, and equipment) from a military 
     installation that are proposed to be used by a private 
     offeror. The Department would retain the flexibility to 
     include the cost of facilities that are proposed to be used 
     by a public depot if they can justify their decision. The 
     criteria also include the total estimated direct and indirect 
     costs (including retirement costs) and the total estimated 
     direct and indirect savings to the Department of Defense. The 
     only thing the language does not do is give the public depots 
     a 10-percent price preferential, as was proposed by the 
     Senator from Texas.
       8. ``But what I want the workers there to have a chance to 
     do is to go to work for private companies that might have a 
     chance to compete for the work. So I am not asking for 
     anybody to give anything to San Antonio, TX. But I am 
     demanding that we have an opportunity to compete.'' (The 
     compromise language gives them this opportunity.)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Utah has expired.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I want to yield to my colleague from 
California, but I want to make two points that I think will be telling.
  I would like people to note that in trying to find a compromise, I 
made an extraordinary offer which the Senator alluded to, and that is I 
said, look, don't have a fair competition between the private sector 
and the depots. Have a competition that says if the depots can do it at 
only 10 percent more than the private sector, then give them the work 
and let the taxpayer pay 10 percent more for the same work. But if 
they, if the private sector, can do it with savings of at least 10 
percent, then let them have it.
  I would just note to my colleagues that was an offer on my part to 
have less than a flat playing surface, and that offer was rejected.
  Second, I would just go back to the newspaper article reporting on 
the amendment and those who had crafted the language of the bill 
saying, ``The requirements put on contractors''--that is private 
contractors--``in the new language would likely keep them from wanting 
to bid on the work.''
  Well, if the language keeps them from wanting to bid, how do you have 
competition? It seems to me that those two points show we were not even 
insisting on any kind of level playing surface. And second, they say of 
their own provision that it will prevent private contractors from 
wanting to bid. How do you have competition if there are no bidders?
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Gramm for yielding me 
this time. I thank Senator Hutchison for her being so kind to me to 
allow me to precede her in these remarks. I will not go over my 5 
minutes because I know she has much to offer and has been struggling 
with this issue for quite a while.
  I wonder if the public is confused about what this debate is all 
about. They see colleagues across party aisles, from Texas and 
California, joining hands--we don't often do this on many issues--and 
complaining that, in fact, a compromise that was supposed to occur in 
the committee to work out the problems we all had with this depot 
language was abandoned. Had that language been held to, had we been 
able to work it out, we would all be here without holding up this bill.
  I really think what is at stake is very important not just to those 
workers at McClellan, 2,000 strong--it impacts 2,000 families--4,000 
workers at Kelly, at least that many and their families, but also, as 
Senator Gramm has pointed out, to taxpayers throughout the Nation.
  But the fact is, either you are for competition and the best deal for 
taxpayers or you are not. We are for competition. We are for allowing 
the private sector to come in with a fair and level playing field. The 
language in the bill which we now oppose would thwart competition.
  In the Senate, we managed to keep all harmful language off the bill, 
but the House had very restrictive language. We hoped going into the 
conference there could be a compromise.
  What you are going to hear from some of the folks who don't want 
competition from the private sector is that this group of us from Texas 
and California want to undo the BRAC, want to undo the Base Closure 
Commission and their recommendations vis-a-vis Kelly and McClellan. 
This is false.
  If you turn to page I-85 of the BRAC report, you will find that right 
there it says the DOD is instructed to ``consolidate the remaining 
workloads to other DOD depots or to private sector commercial 
activities.''
  So very clearly the BRAC said the DOD should have the flexibility to 
work with the private sector, and the administration very much wants to 
do this. The Department of Defense very much wants to do this.
  We already heard from Senator Gramm that the President will veto this 
bill if we do not move forward toward a compromise. I don't think the 
Senators from California and Texas want a veto. We could stop talking 
at this very moment and go into one of the cloakrooms and work this 
matter out. We think we almost did work this matter out, but overnight, 
something changed in the language. We are unable to look our 
constituents in the eye and look the taxpayers in the eye and say they 
are going to get a fair deal, because they are not.
  That is really all we want on behalf of our constituency: a fair 
chance to compete, to do the work at a lower cost. You wouldn't think 
we would have to struggle over such a commonsense proposition.
  I really have to say that the passage of this bill has been 
jeopardized. The adoption of this conference report is jeopardized, and 
there is no reason for it. We were so close. We ought to go back again.
  What happened in the end, to use an analogy, was like a footrace in 
which the committee basically said, ``Line up all the private sector 
people who want to be involved in depot work; line up all the public 
depots in Utah, in Oklahoma, in Georgia, and everyone will sprint as 
fast as they can for 100 yards. The first person to cross the finish 
line wins.''
  Unfortunately, the committee put 100-pound weights on those from 
Kelly and McClellan, so they can't win a race or even compete in a race 
if they are so burdened. That is what this conference committee has 
done.
  I say in the name of fairness, to those working families at Kelly and 
McClellan, I say in the name of fairness to taxpayers who want to see 
us move forward and save as many tax dollars as we can, and in the name 
of a strong national defense where the Defense Department has the 
flexibility it needs in this case and many others to move to the best 
way to meet our national defense needs, in the name of all of them, I 
suggest that we go back to compromise mode. We can resolve this problem 
and move this bill forward.
  That is the spirit in which I speak to the U.S. Senate today. I do 
want to say this. I am as determined as my colleagues from Texas and my 
senior Senator, Senator Feinstein, to do everything in my power to make 
sure--to make sure--that the commitments made to the people at Kelly 
and McClellan and to the taxpayers are, in fact, kept. We will use 
every parliamentary tool at our disposal to make sure that fairness and 
justice will win out in this debate. Thank you, very much. I yield back 
my time to Senator Gramm.
  Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished junior Senator 
from Georgia.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I certainly understand the position of 
the Senators from Texas and California. They have worked long and hard 
on this issue. I understand where they are coming from. I congratulate 
the

