[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 154 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11799-S11844]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report accompanying the 
bill (H.R. 1119) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, 
to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
Forces, and for other purposes.

  The report will be stated by the clerk.
  The 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. 
     1119), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by majority of the 
     conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of October 23, 1997.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4 
hours for debate to be equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the conference report for the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 is before the Senate 
now. This is an important component of the national security 
legislation that the Congress must pass each year.
  The Armed Services Committee worked hard this year to produce a bill 
that will authorize the appropriation of $268.2 billion for 
procurement, research and development, test and evaluation, operation 
and maintenance, working capital funds, military personnel, military 
construction and family housing within the Department of Defense, and 
for the weapons programs of the Department of Energy and the civil 
defense. This is an important piece of legislation.
  Mr. President, there are some Senators who will suggest that the 
Senate should reject this bill in order to protect interests in their 
States. This is a very large bill with over 600 legislative provisions. 
The conference report is nearly a thousand pages. In order to reach 
agreement on a bill of this magnitude, a lot of compromise is required. 
The conference report includes many programs and policies essential to 
the Department of Defense and the Nation. However, not everyone got 
everything that they wanted. As the committee prepared for our markup, 
we received letters of request from 99 Senators. The committee tried to 
accommodate as many of these requests as possible, consistent with our 
national security needs. Mr. President, neither South Carolina nor 
Michigan got everything Senator Levin and I wanted for our States.
  Defeating the Defense authorization bill because three or four 
Senators did not get everything they wanted would be the ultimate in 
partisanship over statesmanship. Let me explain what the Nation would 
lose if there is no Defense authorization bill this year.
  I believe the single most controversial issue in the conference 
report is the policy with regard to depots. In the area of 
privatization, the bill includes an important compromise that provides 
for open competition for the work at the closing depots at Kelly and 
McClellan Air Force Bases. If the bill is not enacted, the opportunity 
to support full and open competition and to resolve a longstanding and 
very contentious issue will be lost. The bill would also change the 
current 60-40 public/private split in The Department of Defense depot 
maintenance to 50-50, giving The Department of Defense greater 
flexibility to achieve an optimal mix of public and private 
capabilities.
  Mr. President, negotiating the compromise on the depot issue was a 
difficult and complex three-way negotiation. Senator Levin and I worked 
together in a totally bipartisan manner to ensure a fair resolution 
that provided for fair and open competition. We are in total agreement 
on the compromise. I want to commend Senator

[[Page S11800]]

Levin, and members of his staff, for their tireless efforts and 
cooperation in achieving this compromise.
  I know that some Senators believe that they should have gotten more, 
but there are equally as many Senators from States on the other side of 
the issue who believe they gave up a great deal more. I hope that we 
agree that open competition will be in the best interests of the public 
and private sector and the Nation. Secretary Cohen has indicated that 
he can support the depot compromise. I urge my colleagues to put 
parochial interests aside and work with us to implement this compromise 
successfully.
  Mr. President, I could talk for hours about the important legislative 
provisions that the Department of Defense and our service men and women 
will be denied if we permit this conference report to be defeated. I 
will spare my colleagues that recitation, but I do want to highlight 
some of what we will lose.
  Without the Defense authorization bill, the military pay raise will 
be less than our service members deserve. The bill includes a 2.8-
percent pay raise for military personnel. If the bill is not enacted, 
the pay raise for military personnel will be limited to 2.3 percent. 
Federal civilians will receive at least a 2.8-percent pay increase 
while our military personnel on duty throughout the world will receive 
a pay raise 1 percent below the inflation rate. Denying military 
personnel what I would describe as a minimal pay raise is shameful.
  The bill includes authority for significant increases in the special 
pay and bonus structure designed to respond to critical recruiting and 
retention problems highlighted by the Department of Defense. Specific 
groups that would be affected include military aviators, nuclear-
qualified officers, dentists, military members on overseas tours, 
military members receiving family separation allowances and/or 
hazardous duty assignment pay, and military members serving in hardship 
duty locations. Reducing military pay raises while failing to increase 
these bonuses through defeast of the Defense authorization bill will 
punish those who expect us here in the Congress to look out for them. 
We will be repudiating the commitments we have made to improving the 
quality of life for military personnel and their families.

  Mr. President, I assure my colleagues that, unless this bill is 
passed, we will see increases in career personnel leaving the military 
services. They will see our action as a breach of faith and I cannot 
blame them.
  The bill provides authority for the Department of Defense to begin 
construction on the fiscal year 1998 military construction projects 
including quality of life and training-related facilities. If the bill 
is not enacted, construction cannot begin. Some may believe that since 
the military construction and family housing projects are funded in the 
Military Construction Appropriations Act, they do not need the 
authorization in the conference report. Let me assure my colleagues 
that is not correct. Both an authorization and an appropriation are 
required for military construction projects.
  The conference report includes an exception to the cost limitation 
for one Seawolf submarine. Without this legislation, the Navy will have 
to stop work on the SSN-23 later this calendar year. This could lead to 
significant payments to the shipyard and people who work on the Seawolf 
Submarines and those who supply materials for the submarines will be 
laid off. Not only does the Nation need the capabilities of these 
advanced submarines, the employees and the communities in which these 
people live will be tragically affected. We cannot allow this to 
happen.
  In the conference report, we re-authorized the acclaimed National 
Guard Youth Challenge Program. The bill would make permanent the 
authority for this important and popular community and youth-oriented 
program. If the bill is not enacted, the Department of Defense must 
terminate support for this popular program. Many disadvantaged youth in 
all our States will be denied the opportunities this worthwhile program 
provides.
  The President, and most of us here in Congress, strongly profess our 
support for counterdrug activities. The bill includes provisions that 
would extend the 1-year authority to provide counterdrug assistance to 
Mexico and would create a new 5-year authority to provide riverine 
counterdrug assistance to Colombia and Peru.
  The bill would establish two new assistants to the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, representing the interests of the National Guard 
and the Reserves. This is important legislation designed to ensure that 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has the benefit of the best 
advice with regard to all the reserve forces, in particular as it 
pertains to their unique capabilities and requirements.
  Mr. President, I could go on for hours on the good things in this 
bill. Some may propose stripping out some of the provisions I have 
discussed today and introducing separate legislation in order to avoid 
denying our service members key benefits. This is a shortsighted and 
unacceptable notion. The conferees worked very hard for many weeks to 
craft a bill that includes those items they agree are essential to the 
national security. To fracture this process would be irresponsible. 
Those who may propose such legislation will be trying to take care of a 
few at the expense of many. This is not our way. I will strongly object 
to any such proposals.
  Mr. President, suggestions to defeat the Defense authorization 
conference report because of the compromise on depot maintenance are 
irresponsible. This bill is important to the young men and women who 
serve in our military forces. The bill includes pay raises and 
increases to special incentive pay, including vital aviator bonuses. 
Provisions in this bill affect every aspect of our national defense 
including quality of life initiatives, modernization, and readiness. I 
remind all Senators that all military construction projects require an 
authorization as well as an appropriation and cannot be executed 
without this bill.
  All members of the Armed Services Committee support this bill, both 
Democrat and Republican. The Military Coalition, a consortium of 
nationally prominent military and veterans organizations representing 5 
million current and former members of the seven uniformed services, 
their families and survivors, strongly endorses enactment of this bill. 
I ask unanimous consent that a letter signed by the leaders of the 22 
organizations be included in the Record at the conclusion of my 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the House of Representatives has already 
passed this bill by a veto-proof majority of 286 to 123. The leaders of 
the Defense Department have indicated that they can make this 
compromise work and that they need this bill passed. It is hard for me 
to believe that any Senator would oppose the entire Defense 
authorization bill at a time when American troops are deployed in 
Bosnia and serious trouble appears to be brewing again in Iraq.
  I strongly encourage all Senators to vote for this bill. We must send 
a strong signal to the White House to demonstrate to the President that 
this bill which is so important to our national security should be 
signed. We must show the young men and women in uniform serving our 
Nation around the world, men and women many of whom will spend yet 
another Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season away from home in 
service to their Nation, that we are strongly behind them.
  Mr. President, I might add that the conference report is the outcome 
of a great deal of hard work by Members and staff. I want to especially 
thank staff on both sides for all that they did to promote this bill. I 
am confident that without their good work we couldn't have brought to 
the floor such an outstanding bill. I want to commend Les Brownlee and 
David Lyles for the excellent work, and other members of the staff who 
cooperated with them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                        The Military Coalition

                                 Alexandria, VA, October 30, 1997.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Military Coalition, a consortium of 
     nationally prominent military and veterans organizations, 
     representing five million current and former members of the 
     seven uniformed services plus their families and survivors, 
     is writing to strongly endorse enactment of H.R. 1119, the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1998.

[[Page S11801]]

       Several of the provisions of the bill are vital to 
     maintaining a high level of military readiness among the men 
     and women of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast 
     Guard, Public Health Service and National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration. Others would offer significant 
     improvements in health programs, compensation protections for 
     deploying members, and survivor benefits programs, to name a 
     few.
       Now that the conferees have made their judgments concerning 
     defense priorities and resource allocation, the Coalition 
     believes strongly that this legislation should be enacted as 
     quickly as possible. The unformed servicemen and women, whose 
     selfless dedication to this Nation frequently puts them in 
     harm's way, need Congress' support, and that support can best 
     be rendered at this time by passing H.R. 1119.
           Sincerely,
                                           The Military Coalition.

  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the chairman of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee in bringing the conference report 
on the DOD authorization act to the Senate floor this morning. It has 
been a long and difficult conference in which we had to address and 
finally resolve some very difficult issues.
  First, I want to congratulate Chairman Thurmond on the successful 
conclusion of the conference and thank Senator Thurmond for the open 
and bipartisan spirit in which he conducted this conference on the 
Senate side. Without his leadership, this conference report wouldn't be 
here. He had to make some difficult decisions. He did that on a 
bipartisan basis, and I want to commend him for it.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member on the House side, 
Congressmen Spence and Dellums, for their cooperation.
  We worked hard to reach a fair conclusion on the issues in the 
conference. I think we have succeeded. There are some provisions in the 
bill that I don't agree with. But, overall, I think we reached a good 
compromise on the major issues. And I hope the President will sign this 
bill.
  Let me start with the action that we took to begin the implementation 
of the Quadrennial Defense Review. These are important steps. There 
hasn't been a lot of focus on them. But these are important actions 
which we took. The QDR, the Quadrennial Defense Review, was completed 
in May. The conference report begins to implement some of the 
recommendations of the QDR.
  For example, the conference report would permit reductions in Active 
and Reserve and end strengths below the fiscal year 1997 level, as the 
Department of Defense continues to restructure and streamline both 
combat and support functions in an effort to free up funds for the 
services' modernization priorities.
  Second, the conference report calls for annual reductions of 5 
percent in headquarters staffing over the next 5 years in an effort to 
reduce the so-called tooth-to-tail ratio.
  The conference report would provide funding for a number of the 
Army's Force XXI initiatives. The QDR set a goal of ``digitizing'' an 
entire Army Corps by 2004--and the funding in this bill will continue 
that process.
  Finally, the conference report would make some positive changes in 
the area of privatization of depot maintenance work recommended by the 
QDR by permitting the privatization of up to 50 percent of such work, 
in lieu of the 40 percent cap currently imposed by law.
  Mr. President, I think it is very unfortunate that Congress has not 
followed the QDR recommendation to give the Defense Department 
authority to conduct more base closure rounds. We lost that battle on 
the Senate floor this year, but this issue is just simply not going to 
go away. I think more and more people are going to realize that we are 
going to have to close some unnecessary bases if we are going to free 
up money for other important needs, including the modernization of our 
forces.
  The bill also takes a number of important steps to improve the 
quality of life of our troops.
  For example, the conference report includes a 2.8-percent pay raise 
for active duty military members. If the bill were not enacted, this 
pay raise would be limited to 2.3 percent because of the statutory link 
between military and civilian pay raises. However, Federal civilians 
will receive an average .5 percent in locality pay that is not 
available to active duty military, in addition to their 2.3-percent pay 
raise.
  So the 2.8-percent pay raise for active duty military is fair, it is 
needed, and it is dependent upon the passage of this conference report.
  The conference report also includes authority for significant 
increases in special pay and bonuses available to respond to critical 
recruiting and retention problems which have been highlighted by the 
Department of Defense. If the bill were not enacted, these authorities 
would not be available to the Department. Specific groups that would be 
affected include aviators, nuclear-qualified officers, dentists, 
military members on overseas tours, military members receiving family 
separation allowances and/or hazardous duty assignment pay, and 
military members serving in hardship duty locations. Those increases in 
those special pay and bonuses are critically necessary. They are 
dependent on the passage of this bill.
  The conference report includes significant reforms of the existing 
structure for housing allowances and subsistence allowances for 
military members. These reforms would simplify the management of these 
allowances and better target the allowances to those individuals in 
geographic areas with the greatest need.
  The conference report provides authority for the Department of 
Defense to begin construction on fiscal year 1998 military construction 
projects, which include a number of important quality-of-life and 
training-related facilities. As our chairman has said, if this bill is 
not enacted, construction of these projects cannot begin, and they are 
needed. And these are quality-of-life issues.
  The conference report terminates the Reserve Mobilization Insurance 
Program. If the bill is not enacted, the Department of Defense will 
continue to lose $10 to $12 million per month as deployments and 
obligations continue.
  Mr. President, I am particularly pleased that the conferees agreed to 
authorize the full budget request of $382 million for the Defense 
Department's Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, and $158 million for 
the related programs in the Department of Energy.
  The House bill also contained some very restrictive provisions that 
would have made it difficult for these programs to continue in the 
coming year. I am pleased that those provisions were either dropped or 
modified by the conferees. Combating the threat of proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction is one of the greatest national security 
challenges that we face. And the cooperative threat-reduction programs 
are on the front line of our efforts to meet this challenge.
  Those programs are an investment in America's security. Those 
programs make it less likely that there will be a proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction. Those programs are a very, very cost-
effective way of reducing probably the greatest threat that America 
faces. I am glad that we were able to fully fund the budget request 
and, again, either eliminate or modify some needlessly restrictive 
provisions on the use of those funds.
  There were three issues that we had to deal with in conference that 
the administration said, if we didn't resolve satisfactorily to them, 
would result in a veto of this bill.
  First, Bosnia;
  Second B-2's;
  And, third, depots.
  All three of these issues were raised by provisions in the House 
bill. And, after a lengthy battle, we have successfully addressed each 
one of them.
  First, on the issue of Bosnia, I think we had a good outcome. The 
administration again said they would veto a bill that included a funds 
cutoff for United States military presence in Bosnia. We avoided that 
outcome with a provision similar to the one in the Department of 
Defense appropriations conference report that authorizes the President 
to override a funds cutoff if he certifies that the continued presence 
of American troops in Bosnia after June 30, 1998, is required to meet 
United States national security interests.
  But, equally important in my view is the sense-of-Congress language 
which I sponsored in the Senate that says clearly it is the sense of 
the Congress that, one:

[[Page S11802]]

  First, United States ground combat forces should not participate in a 
follow-on force in Bosnia after June 1998;
  Second, that a western European Union-led or a NATO-led force, 
without the participation of United States ground combat forces, may, 
indeed, be a suitable follow-on force; and that a western European 
Union-led force could be under the European Security and Defense 
Identity initiative;
  Third, this language provides that the United States may decide to 
provide appropriate support to a follow-on force, including command and 
control, intelligence, logistics, and, if necessary, a Ready Reserve 
force in the region;
  And, fourth, this language provides that the President should inform 
our NATO allies of this sense-of-Congress language and strongly urge 
them to prepare to provide for such a follow-on force.
  The second veto issue was the B-2 bomber. On this issue, we believe 
that we avoided a veto threat by following the appropriations 
conference outcome. We authorized a total of $331 million either for 
procurement of additional B-2 aircraft or for maintenance and upgrade 
of the current B-2 fleet. We left it up to the President to decide 
which option to select.
  I obviously hope and expect that the President will decide not to buy 
any more B-2's.
  That clearly is the position of the Senate, and I hope he makes the 
decision quickly so that we can put this issue behind us and so the Air 
Force can begin to spend the money on what is needed, which is to fix 
some of the problems with the current B-2 fleet. The senior military 
civilian leaders of the Defense Department have said repeatedly that we 
don't need and cannot afford any more B-2's.
  Now, on depot maintenance, which is the most difficult issue that we 
faced, it took the longest time to resolve in this conference, and that 
issue is how do we allocate depot maintenance work of the closing air 
logistics centers at Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases. With a lot of 
jobs at stake, there are obviously strong feelings on both sides of 
this issue. And those feelings are understandable.
  I think we all ought to realize that people who have an interest in 
their home States are going to fight strongly for those States and for 
what they perceive as fairness for their home States. That is why we 
are here--at least one of the reasons we are here--to represent 
strongly the interests of our own State. And so the kind of strength 
that we faced in the feelings on this issue was understandable and it 
is understandable.
  The Depot Caucus representatives of the depots that remain open felt 
that the President had ignored the spirit of the base closure process 
by pursuing a policy of privatizing the work at Kelly and McClellan, 
and that was the so-called privatization or privatizing-in-place 
approach. The Senators from Texas and California fought equally 
strongly to ensure that the work could remain at the closed depots.
  Now, 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, and I have said this before, that in 
my judgment the 1995 Base Closure Commission left it up to the 
Department of Defense to decide how to redistribute the Kelly and 
McClellan work. The Commission's recommendation explicitly 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.'' So there was an either/or in the 
Commission recommendation--either consolidate the work loads to other 
DOD depots or to private sector commercial activities.
  I also disagreed with the legislation which was proposed by the Depot 
Caucus which was 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 in California or 
Texas.
  I voted against that proposal in our committee, and I voted against 
it in conference because I felt that it was one sided. Had that 
provision remained in this bill, I would not be supporting the 
conference report. But as the present Presiding Officer fully knows, 
that provision is not in this conference report. What we have instead 
is a provision that is aimed at providing a level playing field for 
competition between the closed depots and the depots that remain open.
  Now, I have always believed that competition results in the best 
value to the Department of Defense and to the taxpayers, and I believe 
it is the right solution to the depot dispute.
  The conference language includes seven specific criteria to help 
ensure that the Air Force does not tilt the playing field. These 
requirements were written by Members and staff who are neutral in the 
fight between the closed bases and the remaining air logistics centers. 
Now, I reiterate, Members who actually voted against the position of 
the Depot Caucus in conference took the lead in drafting this 
compromise, and our sole objective was to ensure a fair competition and 
each of these requirements was included for that purpose.
  We had some objections from both sides of the issue in the Congress 
and from the administration about almost every proposal that was ever 
put on the table, but the bottom line is that we believe this 
compromise is fair. We believe the Department of Defense can make it 
work fairly. I support the compromise because I believe it will lead to 
the fair and open competition that is the best and perhaps the only 
answer to this dispute.
  We have heard several arguments from opponents of this provision. 
First, one draft of the compromise bill language contained a sentence 
which stated that ``appropriate consideration may be given to 
differences in cost or performance risk associated with the location of 
performance.''
  In the final version, the bill language was replaced with report 
language which stated:

       The Department would be expected to consider real 
     differences among bidders in cost or capability to perform 
     the work based on factors that would include the proposed 
     location or locations of the workloads. The consideration of 
     such differences does not constitute ``preferential 
     treatment.''

  Both the bill language in the earlier version and the report language 
in the final version gave the Department the flexibility to consider 
both cost and risk factors associated with the location of performance. 
Both are consistent with the Department of Defense's current practice, 
and I just simply cannot see any substantive difference between them.
  Second, opponents of the fair competition compromise oppose a 
provision authorizing teaming agreements between the public depots and 
private contractors. In my view, such teaming arrangements simply give 
each offeror, each bidder, the opportunity to put together its best 
bid. The Deputy General Counsel of the Department of Defense, who also 
now happens to be the nominee to be the new Under Secretary of the Air 
Force, recently testified before the Armed Services Committee that he 
could not see anything anticompetitive about public/private teaming 
arrangements. If teaming agreements result in better bids and better 
value for the Department of Defense and the taxpayer, then it seems to 
me we should encourage these arrangements and not prohibit them.
  Third, opponents of the compromise language have said that it would 
unfairly stack the deck against Texas and California by permitting the 
public depots to fudge their bids by hiding overhead costs. In fact, 
the fair competition provisions specifically require the Department to 
consider all direct and indirect costs that will result from the 
various offers. So, far from permitting the depots to hide costs, the 
provision requires the Department of Defense to consider all costs.
  The statement of managers states that the Department should consider 
all savings including ``any overhead savings, i.e., reduced 
administrative costs, more efficient utilization of facilities that 
would result from the consolidation of work loads for the remaining 
public facilities.''
  However, it is up to the Department of Defense to determine what 
overhead savings, if any, may result from a particular offer. Nothing 
in the conference report or the statement of managers permits or 
encourages any offeror to hide costs or authorizes the Department to 
consider any overhead savings that it has not determined to be valid.

[[Page S11803]]

                        senior military colleges

  The last issue I want to mention is a provision in the House bill 
that the conferees agreed to over my objections involving the so-called 
senior military colleges. This provision would require the Army to 
guarantee graduates of the ROTC programs at the six senior military 
colleges--North Georgia College, the Citadel, Virginia Military 
Institute, Virginia Tech, Norwich University, and Texas A&M--automatic 
assignments to active duty if they request it, provided, however, they 
are physically and medically qualified, and are recommended by the 
professor of military science at their school.
  The effect of this provision is that graduates from the senior 
military colleges will be assigned to active duty even if there are 
better qualified officers graduating from ROTC programs at other 
colleges and universities across the nation. I realize that this is not 
a major provision when compared to other issues in the conference. It 
is, however, a major issue in terms of principle, and I intend to make 
sure that everyone understands what this provision does.
  This provision codifies in law a quota system to give preferential 
treatment to a small group of ROTC graduates without regard to where 
their performance and potential stacks up when compared to graduates 
from other ROTC programs. The Army's own figures show that, when all 
ROTC graduates--including the senior military colleges--were arranged 
in an order of merit, a number of graduates from the senior military 
colleges each year ranked below the cutoff line for active duty.
  Since 1990, 268 graduates of senior military colleges have been 
assigned to active duty despite being below the cutoff point for ROTC 
graduates offered active duty assignment in the Army's order of merit 
list. This list ranks all ROTC graduates. The conference provision 
clearly will disadvantage those graduates of ROTC programs who are not 
offered the same exceptional consideration as is offered to the 
graduates of the senior military colleges.
  Instead of guaranteeing equal treatment and open competition for 
assigning all ROTC graduates to active duty, the conference provision 
establishes in law a formal vehicle to maintain a quota system of 
preferential treatment for the graduates of six specific colleges and 
universities.
  I will be trying to correct this unfairness in the future.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, I would like to conclude by thanking the chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, for the open and 
bipartisan manner in which he conducted the conference on this bill. 
While we were not able to agree on every issue, Senator Thurmond and 
his staff have made every effort to include the minority at every stage 
of the deliberations.
  I would also like to express my appreciation to the staff of the 
Armed Services Committee on both the majority and minority sides for 
the tremendous effort that they have put into this bill and this 
conference. I think all Members of the committee know that this bill 
would not have been possible without the outstanding work of Les 
Brownlee, David Lyles, and their dedicated supporting cast. I also want 
to extend my thanks to the staff of the House National Security 
Committee and the House and Senate Legislative Counsels for their help 
in preparing this large bill.
  Mr. President, this is a good conference report that strengthens our 
national security. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. President, I will yield the floor at this time.
  I yield my good friend from Connecticut such time as he may need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and I thank my friend and colleague 
from Michigan.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor to urge our colleagues to support 
this fiscal year 1998 national defense authorization bill. I am proud 
to be a member of the committee from which this bill has emerged, the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. I particularly wish to thank our 
chairman, Senator Thurmond, and our ranking Democrat, Senator Levin. 
These are two extraordinarily able, wise Members of the Senate who have 
worked together very well to produce this bill that meets our national 
security needs.
  We all know that we are in a post-cold war period. Perhaps the needs 
of defense are less in the minds of the public, but these are not 
matters that should be decided by public opinion polls. These are 
matters of national security, at the very root of why governments are 
formed, and they call out for leadership by those who have been given 
the privilege of serving, leadership in the interest of national 
security by all of us across party lines, across both Chambers of 
Congress, across Pennsylvania Avenue between the Congress and the White 
House to do the best that we can to provide for our national defense 
today and, in some ways even more difficult, particularly at a time of 
relative security such as we are in today to make the investments that 
are necessary so that we will meet the multiple possible threats to our 
security in the decades ahead. This bill I think does about as well as 
we could do at this point, and I am therefore proud to be here to urge 
our colleagues to support it.
  I want to state first that this is a bipartisan bill. There are a lot 
of things that happen around the Capitol that are much too partisan. 
Somehow we come here and we feel as if we have suddenly been placed on 
two teams on either side of the tug-of-war and you have to get on your 
side, and sometimes on all sides we lose a bit of sight of what the 
problem is and the urgency of working together in the national interest 
across party lines.
  I am very proud that on the Armed Services Committee, of course, 
there are disagreements, sometimes they tend to split more partisan 
than at other times, but as this bill, the product of the better part 
of a year's labor of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate, shows 
we have gotten together. We have come halfway across the bridge on a 
whole host of issues and problems, matters of real concern, and the 
feeling is we have had our voices heard both in the committee, in the 
Chamber and in conference.
  This bill really represents an act of bipartisanship. Because so much 
attention is focused on the partisanship around here, I think it is 
important to note that with some satisfaction and again thank the 
bipartisan leadership of the committee for having made that possible.
  Second, Mr. President, this is a bill that is a compromise and that 
has compromises in it. As a conferee on the Senate side, I must admit 
that the conference negotiations over this bill were protracted, 
difficult. There was much give and take. But in the end, which is again 
the nature of this process at its best, we were able to overcome many 
obstacles, some of which seemed intractable at times, all of which 
arose from what initially appeared to be difficult to reconcile 
positions. And despite these obstacles, the end result I think is a 
good bill that achieves the goal of adequately providing for our 
national defense.
  It is not a perfect solution, but we rarely achieve perfect solutions 
here. The question is will we be willing to bend a bit to get to a 
point where we have any solutions, and I think this bill does. It 
reflects compromise, the kinds of compromises that are honorable and 
make our political system unique and produce results. In the end, I 
would probably say that none of the conferees, House or Senate, were 
completely satisfied but none were completely disappointed neither, and 
the end result is a bill that moves us forward.
  I do want to say in a more targeted way that the bill protects the 
Senate position on two controversial issues, Bosnia and the B-2.
  Mr. President, the third basic point is that this bill has provisions 
that are essential to maintaining our military strength and 
particularly in providing adequately for our men and women in uniform, 
the finest fighting force in the world. But they will not continue to 
be so unless we provide for them.