[[Page S11327]]

Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, and others, who have worked just 
as hard to make sure this is a fair bill. The bill is consistent with 
the targets of the bipartisan budget agreement.
  On the major issues such as Bosnia, the B-2 bomber, and cooperative 
threat reduction, the bill is much closer to the Senate position than 
the House position. The most difficult issue to resolve in the 
conference was the depot maintenance provision. These provisions are 
the product of intense communication, diligent coordination and 
diplomatic negotiations of the issues to the fullest extent possible. 
We have actually been working on these issues some 9 months. We made 
numerous significant concessions in order to reach an agreement.
  In the final analysis, the major concessions were:
  We agreed to the Department of Defense request to continue free and 
open public-private competitions for the workloads at Kelly Air Force 
Base, TX, and McClellan Air Force Base, CA, with public-private 
partnerships.
  We agreed to the Department of Defense request to lower the 60-40 
rule to 50-50.
  We agreed to the Department of Defense request to solicit a single 
contract for multiple workloads having been certified by the Secretary 
of Defense.
  And we agreed that it is critical to maintain a core capability at 
the public facilities with a surge capacity that supports our 
mobilization needs at a moment's notice.
  In spite of all the concessions made in this agreement, the 
opposition believes this should be an all-or-nothing deal. To do so, I 
think, would truly negate the rules of fairness and the competitive 
market, and it undermines the credibility of DOD's stated financial 
priorities. It also risks the future of legitimate privatization 
efforts by the Department of Defense.
  I am satisfied with the depot provision in the conference report. The 
Department of Defense is satisfied with the provision. And the 
provision has the unanimous support of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee on which I serve.
  The provision does not include everything that either side really 
wanted, but it is undoubtedly a fair and unbiased bill that places 
bidders on an equal footing.
  I find it hard to argue against fairness. So, Madam President, I 
suggest this body finally act on the defense authorization bill, and it 
has my support. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes and 5 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President. I thank all of the 
Senators who are trying to do what is right in this bill. I hope very 
much that we will be able to come to an agreement that will allow free 
and fair competition.
  We are not asking for something special. We are not asking for an 
advantage. In fact, we have gone so far beyond where BRAC, the Base 
Closing Commission, was that I think we have gone overboard to allow 
the public depots to even compete, because the Base Closing Commission 
report in 1995 states specifically, and I am reading from the report:

       Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: Realign 
     Kelly Air Force Base, including the Air Logistics 
     Center, consolidate the workloads to other Department of 
     Defense depots or to private sector commercial activities 
     as is determined by the Defense Depot Maintenance Council.

  ``As determined by the Defense Depot Maintenance Council.'' By the 
law that this Congress passed in adopting the Base Closing Commission 
report in full, the Department of Defense has total discretion about 
whether to move the depot maintenance from Kelly and McClellan or 
whether to privatize it in place. The concept of competition came 
forward in the intervening years, and we all believe that is fair. Why 
shouldn't the public depots be able to compete? We think that is best 
for the taxpayers.
  So, of course, there we were trying to get a fair and level playing 
field so that the public depots could compete, so that there could be 
private competition in the depots that were closed, and that is what is 
right for this country. It is what is right for the Department of 
Defense, and it is what the Department of Defense wants. So we have 
added a huge measure of support for the public depots to be able to 
compete.
  In the last 2 years, I have heard Member after Member who represents 
a depot State saying, ``There can't be fair competition between the 
public sector and the private sector.'' In fact, the first competition 
that was held for part of the work that is now being done at Kelly went 
out for competition and, in fact, the bid was awarded to a public depot 
in Georgia. In fact, the Department of Defense personnel say that they 
don't think there was a level playing field in that bid. But 
nevertheless, the bid was won.
  Did the people of San Antonio stand up and whine about not getting 
the bid? No, they didn't. Even though they were told it wasn't fair, 
even though they were told that their bid was better, they did not 
whine about it because they believe that if they have a fair chance, 
they will be able to compete the next time.
  Now we have a bill before us that does not allow them to compete on a 
level playing field once again. At some point, there has to be 
integrity in the process. At some point, the people of San Antonio or 
the people of Sacramento must know that there is a fairness because the 
Base Closing Commission recommended that the Department of Defense be 
given the option of privatizing in place or going to a public depot. 
They have competed fair and square, and they have been beaten. They 
have been beaten. So you can have a fair competition. It has been 
shown.
  Who was the winner in the C-5 competition? It was the taxpayers of 
America, because there was competition. The taxpayers of America and 
the men and women in our military gained $190 million because that is 
the efficiency that would be gained because there was competition.
  If you take the other competitions that are left to go during the 
years, think of the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be 
available for a better quality of life for our men and women in the 
services, for the equipment and the technology that would protect them 
when they are in the field, and that would make our security of our 
shores intact. Those hundreds of millions will go for our national 
security rather than on wasted depot space.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask Senator Gramm for half a minute.
  Mr. GRAMM. I yield the Senator a full minute.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Just to end my remarks, if you want to have the 
argument on fairness, I will just quote from the junior Senator from 
Oklahoma who says in the newspaper that the requirements that are in 
this bill put on contractors new language which would likely keep them 
from wanting to bid for the work. He says contractors will have to 
include in their bids millions of dollars in costs that weren't 
previously required. ``I think it's highly unlikely any contractor 
would want to bid on it,'' he said.
  Madam President, that is prima facie evidence that they are not 
looking for a level playing field. If they will sit down and work with 
us, we will provide the level playing field, the winners will be the 
taxpayers of America, the winners will be the Department of Defense, 
the winners will be our men and women in the military, and the winners 
will be the secure Americans who will have the hundreds of millions of 
dollars that competition will give us in national security rather than 
in Government waste. Thank you, Madam President.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Madam President. I ask how much time do we 
have remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes and 22 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Utah, Senator 
Hatch.