  Let me cite a few of the matters in the bill that are so critical. 
There was some discussion of what would normally be unthinkable, that 
we might not pass a DOD authorization bill this year. But that would 
have been done at great peril and loss.

[[Page S11804]]

  This bill, for instance, provides authority for adequate funding for 
critical equipment procurement and R&D, research and development. I am 
privileged to serve as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on 
Acquisition and Technology, chaired by my friend and colleague from 
Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum. There are some very important 
investments here that will provide dominance for the American military 
a decade or two from now. All of the glory that we achieved, the 
victory that we achieved in the gulf war, so much of it was made 
possible by research and development that began, not in 1990 or 1991 
when we fought the war, but in the 1970's. This budget provides the 
same kind of first investments in future military dominance.
  Second, the bill provides authority for the Department of Defense to 
begin construction of fiscal year 1998 military projects, construction 
projects which include quality of life, and training-related facilities 
which are so critical, both to the morale of our forces and their 
capacities.
  Third, the bill provides lower end strength levels and increased 
flexibility for managing personnel strength. That is very important to 
the commanders.
  Fourth, the bill includes significant reforms of the existing 
structure for housing allowances and subsistence allowances for members 
of the military.
  Fifth, the bill includes authority for significant increases in the 
special pay and bonus structure, designed to respond to critical 
recruiting and retention problems, particularly in the Air Force.
  Sixth, the bill includes a 2.8-percent pay raise for active duty 
military members--it is not a lot, but at least an increase--a pay 
raise of 2.3 percent for Federal civilians, and an additional 0.5 
percent increase in locality pay.
  It is a big bill. It is an important bill. It achieves some things 
that would not be achievable were this bill not passed.
  Senator Levin was speaking when I came into the Chamber. He was 
speaking about the depot issue. Obviously, there has been a lot of 
concern about that over the last several weeks--months, in fact. Today, 
as we consider this bill, some are still suggesting that the depot 
provisions of the bill may invite a Presidential veto. I certainly hope 
not. I hope such a veto is not being seriously considered within the 
White House because it would be profoundly harmful to our national 
defense by delaying authorizations such as those I have just described, 
which are critical for maintaining our current military readiness as 
well as delaying investments in our future military strength by way of 
critical procurement and R&D programs.
  The depot provisions of the bill provide, in my opinion, a level 
playing field among current Government depots and those which are being 
privatized. I understand the intense feelings in the various localities 
affected by this. But here again, across party lines, the best effort 
was made to achieve a compromise. These provisions on depots in the 
bill, I think, are fair and equitable to all sides involved in this 
extremely complex issue. No one set of interests prevailed. No one side 
achieved all their end goals. At the same time, no side walked away 
without retaining some of their core objectives here. In a very real 
sense, the depot provisions of this DOD authorization bill reflect the 
long and detailed, bipartisan effort of all of the conferees. I 
honestly believe that the conferees produced the very best possible 
legislation, not only generally but particularly on this issue which 
was so divisive and was thought to be possibly fatal to the chances of 
the overall bill, so important to our national defense, even passing.
  So, I say, respectfully, that any move to veto this bill because of 
the depot provisions would be very unfair and unwise. A veto would 
freeze other provisions in the bill for an unacceptable length of time, 
and there is no guarantee that what would follow would be a solution 
any better for the parties involved intimately than the one already 
painstakingly worked out.
  Last, a veto might act to dismantle current support for the bill and 
open up partisanship on a host of other issues, partisanship or 
parochialism, divisiveness, on a host of other issues which have 
already been resolved in the underlying bill through a lot of hard 
work.
  Let me say, finally, that I know there are many in Congress, some in 
the country, who feel we are still spending too much for defense. As 
hard as we on the committee struggled to authorize, as closely as we 
worked with the appropriators, the fact is--and I think it is important 
to point this out to our colleagues and to the public--this represents 
the continuation of more than a decade of defense budgets that have 
been lower in real dollars than the previous year. I believe this is 
the 13th straight defense budget of the United States of America that 
has been lower, in real dollars, than the preceding year's.

  First, I say that to say to those who say the military industrial 
complex, whatever, the hawkish people here, are not recognizing the 
change in the post-cold-war years and are still spending as much, that 
is just not true.
  Second, just look at the newspapers. Look at the instability in the 
Middle East with Saddam Hussein again acting against America's 
interests, against the world's interests. Probably, as the news today 
suggests, people in the U.N., not the United States, are alleging that 
Saddam Hussein is taking the action he has to try to frustrate 
inspection for the reason that we would guess--to conceal behavior, 
development of systems in his country that are not only a breach of the 
agreement he made to end the gulf war but which could be disastrous for 
the security of American personnel in that region, for the security of 
our allies, for the overall balance of power in that region. Look at 
the acts of terrorism that continue throughout the world.
  Even consider the efforts that the President made and has been 
making--they were highlighted last week because of the visit of the 
President of China, Jiang Zemin--an effort to try to find a course of 
peace, cooperation, integration; not to treat the Chinese as if they 
were our enemies inevitably--which is probably the best way to make 
them our enemies--but to try to build cooperative relations. That is 
the kind of effort that can only be made if we feel strong enough 
militarily to know that if our optimistic view does not work, we have 
the strength to protect our security interests and those of our 
allies--in this case in the Pacific region.
  There is a lot of change going on within our military structure, a 
lot of adjustment to the changing threats that we face, the reduced 
resources available. The outgoing immediate past Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, presided over the presentation 
of a visionary document, ``Joint Vision 2010.'' Where should we be in 
the year 2010? How can we get our services to work better together? How 
can we take advantage of the enormous leaps forward in technology?
  The Quadrennial Defense Review, completed earlier this year, which 
was authorized in the DOD authorization bill for this year, fiscal year 
1997, created, in my opinion, the broadest involvement within the 
Pentagon of personnel post cold war, about what the shape of the future 
threat is and what we need to face it. The National Defense Panel, also 
an independent panel created in the DOD bill last year, is in the final 
stages of its work. It is a Team B that we created of retired military 
personnel, outside experts and independent thinkers to provoke us, to 
make sure that we are doing everything we can to produce the best 
defense at least cost, that we are taking advantage of new 
technologies, of new forms of management.
  Mr. President, the military cannot be any more immune than the rest 
of the world to the changes occurring. I have told this story probably 
too many times. It goes back some months now. One day earlier this 
year, the lead story in the Wall Street Journal was how General 
Electric, which happens to be headquartered in my State, was going to 
be reporting record profits--billions. What was the focus of attention 
within that company, under a visionary, demanding president, Jack 
Welch? ``How can we change to make sure that we continue to be as 
successful in the future as we are today?'' Nobody who sits still is 
going to remain successful and strong. That is as true of our military 
as it is of any great institution in the private sector.
  That process is beginning. The Armed Services Committee has played

[[Page S11805]]

a leading role in encouraging it. We have to keep that moving, as this 
bill does. So, overall this bill is a good bill, and it is an important 
bill, and it is a necessary bill. So I urge my colleagues across party 
lines to vote for the bill with a strong show of support as we send it 
eventually to the President with the very urgent hope, and I think the 
strong case, that the President will sign this bill knowing that it 
truly serves the primary goal of our Government, which is the national 
security.
  Mr. President, I again thank the chairman of the committee for his 
extraordinary leadership and the ranking Democrat, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from 
Connecticut on his excellent remarks on this subject.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask the time be 
equally charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am not here to necessarily engage the 
chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend? Who yields time?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator from Michigan yield--this won't take 
long.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield--how much time?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Fifteen minutes. You may want more than 15 by the time I 
get through.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the Senator from Arkansas 15 minutes. We don't 
know how time is going to be allocated, that is our problem.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I will try to make this short.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 15 minutes to my friend from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, from 1993 to 1997, the Navy retired seven 
Los Angeles class attack submarines--seven in that 4-year period. In 
that same period, we were in the process of building three Seawolf 
submarines at a cost of $13.2 billion. Not one of those submarines that 
we have decommissioned, all of which had a 30-year life expectancy, not 
one that we retired had less than 12 years left on its life expectancy, 
and several of them had 14 years left on their life expectancy.
  In that same period of time, we retired two nuclear-powered guided-
missile cruisers, the Virginia and the Mississippi. Both of those ships 
had 20 years left on their life expectancy. And just last month, the 
Navy decommissioned another Virginia class guided missile cruiser, the 
U.S.S. Arkansas. That ship is near and dear to my heart because my wife 
Betty christened it. The U.S.S. Arkansas, incidentally, had sailed for 
only 18 years, and had a life expectancy of 20 years left on it. CGN-
41. That stands for cruiser, guided missile, nuclear.
  In that same period of time, 1993 to 1997, we decommissioned five 
frigates, everyone of which had anywhere from 14 to 16 years left on 
their 35-year life expectancy.
  In that same period of time, we also decommissioned nine guided-
missile frigates, every one of which, but one, had a 21-year life 
expectancy left.
  Now, Mr. President, the Navy and the Pentagon has told the Defense 
Subcommittee on Appropriations on which I sit, as does the Presiding 
Officer, that tight budgets were requiring them to do more with less 
and that we are wearing out our ships and exhausting our crews because 
of the high operating tempo we are demanding of them.
  I have had reason to reevaluate what those officials have told us. 
First, Congress added $720 million to the 1998 defense budget to 
increase from three to four the number of DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class 
destroyers we will buy this year. The Arleigh Burke destroyer is a very 
fine ship, and it carries the Aegis air defense system. But let me 
repeat that this extra ship cost $720 million.
  Secondly, I learned, as I said, that the Navy would retire the U.S.S. 
Arkansas while it still has 20 years of useful life left. That ship is 
now being broken up for scrap.
  You have to ask yourself, why are we retiring perfectly good 
multimission surface ships when the cost for a comparable new ship is 
staggering? So I decided to look into this early warship retirement, 
and here are some of the things I have learned.
  Those ships that I mentioned that we retired between 1993 and 1997, 
the five regular frigates and nine guided-missile frigates and the two 
nuclear-powered guided-missile cruisers and the Los Angeles attack 
submarines, all of those ships, as I said, had 12 to 21 years left on 
their lives. During that same period of time, Congress appropriated 
about $18 billion to acquire two new submarines and 16 Arleigh Burke 
destroyers.
  It seems to me that this is awfully penny-wise and pound-foolish to 
be retiring these ships and spending so much to replacing them with 
fewer ships. We could keep a lot more ships in service at a lot less 
cost if we canceled or delayed procurement of just one or two of the 
submarines or destroyers the Navy plans to buy over the next 4 years.
  Listen to this. It costs $200 million to refuel a Los Angeles class 
submarine and about $30 million a year to operate it. So the Navy could 
refuel three Los Angeles attack submarines and operate them until the 
year 2014, 16 to 17 years from now, for the price of buying one New 
Attack Submarine.
  In addition, it costs about $25 million a year to operate a guided-
missile frigate. So, for the cost of the one Arleigh Burke destroyer 
that we added to the fiscal 1998 budget, the Navy could operate three 
Perry class frigates until the year 2007.
  I know that the Los Angeles class submarine is not quite as good as a 
Seawolf, or New Attack Submarine. I know a guided-missile cruiser or 
frigate is not quite as capable as an Arleigh Burke destroyer, but 
those older classes were good enough for the cold war when they were 
expected to cope with a highly sophisticated air and sea threat from 
the Warsaw Pact.
  Here are some comments by Admiral J. Paul Reason, the Commander in 
Chief of the Atlantic fleet. You don't have to listen to what I have to 
say, but listen to what the commander of the Atlantic fleet has to say, 
Admiral Reason. He says, according to the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, that 
the fleet might be better served by cheaper ships in greater quantity: 
``I would rather have three hulls that have one-third the capability of 
an Arleigh Burke.''
  If from a pure military standpoint three cheaper ships are sometimes 
better than one expensive new one, why are we spending money 
mothballing or scrapping perfectly good ships with a 20-year life 
expectancy and then spending staggering sums to build new ones?
  Mr. President, I am not going to pursue this. The question is very 
simple. I intend to get into it in depth next year when we have 
hearings before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee with the Navy. 
But I will tell you--and I serve notice on them right now--I will tell 
you what I think is going on. I don't think that the reasons given us 
are legitimate. They make no sense to me. I am not, admittedly, a Navy 
man, but when you look at the dollars and cents and when you look at 
the threat and you look at the life expectancy on magnificent ships--I 
can vouch for the U.S.S. Arkansas, I have been on it more than once, 
and it hasn't been that long ago when it was the state of the art. And 
I don't buy this business that we have to pay any price to get the 
absolute added technological edge on every one of our systems.
  This is a terribly expensive program the Navy is undertaking, doing 
away with perfectly good ships, with long lives left, to replace then 
with fewer hugely expensive ships. I agree with the admiral down in 
Norfolk when he says that sometimes he would rather have three cheaper 
ships that will do one-third of the job than have one ship to replace 
them.
  So I think that what we are doing is retiring perfectly good ships in 
order to keep the shipyards of America working.
  What does that mean? It means we have a lot of people in this body 
who have shipyards in their jurisdictions, and they want to keep those 
jobs busy.

[[Page S11806]]

 I understand that. If I had one in my State, I would be wanting those 
workers to stay busy, too.
  But I tell you the enormous cost to the taxpayers of this, in my 
view, is nothing short of outrageous. I do not buy the rationale for 
it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Nebraska, Senator Hagel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. I thank the chairman for his leadership and the leadership 
of the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Levin.

  Mr. President, it is rather appropriate that we debate this issue 
today. Next week is Veterans Day. It is the day, a unique day, when 
America honors the sacrifices and commitments made by our men and women 
who served in uniform.
  I rise today to speak in support of the fiscal year 1998 defense 
authorization bill conference report. As we have debated this important 
bill over the past few months, I couldn't help but wonder whether we 
would be able to meet our national security challenges in the years 
ahead with the current state of our readiness of our current military 
forces.
  Our national defense ensures the survival of our Nation and our 
interests around the world. Our national defense is not only the 
protector of the American people, it is the guarantor of our foreign 
policy. One of the most important national debates we need to have is 
over what kind of military will be required as the world moves into the 
next century. Are we making the necessary investments to meet that need 
and will America be strong enough to back up the international 
commitments being made today by our President?
  I am very concerned, Mr. President, that we are not making the 
necessary investments that we will need to make to have the military 
capability to back up those commitments in 5 to 10 years. While the 
cold war is over, the world is still very dangerous. It is very 
uncertain. It requires a skilled, highly mobile military force 
structure. Rather than one global enemy that we can work to contain, we 
need to be able to respond to head off crises in hot spots around the 
world.
  Look at our situation today. We have troops in Bosnia. We have a 
madman in the Middle East whom we already went to war with once, and 
again he rattles his saber and threatens the peace.
  We are faced with the continuing menaces, the dilemma in North Korea. 
We face proliferation, not only of nuclear weapons, but of chemical and 
biological weapons around the world. What are the issues on the 
horizon?
  Next year, this body will make a decision on expanding the security 
blanket of NATO eastward. Difficult decisions still must be made 
regarding Bosnia. The Caspian Sea has the world's second largest oil 
reserves, located in the center of a very turbulent area of the world. 
The Middle East continues to be in turmoil.
  What will the future requirements be for the U.S. military? No one 
can predict with certainty what those requirements will be. But what 
has made our military the most powerful in the world and has kept the 
peace is the preparedness and the ability of the United States to 
respond to whatever crisis may develop worldwide.
  In a turbulent, unpredictable world, we cannot now risk weakness. As 
President Ronald Reagan said so clearly--peace through strength. Our 
dedicated men and women in uniform are up to the task, as they have 
always been up to the task.
  However, our military has suffered Draconian cuts over the past 10 
years. In real dollars--in real dollars, Mr. President--the U.S. 
military, our national defense, has taken far deeper and more dramatic 
cuts than any other area of our Federal budget. Over the last 10 years 
our defense budget has been reduced in real numbers by 40 percent.
  We are deferring--we are deferring--vitally important weapons 
procurement systems to meet our needs for the future. That is not 
leadership.
  Today, I fear we could not repeat what we accomplished during the 
Desert Storm war because of our strength and our readiness, because 
that has been cut so drastically. Not a comforting thought, Mr. 
President, with the current situation in Iraq.
  Our Armed Forces have been stretched to the breaking point. While the 
administration has continually proposed reduced spending in our defense 
budget, the President continues to deploy more and more overseas 
forces. At the same time we have been cutting our national defense 
resources, we have been directing more and larger overseas deployments. 
This, Mr. President, is very dangerous, with severe long-term 
consequences for peace and stability worldwide. We are witnessing an 
unhealthy stress in our military today.
  Since 1989, the Army's missions around the world have increased by 
300 percent--while funding for our primary land forces has decreased by 
38 percent, and the number of soldiers has declined by 35 percent. In 
the Air Force we face a similar story. Recent press reports indicate 
that 107 Air Force pilots who were eligible for promotion this year 
from captain to major asked not to be considered, they decided to leave 
active service instead. The senior leadership in the Air Force say they 
have seen an alarming number of pilots leave the Air Force and are 
concerned that so many pilots are finding the demands of a military 
career on their families so stressful that they are choosing to quit. 
It is not just about money either. Most say they are not concerned 
about going in harm's way, but they are concerned about their unit's 
readiness to face the challenges ahead.
  I am pleased to note that this bill does begin to reverse the 
downward trend in defense spending by increasing the administration's 
request by $2.6 billion. It is a good start on the road back to 
restoring our military forces to a complete ability to defend our vital 
interests around the world--but it is not enough.
  I understand that some of my colleagues believe that this bill is now 
irrelevant. They say we have passed an appropriations bill already, why 
do we need an authorization bill? We need this bill to authorize a 2.8-
percent pay increase for our men and women in uniform. Who among us 
wants to look a soldier in the eye, whom the President has just sent to 
Bosnia and say, ``we sent you in harm's way, but you and your family 
don't merit a pay increase.'' How many of us in the Senate are aware, 
according to the administration's own data, that compensation for our 
men and women in uniform currently lags 12.9-percent behind the private 
sector. Without this meager pay increase, our soldiers would fall even 
further behind civilian wages, at a time when the administration asks 
them to do more with less on a daily basis.
  The pay raise issue alone should be enough justification to support 
this bill. However, there is more. By the Defense Department's own 
estimates 23,000 service men and women are eligible for food stamps. 
There is no honor for a nation that asks its men and women in uniform 
to risk their lives to defend it, then asks them to feed their families 
with food stamps and live in rundown, dilapidated housing.
  Another reason we need this bill enacted into law involves housing 
for our military personnel. Denying them appropriate and just 
compensation is clearly one issue. If we, as a nation can't pay our 
service members enough, surely we can at least provide them with 
decent, affordable housing. Here again we are failing our troops. As 
most of my colleagues are aware, military construction projects require 
both authorization and appropriation to be executed. If the fiscal year 
1998 Defense authorization bill is not enacted this year, more than $4 
billion in military construction projects cannot be executed during the 
coming year.
  If we do not provide our men and women in uniform with at least a 
decent quality of life for them and for their families, how can we 
expect to recruit and retain the best and the brightest?
  Signals from the White House indicate that the President is 
considering a veto of this bill. I ask him to reconsider. Chairman 
Thurmond and the members of his committee have worked tirelessly to 
reach an accommodation with both sides in the depot closure debate. 
This divisive issue has

[[Page S11807]]

consumed enough of our efforts. It is time to move on. We are wasting 
time and draining precious resources away from our Nation's military 
readiness. Let's show some leadership and get on with our 
responsibility.
  In summary, Mr. President, I close with this: National defense should 
not be a partisan issue. The security of our Nation is not a Democrat 
or Republican issue. It is an American issue. The debate over our 
national defense should not be driven by economic decisions. It should 
not be driven by jobs. We must be steely eyed, clear eyed, clear headed 
when we make these decisions for our national security.
  Deferring tough decisions and lack of vision and shortsightedness in 
planning our national defense will have deadly consequences for the 
future of America and the world.
  I strongly support this bill and strongly encourage my colleagues to 
support it as well.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. I commend the able Senator from Nebraska for the 
excellent remarks he made on this subject.
  Mr. HAGEL. I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. I now yield to Senator Kempthorne, the Senator from 
Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  First, Mr. President, I commend the leadership that Senator Thurmond 
has provided as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. With his 
steady hand on the wheel, we have brought forward a bill that I think 
all of us can be proud of.
  I also want to commend the ranking member of the full committee, 
Senator Levin. I believe this is the first year that he has been the 
ranking member.
  But that bipartisan spirit, that really has been the tradition of the 
Armed Services Committee, again is exemplified by these two Senators. I 
commend both of them for their leadership. You have served this Nation 
well and national security because of that partnership.
  Mr. President, I have the great honor of serving as the chairman of 
the Military Personnel Subcommittee. I say ``honor'' because I feel 
that that is the committee that deals with the men and women who so 
proudly wear the uniforms of the U.S. Armed Services.
  I cannot think of a more appropriate and patriotic partner than 
Senator Cleland of Georgia as the ranking member of that subcommittee. 
Our men and women know that when Senator Cleland is involved in any of 
these issues, their interests are looked out for. I thank him for his 
partnership but also for his friendship as well.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1998 defense 
authorization conference report. I want to congratulate again all of 
the members of the committee who worked so diligently on this. The 
conference report now before the Senate authorizes an increase, for 
example, in a variety of areas.
  So what I would like to do, Mr. President, is just have a colloquy 
with my ranking member of the Personnel Subcommittee, Senator Cleland, 
and address a few of these issues that are included in the defense 
authorization bill. I add that these are issues that if, for some 
reason, we would lose the defense authorization bill, if it did not 
have sufficient votes or if upon passage it were vetoed, we would lose 
these items. So I think it is extremely important for us to underscore 
this.
  I would like to start with an area that Senator Cleland and I have 
held a hearing on, and that deals with the Aviation Officer Retention 
Bonus Program. This is something that is critical.
  So I ask the ranking member to explain what important step we took 
with regard to the aviation officer retention bonus.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the chairman very much.
  Mr. President, I would also like to commend the distinguished Senator 
from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, for being our leader on national 
defense issues, and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, 
Senator Levin. They have made a great team. In terms of great teams, I 
think one of the greatest captains of a team I have ever come across is 
Senator Kempthorne, our distinguished Senator from Idaho. He and I have 
worked together on personnel matters and personnel issues.
  Mr. President, it is my pleasure to support the defense authorization 
bill for several reasons.
  One of the reasons is, as the Senator from Idaho has indicated, as my 
colleagues have read in the newspapers, the Air Force and Navy are 
experiencing real difficulties encouraging experienced pilots to stay 
in the service. Our Nation has invested, in some cases, up to some $6 
million apiece to train these pilots, and the airlines are now 
benefiting from that. They are hiring scores of pilots away from the 
military services every month.
  As part of our effort to retain these highly skilled pilots, the 
pending bill increases the pilot bonus from the current $12,000 to 
$25,000, which is paid out over a 5-year period of time. This is a 
modest increase. It comes from existing Air Force and Navy funds and 
was requested by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Chief of 
Naval Operations.