[[Page S11328]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I have been very interested in this 
debate because we went through three BRAC processes and, now, all of a 
sudden, we find it turned upside down.
  Let me respond to the Senators from Texas, especially Senator Gramm. 
I have always appreciated his dogged defense of competition. Generally, 
I am right there with him. That is why I truly regret that I must 
differ with him on his interpretation that the conference report is, in 
his words, anticompetitive.
  There is fair competition and there is unfair competition. The 
conference report proposes fair competition.
  Let us look at how the conference report differs from the 
privatization-in-place language initially proposed by the Clinton 
administration.
  First, the conference report requires that all the costs of operation 
be factored into the bids.
  What honesty is there in a bid that excludes certain costs? Well, you 
got that right--none. Privatization in place, as originally proposed, 
would have permitted certain contractors from excluding the costs of 
the facilities themselves in Texas and in California. Naturally, these 
contractors would be able to submit artificially low bids. This would 
be an unfair disadvantage to the successful depots, which had already 
justified their existence through three separate BRAC processes, 
because excess capacity will inflate their hourly costs.
  Second, the Base Closing and Realignment Commission, the BRAC, 
recommended the closure of Kelly and McClellan and that the work be 
distributed to the three remaining depots.
  Instead of consolidating work as BRAC recommended, privatization in 
place merely masks greater inefficiency. Privatization in place may 
sound like competition, but it is not fair competition.
  And it is not very prudent. Let me ask my colleagues: How is it a 
cost saving if private companies are able to take over the work of 
Kelly and McClellan under contract to the Government? I realize that 
this is something of a sleight of hand, so let me review the concept.
  If you have a subsidiary plant that is not working to capacity, the 
normal business decision would be to close it down and redistribute the 
work to the other more efficient plants, which was what BRAC was all 
about. But under the original Clinton plan, the work would simply be 
bid out to others. There is no closure of the facility, and you are 
paying others for the work. And, you have to ask, what in the world is 
going on here?
  The conference report language is a compromise. Those of us referred 
to by the Senators from Texas and California as the depot caucus are 
not getting what we wanted--which was the validation of the BRAC 
process, whatever that may bring.
  I know that I went to every one of those meetings. It was a pressure-
packed, difficult time. All of us were concerned.
  Frankly, the BRAC Commission did make the tough decisions in 
determining which ones should survive, which ones should not. But for 
the other three to do their job, they must have this work in fair 
competition. I have every confidence that Utahns can compete with 
anyone in a fair competition.
  At least by leveling the playing field for bidding on depot work, 
everyone has a fair chance. May the best bidders win. And let us keep 
integrity in the process. What the Senators on the other side seem to 
be arguing for is a system that really stacks the deck.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from 
Oklahoma have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
  Mr. GRAMM. I would like to reserve my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I am going to reserve the remainder of my time. The 
Senator from Texas can use his minute.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. If there is a quorum 
call at this point, how is that time counted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The quorum call would be charged against 
whichever side put in the request.
  Mr. GRAMM. Well, Mr. President, I will be happy to go ahead and take 
my minute. The normal procedure would be both sides would run off their 
time equally. I think we are the challenger here and should go last, 
but that is not of any real significance.
  I think, Mr. President, I can sum up what this is about very simply. 
We have 30 pages in this bill that were written with one and only one 
purpose, and that purpose was to derail price competition, to prevent 
price competition with the depots.
  The people who wrote the provision are quoted publicly as saying that 
that was the objective. They say in the newspaper that it would be 
virtually impossible for a private firm to compete with a Government 
depot under their language. That is not me talking, that is not the 
Senator from California talking. That is the proponents of this 
language and the people who help write the language.
  Second, it has to strike you as funny that this language only applies 
to competition that would involve private companies who would choose to 
locate either at Kelly or at McClellan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRAMM. We have 30 pages that are limited simply to that. So I 
hope nobody is deceived. And I am sure they are not.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just real quickly cover some of the 
things that have been said in the last 10 or 15 minutes.
  First of all, I do not like the way this ended up because we had to 
agree, in order to bring everyone in and to have a unanimous vote in 
the Senate Armed Services Committee, to allow the President of the 
United States to interfere and to politicize the BRAC process for the 
first time since it went in place in the round of 1989.
  Second, a quote has been attributed to me that I do not think that 
the private sector is going to want to bid on this. I think that is 
accurate, because the private sector would have liked very much to bid 
if they could get free--for maybe a dollar a year--a huge facility down 
in Texas or one in California. Sure, that would be certainly to their 
advantage, but the taxpayers would lose.
  All we are saying is: If you want to have free and open competition, 
let us take all costs, direct and indirect costs, to the Department of 
Defense and throw them in there.
  Two big costs: No. 1, the cost of the installation that would be used 
if privatization in place took place; and, No. 2, the cost of the 
excess capacity in the remaining three air logistics centers, which the 
GAO said would be about $468 million a year.
  Third, in terms of charges that have been made about competition, no 
one in this Chamber is going to be able to stand any higher than I do 
on my background in privatization. When I was mayor of Tulsa, I 
privatized everything that wouldn't move.
  This is different. This is our Nation's defense. However, this bill 
provides for privatization. It just says that we are going to have to 
take all costs into consideration.
  Fourth, there is one other area in the bill. It is called 
``teaming.'' Right now under the current law, if this should be 
defeated, the private sector would not be able to go to the air 
logistics center in Georgia or anyplace else and compete because they 
are precluded from doing so. This defense authorization bill provides 
for much greater opportunity for the private sector to compete.
  The issue that the junior Senator from California brought up on 
privatization in place--she was not in here when I covered the details 
in that. The BRAC recommendations specifically precluded privatization 
in place for the air logistics centers. She quoted words out of the 
BRAC language, but she neglected to read the last sentence, which I 
will read to you: ``Move the required

[[Page S11329]]

equipment and any required personnel to the receiving locations.''
  Mr. President, you, of course, are a businessman. We have already 
heard your pitch. I agree with everything that you said. But the cost 
of keeping three air logistics centers at 50 percent capacity is a huge 
cost and has to be considered in the consideration of this.
  I came to the House of Representatives in 1987. That was my first 
year. One of the persons I had the most respect for was a Congressman 
by the name of Dick Armey. And Dick Armey, for the first time, 
convinced me that we have a real serious problem with excess capacity. 
We have never been able to do away with it because of the political 
interference of the local Congressman, of the Senators, and sometimes 
of the President.
  So he set up a system called the BRAC process. This process was to be 
free of any political interference--any political interference. He 
said, ``Someday I'm going to regret this because I'm going to have to 
go against my own State when we have to close down some type of 
installation.''
  But you know, Mr. President, it worked. We went through, not three, 
as the senior Senator from Texas suggested, but we went through four 
BRAC rounds--1989, 1991, 1993, and 1995. During these BRAC rounds, we 
closed over 100 major installations.
  I suggest to you, Mr. President, that we would not have been able to 
close one of them if it had not been for Dick Armey from Texas, the 
Congressman who established the whole BRAC process. So while we talk 
about not having parochial interests, I can assure you that I do not. 
In fact, I am on record in the State of Oklahoma, in 1994, in my 
election to the Senate, the first time I was elected, they used it 
against me, because I said, ``I will not use political interference and 
will not try to politicize the system.'' That was used against me.
  So Congressman Armey prevailed. As a result of that, we have been 
able to close a lot of excess capacity. The other day he made a speech 
on the floor. Mr. President, I do not have the time--I was going to 
read the entire speech, but there isn't time remaining to do that. But 
I will just read one paragraph out of it. This is Congressman Dick 
Armey from the State of Texas:

       We had three rounds in base closing, and we are all very 
     proud of the process because politics never intruded into the 
     process. That ended in round four. And all of my colleagues 
     knew at the time, and we know now, that the special 
     conditions for McClellan and Kelly, California and my own 
     State of Texas, where you might think I have a parochial 
     interest, were in a political intervention.
       We talk about this being privatization. No, it is not. It 
     is a new concept. It is privatization in place, created 
     specifically for these two bases in an election year for no 
     purpose other than politics.

  That is a quote from Texas Congressman Dick Armey, the founder of 
this system.
  Finally, Mr. President, they keep talking about, ``We had a deal.'' 
There was never any deal that was had. We have been negotiating this 
thing now for well over a year. And we negotiated it in years prior to 
this. We are trying now to get a defense authorization bill. We have 
caved in. We have provided for privatization in place so long as we 
take all costs into consideration.