  Without the legislative authority to increase the aviation officer 
retention bonus, we will fail to give the services the tools they need 
to keep highly skilled pilots in the cockpit.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Georgia 
on that. Again, Mr. President, the fact of the matter is, there is a 
tremendous investment in having the finest pilots in the world, pilots 
that have been trained to defend this Nation. But many of them--too 
many of them--are now leaving the Armed Services and they are going 
into the private sector. We need to have this sort of a program so that 
we can retain the best pilots in the world in which we have made 
millions of dollars of investment.
  The pending bill also authorizes a 2.8-percent pay increase for our 
men and women in uniform. Again, I ask my friend from Georgia to 
explain the importance of this particular increase.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. President, without the legislative authorization to increase 
military pay approved in this bill, the pay raise would be limited to 
2.3 percent at the same time you have Federal workers who receive a pay 
raise of at least 2.8 percent. In other words, without the enactment of 
this bill, we will give civilians working for the Federal Government a 
larger pay increase, larger pay raise than we give to men and women who 
are out there risking their lives to defend the interests of this 
country.
  Mr. President, I once ran a wonderful agency, the Veterans' 
Administration, and I think our employees, our civilian employees, do a 
wonderful job. But this Defense authorization bill will allow us to 
give the full 2.8 percent increase that certainly our military people 
richly deserve.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Again, I thank the Senator from Georgia. And 
referencing back to what the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, has 
talked about, the deployment of our troops currently around the world, 
the deployment in Bosnia, the dilemma that we are currently facing with 
Iraq, the news that continues to come out of North Korea that because 
of the famine, we do not know what is going to happen in North Korea.
  So we have our troops deployed around the world, ready to put their 
lives on the line. Here we have a situation that, again, if for some 
reason we lose this bill, we are not giving them the full pay increase 
that they are entitled to. The message that that sends to our men and 
women in uniform is not healthy.
  Mr. President, the bill also authorizes reductions in end strength, 
or manpower, reductions consistent with the Quadrennial Defense Review, 
to allow the services to save funds for badly needed modernization.
  I ask Senator Cleland, Is it true that if this bill is not enacted 
into law, the services will be forced to increase current personnel 
levels to meet the floors established in last year's defense 
authorization bill?
  Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is eminently correct. Without the bill, the

[[Page S11808]]

services will be prohibited from actually reducing personnel, which is 
called for in the Quadrennial Defense Review, and the services will be 
forced to add personnel that they have actually determined, Mr. 
President, they can live without. We do have an era of tight resources, 
and I think it is unwise of us as a Congress to force the services to 
keep people they cannot afford.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I add that the Senate conferees fought 
very hard to retain this important issue in the conference report, 
which was requested--and I will underscore this--by the Secretary of 
Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  Mr. President, the bill also authorizes a congressional commission on 
military training in gender-related issues. I ask the ranking member to 
explain some of the history behind this important section of the bill.
  Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is absolutely right. The bill, in light of 
the criminal behavior uncovered at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in 
Maryland, responds to strong sentiments in the Congress. Some of those 
strong sentiments would like to legislate the end of gender-integrated 
training. There are equally strong voices against that type of 
legislation. During our Personnel Subcommittee hearings on this 
particular issue, the point was raised that a commission created by the 
Department of Defense might raise credibility issues in some quarters.

  Responding to such legitimate concerns, the Senate Armed Services 
Committee adopted the Kempthorne-Byrd amendment to create a 
congressional commission to report directly to the Congress on this 
very important issue.
  Mr. President, here again the Senate conferees had to fight in 
conference to ensure that the commission remained objective.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Senator from Georgia and underscore what 
he has said. Again, here is a critically important issue that is facing 
the military and we want to get to the heart of it and find out what is 
the extent of the problem, and most importantly what is the extent of 
the solution.
  I want to commend the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, for 
his leadership on this issue as well.
  During our hearings this year the subcommittee heard testimony from 
actual recruiters about some of the difficult quality of life issues 
that they face. The bill authorizes important steps to address how 
recruiters and other military personnel who are not serving near a 
military hospital receive health care.
  Again, I ask the distinguished Senator from Georgia to help explain 
these improvements to our colleagues.
  Mr. CLELAND. This is one of the issues that I personally have a 
strong commitment to and that is improving the quality of care in our 
military facilities for our military active duty and retired personnel.
  The conference report authorizes active duty personnel serving in 
remote locations to receive health care through the Tricare system at 
no expense to that military person or that military family. It will 
allow military personnel and their families to receive quality health 
care where they live. This provision has real implications for active 
duty personnel and their families. It represents another quality of 
life improvement contained in the defense authorization conference 
report.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Again, I thank the Senator from Georgia.
  Senator Cleland and I had a hearing on this aspect of recruitment. We 
are facing problems with recruitment. Here we are talking about the 
actual recruiters. We need to deal with this aspect so those recruiters 
have a quality of life they can truly sell to those new individuals as 
to why they should join the services.
  The defense authorization bill also includes seven provisions 
addressing the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs activities with regard to assisting those suffering from 
Persian Gulf illness. I note, too, Mr. President, that Senator Cleland 
is a former head of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing this spring in 
which General Schwarzkopf testified. At that particular hearing I asked 
General Schwarzkopf his thoughts as to what is the cause of Persian 
Gulf illness, and his point was he did not know what the cause of 
Persian Gulf illness was nor did he know the extent, but he made the 
very important point we have to deal with our veterans that have this.
  The committee remains dedicated to ensuring that the Department of 
Defense, in conjunction with the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
continue an aggressive research effort to determine causes and 
treatment for this debilitating illness.
  Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is eminently correct. The Persian Gulf 
illness question is one that continues to baffle those of us who try to 
deal and struggle with it, but it certainly baffles the members of the 
military family that served in the Persian Gulf. Those personnel 
deserve justice. They deserve treatment when they are ill and they 
certainly want us to get to the bottom of this question. This is one of 
the most serious issues facing active duty and retired military 
personnel, especially those who served in the Persian Gulf.
  I want to say on behalf of our committee and our great leader, 
Senator Kempthorne, that we take this challenge seriously, and this 
defense authorization bill will certainly help.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Senator from Georgia, and I agree totally 
with the comments about our dedication to this.
  Mr. President, the bill also includes a very important provision to 
correct a mistake made over 50 years ago. Specifically, the bill 
authorizes retroactive payment of the stipends for Congressional Medal 
of Honor winners who only this year received the award for heroism 
during World War II. Specifically, the bill authorizes payment to 
Vernon J. Baker and the surviving families of Edward A. Carter and 
Charles L. Thomas.
  Because of racism, seven Americans were denied the Medal of Honor 
they rightly earned over 50 years ago. Earlier this year in a very 
moving ceremony at the White House, President Clinton presented the 
Medal of Honor to Vernon Baker and the next of kin of the other 
recipients, except for one recipient who, because he died so young, had 
no surviving relative. The conference report helps right this wrong. It 
ought to be adopted by the Senate and signed by the President of the 
United States.
  Mr. President, I am proud that Vernon Baker, a quiet and dignified 
man, is a resident of the peaceful community of St. Maries in my State 
of Idaho. Vernon Baker has never asked for the retroactive payment of 
the stipend for the Congressional Medal of Honor, nor has he ever 
sought my assistance. But believe me, his act of bravery in April 1945 
makes him more than worthy and he deserves to have this wrong 
corrected. We are not suddenly providing him or the families of the 
other recipients with a windfall. Instead, we are simply making sure 
that they receive what should have been provided some 50 years ago.
  There are other numerous important quality of life provisions in the 
pending conference report, including military construction projects 
which include family housing. You can recruit the soldier, but if you 
are going to retain him you have to take care of the family. That is 
what this addresses. It cannot be initiated without passage of this 
report.
  I would like to thank my friend, Senator Cleland, for helping to 
explain some of the important provisions in the pending conference 
report and also for the many hours of dedicated service he and the 
other members of this subcommittee put in to make sure that we are 
taking care of our men and women who wear the uniform of the greatest 
Nation in the world.
  My final point, Mr. President, is simply that, again, if for some 
reason this bill does not become law, all of these quality of life 
issues that we have addressed are lost. That is a terrible message to 
send to the men and women who are defending the freedom of this Nation 
around the world on behalf of the United States.
  I yield to my colleague, Senator Cleland, for any additional comments 
he would like to make.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Regina 
Jackson be permitted privileges of the floor for the duration of the 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CLELAND. Let me say I appreciate Senator Kempthorne's remarks

[[Page S11809]]

regarding the Congressional Medal of Honor recipients who were 
belatedly recognized. Recognition on this issue is much appreciated for 
those who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in the services 
of this country.
  Mr. President, in terms of going above and beyond the call of duty 
that is exactly what the distinguished chairman of this Personnel 
Subcommittee from the great State of Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, has 
done in regard to bringing me on board as a freshman Senator in making 
me feel welcome, keeping me posted and informed, and including me in 
all of the legislative hearings and in all legislative debates and all 
legislative matters before our committee. It has made me feel very much 
welcome and very much a part of things. This was my first year on the 
committee and I couldn't have been more fortunate to have gotten a 
better chairman than Senator Dirk Kempthorne. I understand he intends 
to return to the great State of Idaho after completing his term in the 
Senate. He will be missed as a dear friend, as a colleague, and as a 
great leader. He has one more year to serve and I look forward to 
working with him next year to make it a very productive year for us 
both.
  I also extend my gratitude to the distinguished chairman and ranking 
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senators Thurmond and 
Levin welcomed me as a brother and a colleague into the committee, 
following in the footsteps of Senator Russell and Nunn in this Senate 
seat. It has been fun to try to tackle the chores that we tackled this 
year. It wouldn't have been possible without the help that I received 
from both of them.
  I also thank both the majority and minority staff of the committee 
under the leadership of Les Brownlee and David Lyles. They have all 
been of great assistance to me as I have served on the committee. I 
certainly appreciate the courtesies and hospitalities that their staffs 
have given me.
  Mr. President, this is a very important bill for all of the reasons 
Senator Kempthorne and I have discussed. It sets forth the priorities 
for our national defense in the next year. The very title of the bill 
suggests its importance--National Defense Authorization Act. It has 
taken 9 long months to get to where we are today, yet one issue remains 
controversial. In spite of numerous concessions made by the Depot 
Caucus, this bill faces the threat of a veto. I do not understand this. 
Much has been said on this topic so I will be brief.
  There are at least two significant concessions. First, we agree 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 in California, rather than directing the departments to 
transfer this workload to the main depot which we believe is the intent 
of BRAC. To those who do not believe this is a major concession, this 
would ratify the mechanism that overrides the BRAC recommendation.
  I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Thurmond.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Senator Kempthorne and Senator Cleland 
are valuable members of the Armed Services Committee. Both of them are 
experts on military personnel and I wish to commend them for the 
important information they have given the Senate today on that subject.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. THURMOND. I yield.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to join Senator Thurmond in thanking 
Senators Kempthorne and Cleland for their tremendous work on this 
subcommittee. I cannot think of any two colleagues that I would feel 
more comfortable with being chairman and ranking member of that 
subcommittee.
  We will, indeed, miss Senator Kempthorne after he leaves this body. 
He has been a great friend and a really wonderful participant in our 
debates and deliberations, just as we welcome Senator Cleland as a new 
member who has made a wonderful new addition to our committee.
  We thank them both for their work.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the 
very kind remarks.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I commend the chairman on his herculean 
effort to address the myriad of policy issues he has faced this year, 
but I am wary about the fast track we seem to be on to decrease our 
defense resourcing while simultaneously increasing our operational 
tempo. I am concerned that because of the dramatic cuts our total force 
has taken in the past few years, that we are hollowing our force. I am 
concerned that in spite of our downsizing efforts we are spreading our 
forces out more than any other time in our history.
  Because of this fact, we must squeeze every ounce of bang for our 
bucks, and I believe that the Reserve components, the Guard in 
particular, does this very well. Guard units are posted all around the 
world in addition to performing their duties in their home states. 
Guard members come from all parts of the population, including former 
active duty members of the active force. They bring with them, a wealth 
of experience and training. They are also inextricably woven into the 
fabric of their local communities, a point which we have come to 
realize is all important, that our military be connected to our 
citizenry. Our Army, our military, is the finest in the world, bar 
none. It is composed of the finest young men and women, provided the 
finest training and the most well resourced in the world. Our history, 
our legacy demands the support of our citizens for the institution, and 
the Guard provides a critical link between our civilian community and 
the military which protects them. Don't eviscerate the Guard and sever 
that link. This bill makes a cut of 5,000 Guardsmen and women, troops 
who we have already voted to fund in the appropriations bill. These 
troops funding remained within the budget constraints and were 
apparently desired by the Pentagon and the President as he approved the 
appropriations bill. I believe that this is an ill-advised reduction in 
force.
  Mr. President, I make the following points to explain my objections 
to the National Guard policy decisions reflected in this bill.
  The Guard is unique of all the Reserve components; having both Army 
and Air Force components under a unified command, and the Guard 
performs State oriented missions under title 32 and Federal missions 
under title 10. The Guard has been the neglected step-child of the 
National Command Authority for as many and more years than I have been 
in the Senate. No one can say that the Guard has received a fair share 
of the budget pie without direct input from the Congress. Each year we 
are required to inject hundreds of millions of dollars to keep the 
equipment accounts adequately funded as well as the training and 
operations funding accounts. I believe that a four-star position along 
with the elevation of the directors of the Army Guard and Air Guard 
would provide the Guard Bureau with much needed and appropriate upper 
echelon infrastructure and departmental and congressional vetting. I 
believe the Department of Defense has been disingenuous in its 
characterization of the National Guard's participation during the 
Quadrennial Defense Review. I believe that the current command 
structure of placing the Air Guard under authority of the Army is 
convoluted to say the least.
  Mr. President, as a four-star, the chief of the Guard bureau will 
have the rank required and the subsequent authority to actually have a 
place at the table. Now the Guard Caucus would like to see that table 
be at the JCS level, because that is from where our uniformed personnel 
delivers recommendations to the National Command Authority. However, it 
is our main concern that the operational and force employment decisions 
have a Guard input. So, we are open to constructive and statutory 
alternatives. But whatever the result, the status quo is unacceptable. 
The provisions in this bill do nothing to alter seriously, the status 
quo. I predict that next year, in spite of this well intentioned but 
wholly inadequate compromise with rogue and obstinate members of the 
House, we will once again see resourcing problems in the Guard and 
Reserve accounts. We will continue to see them until we, here in the 
Congress, do something to recognize and reflect our increased reliance 
on our reserve components because of the force structure changes we are 
forcing our military to make.
  I disagree strongly with the measures in this bill dealing with 
National

[[Page S11810]]

Guard policies but I will grudgingly accept them for I do believe that 
we do need an authorization bill and these are issues which may be 
addressed at a later date. And I guarantee you, that come next year, I 
will be here again arguing for policies which will recognize the 
relevancy of the Guard and which will position it appropriately within 
the Department of Defense hierarchy.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I would like to discuss with the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee a provision in the DOD authorization bill conference report. 
These provisions concern depot-level activities and are contained in 
subtitle D of title III. As the chairman and ranking member know, 
Louisville is the home to the former Naval Surface Warfare Center 
Detachment which was closed by the 1995 Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Commission. However, in its recommendation, the Commission 
directed that the workload, equipment and facilities be transferred to 
the private sector if the private sector could accommodate the workload 
onsite. The Commission's recommendation has been followed and the 
former Navy depot was privatized in 1996. The current contract runs 
through the year 2000 if all the options are exercised. My 
understanding is that the competition requirements in section 359 of 
the conference bill would not apply to any workload already privatized 
at the former depot in Louisville under the current contract or under 
any recompetition once the current contract expires. Is my 
understanding correct?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the distinguished senior Senator from 
Kentucky is correct in his interpretation of section 359. First, under 
the exception contained in new section 2469a(c)(3), these competition 
requirements do not apply to any contract originally entered into 
before the date of enactment of the conference bill. Second, under new 
section 2469a(b), these requirements apply only to workloads that are 
currently proposed to be converted from performance by DOD personnel to 
performance by a private sector source for the first time, not to work 
that has already been converted to performance by a private sector 
source. For these reasons, the competition requirements in section 359 
would not apply to workloads that have already been converted to 
private sector performance at Louisville or any other similarly 
situated facility.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I agree with the statement of the 
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee that section 359 
does not apply to any current or future solicitations or contracts for 
workloads that have already been privatized at a former military 
installation before the enactment of the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense 
Authorization Act. The conferees were aware of my colleague from 
Kentucky's concerns about the successful privatization that has already 
occurred at Louisville and section 359 represents a compromise that 
does not affect workload currently performed at Louisville under 
existing contracts or under any recompetition of those contracts. I 
would also note that the requirements of this provision would not apply 
to any other workloads that Louisville may choose to compete for, 
unless those workloads were performed at a military installation that 
was approved for closure or realignment under the 1995 BRAC round, and 
are proposed to be converted to private sector performance for the 
first time.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of 
the Armed Services Committee for their explanation of section 359 of 
the conference bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of passage of the 
conference report on H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1998. Despite its many flaws, some of which I will 
expand upon momentarily, the report does represent a solid effort at 
advancing the defense budget process in accordance with the legislative 
branch of government's constitutional role in raising and supporting 
the Armed Forces of the United States. Important policy issues are 
addressed, needed reforms are implemented, and vital quality of life 
initiatives are authorized.
  Procedurally, there is ample room for improvement in how the 
budgetary responsibilities of Congress are executed. The exclusion from 
negotiations of Members with important interests in specific issues 
should not be accepted. Conversely, when invitations to participate in 
negotiations on such issues are proffered, the Members in question 
should not then decline those offers. Through such cooperativeness we 
can hopefully avoid the kind of problems that have delayed final 
passage of this bill.
  Lest anyone underestimate the importance of this bill, let me remind 
them that it is bad enough that $13 billion foreign aid appropriations 
bills are routinely passed without proper authorization. To permit $260 
billion in defense spending to be enacted without appropriate 
authorization is simply dangerous. The authorizing and appropriations 
processes, as we all know, provide Congress with its own much needed 
internal system of checks and balances. As with the checks and balances 
that exist between branches of government, should our internal system 
break down, the results will be grave indeed, including drastically 
reduced accountability in how public funds are spent and an elimination 
of vital oversight of the structure, equipping and training of our 
Armed Forces. That is not a situation that should be permitted to 
develop, and I intend to do everything in my power to prevent it from 
happening.
  We maintain the system of authorizing and appropriating to help 
prevent an excessive consolidation of power in too few hands. I don't 
think I exaggerate when I suggest that such a consolidation would be 
seriously deleterious to the country's best interests.
  On the content of the bill itself, when the fiscal year 1998 defense 
budget process commenced early this calender year, it was widely 
anticipated that certain issues would delay and possibly derail our 
ability to pass an authorization act. Chief among these is the so-
called depot maintenance issue, inarguably the single most contentious 
issue with which the Senate Armed Services and House National Security 
Committees were involved. Those of us who have been around a while are 
more conversant than we would like to be in the intricacies surrounding 
this arcane issue involving a handful of congressional districts.
  The conference report before us today includes a depot compromise 
that is much improved from previous depot language considered this 
year. For example, it changes the 60/40 workload definition to 50/50. 
It also removes the capacity factor requirement--that is 75 percent--
which was synonymous to killing competition at Kelly and McClellan Air 
Logistics Centers. However, this remains an exceedingly deficient 
approach to the issue of depot-level maintenance, still grounded in 
protectionist sentiments devoid of serious regard for the principles of 
sound public policy.
  A key criticism is that the process was not inclusive of all the 
parties that would be affected by changing DOD policy on depots. I feel 
strongly that developing compromise legislation with the depot caucus 
and the Kelly and McClellan supporters could have been achievable in 
the late stages of the process. Having said that, however, this may be 
the best compromise that could be expected.
  I tried to reform depot policy in the past as chairman of the Senate 
Readiness Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee and failed. So I 
commend Senator Inhofe and Chairman Thurmond for making at least some 
meaningful progress toward reforming the depot maintenance system. I 
continue to support fair and open competition between private and 
public depots, though. Current law, even with these modifications, 
precludes the full competition that would most benefit the American 
taxpayer and allow the Defense Department to allocate operations and 
maintenance dollars more optimally.
  I am also disappointed that this compromise does not include language 
that was in the Senate bill that changed section 2466--definition of 
60/40--by relating workload to a facilities-based definition rather 
than a personnel-based definition. This provision would have allowed 
industry to go into public depots and compete for work alongside public 
employees and any core capability work done privately in a depot 
counted against the public workload. This language, more than any other

[[Page S11811]]

provision in the compromise encouraged public-private partnerships.
  Another issue that was amicably resolved, but that should not have 
been brought up at all in light of the apparent resolution of the 
matter during preparation of the previous fiscal year's authorization 
act, involves personnel missing in action in Southeast Asia. Most of 
the onerous provisions, strenuously opposed by administrations of both 
parties as well as by theater and war-fighting commanders since its 
inception a decade ago, that establish burdensome bureaucratic 
requirements upon our troops in the field and that place unrealistic 
requirements upon the Defense Department personnel responsible for 
accounting for missing personnel, are included in the conference 
report.

  Those provisions that are included are not particularly necessary and 
won't contribute to resolution of the problem of accounting for all 
missing personnel, but they are not as egregious as the provisions that 
were not included in the final bill. Those of us active on this issue 
for many years who believed the issue to have been resolved last year 
will not endure another protracted debate over provisions of extremely 
dubious merit when the process begins again next year. It was clearly 
stated by the conferees that this matter is considered closed. I expect 
that to be the case.
  Not surprisingly, given the wealth of unnecessary and wasteful 
programs funded in the defense appropriations bill, the authorization 
act similarly includes numerous examples of items funded in the bill 
primarily, and, in some instances solely, for parochial reasons. I have 
already presented a list of such items from both the House and Senate 
authorization bills for publication in the Congressional Record. 
Consequently, I will not repeat them item by item today. Suffice to say 
that the unrequested $150 million for the B-2 bomber, the addition of a 
destroyer not requested by the Defense Department, the acquisition of 
additional C-130 airframes despite the surplus of such aircraft already 
in the fleet, the usual list of unrequested military construction 
projects, and a variety of location-specific earmarks for such highly 
questionable projects as those all-important Centers for Excellence, 
all combine to represent a business-as-usual approach to passing 
legislation that serves to further erode public confidence in elected 
officials while draining scarce financial resources from higher 
priority programs. To paraphrase Samuel Beckett, we've laughed at the 
idiocy so many times that the humor is gone and we are left with the 
unfortunate consequences of our actions.
  Thankfully, negotiations on the authorization act succeeded in 
diluting the potentially damaging effects of language on Bosnia, but 
the appropriations bill has already addressed that action in a manner 
apparently acceptable to the White House. The administration's 
protestations notwithstanding, a satisfactory compromise was worked out 
on the export of computers with dual use applications to countries with 
suspect records in how such technology is exploited. Whether the 
Commerce Department wants to admit it or not, a legitimate national 
security concern involving the export of such computers does exist, and 
I believe the language included in the conference report adequately 
addresses the concerns of both the national security apparatus and the 
industry affected by it. I am surprised, therefore, that the Office of 
Management and Budget included this issue in its letter to Majority 
Leader Lott as being particularly objectionable.
  Provisions involving the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization serve little or no constructive purpose, particularly 
those pertaining to cost. The cost of expanding the alliance is 
certainly worth debating, but at the end of the day we ought not 
predicate a decision on whether to bring in new members on cost data 
that is so qualified as to be rendered meaningless. Expanding NATO will 
cost as much or as little as we want to spend. We're not bringing in 
impoverished Third World countries with facilities barely able to 
accommodate a Cessna. We're talking to countries that belonged, 
involuntarily, to the Warsaw Pact and which possess military 
infrastructures that only need to be improved upon and that have 
command, control and communications networks that must be made 
compatible with the rest of the alliance. That will certainly cost 
money, but it is hardly a deal breaker.
  Thanks to the administration's decision to adopt a more reasonable 
approach toward missile defense issues, the conference report includes 
a more realistic funding profile for both theater and national missile 
defenses. The administration's admission that it was seriously 
underfunding even rudimentary national missile defenses has helped to 
move this issue forward in a constructive manner. Hopefully, this 
presages a trend toward a more mature and serious approach to missile 
defenses on the part of the White House.
  I am pleased that the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is funded 
at the Defense Department's request while restricting the use of funds 
to exclude spending on programs or areas not directly involved in 
dismantling Russian weapon systems that would otherwise threaten the 
United States.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, the conference report to accompany H.R. 
1119 is like its predecessors: flawed but acceptable. It deserves our 
support and I hope my colleagues will agree to vote for its passage.


                      core logistics capabilities

  Mr. COATS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, I would like to take a few 
moments to discuss one of the concerns that has been raised relating to 
the compromise language on depot maintenance. In particular, I would 
like to ask a few questions regarding the provisions relating to core 
logistics capabilities and workloads. The concern has been raised that 
this language could require the Department to change its current depot 
maintenance practices and bring in-house work that is now performed by 
contractors. What is the view of the chairman and ranking minority 
member on this issue?
  Mr. THURMOND. It was not the intent of the depot maintenance 
provisions to require the Department to bring in-house any work that is 
now being performed by contractors, and those provisions should not be 
interpreted to have that effect.
  Mr. LEVIN. I agree with the distinguished Chairman. The depot 
maintenance provisions in the bill are consistent with DOD's current 
policy and practice on core logistics capabilities and will not require 
the Secretary to bring in-house any work currently performed by private 
contractors. As under current law, the Secretary of Defense gets to 
decide what capabilities are core logistics capabilities, what 
workloads are necessary to maintain those capabilities, what is cost 
efficient, and how much workload is necessary to ensure cost 
efficiency.
  Mr. COATS. I understand that the Senators from Texas and California 
believe that the requirement to ``ensure''--rather than ``promote''--
cost efficiency in the depots might be interpreted in such a way as to 
require the Department to withdraw depot maintenance workloads from the 
private sector and perform the work in public depots in order to 
achieve efficiency because the only way they can operate efficiently is 
to fully utilize the physical capacity. Could you please explain your 
interpretation of the language? What do you believe it requires?
  Mr. THURMOND. I would be happy to clarify what the conference 
agreement requires. First of all let me just say that this language 
does not require the Department of Defense to withdraw depot 
maintenance workloads from the private sector and perform the work in 
public depots in order to achieve efficiency. As the statement of 
managers indicates, it simply requires the Secretary to assign 
sufficient workload to these facilities to ensure that they are 
operated as cost efficiently as possible. The report clearly states:

       The provision does not require that maintenance for all 
     weapon systems necessary for the execution of DOD strategic 
     and contingency plans be performed at public facilities. 
     Rather, it requires that the capability to perform 
     maintenance and repair on these systems be retained in the 
     public depot activities and that these activities be assigned 
     sufficient workload to ensure that they are operated as cost 
     efficiently as possible while preserving sufficient surge 
     capacity to support the strategic and contingency plans of 
     the U.S. Armed Forces.