  When it has been stated several times by the distinguished senior 
Senator from Texas that only a small number or group of people are 
concerned about this, I suggest to you that this bill that we are 
talking about, this conference report was passed out of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee by a vote of 18 to zero--18 to zero.
  A couple of nights ago--last night I guess it was--it was voted on in 
the House of Representatives. The vote was 286 to 123. I suggest to the 
senior Senator from California, if she is convinced that the President 
is going to veto this, we have the votes to override a veto. We are not 
going to allow the President to say, ``I'm vetoing a bill because I 
want to politicize the system for the first time since its inception in 
1988.''
  So, Mr. President, I feel very strongly that we have an opportunity 
here to have a defense authorization bill that does far more than 
correct a problem that has been there in the depots. It takes care of 
many, many needs to try to keep America strong. I agree with the 
Senator from Texas when he talks about the fact that our defense has 
been decimated. It has been decimated. We are going to try to do 
something about saving, in this case with this change in the air 
logistics centers, some $468 million a year.
  Mr. President, there are two individuals who are here who have not 
been heard from. I ask unanimous consent that both the chairman and the 
ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee be 
allowed to speak for 1 minute each.
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, of course, I will not object. I would like 
to suggest that they have an opportunity to speak for more than 1 
minute. I amend the request to ask unanimous consent that each of them 
be given 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the underlying request 
as amended?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The chairman and the ranking 
member are each permitted now to speak for up to 5 minutes.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I will not take 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I would just like to take a few moments to address the 
outcome of what was the single most controversial issue in the 
conference--depot maintenance. The bill contains a fair compromise that 
was drafted by the members and staff of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee after consulting with all interested parties, including the 
administration and the concerned delegations. It is fair to assert that 
none of the parties involved are completely happy with this compromise 
language; however, that is what happens when you have to compromise. If 
we all insisted on getting everything our way, nothing would ever be 
accomplished by the Congress.
  Mr. President, Senator Levin, the ranking member of our committee, 
and I worked together in a totally bipartisan manner to achieve this 
compromise and we both agree that this compromise enables the 
Department of Defense to conduct fair and open competitions for the 
workloads currently performed at Kelly and McClellan. In fact, the 
compromise language specifically authorizes competitions for these 
workloads.
  Mr. President, during the drafting of this compromise language the 
Department of Defense, as well as the staff of the concerned 
delegations, were provided numerous opportunities to review this 
language and identify their concerns. We made significant changes to 
this language in order to alleviate many of the concerns they raised.
  Mr. President, no one knows the amount of work that was put into this 
compromise. We worked night and day. The staffs worked night and day. 
If this compromise doesn't go through, all of those States will suffer, 
in my opinion. It is better for us to pass this bill. This is a very 
important bill. It means a lot to our whole Nation, not just any one 
State or a few States, but all of the States.
  I ask the Senate to pass this compromise and stand by what has been 
done and reached heretofore on this important matter.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I hope we will move to this conference 
report. This conference report contains hundreds of legislative 
provisions, thousands of funding provisions which had to be resolved. 
The issue that took us the longest to resolve was the difference about 
depot maintenance work at the closed air logistic centers at Kelly and 
McClellan. Probably the last month was taken up trying to resolve that 
issue. No agreement was ever reached.
  So we, the members of the committee, had to do the best that we could 
to try to reach a fair and a just conclusion that would not tilt this 
toward either direction. That is what we attempted to do.
  Otherwise, we would give up on getting a defense authorization bill 
to the floor and we were not willing to give up that. There are too 
many issues at stake in this bill that are important to this country 
not to bring this bill to the floor and not to bring the conference 
report to the floor.