  Mr. LEVIN. I agree. This language requires that during peacetime the 
public depots perform certain types of

[[Page S11812]]

depot maintenance workloads necessary to retain the capability to 
maintain mission essential weapon systems, and that sufficient amounts 
of work should be assigned to these depots in order to ensure that the 
personnel necessary to perform the maintenance are operating 
efficiently. This does not mean that the Department would be required 
to perform maintenance on all mission essential weapon systems within 
public depots; it simply requires that the Department retain a 
capability to maintain this equipment, should it become necessary.
  Mr. COATS. Then nothing in this language would preclude the 
Department from retaining a surge capacity to be used in times of 
military emergency?
  Mr. THURMOND. Absolutely not. The language specifically requires that 
the public depots retain a surge capacity and reconstitution capability 
necessary to support any strategic or contingency operations identified 
by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The requirement for a surge capacity for 
military emergencies by definition requires less than full utilization 
of the physical capacity during peacetime.
  Mr. COATS. Isn't that similar to the Department's current policy?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes. The provision in question is a clarification of 
existing law, which already requires DOD to ``maintain a logistics 
capability (including personnel, equipment and facilities) to ensure a 
ready and controlled source of technical competence and resources'' for 
contingency situations and prohibits the contracting out of any 
logistics activity identified by the Secretary as ``necessary to 
maintain [that] logistics capability.''
  Mr. THURMOND. I agree. The Department of Defense maintains a 
peacetime work force at these depots that can be supplemented with 
additional personnel if they are necessary. Ensuring efficiency while 
retaining surge capacity and reconstitution capability is accomplished 
under current policy by having the right number of personnel to perform 
peacetime workloads and simply adding the necessary personnel, or 
workshifts, to provide a sufficient surge capacity to support any 
contingency or strategic operations. In fact, when we drafted this 
language, we asked the Department of Defense to review it and let us 
know if the Department had any concerns, or if this did not reflect the 
Department's current policy. We made a number of changes to address the 
Department's written comments.

  Mr. COATS. And did these comments identify the use of the word 
``ensure'' rather than ``promote'' as a concern?
  Mr. THURMOND. Not initially. The Department provided the conferees 
with two rounds of written comments on the draft compromise language. 
In neither version did the Department suggest that ``promote'' be 
changed to ``ensure.'' It was only on the day that the conference 
report was finalized that the Department indicated that the use of the 
word ``ensure'' might be interpreted in such a way as to require all 
logistics workloads to be performed at public depots. We informed the 
Department that the requirement to ensure efficiency does not mean that 
all logistics workloads must be performed at public depots, and added 
language to the statement of managers to reaffirm that point.
  Mr. COATS. So the bottom line is that this compromise language does 
not require the Department to withdraw workloads from the private 
sector and move them to the public depots in order to ensure 
efficiency?
  Mr. THURMOND. That is correct. The language does not require this.
  Mr. LEVIN. I agree with the chairman.
  Mr. COATS. If I could just ask one additional question, is there 
anything in this language that would preclude the Department from 
giving appropriate consideration to the differences in cost or 
performance risk particular to the location of the performance of the 
work?
  Mr. THURMOND. There is nothing in this language that would preclude 
such consideration. In fact, the bill language specifically requires 
the consideration of all direct and indirect costs, and the report 
language specifically states ``The Department would be expected to 
consider real differences among bidders in cost or capability to 
perform the work based on factors that would include the proposed 
location or locations of the workloads.''
  Mr. LEVIN. I agree with the chairman. Under this language we expect 
the Department to give appropriate consideration to costs and risks 
associated with the proposed location of the performance of the work.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the chairman and ranking member for this 
clarification.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today so that this great body may 
momentarily reflect upon the importance of the bill we are about to 
vote on this afternoon. It is a bill whose beginnings extend back to 
early Spring, a bill that has been through many hurdles since then to 
include a major compromise impacting competition at depots around the 
country. I intend to vote yes for this bill and I encourage my fellow 
Senators to do the same.
  There have literally been thousands of differences between the House 
and Senate versions of this bill. However, what is important for 
Members of this body to understand is that on both sides of the aisle, 
in both Houses of Congress, we have fundamental support for maintaining 
the strongest national defense possible for America. This is not an 
easy task. We share differences in solutions to defense that range from 
management styles, to leadership, to modernization and procurement, to 
the vexing uncertainty of the funding levels required to sustain our 
forces in the field.
  The conference agreement was unanimously supported by the committee 
under the able leadership of Chairman Thurmond. On the major issues of 
Bosnia, the B-2, cooperative threat reduction and other issues, the 
bill is much closer to the Senate position than the House position. 
Equally important to me, the bill is consistent with the targets of the 
bipartisan budget agreement.
  The depot issue was certainly the most controversial provision in 
this year's bill. There are strong feelings on both sides of the aisle. 
As the committee noted recently, ``many jobs are at stake, and neither 
side wants to lose them.'' Certainly, I didn't want to lose any at our 
great depot in Anniston, AL. Nonetheless, I feel strongly that Chairman 
Thurmond's objective all along was to ensure fair competition and a 
level playing field. I feel he and the other members of the committee 
achieved just that. We have a fair compromise. We have an honest 
compromise. We have a product that the Department of Defense can work 
with. I think it's time to put our disagreements behind us and move 
forward in unity to support the men and women in uniform for whom this 
bill is designed.
  I plan to vote for this bill and I trust my colleagues will join me 
in making this vote an overwhelming one.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Senator 
Thurmond and Senator Levin, the distinguished chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Armed Services Committee, for their work in 
conference to produce a defense authorization bill that will help keep 
America's military strong and well-prepared for today's multiple 
threats and challenges. The U.S. leadership role has never been more 
important than it is now as the world reshapes itself to face a new 
century.
  In order to lead, America must have strong diplomatic and military 
tools. As ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Relations 
I have worked this year with the Chairman, Senator Helms, to enhance 
our country's diplomatic readiness overseas.
  Our Nation's defense force is the weight behind our diplomatic 
initiatives. It is the critical strength upon which we rely when other 
options, unfortunately, may fail. Good diplomacy is always built upon 
good defenses and this bill enhances our ability to deal with critical 
foreign policy and security issues.
  I am pleased that the conferees agreed to fully fund the Nunn-Lugar 
Cooperative Threat Reduction program. This program assists Russia and 
other former Soviet states both to secure and control their nuclear 
materials and to improve their nuclear safety programs. This bill 
ensures that the Nunn-Lugar program will continue to protect our 
national security in a very cost-effective manner.

[[Page S11813]]

  The bill also requires the President and the Secretary of Defense to 
increase their focus on counterterrorism efforts.
  The importance of Asia and the Pacific is highlighted by an 
expression of congressional support for continuing a minimum troop 
presence to support our security agreements with countries in that 
region.
  The bill contains another important provision that expresses the 
sense of the Congress that any moratorium on the use of antipersonnel 
landmines by U.S. Armed Forces should not be implemented in a manner 
that would endanger U.S. personnel or undermine their effectiveness. 
This is consistent with the provisions of S. 896, the Landmine 
Elimination Act of 1997, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, as that 
act includes a Presidential waiver to protect American forces in Korea.
  Like the defense appropriations bill, there are sections in this 
authorization bill dealing with our involvement in Bosnia. As I have 
said before, I think that it was a mistake to have set a deadline for a 
complete American troop withdrawal from Bosnia. Months ago, I called 
for a combined joint task force with European troops making up the 
overwhelming majority of the ground forces and Americans providing 
command and control, intelligence, and logistics assistance, air and 
naval support, and, if necessary, a ready reserve force in the region. 
So, I agree with the thrust of this bill's recommendation, but I also 
think a small, residual American ground force in Bosnia may be 
necessary to maintain America's leadership role in the operation.
  I am happy to see the commendation for the NATO enlargement process 
and the sensible reporting requirements contained in this conference 
report.
  In separate provisions, by authorizing pay raises and barracks 
construction, this bill takes important steps to enhance the quality of 
life for our brave men and women in uniform.
  This bill also adds two positions to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 
include National Guard and Reserve commanders. This change recognizes 
the unique and increasingly vital role played by our reservists and 
guard members in our nation's defense.
  Last, the conferees maintained the U.S. ability to forcefully project 
power by continuing to fully fund the C-5 aircraft. The C-5 is the 
military's workhorse plane--carrying heavy weapons like tanks and 
helicopters all over the world. Its singular value has been shown in 
conflict after conflict, from Vietnam to Desert Storm. Delawareans are 
proud to host a significant portion of the Nation's C-5 fleet stationed 
at the Dover Air Force Base and glad to see that Dover's infrastructure 
will benefit from the military construction appropriations bill signed 
by the President and authorized by this bill.
  I am pleased, therefore, to support the work of my colleagues on the 
Armed Services Committee and vote to strengthen America's leadership 
role around the world with a strong, well-equipped military.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy 
with the senior Senator from South Carolina.
  I understand that the conference report on the Department of Defense 
reauthorization bill includes a provision--section 1088--that 
reauthorizes the Aviation Insurance Program for 5 years. The Senate 
will soon act on a freestanding bill to reauthorize this important 
program. The freestanding bill (S. 1193) was approved recently by the 
Commerce Committee, which is the committee with jurisdiction over this 
program.
  Mr. THURMOND. Because the Aviation Insurance Program is so vital to 
U.S. military missions overseas, we thought it prudent to try to 
reauthorize it in the defense bill, which is a must pass piece of 
legislation. The military depends on the airlift capacity that 
commercial carriers provide. Without an insurance program in place, 
carriers will be less likely to participate in the Civil Reserve Air 
Fleet, for one.
  Mr. McCAIN. I agree with my colleague from South Carolina that it is 
essential that we reauthorize this program as soon as possible. Our 
goals are the same in that respect. Nevertheless, the Commerce 
Committee specifically acted to reauthorize the Aviation Insurance 
Program through 1998. The committee did so out of concern that the 
balance in the revolving fund is insufficient to pay a major claim or 
simultaneous claims. Timely payments for hull losses are a significant 
issue. Many of the carriers lease aircraft under agreements that 
stipulate that they have to repair or replace damaged aircraft within 
30 days of the damage.
  The bill would not grant the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] 
borrowing authority to cover claims against the program, as we had 
originally planned. Rather, a short term extension of the program gives 
the committee and the administration additional time to craft an 
alternative to FAA borrowing authority. S. 1193 also makes other 
important modifications to the program.
  I appreciate the efforts of the Armed Services Committee to ensure 
that the Aviation Insurance Program is in place. If, however, both of 
these bills are enacted into law, I want to clarify that the provisions 
of S. 1193 supersede the 5-year reauthorization bill. Is that agreeable 
to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee?
  Mr. THURMOND. That sounds like a good accommodation to me. When and 
if S. 1193 or a similar House version is signed into law, its language 
reauthorizing the Aviation Insurance Program should be controlling. If 
for some reason that bill is not approved before Congress adjourns for 
the year, and the defense authorization bill is signed into law, the 
defense bill provisions will serve to reauthorize the program until 
action on S. 1193 or a similar House bill is taken.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my good friend and colleague for his 
understanding.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I intend to vote in favor of the 
Defense Department authorization conference report which contains 
critical funding for our Armed Forces. This legislation authorizes 
$268.2 billion in budget authority, the spending level recommended in 
the concurrent resolution on the budget.
  I also am pleased that the Senate and House conferees agreed to 
include provisions from two bills I introduced earlier this year. 
Section 1082 of the DOD conference report authorizes the flying of the 
POW/MIA flag over military installations, memorials and post offices 
around the nation and at other appropriate places of significance on 
Armed Forces Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day, Independence Day, Veterans 
Day, and National POW/MIA Recognition Day. This provision reflects in 
large part the language of S.528 which I introduced on April 9, 1997.
  The United States has fought in many wars, and thousands of Americans 
who served in those wars were captured by the enemy or listed missing 
in action. In 20th century wars alone, more than 147,000 Americans were 
captured and became prisoners of war; of that number more than 15,000 
died while in captivity. When we add to this number those who are still 
missing in action, we realize that more can be done to honor their 
commitment to duty, honor, and country.
  The display of the POW/MIA flag would be a forceful reminder that we 
care not only for them, but for their families who personally carry 
with them the burden of sacrifice. We want them to know that they do 
not stand alone, that we stand with them and beside them, as they 
remember the loyalty and devotion of those who served. This section 
provides that support.
  The DOD conference report also contains important provisions to 
strengthen how the Defense Department tracks and accounts for our 
missing in action.
  To address this issue, the DOD Conference Report includes the 
following provisions. These provisions are based on S. 755, which I 
introduced on May 15, 1997.
  Civilian contract employees who accompany armed forces in the field 
are now covered under all DOD POW/MIA search and recovery policies.
  The theater component commander is now involved in the initial 
assessment of a missing person's status, where as before, the initial 
handling of the situation originated with the Secretary of Defense in 
Washington, DC.
  A new file must be opened and reviewed if any new information 
surfaces concerning the status, living or dead, of an MIA.
  A status review board, when making a determination of death must now

[[Page S11814]]

provide a description of the location of the body, if recovered, and if 
the body is not identifiable, a certification by a forensic 
pathologist. DOD may also have input by other specialists of 
appropriate medical sciences.
  Personnel files will now be established for Korean conflict cases 
upon receipt of new information.
  Families of MIAs will now have more open communication with counsel 
appointed to investigate the missing person.
  Last summer, a United States forensics team returned what are 
believed to be the remains of four American Korean war soldiers who 
have been missing for nearly half a century. The following day, news 
reports then indicated that recently declassified Air Force documents 
show that the Department of Defense had knowledge of POW's in Korea 
after the Korean war. These events clearly reinforce the necessity for 
these provisions as thousands of POW and MIA's still remain unaccounted 
for. I believe that the provisions adopted by the Senate-House 
conference and included in the legislation we consider today will go a 
long way to help the families of our servicemen and women missing in 
action and will strengthen Defense Department policies for the future.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, it has taken 9 long months to get to 
where we are today. Yet one issue remains controversial. In spite of 
numerous profound concessions made by the Depot Caucus, this bill faces 
the threat of a veto. I do not understand this. Much has been said on 
this topic, so I will be very brief.
  There were at least two significant concessions.
  First, 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, rather than 
directing the Department to transfer this workload to the remaining 
depots, which we believe was the intent of the BRAC. I would urge those 
who do not believe this is a major concession to consider that this 
measure would essentially ratify a mechanism that overides a major BRAC 
recommendation.
  Second, we agreed to the Department of Defense request to lower the 
60-40 rule to 50-50. The administration requested 50-50. The Congress 
responded with 50-50, over the objection of many in the Depot Caucus.
  What I find ironic is that on the two most significant priorities the 
administration had, we conceded to the administration position. Yet 
there is still talk of a veto here. I do not understand that, 
especially when I have to explain to people why we agreed to give up so 
much in return for so little.
  I am not completely satisfied with the depot provision in the 
conference report, but it is a provision I can live with. The 
Department of Defense shares this view, and I would note that the 
provision has the unanimous support of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee.
  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.
  When Robins Air Force Base won the contract to perform maintenance on 
the C-5, it had to go the extra mile to prove to the Air Force that it 
could do the job. It had to endure additional audits, above what is 
normally expected in such cases. Robins' bid was adjusted after it was 
submitted to account for factors which the private bidder was not 
subjected to. In spite of this unlevel playing field, Robins was able 
to win the award because of its outstanding record and the quality of 
its people.
  I support fair competition, and I agree it can result in lower costs 
to the Federal Government. This bill provides for fair competition. I 
urge my colleagues to adopt it, and I urge the President to sign it 
into law.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the conference report for the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998 is being considered by 
the Senate. This is an important component of the national security 
legislation that the Congress must pass each year. The national defense 
authorization conference report is a good, bipartisan bill. The 
conference between the Senate and the House conferees dealt with many 
substantial issues. There were tough negotiations on many issues, and 
this bill provides a balanced approach and fair compromise. There are 
three areas that I would like to talk about which are very significant. 
These are in regard to United States policy in Bosnia; the depot 
maintenance compromise; and some very substantial quality of life 
issues for our troops--the men and women in uniform who serve our 
Nation.
  Mr. President, it is important to note that none of these significant 
national security issues will be addressed in any other forum unless 
the Senate passes this conference report and it is enacted into law.
  For example, significant progress was made in this legislation with 
regard to United States policy in Bosnia. The bill states that it is 
the sense of Congress that United States ground combat forces should 
not participate in a follow-on force in Bosnia after June 1998. In 
addition, the bill contains a provision cutting off funds to support 
United States troops in Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the 
President certifies that their continued presence in Bosnia is required 
to meet our national security interests, and provided United States 
policy continues to preclude U.S. forces from being used to perform 
civil law enforcement functions.
  This is a significant message to the administration and our NATO 
allies. This provides a workable solution to this complex policy issue, 
and is certainly more acceptable to the Senate and the administration 
than some of the alternatives proposed. I believe our language on 
Bosnia clearly puts the United States appropriately on record and yet 
preserves the constitutional authority and the necessary flexibility 
the administration needs to deal with the thorny issue of Bosnia.
  Another significant issue is the area of depot maintenance, and the 
fair and open competition that was created by the compromise in this 
legislation. There are strong feelings on both sides of the depot 
issue--with many jobs at stake. The conferees' objective was to ensure 
fair competition and a level playing field. This conference report 
compromise achieves two things: Straightforward criteria for fair and 
open competition and, provides greater opportunity for DOD outsourcing.
  Mr. President, one of the most significant areas in this legislation 
that will not be adequately addressed unless this bill is passed are 
very important provisions that support our military personnel in 
uniform who serve our nation so proudly--our troops who the President 
has so readily called upon in times of crisis throughout the world. Men 
and women who are now serving in dangerous and remote places like 
Bosnia, along the DMZ in Korea, and sailing in ships like the aircraft 
carrier U.S.S. Nimitz and its battle group who President Clinton has 
just recently ordered into the Persian Gulf to send a very clear 
message to Saddam Hussein. If we do not pass this bill we will be 
failing those we call on in times of crisis--the men and women in 
uniform.
  Examples of some of these important provisions are adjustments to 
troop strength levels, military pay raises, specialty pay and bonuses, 
major reform to housing allowances that will eliminate Government 
waste, authorization for new family housing units, and finally an 
important step forward in establishing accountability in the fair and 
equal treatment of our troops--both men and women.
  Compared to current law, this bill provides lower end strength levels 
and increased flexibility for the Pentagon and the individual services 
to manage military personnel strength. If the bill is not enacted, the 
military services will be held to the higher fiscal year 1997 end 
strength levels that were based on the 1993 Bottom Up Review. Levels 
that are higher than they need to be, levels that require the DOD to 
spend money that it does not have and does not need to spend. The lower 
personnel levels authorized are also consistent with the Department of 
Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review [QDR]. If we do not enact this 
bill we might as well throw the recommendations of that review right 
out the window.
  Without these modified troop strength levels, the services will have 
to recruit and retain personnel that they will have to separate from 
the service 1 year later. Is this responsible

[[Page S11815]]

government? This will be disruptive to our military, unfair to its 
people, and significantly detract from funding needed for 
modernization. This is just poor stewardship of our Nation's precious 
resources.
  Without this Defense authorization bill, the military pay raise that 
we authorize in this bill will be less than our service members 
deserve. The bill includes a 2.8 percent pay raise for military 
personnel. If the bill is not enacted, the pay raise for military 
personnel will be limited to 2.3 percent.
  Mr. President, the bill also includes authority for significant 
increases in the special pay and bonus structure designed to respond to 
critical recruiting and retention problems highlighted by the 
Department of Defense in our Personnel Subcommittee hearings. If the 
bill is not enacted, these authorities will not be available to the 
Department of Defense to address these problems. Specific groups that 
would be affected include military aviators, nuclear-qualified 
officers, dentists, military members on overseas tours, military 
members receiving family separation allowances and/or hazardous duty 
assignment pay, and military members serving in hardship duty 
locations.
  Reducing military pay raises while failing to increase these bonuses 
through defeat of the Defense authorization bill will punish those who 
expect us here in the Congress to look out for them. We will be 
repudiating the commitments we have made to improving the quality of 
life for military personnel and their families.
  The conference report also includes a major reform to housing and 
subsistence allowances. These are significant reforms to the existing 
structure for housing allowances and subsistence allowances for 
military members. The reforms are intended to simplify the management 
of these allowances and to better target the allowances to those 
individuals and geographic areas where the need is most acute. The 
reforms will save the Department of Defense money which can be used for 
other compensation and quality of life projects. If the bill is not 
enacted, the Department of Defense will be forced to continue to use 
the existing, out-dated allowance structure with all its demonstrated 
inefficiencies, inequities, and higher costs.
  I assure my colleagues if we do not support military personnel with 
pay and compensation levels that are fair and meet the needs of their 
families, we will see increases in career personnel leaving the 
military services. They will see our action as a breach of faith and 
they will be absolutely right in their assessment.
  The bill also provides authority for the Department of Defense to 
begin construction on the fiscal year 1998 military construction 
projects which include quality of life and training-related facilities. 
If the bill is not enacted, construction cannot begin. Some may believe 
that since the military construction and family housing projects are 
funded in the Military Construction Appropriations Act, they do not 
need the authorization in the conference report. Let me assure my 
colleagues that is not correct. Both an authorization and an 
appropriation are required for military construction projects. Without 
this bill we will not build new family housing units. We will not build 
new barracks and dormitories for our single service members. We will 
delay construction on child care centers and dining facilities. If we 
deny these military construction projects, we will be guilty of failing 
to meet our commitment in support of our troops.
  And finally, another issue of great importance, is creating an 
opportunity for fair and equal treatment for all our troops. This body 
has few greater responsibilities than maintaining the effectiveness and 
accountability of our Nation's Armed Forces. This is one of the reasons 
that reports of widespread sexual harassment in our Nation's military 
deeply concerns us all. With Department of Defense statistics showing 
that sexual harassment is prevalent throughout the Armed Forces--we 
must do more than pay lip service to the problem. We must act, and this 
bill does that.
  Today, with a full understanding that the time has come for serious 
action that is responsible and constructive, a provision that I 
authored is included in this 1998 Defense authorization bill that 
places us on the road to solving the crisis of sexual harassment that 
plagues our military force. This legislation attacks the root of the 
problem--the lack of accountability when it comes to reporting and 
investigating incidents of sexual harassment.
  The Department of Defense conducted a survey in 1988 and found that 
64 percent of women reported that they had experienced one or more 
incidents of sexual harassment in the 12 months preceding the survey. 
The Defense Department conducted another study in 1995 and found that 
the figure had only improved to 55 percent. This is not progress, these 
statistics are shocking.
  In its 1995 Defense Department survey, only 24 percent of the victims 
chose to report their sexual harassment experiences. Is this the kind 
of environment to which we should subject our volunteer force? These 
numbers tell me that women essentially stand a 50-50 chance of being 
harassed. This cannot and should not be tolerated. Add to that the fact 
that over three fourths of our military personnel do not feel they can 
report the harassment that occurs and you clearly have a very negative 
set of circumstances. How can you maintain good order and discipline in 
such an environment? This situation demands accountability. And it 
requires action to erase any perception that sexual harassment is 
tolerated in today's Armed Forces.
  My provisions in this bill require the unit commander to report each 
and every sexual harassment incident to their next senior officer 
within 72 hours. Once reported, the unit commander appoints an 
investigating officer to investigate the complaint of sexual 
harassment. The unit commander has 14 days to report back to their 
commander with the results of the investigation. If the unit commander 
cannot complete the investigation within 14 days, that commander must 
report the interim results, every 14 days, until the investigation has 
been completed.
  Today when an incident is reported to a unit commander, the commander 
is not required to report the incident until a preliminary 
investigation recommends disciplinary action. This gives the unit 
commander tremendous latitude as to how the case is handled. In most 
instances this is a not a problem. But look what we witnessed with the 
tragedy at Aberdeen. We saw a company commander who was a bad apple and 
there was no established system to alert his superiors that there was a 
problem.
  Under the provisions of the national defense authorization bill each 
incident is immediately brought to the attention of a more senior 
officer. The most distinct advantage of this provision is that the 
decibel level of the problem rises by elevating the matter to the 
highest echelons of the services. Mr. President, this accountability is 
included in this legislation.
  This provision also requires that the senior officers who receive 
these reports of sexual harassment forward all the complaints they 
receive and the results of the investigations of those complaints to 
their respective service Secretary by January 31 of each year, 
elevating the problem another notch within the military to the authors 
of the services' zero-tolerance policies where they can be scrutinized. 
The service Secretaries are then required to forward this information 
to the Secretary of Defense who in turn must report the information to 
Congress.
  Mr. President, this is what is needed to put us on the road to help 
end sexual harassment in our military. We owe the men and women who 
serve our Nation an environment that includes accountability, good 
order, and discipline. But we also owe this to our Nation, which relies 
on our military to defend our great country and its interests.
  The committee has been working on this bill for the past 10 months, 
it is an essential piece of legislation that must be passed by the 
Senate to ensure our national defense. We owe it not only to our people 
in uniform but to our Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this conference report. Thank you, Mr President, and I yield the floor.


                        Military Utility Assets

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources, I would like to

[[Page S11816]]

engage in a colloquy with Mr. Thurmond regarding section 2812 of the 
conference report, the section of the bill authorizing the sale of 
military utility assets.
  Mr. THURMOND. What is the distinguished Senator from Alaska's concern 
regarding section 2812?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish to draw the Senator's attention to the plain 
meaning of section 2812 so that there is no confusion in its 
application or implementation.
  First, the plain meaning of the provision does not limit the 
Secretary of a military department's authority to convey electric 
utility assets present at a military base. There is no requirement that 
both electric generation and distribution facilities be present at a 
base in order for the Secretary of a military department to convey 
assets. Indeed, the plain language of section 2812 states that such 
Secretaries may ``convey a utility system, or part of a utility 
system.''
  Second, section 2812 has no effect whatsoever on existing preference 
power allocations. If an entity that is not currently eligible for--or 
is not currently receiving--preference power buys an electric utility 
system at a base which is entitled to receive preference power, the 
base will continue to receive that preference power--subject of course 
to the terms of existing contracts, rights, or obligations. There is 
nothing whatsoever in the plain meaning of section 2812 to the 
contrary, nor is there any language in the provision supporting the 
idea that a base's preference power allocation will transfer to any 
asset purchaser that buys a military base utility system. Federal 
military bases, as customers of the Federal Government's utilities--the 
Power Marketing Administrations--will not be defeased of their rights 
to purchase preference power, regardless of the purchaser of military 
base assets.
  Finally, I wish to reiterate that there is nothing in the plain 
language of section 2812 which in any way supports the notion that a 
particular purchaser (either a municipal, private, regional, district, 
or cooperative utility or other entity) should be given any particular 
preference with respect to the purchase of military base utility 
assets. Indeed, the section is intended to create a level playing field 
for all to compete for the purchase of the facilities. There is no 
language whatsoever in the section supporting the idea that preference 
power recipients should receive an advantage in competitive bidding for 
military base utility assets. Moreover, regardless of who purchases the 
utility system, the base will continue to receive Federal preference 
power pursuant to the terms and conditions of contracts.
  Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Senator for those comments.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise to engage the distinguished 
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and President pro tempore, 
Senator Strom Thurmond, in a colloquy. Mr. President, I know the 
chairman is very familiar with the important work conducted by the 
Department of Energy's Technology Development Program.
  Mr. THURMOND. Yes, I know the DOE's Technology Development Program 
does very useful work developing new technologies to tackle many of the 
tough waste management and environmental restoration challenges across 
the DOE complex.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, the chairman also knows the pending 
conference report authorizes $220 million for technology development 
work in fiscal year 1998. Within these authorized and appropriated 
funds, Assistant Secretary Alm has agreed to provide $22.5 million to 
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory [INEEL] to 
enhance application and deployment of innovative technologies across 
the DOE complex through specific validation, verification, and system 
engineering activities. This work will focus on simulation modeling, 
treatability studies and development of disposition processes for major 
DOE waste streams. The work will also help focus DOE's Environmental 
Management Program on accelerating clean up, developing alternative, 
improved technologies, and developing and tracking performance metrics 
for these efforts. This work is certainly within the authorized scope 
of work of the DOE's Technology Development Program, is it not?
  Mr. THURMOND. Yes; this work is what we expect from the Department of 
Energy's Technology Development Program. I am also pleased to hear 
Assistant Secretary Alm is working with you and the INEEL to take full 
advantage of the enormous capabilities of that national lab. I urge the 
Senator from Idaho to keep me apprised of the progress of this 
important work.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I want to assure the chairman I will keep him 
informed about our progress in this area. I also want to thank my 
chairman for his hard work and leadership during the conference on the 
1998 Defense authorization bill.


                      brilliant antitank munition

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from 
Indiana in a brief colloquy to clarify a language provision of this 
legislation regarding the Brilliant Antitank, or BAT Munition in 
development for the U.S. Army. There have been some in DOD that have 
questioned whether the intent of Congress is to cancel the basic BAT 
procurement program for future years. I maintain this is not our 
intent. The BAT program is a key component of the Army's long-range 
fire support against threatening armored forces, but has experienced 
some developmental difficulties in recent months. It is clear to all of 
us that in fiscal year 1998, BAT is not ready for full-scale production 
and the committee's action eliminates the funds for production and 
applies them to much-needed further development. This is a move which 
is supported by the U.S. Army and in no way indicates a change in their 
requirements. Would the Senator say that my understanding is correct?
  Mr. COATS. I would say to the Senator from Alabama that his 
understanding is correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as I understand the proposed BAT 
language then, the committee is only eliminating basic BAT procurement 
for fiscal year 1998 and the committee intends for the basic BAT 
program, as well as the advanced sensor, to continue development 
through fiscal year 1998 at which time the committee will have an 
opportunity to evaluate the program's progress this time next year. 
Again, would the Senator conclude that my understanding is correct?
  Mr. COATS. I would say to the Senator that yes, his understanding is 
correct. The conferees believe it is important that the Department of 
Defense understands that the intent of Congress was not to prohibit 
future procurement of basic BAT, but to eliminate 1998 production. 
Future congressional evaluation will determine whether the Army should 
enter into either full-scale production of the basic BAT submunition or 
limit production to the number required for testing and evaluation of 
the improved (P31) BAT objective system.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank both the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, Senator Inhofe, and the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and manager 
of the bill, Senator Thurmond, for their cooperation in including 
provisions to reauthorize the Sikes Act in H.R. 1119.
  The Sikes Act was first enacted by Congress in 1960 to provide 
enhanced stewardship of fish and wildlife and other natural resources 
on military installations. The act seeks to capitalize on the enormous 
potential for natural resource conservation on military lands. The 
Department of Defense controls nearly 25 million acres of land and 
water at approximately 900 military installations in the United States, 
and the National Guard oversees an additional 1 million acres on 80 
sites. These lands serve as home to approximately 100 endangered or 
threatened species and countless other fish and wildlife resources.
  The amendment that I offered to the bill, along with Senators 
Kempthorne, Warner, and Baucus when it was pending before the Senate, 
would infuse new vigor into the implementation and effectiveness of the 
Sikes Act. Specifically, it would require the Secretary of each 
military department to develop a natural resource management plan for 
each of its military installations, unless there is an absence of 
significant natural resources on the base. The plan would be prepared 
by the Secretary in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife

[[Page S11817]]

Service and the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency. The plan 
must be consistent with the use of military lands to ensure the 
preparedness of the military, and cannot result in any net loss in the 
capability of the installation to support its mission. With those 
caveats, the plan must also provide for the management and conservation 
of natural resources. This language accommodates the interests of the 
State and Federal wildlife agencies as well as the needs of the 
military.
  I would like to thank the conferees for accepting the Senate language 
extending the deadline for completing natural resource management plans 
from 2 to 3 years from the date of the initial report to Congress, 
which is required 1 year after the date of enactment. This change was 
negotiated between the Committees on Environment and Public Works and 
Armed Services, and approved by all interested parties, including the 
Departments of Defense and the Interior, and the International 
Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies. This change should 
enable the Department of Defense to complete the plans within its own 
internal timeframes, without unnecessarily missing any statutory 
deadlines.
  As I mentioned when I offered this amendment back in July, 
jurisdiction of the Sikes Act, since its passage in 1960, has always 
rested with the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Bills to 
amend and reauthorize the act, including one that was introduced in the 
103d Congress containing substantive revisions similar to the revisions 
in this amendment, have all been referred to that committee. The fact 
that reauthorization of the Sikes Act is being done through the DOD 
authorization bill represents the fortunate circumstance that after 
more than 1 year of debate, agreement happened to be reached by all 
parties at this particular time in this particular context. This 
circumstance does not alter the jurisdiction over the Sikes Act in the 
future. Nevertheless, the Committee on Environment and Public Works has 
always worked cooperatively on that portion of the Sikes Act pertaining 
to military installations in the past, and will continue to do so in 
the future.
  In closing, Mr. President, I believe that this provision will 
significantly improve the Sikes Act, and I thank the conferees for all 
their hard work.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, every high school civics student is taught 
the importance of the system of checks and balances among the three 
branches of government that underlays our representative government. 
That system, as we all know, is an essential element of democracy. 
Without it, the consolidation of excessive power in one branch of 
government poses a very real risk to the survival of true democracy 
and, consequently, the welfare of the republic.
  I do not intend to sound melodramatic, but I believe strongly that 
the survival of the legislative branch's own system of internal checks 
and balances is similarly essential to the welfare of our country. The 
process of authorizing appropriations exists for a reason, and that 
reason has only increased over time. The balance of power within the 
branch of our Government that enjoys a constitutional prerogative over 
the raising and expenditure of revenues seriously needs to be respected 
and maintained.
  Important policy directives that are an integral part of the 
authorizing process are not particularly well suited to the 
appropriations process. Authorization acts are intended to set the tone 
for the appropriations process that, ideally, would follow. When this 
system begins to degrade for whatever reason, the entire budget review 
process falters, and essential legislative provisions and oversight 
activities go unaddressed.
  The two-step process of reviewing the President's budget request for 
defense--in both the authorization and appropriations committees--is 
especially crticial to our national security. The Senate Armed Services 
and House National Security Committees provide Congress its most 
important body of knowledge and experience in the vital realm of 
national security affairs. The defense authorization bill, which is the 
major legislative product of these committees, contains the 
recommendations of the Congress' defense experts on important policy 
matters as well as guidance on funding priorities. Many of the policy 
recommendations in this bill must be enacted before the dollars 
provided in the appropriations bill can be expended to implement them, 
such as the increases in pay and bonuses that are key to good morale in 
the force.
  With all due respect to the Appropriations Committees, no single 
committee should be granted sole authority over the expenditure of $260 
billion in defense funds. The manning, structure, equipping, and 
training of the most powerful and important armed forces in the world 
is too important to set aside the long-standing process of 
authorization and appropriations review.
  Despite its flaws, and there are some, I urge my colleagues to vote 
for the Fiscal Year 1998 National Defense Authorization Act. To fail to 
pass this important legislation would be an abrogation of one of our 
most important responsibilities and would shift the balance of power 
within Congress from the many to the few, to the detriment of our 
future security.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in strong support 
of the conference report on the fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization 
bill. I want to specifically commend the distinguished chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, for his outstanding 
leadership in formulating this legislation. I also want to thank the 
Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, for his profound contributions to 
this legislation.
  Mr. President, although this has been a long and difficult 
conference, the product of these labors is an excellent defense bill. 
This legislation will provide for necessary modernization of our Armed 
Forces, and significantly improve the quality of life for our service 
members and their families.
  Importantly, this bill addresses in a very fair and appropriate 
manner, a variety of issues upon which the administration expressed 
strong concerns. Many of these issues had been represented as possibly 
triggering a veto. These include Bosnia, the B-2 bomber program, and 
the depot maintenance provisions.
  But the conferees dealt in good faith on these issues, and have 
offered honest compromises that address the administration's concerns. 
In particular, the depot maintenance provisions have been modified to 
accommodate the strongly held concerns of the administration and the 
Senators from Texas and California.
  The resulting language is, in my view, balanced, fair, and consistent 
with our national security interests.
  However, in listening to yesterday's floor statements by the Senators 
from Texas and California, I could not help but think that they were 
looking at some other bill, because the characterizations made about 
the depot provisions in the conference report were grossly inaccurate.
  Mr. President, let me make clear that I am an advocate for 
competition. Whether it be private sector competition among defense 
firms, or competition between public sector and private sector 
facilities, I believe that fair and honest competition makes sense for 
the American taxpayers and should be pursued wherever practical and 
consistent with our national security requirements.
  The conference report includes a compromise on depot maintenance that 
would require the conduct of fair and open competitions at the Kelly 
and McClellan air logistics centers. The compromise would specifically 
define ``depot maintenance'' to include contractor logistics support 
and interim contractor support. It also requires that the Defense 
Department maintain the capability in public depots to perform 
maintenance work on certain mission essential weapons systems that the 
Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs deem necessary as part of our 
national military strategy.
  Mr. President, the language is very clear and the intent is even more 
clear. The conferees support free and open competition for depot 
maintenance work. With all due respect to the Senators from Texas and 
California, who suggest otherwise, their assessment of this language is 
simply not accurate.
  The truth is, many Senators, including my friend from Oklahoma, 
Senator Inhofe, have very strong concerns on this issue. I want to 
commend Senator Inhofe for his willingness to compromise so much on 
this issue. He has

[[Page S11818]]

been very statesmanlike throughout these negotiations, and anyone who 
looks at this objectively will come to the conclusion that he has 
acted in good faith and has gone the extra mile to facilitate a 
resolution on this issue.

  Mr. President, as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, I 
was deeply troubled by some of the assertions made by the Senators from 
Texas and California during yesterday's debate. In particular, I was 
troubled by the statement by one member to the effect that ``we do not 
even need a Defense authorization bill since we have already passed the 
Defense appropriations bill.'' With all due respect, this statement is 
flat out wrong.
  The truth is, we need this bill to authorize pay raises and bonuses, 
military end strengths, and military construction and family housing. 
If there is no fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization:
  Higher end strengths will remain in effect without funding to sustain 
them;
  There will be no reform of basic allowances for subsistence and 
quarters;
  All bonuses will continue at present levels, which prevents 
authorized increases to aviation and nuclear officer bonuses;
  The Navy will lose the ability to have the CNO's choice for Chief of 
Chaplains;
  Construction of 385 military construction and 45 family housing 
projects will not be initiated;
  There will be no authority to continue the Challenge Program;
  There will be no authority to expand the counternarcotics Riverine 
Program in Peru and Colombia;
  There will be no authority to increase counternarcotics support to 
Mexico;
  There will be no authority for the Department of Navy to reprogram 
funding for the advanced procurement and construction of components for 
the next nuclear aircraft carrier; and
  There will be no authority to accelerate the NATO JSTARS Program.
  Mr. President, as you can see, the authorization bill is urgently 
needed for a variety of compelling reasons. While I respect the views 
of my friends from Texas and California, I must honestly say that I do 
not believe they are being reasonable. The conferees conceded to 
approximately 80 percent of the requests made by advocates of Kelly and 
McClellan. The House Depot Caucus and the Senators from Oklahoma, 
Georgia, and Utah have negotiated in good faith. The result is a very 
reasonable compromise.
  Mr. President, in an honest negotiation, no one gets everything. Both 
sides must give and take. In this case, it is very clear that the 
Oklahoma, Utah, and Georgia delegations have given a great deal. In 
fact, I would say they have gone above and beyond the call of duty to 
facilitate a fair resolution on this issue.
  Accordingly, I would call upon my colleagues to reject any further 
attempts to stall this legislation or to prevent its enactment. The 
Armed Services Committee has worked diligently, in a bipartisan 
fashion, to formulate a very responsible and constructive defense bill. 
We owe it to our men and women in uniform, and particularly those 
deployed in harms way throughout the world, to pass this legislation 
promptly.
  I urge my colleagues to support the fiscal year 1998 Defense 
authorization conference report.


                            depot compromise

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would just like to take a few moments 
to address some of the issues that were raised yesterday regarding the 
compromise depot language included in the conference report on the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. I believe it 
is important to clarify the issue and ensure that all Members are fully 
aware of the contents of the compromise language, and the negotiation 
process that resulted in this language which provides for fair and open 
competitions.
  First of all, I would like to put to rest one very important 
allegation--that the committee demonstrated bad faith on this issue--
that there was some agreement that was subsequently changed in the dark 
of night. This allegation is simply not true. Given the unprecedented 
involvement that was afforded to the Department of Defense and the 
staff of the concerned delegations; given the efforts that were taken 
to ensure that all interested parties, including those who were not 
conferees, were kept fully informed on what was taking place; I reject 
any assertion that the committee treated any Member unfairly, or 
disregarded any agreement.
  There was never an agreement on any package prior to October 22, 
1997. Proposed agreements drafted by the committee and provided to 
everyone--depot caucus, Texas and California delegations, and the 
administration, were either rejected or there was no response. This 
includes the proposed agreement regarding depot-level activities that 
was provided for everyone's review and comments on October 17, 1997.
  After talking with the interested parties, both in the administration 
and Congress, the committee put together the October 17 proposed 
agreement and submitted it for everyone to review and either accept, or 
provide input to us regarding those changes that would make this 
proposal acceptable. After reviewing the language, Senator Bennett and 
other Members expressed concern regarding the language in the bill that 
stated:

     No offeror may be given any preferential consideration for, 
     or in any way be limited to, performing the workload in-place 
     or at any other single location. Appropriate consideration 
     may be given to differences in cost or performance risk 
     associated with the location of performance.

  The concern of these Members was simply with the appearance of the 
language. After agreeing to give up their position that privatization-
in-place must be prohibited, a position very important to these Members 
and their constituents, they believed that the Congress should at least 
insist on a clear statement that the administration could not give 
preferential treatment for privatization-in-place. Therefore, they 
asked that the second sentence be moved from the bill to report 
language.
  Mr. President, just to be sure that everyone understands, this 
language does not state that the Department cannot consider cost or 
risk. In fact, the bill language still requires the Department to take 
into account:

     the total estimated direct and indirect costs that will be 
     incurred by the Department of Defense and the total estimated 
     direct and indirect savings (including overhead) that will be 
     derived by the Department of Defense.

  Furthermore: the report language, which Senator Gramm himself 
declared has the effect of law, states:

     The Department would be expected to consider real differences 
     among bidders in cost or capability to perform the work based 
     on factors that would include the proposed location or 
     locations of the workload. The consideration of such 
     differences does not constitute preferential treatment.

  Unfortunately, when the committee scheduled a meeting with the staff 
of the concerned delegations to discuss this and other proposed 
changes, the Department of Defense as well as the staff of the Texas 
delegation refused to participate.
  Taking what input we received from those Members who were able to 
identify concerns, the committee made a couple of changes to the 
language that we believed were reasonable. This included moving the 
bill language discussed above to report language and some changes 
requested by the Department.
  Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Texas that if the 
sentence that was moved is technical, is inconsequential, there is no 
reason why it had to be dropped; other than for the sake of appearance. 
However, since Senator Bennett and other Members wanted a clear 
statement that preferential treatment could not be given to a bid 
solely because the workload would be done in place, and since we could 
not even discuss this with the other Members because their staff 
refused to participate in meetings, the language was moved.
  Mr. President, given the administration's past attempt to politicize 
this process by advocating privatization-in-place, Senator Bennett's 
concerns appear to have merit. The Congress should be on record stating 
that the most competitive bidder should do this work wherever they can 
do it best. That is the only way the American taxpayer, and our 
military personnel, will receive the best deal.
  Mr. President, I would now like to address the issue of the so-called 
anticompetitive language that was the

[[Page S11819]]

point of discussion on the Senate floor earlier this week. The 
assertion that this language is anticompetitive could not be further 
from the truth. As many of you know, the original language that was 
rejected by the Senate contained an effective prohibition on such 
competitions. This provision is not included in this bill. In fact, 
this bill specifically authorizes such competitions and merely includes 
some of the criteria that must be considered in order to ensure that 
they are fair and open.
  Furthermore, the Department would retain complete flexibility to 
consider any other criteria that the Department believes necessary to 
ensure that these competitions are fair. In fact, this provision is 
very similar to what Senator Gramm advocated when he addressed the 
depot issue on the floor of the Senate earlier this year and asked for 
competitions with criteria.
  One of the criteria that the Senator from Texas would like to have 
changed because he believes it to be anticompetitive, is the clause 
that would require the Department of Defense to allow public depots and 
private corporations to form teams to compete for the workloads at 
Kelly and McClellan. I am not sure why this clause, which opens the 
competition to more potential bidders, would be viewed as 
anticompetitive. I see no reason why we should preclude the best team, 
whether public, private, or public/private, from competing to perform 
this work and doing it if they have the best proposal. In fact, at a 
recent hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. F. 
Whitten Peters, the Principle Deputy General Counsel for the Department 
of Defense and nominee to be the next Undersecretary of the Air Force, 
stated that he also did not believe such language to be 
anticompetitive. If someone truly believes that allowing an 
organization to compete is anticompetitive, they should explain their 
position to the Congress and the American people.
  Mr. President, the compromise language also amends the current 60/40 
law so that the Department might outsource up to 50 percent of its 
depot maintenance workload. This will provide substantially more 
flexibility to the Army and the Navy, and some additional flexibility 
for the Air Force despite the fact that the compromise would also 
codify the definition of depot maintenance to include interim 
contractor support and contractor logistics support.
  Furthermore, the depot compromise codifies the Department's own 
policy of maintaining, within organic Defense depots, the capability to 
meet readiness and sustainability requirements of the weapon systems 
that support the JCS contingency scenarios. This does not require that 
the Department perform depot maintenance on all mission essential 
weapon systems in public depots. It simply requires that the Department 
retain a capability to maintain this equipment should it become 
necessary.
  The Senator from Texas has expressed some concern regarding the use 
of the word ``ensure'' rather than ``promote'' in this provision. He 
stated that this was a major concern for the Department of Defense 
because someone might interpret it in such a way that it would require 
the Department of Defense to perform all depot maintenance in public 
depots. All I can say is that it would take an extremely creative 
imagination to give that interpretation to this language. Both 
``promote'' and ``ensure'' are subjective terms that will be 
interpreted by the Secretary of Defense. He is not going to interpret 
``ensure'' in the manner feared by Senator Gramm when it is clearly 
contrary to the intent of the Congress. in fact, when the committee 
asked the Department to provide in writing any concerns they had 
regarding this language, the Department did not express any concern 
regarding the word ``ensure'' or suggest changing the word ``ensure'' 
to ``promote.''