[[Page S11330]]

  We know there are very strong feelings on both sides of the depot 
issue, and it is understandable. To ever denigrate the strength of any 
Members' feeling about regulating the interests of their State--I think 
all of us have to accept that feelings are very strong on this issue. 
Representatives of some States felt that the President had ignored the 
spirit of the base closure process by pursuing a policy of 
privatization in place at Kelly and McClellan. Others felt equally 
strongly that the work should remain at the closed depots.
  I will state candidly that I disagreed with the assertion of the 
depot caucus that the Base Closure Commission prohibited privatization 
in place at Kelly and McClellan. The 1995 Base Closure Commission left 
it up to the Department of Defense to decide how to distribute the 
Kelly and McClellan work. The Commission's recommendation directed the 
Department of Defense to ``Consolidate the workloads to other DOD 
depots or to private sector commercial activities as determined by the 
Defense Depot Maintenance Council.'' That ``or'' is a critical ``or'' 
in the BRAC report.
  I also disagreed with the legislation proposed in the depot caucus 
and included in the House bill which would have prohibited the 
department from privatizing in place until the three remaining Air 
Force depots were operating at 80 percent of capacity--in effect, 
prohibiting the Air Force from keeping any of the work at California or 
Texas. I voted against that proposal in our committee and I voted 
against it in conference because it was one-sided and unfair. Had that 
provision been included in this bill, I would have strongly opposed the 
conference report.
  Mr. President, that provision is not in the conference report. But 
what we have instead are provisions aimed at providing a level playing 
field for competition between the closed depots and the depots that 
remain open. I have always believed that competition results in the 
best value to the Department of Defense and to the taxpayers, and I 
believe that is the right answer to the depot dispute.
  The conference language includes seven specific criteria to help 
ensure that the Air Force does not unfairly tilt the playing field.
  I ask unanimous consent a brief summary of these seven criteria for a 
fair competition be printed in the Record following my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEVIN. These requirements were written by Members and staff who 
are neutral in the fight between the closed bases and the remaining air 
logistic centers. Our sole objective was to ensure a fair competition, 
and each of these requirements was included for that purpose.
  We had complaints from both sides of the issue from the Congress, 
from the administration, about every single proposal that was put on 
the table. It went on for months. But the bottom line is that sooner or 
later those of us who were not involved in this struggle had to reach a 
conclusion as to what would be a fair and just competition. We believe 
we achieved that, and that the Defense Department can make it work to 
achieve a fair and open competition.
  I say that after many consultations between my staff and myself and 
the Defense Department. I support this compromise because I believe it 
will lead to a fair and open competition that is the only answer to 
this dispute. Keeping this dispute going and going and going is not 
going to resolve this dispute. We learned that from months of fruitless 
effort.