  Mr. President, the Senators from Texas and California have asserted 
that the depot compromise contained in this bill ``undercuts the 
ability of the Secretary of Defense to conduct price competition so 
that we can have bidding on this work.'' However, the compromise 
language specifically requires the consideration of all costs and 
savings, and would ensure price competition. Most of the Members 
involved in this issue have always insisted on price competitions as 
opposed to schemes which would allow more subjective judgment.
  It is also asserted that this language skews the competitions in 
favor of public depots because it allows them to hide their overhead 
costs. There is no clause in the depot compromise that allows the 
public depots to hide overhead costs. The compromise specifically 
requires that all costs and savings must be taken into account when 
considering any bid.
  Concern has been raised that this language would require the 
Department to procure expensive and unnecessary equipment in order to 
be able to maintain commercial systems that have been integrated into 
military equipment. This is false. in fact, the provision requiring the 
retention of a core capability specifically provides an exemption for 
commercial items.
  Finally, concern has been raised because there was bill language 
which the Department did not like that was moved to report language. I 
believe that this must refer to the report language that simply notes 
that the Department of Defense has denied the General Accounting Office 
access to information that the General Accounting Office is entitled to 
obtain by law. I could understand why this would be objectionable if 
this were not true. Unfortunately, the Department is refusing to 
disclose information on the earlier C-5 workload competition so that we 
can be sure that it was fairly conducted. Perhaps the conferees would 
not have agreed to include such language if the Department would allow 
the General Accounting Office access to the information necessary to 
perform the review requested by the committee.
  Mr. President, this bill contains a fair compromise that was drafted 
by the members 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. 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, as I previously stated, this is a good compromise; a 
fair compromise. It allows all parties to compete for these workloads 
in a fair and open manner. I ask the other Members of the Senate to 
support this compromise, and this bill, by voting in favor of final 
passage.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I intend to oppose H.R. 1119, the 
Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1998, and 
would like to take a few moments to explain my disagreement with this 
authorization bill.
  Mr. President, there are a multitude of reasons for opposing this 
legislation. First and foremost is the $268.2 billion in overall 
funding this bill provides for our Armed Forces, an amount that is not 
only substantially higher than the amount we authorized last year, but 
$2.6 billion more than the Pentagon itself has requested.
  Additionally, this legislation continues the funding of a host of 
highly questionable and outright unaffordable programs. For example, 
the bill includes $331 million--$157 million more than the Pentagon 
requested--for the B-2 bomber, a program that scores of budgetary and 
military experts, not to mention numerous Members of Congress on both 
sides of the aisle, have concluded does not serve our national security 
interests and does not merit any additional funds.
  The legislation includes $2.4 billion for 20 new F/A-18 E/F 
SuperHornet tactical fighters for the Navy. My colleagues may recall 
that the General Accounting Office and other experts

[[Page S11820]]

have made repeated, convincing recommendations that we shelve this 
program in favor of the more affordable F/A-18 C/D, the Navy's current 
top-of-the-line tactical fighter capable of providing nearly all of the 
benefits of the E/F version but at a savings of billions of dollars to 
the taxpayer.
  These are just two examples, Mr. President, of billions of dollars 
that are being needlessly spent in this bill for programs that have 
encountered enormous criticism and steadfast opposition from across the 
political spectrum. Despite these questions and opposition, the gravy 
train continues to chug along unabated from the Congress to the 
Pentagon.
  For many years Congress has failed to sufficiently control the flow 
of deficit dollars to the Defense Department, clinging to a conviction 
that having a less expensive military structure will consequently leave 
us with a less effective military structure. That is an absurd 
correlation, Mr. President. There is no question that if we invest our 
defense dollars wisely we can have a leaner military without 
compromising either efficiency or effectiveness.
  Since I arrived in the U.S. Senate almost five years ago, my driving 
objective has been to reduce the Federal deficit and achieve a balanced 
budget. We have had enormous success in that regard, passing hallmark 
legislation in 1993 that drove down the deficit to a point where we 
could pass further legislation in 1997 that will finally allow us to 
reach a balanced Federal budget in a few short years.
  A large part of that success has been due to the willingness of both 
the Congress and the President to do more with less, to trim excessive 
spending wherever possible and maintain important services but with 
fewer resources. We have succeeded almost everywhere in government--
education, health care, veterans' care, welfare benefits, environmental 
programs--everywhere except defense spending where we continue to build 
destroyers the Navy does not ask for and continue to build bombers the 
Air Force does not want.
  Balancing the budget is about making difficult choices, Mr. 
President. Sure the Navy would like to have the F/A-18 E/F fighter, and 
if we were in a radically different budgetary position I might support 
giving them 200 of those airplanes instead of the 20 they are receiving 
in this legislation. But can we afford 20 of these new tactical 
fighters, when a more affordable and equally effective alternative 
aircraft is readily available? How that question is answered, Mr. 
President, is the difference between fiscal excess and fiscal 
responsibility.
  We have to make smart choices Mr. President. A balanced Federal 
budget is in sight for the first time in three decades. But we are not 
going to be able to maintain a balanced budget, let alone start 
bringing down the Federal debt, so long as we continue to commit to 
programs and force structures that are so blatantly unaffordable.
  In this context, I would like to discuss the role of the National 
Guard in our force structure and how the Guard will be affected by this 
conference report.
  Mr. President, the National Guard is a source of immense pride in my 
State of Wisconsin. As I travel across the State, I often have the 
privilege of meeting the men and women who compose the Wisconsin Guard 
and have been impressed with the tremendous degree of professionalism 
and proficiency with which they complete a wide range of missions.
  These are well-trained, dedicated, professional soldiers who earn 
rave reviews from the Governor's office down to the villages and 
municipalities who are often the principal beneficiaries of the Guard's 
assistance.
  The mission list of the Wisconsin Guard is impressive: Just last 
spring, the 115th Fighter Wing based in Madison and comprised of 
Fighting Falcon F-16's, participated in Operation Northern Watch, 
enforcing the no-fly zone the United Nations imposed over northern 
Iraq. In addition, 181 Wisconsinites attached to the 128th Air 
Refueling Wing stationed at Mitchell Field in Milwaukee recently 
returned from Turkey where they too participated in Operation Northern 
Watch, providing air refueling support to the fighters enforcing the 
no-fly zone.
  As much as some perceive the Guard as mere weekend warriors, we must 
remember that these individuals are performing missions both 
domestically and abroad that pose as great a risk to their lives as any 
active duty personnel.
  But what makes the National Guard so unique is the traditional role 
they have played in our democratic system dating back to our Nation's 
infancy. In Wisconsin, we can trace the history of the Guard to 1837, 
when Governor Henry Dodge appointed a new commander of the Green Bay 
Rangers Volunteer Company, enlisting the men of that unit to serve the 
Territory of Wisconsin.
  Today, over 10,000 men and women serve in the Wisconsin Guard, 
generating more than $125 million in annual Federal income. The 
Wisconsin Army National Guard has 96 units located in 67 communities 
throughout the State, while the Air Guard has four units in Madison, 
Milwaukee, and Volk Field.
  The National Guard has traditionally served both a Federal and a 
State mission, providing ready, trained units to the active Army and 
Air Force in time of war or national emergency, and assisting State 
authorities in protecting life and property and preserving peace, 
order, and public safety.
  Unfortunately, the legislation before us includes provisions that are 
troubling to those who support a meaningful role for the National Guard 
in our Nation's defense. These provisions were recently brought to my 
attention by Maj. Gen. James G. Blaney, adjutant general of the 
Wisconsin National Guard, who raised concerns not only about the impact 
these changes would have on the readiness of the Guard, but also about 
how such changes undermine the traditional and constitutional roles the 
Guard has always been intended to fill.
  First, the legislation includes a reduction in the Army National 
Guard's end strength by 5,000 troop slots. This reduction reflects a 
compromise agreement that was reached with the active Army, which also 
agreed to reduce its end strength by 5,000 soldiers in the upcoming 
fiscal year. However, though this legislation includes the reduction 
for the National Guard, it does not include the reduction for the 
active army--a reduction that was also recommended by the Quadrennial 
Defense Review.
  Second, the legislation before us establishes a new mobilization 
category that would allow the President, under the Presidential 
Selective Reserve Call-Up Authority, to mobilize up to 30,000 
Individual Ready Reserve [IRR] troops before mobilizing the National 
Guard for contingency operations. Mr. President, the IRR is composed of 
inactive military members who are awaiting their final discharge. 
Although current law permits the President to call on these troops only 
after he has called on the Guard, the DOD Authorization Conference 
Report would elevate this new category of IRR forces to a higher 
position than that of the Guard.
  That is a senseless exercise, Mr. President. The members of the 
National Guard are continually training for such deployments, and yet 
this legislation proposes to call up 30,000 inactive, nontraining 
troops before the Guard is mobilized.
  It is little wonder that the National Guard perceives these changes 
as a direct assault on the traditional role of the Guard in our Armed 
Forces. But what is even more troubling is how contrary these proposed 
changes are to the constitutional role that the Guard and the State 
militias are designed to fulfill.
  Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides Congress with 
the power to ``raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money 
to that use shall be for a longer term than two years''.
  I find that extraordinary, Mr. President. Why did the Founding 
Fathers prohibit Congress from appropriating funds for a standing army 
beyond 2 years? Not surprisingly, Americans of the late 18th century 
were highly suspicious of standing armies. They had witnessed firsthand 
the power and intrusiveness of such an army and how it could be used by 
a monarch or a central government to suppress the rights and 
sovereignties of the people.
  The Framers of the Constitution wisely decided that if there was 
going to be a standing army in a free democracy, it would only be 
through the ongoing approval and purse strings of the representative 
branch of government.

[[Page S11821]]

  Article I, section 8 continues, granting Congress the power:

       To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the 
     Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions 
     [and] provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the 
     Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be 
     employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to 
     the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and 
     the Authority of training the Militia according to the 
     discipline prescribed by Congress.

  In short, Mr. President, the Framers not only held a standing army 
suspect, they recognized the importance of defining a role for a 
citizen militia to be maintained, led and trained not by the central 
government, but by the States. Interestingly, although the Constitution 
makes no mention of what capacity a standing army is designed to serve, 
it does specifically hold the militias responsible for executing our 
laws, suppressing insurrections, and repelling foreign invasions.
  This leaves little doubt that the Founding Fathers were substantially 
more trusting of the State militias, and were far more willing to 
assign responsibilities for the defense of the Nation to these militias 
than they were any standing army.
  Of course, Article I of the Constitution is not the only component of 
the Constitution that is relevant to today's National Guard. The second 
amendment to the Constitution provides:

       A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security 
     of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear 
     Arms, shall not be infringed.

  Whatever advocates and opponents of gun control construe these words 
to mean in 1997, the aim of the first part of the second amendment is 
evident: Our Founders were making a penetrating statement that a strong 
militia was imperative to the security of a free State.
  What the Framers of the Constitution recognized over 200 years ago 
with respect to the vital importance of the militias remains true 
today. That is certainly not to suggest that there is no purpose or 
merit in maintaining a standing army. On the contrary, we have learned 
in this century that a free and democratic society cannot sustain 
itself without self-protection, and Republicans and Democrats alike can 
agree that we should have--and do have--the strongest and best-trained 
active duty force structure in the world.
  But to simultaneously and needlessly diminish the strength and role 
of the National Guard is, I believe, to tarnish many of the 
underpinnings of our great democracy.
  Today's men and women of the National Guard represent what our 
Founders envisioned in terms of a citizen militia. Members of the Guard 
are sprinkled throughout our communities. They are teachers, 
firefighters, doctors, nurses, business owners, police officers, 
farmers, and yes, even Members of Congress.
  And just like our active duty personnel, the men and women of the 
National Guard can be called upon on a moment's notice to be placed in 
harm's way. From the Civil War to the Persian Gulf, the State militias 
and the National Guard have consistently played a central role in 
protecting our Nation's security, both at home and abroad.
  But the Guard does much more as well. They participate in youth 
programs, such as the highly successful, low-cost Badger Challenge 
program in Wisconsin where the Guard takes at-risk kids and helps them 
obtain their GED's while teaching them discipline and respect for 
themselves and others.
  The Guard supports medical outreach programs. They are involved in 
counterdrug efforts, working with the Department of Justice and local 
law enforcement agencies through aerial observations, ground 
surveillance, and cargo inspections.
  All of this is accomplished, Mr. President, in a highly cost-
effective manner. A comparison of the costs of active duty personnel 
and Guard personnel demonstrates the sharp differences in costs. 
According to one study, on average, it costs $73,000 per year to train 
and equip an active duty soldier. The cost of training and equipping 
one National Guard soldier--$17,000, almost one-fifth the cost.
  Projected on a larger scale, an estimate recently prepared for the 
National Defense Panel found that the Government could save roughly $1 
billion per year for every active division whose responsibilities it 
shifts to the eight divisions of the National Guard. Another analysis 
finds that a Guard unit can cost anywhere from 25 to 80 percent less to 
maintain than an active duty unit.
  In other words, Mr. President, with little sizable military threat to 
the United States today, we can shift many of the warfighting 
responsibilities--not to mention responsibilities for peacekeeping and 
humanitarian operations--from the active forces to the National Guard 
at a substantial savings to the taxpayer while losing little in skills, 
readiness, and training.
  There are a host of missions today that the National Guard can 
fulfill and should fulfill, providing a less expensive but highly 
effective complement to our active forces.
  As we reassess what our strategic blueprint for our future Armed 
Forces should look like, and as we begin the process of conducting a 
comprehensive review of our inventories and projected needs, it is my 
hope that the there will be renewed focus on the advantages of a 
properly funded, well-maintained National Guard.
  Such a focus presents us an opportunity not only to ensure that we 
have a highly efficient and cost-effective military, but that we are 
also adhering to some of the most fundamental constitutional principles 
established by our Founding Fathers.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Thurmond, Senator 
Levin, and the others on the Armed Services Committee for their efforts 
in bringing this conference report to the floor. This important 
conference report has not easily reached this point, and the fact that 
we are about to vote on it is a tribute to the bipartisanship and 
forbearance of the Committee members.
  This conference report will be good for our fighting forces and good 
for the Nation. Most important perhaps is the well-deserved 2.8 percent 
pay raise for our military personnel. Moreover, this conference report 
will provide the badly needed pay bonuses to help encourage highly 
trained personnel to continue their military service beyond their 
initial commitments.
  With passage of this conference report into law, this Nation will 
also fully fund the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program--the most 
cost-effective means of preventing nuclear proliferation. I can think 
of no better method to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction 
than to assist Russia in dismantling its nuclear arsenal.
  This conference report includes an amendment that I authored to 
assist those suffering from Persian Gulf war illnesses. Next year, I 
look forward to a combined Defense Department-Veterans Administration 
plan to provide health care to our sick veterans. Also, I expect to see 
a full report from the Defense Department on the effectiveness of 
research efforts to date. Finally, because there has not yet been a 
program to determine which treatments are most effective in caring for 
those suffering from Persian Gulf war illnesses, this amendment 
authorizes $4.5 million to begin a clinical trials program with that 
determination as its goal.
  As for procurement, I give this conference report high marks. It 
supports the agreement between our Nation's two submarine builders to 
work together in building the New Attack Submarine; it provides 
appropriate relief from the Seawolf cost cap; it completes the funding 
authorization for the third and final Seawolf-class submarine; and it 
fully funds the New Attack Submarine Program. For those who think that 
this Nation is doing too much submarine building, let me urge them not 
to look at any 1 year in particular, but to look at the submarine 
program as a whole. The U.S. Navy, which had once built two, three, or 
four attack submarines a year to maintain a fleet of well over 100, now 
plans to build just four over the next 6 years. The United States has 
never built nuclear attack submarines at a lower rate.
  This conference report also authorizes 30 H-60 helicopters. The Army, 
Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and National Guard all use these 
helicopters, not to mention several countries throughout the world. In 
natural disasters and military operations alike, H-60 helicopters are 
on the front line. One

[[Page S11822]]

need only ask the Adjutant General of virtually any State in the Union 
to gain an appreciation of how vitally important these helicopters are. 
I hope that future defense bills will continue to provide this Nation's 
servicemembers with the capable H-60 helicopters that they need and 
want.
  Let me conclude by mentioning that I do not know whether this 
conference report will be vetoed. I think, on balance, that the good in 
this report clearly outweighs the bad, and I would urge the President 
to quickly make it law rather than prolonging the battles that have 
plagued conference report for months.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
division of time on the pending conference report be as follows: 
Senator Thurmond in control of 20 minutes, Senator Levin in control of 
20 minutes, Senator Gramm and Hutchison in control of 45 minutes, 
Senator Feinstein and Boxer in control of 45 minutes, and finally 
Senator Stevens be recognized to speak up to 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask I be notified after 22 minutes 
because that is the time I will control. My senior colleague, Senator 
Gramm, will have the other 23 minutes.
  Mr. President, I want to say that I am one of the most prodefense 
people in this body and I think most of this bill is very good and very 
important. I am going to speak on the part of the bill that I think is 
very shortsighted and will, in fact, hurt our readiness in the future 
if it is not fixed. I will continue to urge the committee to work to 
fix it because I do believe that all of us want a stronger national 
defense and we want the taxpayer dollars to be spent wisely. In fact, 
passing this bill will waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and those 
aren't my figures. Those are the figures of the experts.
  So why would we do that? Let me first say that the points that were 
made by Senator Kempthorne and Senator Cleland can be met. I agree with 
them. It is most important that the pay and compensation issues, the 
health care issues, the military construction issues be addressed. In 
fact, a clean bill has been introduced that would cover those items, 
that if this bill is vetoed by the President--which I hope it will be, 
so it can be corrected--we can take care of those very important 
compensation, health and military construction issues, and that bill 
has been introduced.
  This can be worked out. It can be worked out for the good of 
everyone, for the good of the Department of Defense, for our men and 
women in the military and for the taxpayers of our country.
  I want to read from the Base Closing Commission recommendation. The 
Base Closing Commission recommended the closing of both Kelly Air Force 
Base and McClellan Air Force Base, but it did reserve the right of the 
Department of Defense to make the decision about where the work would 
be done and how it would be done. It says that ``the workload would be 
moved to other depots, or to private sector commercial activities, as 
determined by the Department of Defense.''
  Now, what we are doing in the bill, if it is passed today, is taking 
that flexibility away from the Department of Defense. What we are 
saying is, you cannot have a level playing field, you cannot have real 
competition for the most cost savings and for the readiness issues in 
the maintenance of our equipment. This is a crucial issue, and it is 
not an issue that is just for McClellan Air Force Base or Kelly Air 
Force Base or California or Texas. This is an issue about how we are 
going to conserve the dollars that we spend on defense so that they can 
be spent for our troops, for the quality of life, and for the readiness 
that we must have to face the security threats to this country.
  The savings are absolutely--it has been proven--achievable, and it 
has been shown already by the most recent competition, the one that 
took place on the C-5, which saved $190 million on the cost of doing 
the maintenance of the C-5. This was won by a public depot against the 
private sector bidders that I had hoped would win. Nevertheless, I 
didn't win, but the taxpayers did, and the Department of Defense will 
save $190 million because we had the competition.
  In fact, private-sector companies that outsource frequently achieve 
cost savings of 20 to 30 percent. That is proven. If the Department of 
Defense could achieve similar savings by outsourcing $15 billion in 
annual depot maintenance, that would free up $2 billion a year for 
other purposes--$2 billion a year. Just think of it. Our operations in 
Bosnia cost us $3 billion a year. Most of that could be achieved with 
savings from efficiencies gotten with competition in the depots. That 
was proven within the last 2 months in the C-5 competition that was won 
by Warner-Robins. It was only because there was competition that these 
efficiencies were made. Otherwise, it would have been business as 
usual. Everything would have been done the same way. In fact, we would 
have paid $190 million more to do this work.
  One corporation, with much experience in commercial aircraft 
maintenance, has already looked at the engine maintenance work at 
Kelly. They have concluded that, by employing commercial-sector 
business practices, they can reduce the cost by over $1 billion over 
the life of the contract. They can reduce the amount of time necessary 
to repair engines by as much as 40 percent. So that is a readiness 
issue. And they can improve safety of flights through their process 
modifications. We all know that safety is of paramount importance when 
we are talking about our young men and women flying in the aircraft 
provided to them by the Department of Defense. So why wouldn't we bring 
this kind of expertise and savings into our military maintenance? I 
don't understand it.
  Look at the people who have spoken on this issue. Adm. William Owens, 
the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, when he was going out of office, 
in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee said:

       The world's largest business is 65 to 70 percent fixed 
     cost, 35 percent variable cost. The variable cost translates 
     to the war-fighting capability. The money is in the fixed 
     costs, and that is what we've got to work on. We must work on 
     the fixed costs, like maintenance.

  Dr. John White, Deputy Secretary of Defense, March 1996:

       Privatization provides substantial savings. Now as we go 
     forward, we have a situation where we have to emphasize 
     modernization.

  General Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, 1996:

       I believe we must go on with privatization, with 
     outsourcing. We need your support to make the hard choices 
     and to change it to make these initiatives work. I 
     particularly ask for your support where changes in law are 
     required.

  I don't think the general would want to have constraints on 
competition and privatization as we are seeing in the bill before us 
today.
  William Cohen, the present Secretary of Defense, June 18, 1997:

       The San Antonio and Sacramento workload involve thousands 
     of highly trained workers and large, expensive equipment and 
     facilities. This work is critical to the continued operation 
     of national assets. To transfer all of these workloads 
     without a competitive evaluation and risk assessment would be 
     unwise, from a business perspective, and would involve a 
     significant risk of disruption in mission performance and 
     degradation in military readiness.

  Now, these are the people in charge of our military. They are talking 
about the importance of privatization, the option of privatization. 
They are saying, look, we are willing to live with fewer dollars and 
provide the security that we are supposed to provide to the people of 
America. But don't tie our hands. Let us have the option, let us have 
the ability to do this job with the options and flexibility we must 
have to put the dollars where we need them. And we are seeing the 
capability of saving $2 billion a year if we will allow full 
competition.

  What is Congress doing in the bill that is before us today? It is 
tying the hands of the people who are asking for our help in order to 
do the job we are asking them to do in the most efficient way.
  Mr. President, why would we do this? I can't understand it. We have 
heard quotes from the people on the military side. Now let me quote 
from a letter received today from the Industry Depot Coalition. These 
are the people who do the work. These are the people who have been in 
this business, who know what the cost savings can be, who provide the 
20 to 30 percent cost savings

[[Page S11823]]

when they do the work. They have written a letter to Senator Thurmond 
and Senator Levin. It says:

       The Industry Depot Coalition, comprised of eight national 
     associations representing the breadth of the defense industry 
     and thousands of American businesses, large and small, wishes 
     to register, for the record, our concerns relative to the 
     depot maintenance provisions that are contained in the FY98 
     national defense authorization bill. In so doing, we wish to 
     raise with you a number of impacts we foresee resulting from 
     the provisions, as well as our sincere hope that you will 
     give serious consideration to making modifications in that 
     language.

  They state as a primary concern:

       The legislation requires that the Secretary of Defense 
     assign sufficient workload to public depots to ensure cost 
     efficiency. However, the arbitrary assignment of workloads 
     will not ensure efficiency. Efficiency can only be ensured 
     through competition, innovative management initiatives, and 
     the adaptation of commercial practices, none of which is 
     adequately addressed in this legislation.
       In addition, we are concerned that the legislation's 
     requirement that DOD have in-house capability to repair all 
     new systems within four years of initial operating capability 
     could result in DOD having to create and maintain redundant 
     facilities and capabilities, even when doing so is neither 
     cost-effective nor, in the judgment of the Department, 
     necessary for the national defense.

  A second area of primary concern:

       The legislation places in statute competitive requirements 
     that are at this time only to be applied to the proposed 
     competition for the workloads at the Kelly and McClellan Air 
     Logistic Centers. As believers in fair competition and equal 
     treatment in all areas of competition, we simply cannot 
     support a statutory requirement such as this one that places 
     unique requirements on one category of bidders.

  Mr. President, we have heard from the industry, we have heard from 
the Department, we have heard from the military chiefs--they need the 
flexibility. They need the ability to be able to do the work in the 
most efficient way, and that is what we are trying to provide them.
  The bill before us today does not allow that competition. It does not 
allow a free and fair competition; it weights toward the public depots 
to such a great extent that even one of the greatest proponents of this 
language admits exactly what they want to do, and that is keep private 
bidders from bidding.
  I will just quote from the Daily Oklahoman, where the junior Senator 
from Oklahoma says:

       With the language in the bill before us, I think it is 
     highly unlikely any contractor would want to bid on it.

  So they are trying to stifle competition, and I don't understand why 
the committee is letting them do this. I do not, in any way, challenge 
the motives of the committee. I know they want to do what is right. But 
I think they have not looked at the quote of the Senator from Oklahoma, 
who admits he is trying to put language in so that no one will bid. 
They are overlooking the Defense Industry Depot Coalition, who have 
done the work and know that they can do it more efficiently. They are 
overlooking the fact that, where private industry is doing maintenance, 
it has worked very well for the Department of Defense. One of the best 
examples of this was in Desert Storm, where we had much private 
maintenance that kept right up to the readiness requirements of the 
Department of Defense.
  Mr. President, all the evidence is against what is in this bill 
today; yet, everyone who is arguing for this bill seems to say that 
this is just one little issue; it is just one little issue that can 
save $2 billion a year--$2 billion a year. We could start deploying 
theater missile defense. We could pay for most of our operation in 
Bosnia with these savings. Why won't the committee work with us to make 
sure that it is not just the one narrow interest of people who do not 
want competition who are winning? That is why the President has said he 
is going to veto this bill. He has told the Members of Congress he is 
going to veto this bill, and he is right because he knows that, as he 
himself is trying to lower the defense costs to our country, he has to 
have the flexibility to do his job. He can't afford to let $2 billion 
lay on the table in inefficient operations because a few people don't 
want competition. The President has said he is going to veto the bill 
because he knows that it is wrong to stifle competition and waste 
taxpayer dollars when we need to provide for the readiness of our 
country.
  We are not talking about one State or one depot. We are talking about 
the readiness of our troops, and the quality of life for our troops. We 
are talking about doing a job with fewer dollars from our taxpayers but 
fulfilling our responsibility for the security of our country.
  How could we pass a bill that we know is going to waste $2 billion a 
year, according to the Department of Defense statistics? How could we 
do it?
  I urge the committee to work on this language and make it fair. I 
urge my colleagues to listen to the debate because, if you vote on the 
merits, we can fix this bill, and we can provide for competition. We 
are not asking for favors. We are not asking for anything more than a 
fair and level playing field. In fact, in my conversations with the 
Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, I said, ``If 
you can answer one question for me, I will be for this bill because I 
like most of what is in it.'' Answer one question. ``Can you have a 
fair and open competition with the bill language as it is before the 
Senate today?'' And the answer was ``no.'' The answer was no from the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense. That is the only question that matters.
  So when you hear people glossing over this issue as if it is some 
small thing, as if it is some parochial, minor issue, $2 billion of 
taxpayer money, $2 billion of readiness, $2 billion of quality of life 
for our troops, and $2 billion toward systems that will protect the 
security of our country, it is not parochial.
  I urge my colleagues to get engaged on this issue and do what is 
right. We still have time to pass a good armed services authorization 
bill that provides for health care, quality of life, pay raises, 
military construction, and free and fair competition for savings, for 
good jobs, for people who win on the merits--not through a fix. And the 
fix is in the bill.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I would like to ask that any balance of my time be given to Senator 
Gramm.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record the letter from the Industry Depot Coalition.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         The Industry Depot Coalition: Aerospace Industries Assn., 
           American Electronics Assn., American Shipbuilding 
           Assn., Contract Services Assn., Electronic Industries 
           Assn., National Defense Industrial Assn., Professional 
           Services Council, Shipbuilders Council of America,
                                                 November 5, 1997.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond and Senator Levin: The Industry Depot 
     Coalition, comprised of eight national associations 
     representing the breadth of the defense industry and 
     literally thousands of American businesses large and small, 
     wishes to register for the record our concerns relative to 
     the depot maintenance provisions that are contained in the 
     FY'98 National Defense Authorization. In so doing, we wish to 
     raise with your a number of impacts we foresee resulting from 
     the provisions, as well as our sincere hope that you will 
     give serious consideration to making modifications to that 
     language.
       We certainly respect and appreciate the considerable and 
     extensive efforts to which your and your staffs have gone in 
     attempting to fashion compromise legislation that would 
     ensure a ``level playing field'' for depot maintenance 
     competitions. Unfortunately, from the perspective of private 
     sector entities that might be inclined to participate in such 
     competitions, we do not believe the legislation, as it now 
     stands, achieves that goal. In addition, it would establish 
     in statute a number of problematic precedents that we believe 
     could lead to additional problems on future depot, and non-
     depot, competitions. Finally, at a time when we have been 
     seeking real clarity and consistency in the conduct of 
     public-private competitions, which, to date, have been marked 
     by anything but, the ambiguities contained in the legislation 
     threaten to only increase the degree of confusion and 
     uncertainty in the process.
       Our primary concerns are as follows:
       (1) The legislation requires that the Secretary of Defense 
     assign ``sufficient workload'' to public depots to ``. . . 
     ensure cost efficiency''. However, the arbitrary assignment 
     of workloads will not ``ensure'' efficiency; efficiency can 
     only be ensured

[[Page S11824]]

     through competition, innovative management initiatives, and 
     the adaptation of commercial practices, none of which is 
     adequately addressed in the legislation. In addition, we are 
     concerned that the legislation's requirement that DoD have 
     in-house capability to repair all new systems within four 
     years of Initial Operating Capability (IOC) could result in 
     DoD having to create and maintain redundant facilities and 
     capabilities, even when doing so is neither cost-effective 
     nor, in the judgement of the department, necessary for the 
     national defense.
       (2) The legislation places in statute competitive 
     requirements that are, at this time, only to be applied to 
     the proposed competitions for the workloads at the Kelly and 
     McClellan Air Logistics Centers. As believers in fair 
     competition and equal treatment in all areas of competition, 
     we simply cannot support a statutory requirement such as this 
     one that places unique requirements on only one category of 
     bidders. If the object is to ensure fair competition, the 
     statute should reflect that philosophy clearly, unambiguously 
     and uniformly.
       (3) The provisions do not adequately address the vital 
     issue of ``best value'' procurements versus cost-based 
     awards. We have, with your strong support and leadership, 
     worked hard in recent years to move the procurement process 
     into an environment where the guiding principle for awards is 
     the best overall value to the taxpayer, including the full 
     range of non-cost factors, so as to ensure quality, 
     performance and true efficiency. We believe affirmative steps 
     should be taken to ensure that the ``best value'' to the 
     taxpayer and the department becomes the dominant focus of all 
     competitions.
       (4) While the provisions do include a very important change 
     in which the current ``60/40'' rule is replaced by a new 
     ``50/50'' rule, continuing to base the rule on personnel, 
     rather than on facilities, renders much of the positive 
     language on partnerships and Centers for Technical 
     Excellence, moot. From an objective business case analysis 
     perspective, the continued focus on ``who'' does the work 
     rather than where the work is done, will mitigate against the 
     initiation of the kinds of partnerships that can genuinely 
     assist DoD in meeting its mission requirements, more 
     effectively and efficiently utilizing its current capacity 
     and adapting innovative commercial practices to its 
     operations.
       As noted earlier, we recognize the appreciate the efforts 
     you have made to move the House conferees this far and are 
     mindful of the difficulties and challenges posed by this 
     issue. Nonetheless, we urge you to reconsider the substance 
     and ramifications of the provisions and hope that efforts 
     will be made to make appropriate changes. We have a long 
     history of working together effectively to not only ensure 
     the national defense but also to reform, streamline and make 
     fairer a procurement process that has not, historically, 
     functioned as any of us believe it should. As proposed, this 
     legislation could result in a step backward in that critical 
     area.
       We look forward to continuing to work with you to fashion a 
     more level playing field for future competitions so as to 
     provide the true best value for the government and the 
     taxpayer. Should you have any questions or comments, please 
     contact any of the associations listed above or the coalition 
     chairman Stan Soloway at (202) 347-0600. In the meantime, our 
     thanks for your time and consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                     The Industry Depot Coalition.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the able Senator 
from Virginia, Senator Warner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee. I wish to join other members of committee in indicating to 
our distinguished chairman and to the ranking member, Mr. Levin of 
Michigan, our commendation for their work over these many months on 
this bill.
  Mr. President, in the limited time I have I wish to turn immediately 
to the subject of the welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces.
  This past few weeks we have seen a good deal of tension increase in 
various parts of the world. In fact, that tension prompted the 
President of the United States to convene a very important meeting. The 
Presiding Officer was in attendance, as was the chairman and ranking 
member of the committee, myself and others, at which time the President 
in consultation with the Congress, the leadership, reviewed the various 
problems facing the United States and our allies today--and the 
possibility that we may once again call on the men and women of the 
Armed Forces of the United States, together with our allies, to go into 
harm's way in an effort to stabilize these situations.
  Mr. President, I say that we cannot as a Congress--as a Nation--say 
to these men and women, ``You once again will respond to the Commander 
in Chief'' and not pass this bill, which gives them a very modest and 
well-earned increase in their pay and allowances to compensate them for 
inflation--particularly in specialized areas of service: Aviation, 
submariners, and others where we have to have additional compensation 
in order to enable them to perform their services, and we retain 
sufficient numbers of aviators and submariners.
  So, Mr. President, I deem this bill absolutely critical. I also wish 
to commend the chairman and ranking member and other Members who have 
individually, as have I, petitioned the President to give this bill the 
most serious consideration and hopefully to affix his signature so that 
it can become law.
  Mr. President, to go into those areas, which as chairman of the 
Seapower Subcommittee, I have special responsibility, together with the 
distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Kennedy], who is 
my ranking member, and our subcommittee recommended to the full 
committee the following, and the full committee basically adopted it.
  We authorized the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a contract for 
the procurement of four new attack submarines under the terms of a 
teaming arrangement that was submitted to Congress by the Secretary of 
the Navy between the two contractors involved in submarine 
construction. This arrangement will save taxpayers over $1 billion in 
the next 6 years, and ensure the continued viability of two nuclear 
capable submarine yards.
  I thank my distinguished colleague from Virginia, Mr. Robb, who 
worked with me on that, a member of our committee, as well as the 
distinguished colleague, Mr. Lieberman, from Connecticut.
  Further, our subcommittee authorized an increase of $720 million for 
the procurement of a fourth Arleigh Burke destroyer. By buying this 
ship early, we will save approximately $230 million on the marginal 
cost of this ship.
  Those are savings that are passed on, of course, to the Department of 
Defense, but to the American taxpayer.
  As relates to the aircraft carrier, the CVN-77, the next in the 
series of our carriers, we authorized $50 million to accelerate the 
advanced procurement and construction of components for CVN-77.
  I particularly want to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Inouye. 
They accommodated this Senator, personally allowing me to come into 
literally the closing few minutes of their conference with the House in 
order to ensure that this $50 million be included in the 
appropriations.
  We authorized the Secretary of Defense to reprogram up to an 
additional $295 million in fiscal year 1998 for the advanced 
procurement of CVN-77. I am now working with the Chief of Naval 
Operations and the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that the Navy takes 
advantage of this important opportunity to get the ``smart buy'' 
proposal fully utilized within the Department of Defense, as well as 
the Department of the Navy. Acceleration of funding for this ship 
offers an opportunity for potential savings of $600 million for the 
American taxpayer.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference report. The House has 
already spoken resoundingly in favor--with 286 Members voting in favor 
of the conference report last week. We must follow their lead with a 
strong vote in favor of this conference report. Let us not allow a full 
year's worth of work to be squandered.
  I also urge the President not to veto this important measure. This 
President has deployed our troops into ``hot spots'' in record numbers. 
Our troops have answered these many calls to duty and performed 
admirably. They stand ready today as new missions in Bosnia and Iraq 
are being discussed by policy makers in Washington.
  Do not send a signal to those troops that you do not support their 
efforts. They should not have to worry about whether or not their 
raises and bonuses will be there in January. They should not have to 
question the commitment of politicians in Washington to provide the 
best equipment and quality of life possible for our troops and their 
families. I call on you, Mr. President, to show your support for our 
troops by signing this very important conference report.
  Mr. President, I wish to commend the distinguished chairman and 
ranking

[[Page S11825]]

member for their personal intervention with the President along with my 
own and others to see that this bill merits his signature in a prompt 
way.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield to the senior Senator from West 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
for 10 minutes without that time being charged to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I join with others in complimenting the 
distinguished chairman, Mr. Thurmond, and ranking member, Mr. Levin, as 
well as Mr. Kempthorne, and Mr. Cleland.
  Of the many duties that a United States Senator or a Member of the 
House of Representatives is called upon to perform, one of the most 
important involves expressing our views on whether U.S. armed forces 
should be put in harm's way in defense of our country's national 
interests. We must weigh whether the issue at hand merits risking the 
lives of our soldiers, sailors, and aviators.
  Members of our armed forces cannot individually decide whether they 
should place their lives at risk, for they are duty bound to follow the 
orders of their commanders, and ultimately, of the President. Every 
individual in our armed forces knows that he or she may be called upon 
to make the ultimate sacrifice for the nation. Every individual who 
takes the oath to join the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines, whether 
in the active forces, Reserves, or National Guard, does so knowing that 
they carry a special burden, and a unique responsibility, to defend our 
nation's interests, wherever and whenever they may be called upon to do 
so.
  As Senators, we must help to ensure that our armed forces are ready 
to perform this role. This includes raising and considering difficult 
questions, which are included in the conference report before us, 
related to force readiness and the procurement of weapons systems. 
These decisions involve billions of dollars and involve the employment 
of thousands of military and contractor personnel. The decisions made 
here affect all military personnel and a large segment of our economy, 
and I, for one, do not take them lightly.
  But of equal importance are questions concerning the morale of our 
troops. Weapons alone do not win wars. It is our troops on the ground, 
our sailors at sea, our aviators in the air, and all the personnel who 
support them behind the lines who must combine to triumph over our 
nation's enemies. And these forces can only fight together as a 
cohesive force if they are united by common goals, morale, and 
strategy.
  The morale of our forces is of particular importance, for troops who 
suffer from weakened morale must defeat not only the external enemy, 
but also deal with the internal divisions and problems of their own 
ranks, even while they fight the enemy. Our armed forces require strong 
leadership to deal with such problems, while providing a victorious 
strategy on the battlefield.
  Sadly, such leadership has been lacking in recent years, as is 
evidenced by the low morale particularly among the women in our armed 
forces. The women in our armed forces must endure a demoralizing and 
hostile environment while they attempt to carry out their duties. From 
the shocking behavior of Naval aviators at the ``Tail Hook'' 
conventions, to the alleged rape of recruits at Aberdeen, it has become 
clear that the women in our armed forces face sexual discrimination, 
harassment, assaults, and even rape, as they carry out their duties in 
defense of our nation.
  The recent report by the Secretary of the Army exposes the 
seriousness of the problem. The report states that ``sexual harassment 
exists throughout the Army, crossing gender, rank, and racial lines . . 
.'' Almost one quarter of the women reported that they had been 
sexually harassed in the last twelve months, based upon a random 
statistical survey conducted by the Army. A shocking 74 percent 
reported that they have endured crude or offensive behavior, 47 percent 
reported that they received unwanted sexual attention, 18 percent 
suffered from sexual coercion, and 8 percent said they had been 
sexually assaulted. While these statistics are appalling, the footnotes 
only add to the outrage. ``Unwanted sexual attention''--which almost 
half of the women reported--is defined as ``unwanted touching or 
fondling and asking for dates even when rebuffed.'' And sexual 
coercion--which almost one quarter of the women endured--``includes 
classic quid pro quo instances of job benefits or losses conditioned on 
sexual cooperation.''
  The Army's report found that ``this issue is one of which the Army 
has been long aware, and that to date, Army policies and processes 
implemented to combat and eradicate sexual harassment have had little, 
if any, impact. As one soldier noted, `Women have been reporting sexual 
harassment for five years, and the Army's just now looking into it.' 
Many soldiers believe that their complaints and concerns have been 
ignored and that only recent media attention has forced Army leaders to 
focus on this issue.''
  I would note that this in fact understates the intentional neglect on 
the part of the Army. It is not just that Army leaders ignored 
complaints of sexual harassment for a number of years. More shockingly, 
it is that it took the media and national public attention focused on 
the rape of female recruits to finally force the Army to seriously 
address the treatment of women in the ranks.
  There is an old adage that ``the fish rots from the head down.'' The 
report states that ``leaders set the values compass for the Army; it is 
from them that respect and dignity flow. Many leaders are currently 
seen as practicing a zero defects mentality, caring only about 
themselves and their careers. Soldiers do not uniformly have trust and 
confidence in their leaders. Unfair treatment, double standards, and a 
lack of discipline were raised to Panel representatives time and again 
. . .''
  Within the Army, the policy has been to ``talk the talk,'' but not 
``walk the walk''. Even while the Army brass told the troops that the 
policy was one of ``zero tolerance'' for sexual discrimination, the 
officers and drill sergeants knew that this was rarely enforced in 
practice. The report notes that a policy of ``zero tolerance'' is 
enforced for racial discrimination, but not for sexual discrimination.
  The question for the Army is what can be done to correct the problems 
identified in the report. I must commend the Secretary of the Army for 
issuing a candid and brutally honest summary of the problem. The report 
also identifies a number of policies that must be changed or enforced 
in order to ensure that women receive equal and fair treatment in the 
Army.
  I must note, however, that the report is silent on the question of 
the desirability of gender integrated training. I offered an amendment 
during the Committee markup of this bill, which is included in this 
conference report, calling for the establishment of an independent 
outside review commission to examine the question of the 
appropriateness of gender integrated recruit training in the armed 
forces. My amendment also calls upon the Commission to review the rules 
of fraternization with the goal of recommending a single consistent 
standard for conduct among enlisted people, and between enlisted people 
and officers, which spans all the services. What is appropriate for a 
soldier in the Army should also be appropriate for a sailor or airman 
or marine.
  On the question of training, the Army report notes that ``a key to 
addressing human relations issues, including sexual harassment, is 
assigning enough female role models to set the example for all 
trainees. Twenty percent of Army accessions are women, but the training 
base is composed of only ten percent female drill sergeants.'' The 
report also states that ``new recruits form and hold their most lasting 
impressions of the Army from the cadre they encounter during initial 
entry training.''
  These observations suggest that female recruits might benefit from 
gender segregated training, in which they would be guaranteed to 
receive training from women drill instructors and role models.
  The report of the Secretary of the Army is a good first step, in 
terms of identifying the scope of the problem, and offering possible 
solutions. The commission that will be created as a

[[Page S11826]]

consequence of the enactment into law of this conference report will 
add yet another dimension to our understanding of the problem and 
possible solutions.
  ``People are not in the Army, people are the Army,'' stated General 
Creighton W. Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff. ``By people, I do not 
mean personnel . . . I mean living, breathing, serving, human beings. 
They have needs and interests and desires. They have spirit and will, 
and strength and abilities. They have weaknesses and faults; and they 
have means. They are at the heart of our preparedness . . . and this 
preparedness . . .--as a nation and as an Army--depends upon the spirit 
of our soldiers. It is the spirit that gives the Army . . . life. 
Without it we cannot succeed.''
  The report of the Secretary of the Army concludes that ``if there is 
one overarching theme to this report, it is this: we must rededicate 
ourselves to the fundamental truths so eloquently stated by General 
Abrams . . . Personnel readiness relies on a positive human relations 
environment. It is the vital base upon which we build the Army, and the 
combat effectiveness of the Army's most important weapon system--the 
soldier.''
  Let us hope that the Army follows the recommendations included in 
this report, and for that matter, that its philosophy permeates the 
entire Pentagon and military establishment. We cannot relent in our 
examination of this problem; we must ensure that the leadership of our 
armed forces creates an environment of fairness for the women in the 
services. And we must not shirk from examining objectively every aspect 
of this issue, including some aspects that might be labeled 
``politically incorrect,'' such as gender segregated training and 
coherent across-the-board fraternization policies. I am glad that the 
conferees had the courage to establish the commission, and I look 
forward to the report.
  I again compliment my chairman, Mr. Thurmond, and the ranking member, 
Mr. Levin.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. I wish to commend the able Senator from West Virginia 
not only for his work on this bill but for all he has done over the 
years for good Government in this Senate.
  We are proud of you.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman, Mr. 
Thurmond, for his kind words.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, before I yield 4 minutes to my friend from 
New Mexico, let me also add my thanks to Senator Byrd for the 
tremendous contribution he makes to the committee. We all know the 
contribution he makes to the Senate, but he makes also an important 
contribution to the Armed Services Committee, which is not noted as 
often as it should be but I want to note right now.
  I thank him for his support of the conference report.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank Mr. Levin for his dedication to 
duty, for his high sense of purpose, and for the example he gives to 
all of us. I hope we can emulate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly in support of 
this year's national defense authorization bill which was reported out 
of conference committee.
  The bill is the product of many months of dedicated work by Senator 
Thurmond, Senator Levin and many others here, and of course, the 
committee staff and personal staff of Senators as well. It reflects the 
collective interests of the Congress. It includes many provisions that 
were arrived at through many long weeks and even months of debating and 
negotiating.
  I want to call particular attention to the provisions to fully fund 
the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and the related Department of 
Energy programs to secure the nuclear materials and destroy chemical 
stockpiles and strategic weapons in the former Soviet Union. In my 
view, the money spent on these programs is among the most cost-
effective ways that we expend taxpayer money to pursue our own national 
security and to promote international peace.
  I am also pleased that there is significant funding in this bill 
authorized for a range of dual-use research and development programs. I 
believe that is important and allows the Department of Defense to 
leverage commercial investment in advanced technologies to meet our 
defense needs.
  The bill also authorizes funding to meet the requirements of the 
defense programs in the Department of Energy, particularly the 
Stockpile Stewardship Program, which I believe is extremely important 
to the future of our country.
  The bill also contains, and I am sure others have commented on this, 
a 2.8 percent pay raise for active duty military members. Without this 
bill, that increase would be limited to 2.3 percent. This may seem like 
a small amount, but I believe that for people in uniform it is an 
important difference and one that we should definitely adopt this bill 
to accomplish.
  The bill also, of course, is essential if we are going to go forward 
with the construction programs for the fiscal year 1998 military 
construction projects, and that is another reason why the bill should 
be approved by this Senate and should be signed by the President.
  Mr. President, this bill does not meet all the goals of individual 
Senators, but it does express the collective priorities of the Senate, 
and I urge that we move to adopt it and send it to the President for 
his signature. I hope the President will recognize the value of this 
legislation to the Nation and sign it into law.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I know the Senator from California 
is waiting to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whole yields time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe the Senators from California 
have 45 minutes reserved. I would like to exercise that time now and 
utilize as much of that as I may consume. I would appreciate being 
notified when 20 minutes have gone by so that my colleague and friend 
from California might utilize the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct and the Senator is 
recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise on this final day of debate on the conference 
report to the DOD bill, and I do so to express my strong opposition.
  Now, I very much regret this. I have great fondness for the chairman 
of the Committee, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, and 
great respect for the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin. The great bulk 
of the bill I wish to support. I understand that there are important 
things in the bill. However, from the perspectives of Texas and 
California, there is a basic unfairness in this bill that we cannot 
leave unaddressed, and I rise to address those points.
  I want to say how privileged both my colleague from California and I 
have been to work with the senior and junior Senators from the great 
State of Texas in trying to remedy the unfairness in this bill. 
Unfortunately, I must indicate we have not been able to achieve an 
accommodation, and therefore we register our objections through our 
``no'' votes.
  I oppose the conference report because it contains language that will 
effectively stop, ban, prohibit any further public/private competitions 
of depot workloads at both McClellan and Kelly Air Logistics Centers. 
These competitions will lower the cost of weapons systems repair and 
will save the taxpayer money. It is hard for me to understand why they 
are not being permitted to go ahead.
  It is unfortunate that this debate has to take place. We felt we had 
an agreement. The distinguished Senator from Michigan knows that he 
called me one night to indicate that at least 2\1/2\ points of the four 
points we had raised would be accommodated. We agreed to that. We 
backed off. Overnight, committee language was written which essentially 
undid the compromise, and

[[Page S11827]]

we have been able to achieve no remedy since that time.
  In the debate last week, this body heard that if this restrictive 
depot language remained in the bill, the President would probably veto 
the bill. A strongly worded letter was sent to the majority leader and 
other senior Members of Congress detailing the administration's concern 
dovetailing our concern. I will not read the letter, but I would like 
to talk about some of the points in it.
  The depot language in this bill constrains DOD's ability to conduct 
competitions for depot-level repair work. This will result in 
decreasing the amount of potential savings the Department would reap 
from these competitions and could then redirect to fund other vital 
needs like readiness and weapons modernization.
  Second, the administration is correct. The conference report 
absolutely ``seeks to impose unique and inappropriate requirements on 
DOD's process for allocating the work now performed at the closing San 
Antonio and Sacramento Air Logistics Centers.''
  Contrary to what members of the Depot Caucus espouse, the option to 
privatize this depot work was explicitly made available in the 1995 
BRAC closure report. The BRAC 95 Commission specifically recommended 
that the Department ``consolidate the remaining workloads to other DOD 
depots or to private-sector commercial activities as determined by the 
Defense Depot Maintenance Council.''
  And, yes, the President did strongly support the Commission's 
decision which specifically reinforced the option of privatization. In 
his letter to the chairman of the BRAC 95 Commission, the President 
wrote, ``I was pleased to learn that . . . you confirmed the 
Commission's recommendations permitting the Department of Defense to 
privatize the workloads of McClellan and Kelly facilities in place or 
elsewhere in their respective communities. . . . In my communications 
with Congress, I have made clear that the Commission's agreement that 
the Secretary enjoys full authority and discretion to transfer workload 
from these two installations to the private sector, in place, locally 
or otherwise, is an integral part of the overall BRAC 95 package it 
will be considering.''
  The President goes on to say without ambiguity,

       Moreover, should the Congress approve this package but then 
     subsequently take action in other legislation to restrict 
     privatization options at McClellan or Kelly, I will regard 
     this as a breach of Public Law 101-510 (the base closure law) 
     in the same manner as if the Congress were to attempt to 
     reverse by legislation any other material direction of this 
     or any other BRAC.