                               Exhibit 1

             Key Elements of the Fair Competition Provision

       Section 359 of the bill requires the use of competitive 
     procedures in contracting for performance of depot-level 
     maintenance and repair workloads formerly performed at closed 
     or realigned military installations. This provision includes 
     a number of requirements and conditions to ensure that any 
     such competition is conducted on a level playing field.
       First, the source selection process must permit both public 
     and private offerors to submit bids. It goes without saying 
     that these bids must be considered on the merits by the 
     source selection authority.
       Second, the source selection process must take into account 
     the fair market value (or book value) of any land, plant, or 
     equipment at a closed or realigned military installation that 
     is proposed to be used by the private offeror in the 
     performance of the workload. This provision is intended to 
     ensure that closed military installations are not given an 
     unfair competitive advantage as a result of facilities 
     provided to them free of charge by the federal government 
     (under the base closure laws, we generally give closed 
     facilities to the local communities without charge). Although 
     this provision does not address the value of facilities 
     available to the depots that remain open (or other private 
     sector facilities), it does not preclude the Department from 
     giving appropriate consideration to the value of those 
     facilities as well.
       Third, the source selection process must take into account 
     the total direct and indirect costs that will be incurred by 
     the Department of Defense and the total direct and indirect 
     savings that will be derived by the Department of Defense. 
     Such savings would include overhead savings that might result 
     from the consolidation of workloads to the remaining public 
     depot activities. The Department of Defense and the Air Force 
     should establish the ground rules for evaluating these 
     savings and for considering any other indirect costs or 
     savings that may be associated with performance of the work 
     by various offerors as a part of the competition plan and 
     procedures required by this section.
       Fourth, the cost standards used to determine the 
     depreciation of facilities and equipment shall provide 
     identical treatment, to the maximum extent practicable, to 
     all public and private offerors. Such standards shall, at a 
     minimum, include identical depreciation periods for public 
     and private offerors. The qualification ``to the maximum 
     extent practicable'' was added at the request of the 
     Department of Defense, which argued that the evaluation of 
     depreciation requires the application of an extremely complex 
     set of rules which are necessarily different, in some cases, 
     for public and private entities. We anticipate that these 
     rules will be modified for the purposes of public-private 
     competitions under this provision to make them as close as 
     possible.
       Fifth, the solicitation must permit any offeror, whether 
     public or private, to team with any other public or private 
     entity to perform the workload at one or more locations. It 
     is our expectation that such teaming will ensure the best 
     possible result for the Department and the taxpayers. While a 
     decision by the Air Force to prohibit any teaming arrangement 
     between an Air Logistics Center and a private sector entity 
     would be inconsistent with this provision, the Air Force 
     retains discretion to determine whether a particular teaming 
     proposal is in the best interest of the Department of Defense 
     and the taxpayers. We expect the Air Force to establish 
     substantive and procedural guidelines for the review and 
     approval of proposed teaming agreements as a part of the 
     competition plan and procedures required by this section.
       Sixth, no offeror may be given any preferential 
     consideration for, or in any way be limited to, performing 
     the workload at the closed or realigned facility or at any 
     other specific location. This provision guarantees a level 
     playing field for public-private competition, without any 
     preference for either Kelly and McClellan or the depots that 
     remain open. The Department would be expected to consider 
     real differences among bidders in cost or performance risk 
     associated with relevant factors, including the proposed 
     location or locations of the workloads. The weight given to 
     such differences would not be considered ``preferential 
     treatment''.
       Seventh, the provision would authorize the bundling of 
     unrelated workloads into one contract only if the Secretary 
     of Defense determines in writing that individual workloads 
     cannot as logically and economically be performed under 
     separate contracts. This provision permits the Secretary to 
     bundle workloads together only if he determines that such 
     bundling will result in the most favorable bids from public 
     and private sector offerors. We do not expect the Secretary 
     to bundle workloads together if the result would be to 
     substantially reduce competition or eliminate qualified 
     offerors who might otherwise be able to submit advantageous 
     offers.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the motion to postpone. The yeas and nays have been previously 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Inhofe]. Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 285 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd

[[Page S11331]]


     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--20

     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Feinstein
     Gramm
     Grams
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Moynihan
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Coats
     Mikulski
       
  The motion to lay on the table the motion to postpone was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it appears that the Senator from Texas, 
Senator Gramm, is not prepared at this time to give agreement on the 
DOD authorization conference report.
  In an effort to try to resolve the depot issue, it seems to me that 
having endless motions to postpone consideration of the conference 
report is not constructive at this time.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. LOTT. Having said that, I now send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             cloture motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 1119, the 
     National Defense Authorization Act:
         Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, Wayne Allard, Pat Roberts, 
           Judd Gregg, Robert F. Bennett, Rod Grams, Spencer 
           Abraham, Don Nickles, John Ashcroft, Rick Santorum, Tim 
           Hutchinson, Paul Coverdell, Bob Smith, James Inhofe, 
           Chuck Hagel, and John Warner.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this cloture vote, for the information of 
all Senators, will occur on Friday. If cloture is not invoked on 
Senator Coverdell's A-plus education savings account bill, all Senators 
will be notified as to the time of the cloture votes, and we will 
discuss that with the Democratic leader to be able to inform the 
Members on Thursday about what time these cloture votes will occur.
  Did the Senator wish to comment?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the purposes of scheduling, could I 
inquire of the majority leader, is this the last vote anticipated 
tonight, given the schedule?
  Mr. LOTT. I believe that would be the last vote tonight, given the 
schedule.
  We have some other matters we are working on on the Executive 
Calendar that may require some recorded votes. But in view of some 
other meetings that are occurring, we will have to schedule those. We 
will try to schedule them early in the morning. I will consult further 
with you on that.
  Mr. President, I now withdraw the motion.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order?
  What was the motion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion was to withdraw the motion to 
proceed.
  Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________