  While I'm on the subject of the BRAC, let me clear the air on this 
point. Some have alleged that this public/private competition process 
which could result in this work being privatized at McClellan and Kelly 
is just a crooked attempt to keep these bases open. Let me say, without 
ambiguity, it is not. McClellan and Kelly will both be closed in 2001. 
BRAC 95 made that decision. And, the communities of Sacramento and San 
Antonio are struggling to deal with this decision and make the best of 
it today.
  Nearly 3,000 jobs not associated with the ongoing competition at 
McClellan's Air Logistics Center will be moved to other Air Force 
depots because when McClellan's gates are locked in 2001, that is it. 
Those 2,300 jobs that are associated with the public/private 
competition may also be moved to other Air Force depots depending upon 
its outcome. That's it. If this depot language remains in the 
conference report, McClellan will undoubtedly lose these remaining 
2,300 jobs. And that is what this is all about.
  As far as the property and buildings at McClellan are concerned, they 
will be transferred under the base reuse process to recipients in the 
local community according to their base reuse plan.
  Third, the Department is already conducting a fair and open public/
private competition at McClellan and Kelly. The depot language in this 
conference report would change that. It would, without question, skew 
these competition in favor of the public depots. But, don't take my 
word for that, or the administration's, just listen to the supporters 
of the depot language.
  One of the authors of the language, the junior 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.''
  How are my colleagues and I supposed to believe this is a fair 
competition? Not only is that the sentiment of the Depot Caucus, but in 
the letter we have heard quoted on the floor very effectively by the 
distinguished Senator from Texas, the Industry-Depot Coalition, the 
Aerospace Industries Association, the American Electronics Association, 
the American Shipbuilding Association, the Contract Services 
Association, Electronic Industries Association, National Defense 
Industry Association, Professional Services Council, and Shipbuilders--
all agree that the impact of this is to kill private competition.
  In a letter today sent to the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina, the chairman of the committee, they point out that the 
legislation, `` * * * places in statute competitive requirements that 
are at this time only to be applied to the proposed competitions for 
the workloads at Kelly and McClellan. As believers in fair competition 
and equal treatment in all areas of competition, we simply cannot 
support a statutory requirement such as this one, that places unique 
requirements on only one category of bidders. If the object is to 
ensure fair competition, the statute should reflect that philosophy 
clearly, unambiguously, and uniformly.''
  Mr. President, I have had calls from private contractors saying they 
can't compete and won't compete under this language. I have said to 
them, ``Would you put this in writing? Will you go public?''
  Do you know what they told me? ``We are afraid to. There will be 
reprisals against our companies if we state this publicly.''
  Have we come to that?
  Let me also say, 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.'' So, the Senators from Texas and 
the Senators from California are fighting for survival. We are fighting 
for the ability to do what is professed to be the will of this body, 
which is to see if private competition can be effective in handling 
some of this workload and that a fair bidding and contracting process 
exists to carry out that competition.
  Secretary Cohen has supported us in this effort and for that I am 
very pleased.
  It is amazing to me that the Depot Caucus has taken this position. 
Let me cite the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center in Georgia as an 
example. Members of the Depot Caucus have complained from the first day 
that the competition announced by the Air Force would be unfair and 
biased. They said public depots couldn't possibly win. But, Warner 
Robins won. How did this happen?
  One of the reasons it happened is that public depots can hide their 
overhead in other accounts when they bid against private industry for 
this work. Members of private industry on numerous occasions have said 
this is exactly why they can't compete under this bill that is being 
passed today. Warner Robins, as I understand it--and I have never been 
contradicted in this--took advantage of this ability to hide overhead 
costs to help make its bid below that of their private competitors. In 
fact, the Air Force had to add penalties to Warner Robins' bid for the 
500 employees and other overhead that had been shifted to other 
accounts.
  When conference began, the President's advisers said that he would 
veto the DOD authorization bill if these depot provisions were included 
in the bill. This veto message has not changed. The Depot Causus' 
anticompetition provisions, included in this bill by the conferees, 
will serve to delay and restrict the public-private competitions for 
depot workload currently underway at both McClellan and Kelly Air Force 
Bases undermining any effort to do this work in the private sector in a 
more cost-effective way.
  DOD's own policy calls for greater reliance on the private sector for 
appropriate depot maintenance workload. Outsourcing helps preserve 
private sector capabilities and enhances DOD's ability to capture new 
technologies

[[Page S11828]]

that are constantly being developed in the private sector. By 
introducing greater competition into the mix, outsourcing lowers the 
cost of depot-level maintenance activities increasing funding levels 
for modernization and readiness needs.
  Secretary Cohen stated earlier this year that these provisions:

       . . . could cost the Department significant sums in lost 
     annual savings and start-up costs. The could severely impact 
     military readiness. The San Antonio and Sacramento workloads 
     involve thousands of highly trained workers and large, 
     expensive equipment and facilities. . . . To transfer all of 
     these workloads without a competitive evaluation and risk 
     assessment would be unwise from a business perspective and 
     would involve a significant risk of disruption in mission 
     performance and degradation in military readiness.

  DOD has stayed true and faithful to the Secretary's statement in also 
urging and recommending to the President that this bill be vetoed.
  So, I urge my colleagues, please support the Senators from Texas and 
California in opposing this conference report until these depot 
provisions are removed from the bill. We need to let these competitions 
go forward in a truly fair and level way so that we can fund the 
modernization and the readiness accounts. DOD believes that the first 
competition will result in an expected savings of $190 million. That is 
what is at stake in this issue, as far as funding for readiness and 
preparedness of the military is concerned--$190 million.
  Turning to another subject, I would also like to raise concerns with 
a provision in the conference report on revised export rules for 
computers. The conference report enacts new, and I believe damaging, 
restrictions on the sale of many types of computers. The proposal is 
unworkable and will result in undermining our security in the long run.
  Computer technology advances rapidly. What was called a supercomputer 
only a few years ago, represents only routine computing power today. An 
overbroad restriction will not make the world a safer place, but will 
undermine U.S. interests by locking up U.S. exports, shifting sales to 
foreign manufacturers and denying the administration the necessary 
flexibility to respond to evolving technology and worldwide 
competition.
  Export restrictions must be based on an objective review of a 
computer's computing power and the computing needs of the potential 
computer application. In a letter to conferees, National Security 
Adviser Sandy Berger wrote.

       The President's 1995 decision to streamline computer export 
     controls addressed the outdated controls then in effect. 
     Given the rapid pace of technological change, we must avoid 
     substituting similarly inflexible controls mandated by 
     Congress. It is vitally important to maintain our ability to 
     adjust controls to keep pace with technological change while 
     focusing our limited resources on exports of national 
     security concern.

  So the administration needs the authority to distinguish between 
sales that jeopardize national security and those that do not. That is 
what the administration is asking for. In stating this as a rationale, 
as well, they would recommend that this bill be vetoed if it goes out 
in its present form.
  I believe that is a correct assessment. I think we only kick 
ourselves in the pants, to have this kind of a restriction in this 
bill. Other countries will simply buy elsewhere. Our companies will 
lose those sales and the President, as well as the Department of 
Commerce, will lose any flexibility they have in making some decisions 
that are really based on meaningful criteria. This bill fixes that 
criteria at a lower level on computers that are not, in fact, 
supercomputers today. That is the mistake that is inherent in the 
writing of this provision.
  It is for these reasons that Senators Gramm, Hutchison, Boxer, and I 
oppose this bill. There are those who have said, and I want to address 
it, these four Senators are resisting pay raises. They don't want 
increases in housing allowances. They don't want authorization of 
military construction projects.
  That is baloney, and it is the reason that the four of us introduced 
a bill last week that goes ahead and authorizes the pay raises, the 
hazardous duty pay, the military construction projects, and military 
health care.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 20 minutes of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. These are the reasons we oppose this bill. We ask our 
colleagues to oppose it as well. Regardless, the President is going to 
veto this bill and I am happy, at least, about that.
  Mr. President, I know my colleague from California would like to 
utilize the remainder of this time and I reserve the remainder of my 
time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask the time be equally charged to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, is it correct that the Senators from 
California have 24 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Further might I ask, do the Senators from Texas have any 
time reserved?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have 20 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, although I discussed this bill last week, 
I think it is important as the Senate gets ready to vote on the 
conference report that my colleagues understand why the Senators from 
California and Texas oppose this conference report and why we believe 
it is a matter of extreme importance, not only to more than 2,000 
California families, but also to taxpayers throughout the Nation and, 
indeed, to our national defense.
  Mr. President, although I discussed this bill last week, I want to 
take a few minutes of the Senate's time to explain why the Senators 
from California and Texas oppose this conference report and why we 
believe it is a matter of extreme importance--not only to more than 
2,000 California families, but also to taxpayers throughout the Nation, 
and indeed, to our national defense.
  We oppose this bill because it contains provisions changing depot 
maintenance law that would harm our States and undermine the DOD's 
ability to perform maintenance work in the most cost-effective manner. 
These provisions were designed for one purpose: To destroy planned 
competitions at McClellan AFB in California and Kelly AFB in Texas and 
funnel workload to public depots in Oklahoma, Utah, and Georgia.
  To fully understand this complex issue, I want to provide the Senate 
with some background and recent historical context.
  McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento and Kelly Air Force Base in 
San Antonio were scheduled for closure by the 1995 Base Realignment and 
Closure Commission. Rather than automatically relocate the duties 
performed at these bases to other Government depots, the Department of 
Defense chose to privatize some workload by conducting a public-private 
competition.
  Such privatization efforts were clearly authorized by the base 
closure commission's final report. Opponents of competition argue that 
the DOD's privatization initiatives thwart the intent of the BRAC, but 
this is simply not true. The report of the commission itself instructs 
the DOD to, and I am quoting the report, ``consolidate the remaining 
workloads to other DOD depots or to private sector commercial 
activities.'' It's right there: The DOD has the choice--either send the 
workload to other depots or to the private sector.
  This interpretation of the BRAC Commission's action was supported by 
the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, 
during debate last week. Although Senator Levin and I disagree somewhat 
on this issue, he said last week:

       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.

  I hope Senator Levin's statement will put to bed once and for all the 
false assertion that competition at McClellan contravenes the BRAC 
process.

[[Page S11829]]

  The DOD will not award workload to Kelly and McClellan automatically. 
Instead it has insisted that private bidders compete with public depots 
on the basis of quality and cost. In fact, the Department's first 
public-private competition for work at Kelly AFB was won by a public 
depot. After this result, how can anyone seriously argue that the 
process is biased in favor the private sector.
  The Depot Caucus--a coalition of legislators from States and 
congressional districts with public depots--have made no secret of 
their opposition to public-private competition at Kelly and McClellan. 
They believe that without competition, work currently performed at 
those bases will be directed to facilities in their States--regardless 
of cost or quality. That's not what is right for our Nation.
  In the House, Depot Caucus members were able to insert a provision 
into the DOD authorization bill that would have blocked privatization 
outright. The Senate bill initially included a similar provision, but 
it was removed prior to floor consideration. Thus, depot maintenance 
became a highly contentious issue for the DOD conference committee.
  The senators from Texas and California, as well as affected members 
of Congress, worked very hard to reach a compromise with the conferees 
on the DOD authorization bill. At first, we were pleased to learn the 
Depot Caucus abandoned its strategy of blocking competition outright, 
and instead submitted a proposal described as a compromise.
  This suggested compromise was supposed to allow competition to 
proceed, but would also guarantee a level playing field for both public 
and private bidders. When I first heard this description, I responded 
enthusiastically. Unfortunately, when I studied the alternative 
proposal, it became clear that it was simply a backdoor attempt to 
block competition.
  To explain the depot provision included in this bill, I have compared 
it to a footrace in which all the participants--both the private 
contractors and the public depots--are placed equally at the start line 
and told the first competitor across the finish line wins. 
Unfortunately, in this footrace, the private sector competitors are 
forced to run wearing 100-pound ankle weights. That's not a fair 
competition, Mr. President.
  But don't take my word for it. Listen to our leading opponent, the 
Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe]. Following the announcement of the 
conference agreement, the Senator told his home State paper, the Daily 
Oklahoman, ``I think it's highly unlikely any contractor would want to 
bid'' on work at Kelly and McClellan, because of all the new 
requirements imposed by the bill. That article, titled ``Senators Agree 
to Provision Giving Tinker Bidding Edge,'' described in detail how the 
depot maintenance sections of this bill will give the Oklahoma Air 
Force depot an unfair bidding advantage.
  Mr. President, the Senators from California and Texas don't want an 
unfair advantage. We only want a level playing field and a fair chance 
to compete. Unfortunately, this bill denies fairness to thousands of 
working families.
  We remain willing to talk to the other side in an effort to reach a 
fair solution. During the conference, we were moving in the right 
direction and were close to an agreement. Frankly, we were very 
surprised when the bill was filed, closing the door to additional 
negotiations. We believed that a final was compromise in sight. 
However, once the conference report was filed, we had no choice but to 
use all of our procedural rights to block passage.
  From the beginning, the Clinton administration has made clear that 
any provision that effectively stops competition will jeopardize 
passage of the DOD authorization bill. OMB Director Frank Raines 
reiterated that view in a letter sent to the majority leader on last 
week. In the letter, Director Raines advises congressional leaders that 
the President's senior advisors would recommend that the President veto 
this bill. I hope the President will take that advice and I hope 
Senators will vote to sustain that veto if it comes. This bill is bad 
for California, bad for taxpayers throughout the Nation, and bad for 
our national defense.
  I want to mention another provision of this bill that I find 
objectionable--section 1211, which restricts the export of midrange 
computers.
  On July 10, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the Grams-Boxer 
amendment, which required a GAO study on the national security impact 
of the export of computers in the 2,000 to 7,000 MTOPS range to tier 3 
countries. Our amendment was offered as an alternative to a proposal to 
require U.S. companies seeking to export computers in this range to go 
through a cumbersome and lengthy review and licensing process. The 
Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisers, and the Secretary 
of Commerce all opposed the original proposal.
  Unfortunately, rather than accept the Grams-Boxer amendment, the 
conferees wrote a new provision imposing a number of procedural 
barriers to the export of midrange computers.
  Specifically, the bill requires that prospective exporters wait 10 
days before shipping, during which a variety of Government agencies 
could object to the sale. This requirement is overly bureaucratic, and 
in the opinion of national security experts, is simply not necessary.
  The conference report allows the President to establish a new MTOPS 
threshold, but it requires a 6-month delay before the new threshold can 
take effect. I believe that the President deserves the flexibility to 
make the changes he deems appropriate. A 180-day notification to 
Congress makes it extremely unlikely that the high-performance computer 
control threshold will be increased fast enough to keep pace with this 
rapid technological changes that take place in this industry.
  This provision will hurt the American computer industry for no good 
reason. The conferees should have listened to the NSC, the Defense 
Department, and the Commerce Department and left this issue alone.
  Mr. President, I will vote against this conference report. We may 
have lost an important skirmish in the conference committee, but I 
believe the battle is not yet over. We will revisit these important 
issues in the near future. I remain willing to work with my colleagues 
to reach a compromise that will ensure fairness for the more than 2,000 
California families who only want a fair chance to compete to keep 
their jobs.
  Mr. President, what it comes down to is this. When the last Base 
Closure Commission issued its report and decided to close down Kelly 
Air Force Base and McClellan Air Force Base, it was determined by the 
administration that it would be very foolish if we didn't utilize these 
bases to allow private firms to come in and do the depot work at these 
bases. We called it privatization in place.
  Specifically, in that BRAC, it was determined that privatization in 
place would be permitted at McClellan and Kelly, and that those private 
sector companies that came in would have an equal chance to bid on 
depot work. Let's face it, we know that around here. Everyone talks 
about, ``Oh, yes, we want to be competitive''; ``Oh, yes, let's bring 
in the private sector''; ``Oh, yes, let's run the Government more like 
a business.'' All that is fine except when something really happens and 
you get a chance to do it, you have the people from the States who will 
lose the work suddenly saying, ``This is a bad idea.''
  There is language in this bill that is meant to destroy the 
competition that McClellan Air Force Base in California would offer and 
that Kelly Air Force Base in Texas would offer. They would take that 
work that could go to the private sector at an efficient rate, saving 
the taxpayers money, and instead funnel it to the public depots, the 
Government-owned, fully subsidized depots in Oklahoma, Utah, and 
Georgia.
  It is extraordinary to me that the very same people who were on this 
floor for those States arguing day in and day out for a little private 
sector competition around here are the ones who are undermining the 
chance to have privatization in place at Kelly and McClellan, thereby 
saving taxpayers millions of dollars and saving thousands and thousands 
of jobs.
  I think it is important to note that it is the position of the 
California Senators and the Texas Senators that we don't expect the 
work to be automatically given to McClellan and Kelly just

[[Page S11830]]

because they are privatizing. The DOD will not award work load to Kelly 
and McClellan automatically. Instead, the DOD has insisted that private 
bidders compete with public depots on the basis of quality and cost, 
and that is as it should be.
  In fact, the first public-private competition for work at Kelly was 
won by a public depot. So I don't see how anyone could argue that the 
Senators from California and Texas are rigging the situation to assure 
work to our private companies at those bases.
  But what you have is the Depot Caucus, a coalition of legislators 
from States and districts with public depots, trying to completely 
destroy the ability of McClellan and Kelly to compete. They know that 
without competition, the work currently performed at Kelly and 
McClellan will be directed to their facilities regardless of cost and 
quality. Mr. President, that is not right for this Nation.
  What we had hoped in the conference was that we could reach some kind 
of agreement. Senator Levin worked very hard to try and reach some kind 
of agreement.
  We were very disappointed. We thought we had a compromise that was 
going to work, but, frankly, it became clear to us, as we read the so-
called compromise, that it would not guarantee fairness. It would not 
guarantee a level playing field.
  If anyone has any doubt about it, they ought to look at what the 
Senator from Oklahoma said to his hometown press. He said in the Daily 
Oklahoman: ``It is highly unlikely any contractor would want to bid'' 
on the work at McClellan or Kelly. Even the headline of the paper said, 
``Senators Agree to Provision Giving Tinker Bidding Edge.'' Of course, 
Tinker is a publicly owned depot.
  So what we have here is a Senator from one of the affected States 
saying on the one hand there is a fair compromise on this bill and then 
running home to his hometown press announcing with glee that, in fact, 
Kelly and McClellan would be out in the cold. That is really where it 
is at.
  So we have our colleagues who are saying on the one hand, yes, they 
want to be fair; on the other hand they are saying to Kelly and 
McClellan, you are at that starting point and now you can run with all 
of the public depots, and whoever wins, wins. What they don't tell you 
is that they put the equivalent of a 100-pound ankle weight on the 
people at Kelly and McClellan giving them a huge disadvantage. In fact, 
they are not going to be able to compete for the work.

  There are those who swear that under the current language in the 
bill, the Department of Defense will be able to award some work to 
McClellan and Kelly. We don't hear that from our private sector people. 
They are saying they probably would not be able to bid, which is 
exactly what the Senator from Oklahoma said when he ran home to his 
hometown press to tell the world that, in fact, the language in the 
bill was going to disadvantage the workers at Kelly and McClellan.
  I think it is important not only to listen to what Senators say on 
this floor but to read what they tell their hometown press, if you 
really want to know the truth. I think the Senator from Oklahoma made a 
big mistake by going home and telling everyone he had rigged the deal, 
but he did it, and now the truth is out.
  Mr. President, the Senators from California and Texas do not want an 
unfair advantage. We only want a level playing field and a fair chance 
to compete. Unfortunately, this bill denies fairness to the taxpayers, 
first and foremost, because that is what we are about--quality products 
at the best price. Competition will make that happen. No, we are 
denying them that.
  We remain willing to talk to the other side in an effort to reach a 
fair solution because, frankly, this bill could well be vetoed. This 
bill, the way it is currently written, goes back on a promise that was 
made to thousands of working families in Texas and California.
  I also want to discuss another part of this bill which is very 
objectionable, section 1211, which restricts the export of midrange 
computers. On July 10, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the Grams-
Boxer amendment which required a GAO study on the national security 
impact of the export of computers in the 2,000 to 7,000 MTOPS range to 
tier 3 countries.
  Our amendment was offered as an alternative to a proposal that would 
require U.S. companies seeking to export computers in this range to go 
through a cumbersome and lengthy review and licensing process. The 
Secretary of Defense, the National Security Adviser and the Secretary 
of Commerce all supported the efforts of Senator Grams and myself on 
this matter. Unfortunately, when it got to the conference committee, 
rather than accept the Grams-Boxer amendment, the conferees wrote a 
whole new provision, a nightmare of procedural barriers to the export 
of midrange computers.
  Nobody wants to see computers be exported that are 
supercomputers, computers that in fact could give one country the 
ability to develop weapons of mass destruction.

  But these computers are in the midrange. Why would we restrict the 
export of computers that are made all over the world? We are putting 
our companies through a nightmare of bureaucratic procedures in order 
to export. I am really sad that the bill took this tack because it is 
behind the times and it does not reflect technology.
  We ought to wake up. This is almost the 21st century. The computers 
that are being stopped from export shortly will be the computers in 
every office in the country. So we are putting our computermakers 
through this for no reason at all.
  So, Mr. President, I will vote against this conference report. We 
lost an important skirmish in the committee, but I believe the battle 
is far from over. We will revisit these important issues in the near 
future if this bill is vetoed, which it is my understanding it will be. 
I hope that we can get together, all of us, on both sides of this 
issue, and resolve it.
  So I will vote against this bill because it is unfair. It is unfair 
to workers. It is unfair to taxpayers. And, finally, it has unnecessary 
controls on midrange computers that are so out of date, we are 
disadvantaging our computer companies for no good reason at all.
  Again, in closing, let me say, Mr. President, I look forward to 
sitting down with my colleagues in a new spirit of true compromise. 
There are ways we can resolve these problems. The Senator from Texas, 
Senator Hutchison, has been most dogged in her oversight of this. 
Senator Gramm of Texas, Senator Feinstein, and I, we want to find a 
fair solution. We are ready, willing and able to do that. I hope before 
the week is out, we will find a way to resolve this short of having a 
battle over a veto.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield whatever time I may still 
have to the Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. How much time do we have left on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-five minutes from the original grant.
  Mr. GRAMM. I yield myself 15 minutes and save the 10.
  How much is left on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. About 9 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Nine minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Zero-nine?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Zero-nine, the total of which is, 09 plus the 
25, 34.
  Mr. GRAMM. I want to thank you for the recognition.
  Let me try to go back and explain to people who may have come into 
this debate in the middle what this is all about, why it is so 
important, why four of us have in essence held the Senate up for 7 days 
in considering this bill and why the issue is important to you whether 
or not your State will ever have a private contractor who competes for 
a contract or not.

  Let me go back 3 or 4 years and try to set the whole thing in 
perspective.
  First of all, as we are all painfully aware, we have cut defense 
spending since 1985 by about 35 percent. That has taken a very, very 
heavy toll on maintenance and procurement and modernization. We have 
not correspondingly reduced the overhead of the military. We have more 
nurses in Europe than we have combat infantry officers. We still have a 
bureaucracy that is

[[Page S11831]]

leftover from the cold war. So this 35 percent cut that has been 
implemented since 1985 has had a profound impact on the military.
  That is something that all sides of this dispute agree on.
  Obviously, you would think that with defense being cut by 35 percent, 
with the modernization program being dramatically reduced, with 
operations and maintenance being bled by cuts, and with the President 
spending billions of dollars now on a deployment in Bosnia, that the 
one thing we would all agree on is that we want to spend the money that 
we do have efficiently. You would think that this real tight budget 
that we have would at least produce unanimity that we ought to try to 
spend the money as effectively as we can spend it.
  In one of the most incredible paradoxes that I have observed, exactly 
the opposite is occurring. At the very time when we do not have enough 
money for defense, at the very time that we are not modernizing the 
weapons systems that need to be modernized, at the very time that we 
are not maintaining our equipment, at the very time that recruitment 
and retention in the military is being affected and we are not meeting 
our quality goals in recruitment in the services, at the very time that 
all of those things are happening, rather than pulling together to try 
to get the most we can out of the money that we are spending by having 
more competition, we have exactly the opposite occurring.
  The opposite is occurring because there is a group of Members in the 
House that have an organization called the Depot Caucus. Basically, 
these are House Members who have a military depot in their district. A 
military depot is a Government facility that does defense work, 
principally maintenance.
  What these Congressmen have done is concluded that with declining 
defense work, what they want to do is stop price competition and force 
the taxpayer to do defense maintenance work in their depots. That is 
what this whole issue is about. Now, it has been building for 3 years. 
For 3 years we have had this battle with the Depot Caucus in the House. 
For 3 years they have tried to get language in the defense bill that 
mandates that money be spent inefficiently by limiting competition.
  Finally, this year, after a 3-year knock-down, drag-out fight, they 
have in the bill as it is now printed 12 pages of language that have 
one objective. That one objective is to guarantee, to the extent that 
they could guarantee it, that price competition will not be allowed in 
those areas where we have these defense depots and that defense 
maintenance work will go to these Government facilities. That is 
basically what this issue is about.

  Now, under our current system where we are beginning competitive 
bidding, let me give you one example of what it produced.
  We had competitive bidding for the maintenance of the C-5. That is 
the great big transport plane, for those who do not know what the C-5 
is. It was put up for bids. Interestingly enough, a Government depot 
won the bid. But they bid $190 million less than the costs that we are 
currently performing the work for. How were they able to do it for $190 
million less? They were able to do it for $190 million less because 
they had 500 workers hidden away in their overhead that they were able 
to put doing work on the C-5, and they were able to do the work with 
700 employees rather than the 1,200 that are doing it now.
  Who benefited from that? Well, I guess you could say these 500 people 
who were hidden away in the overhead, maybe they did not benefit. But 
every taxpayer in America benefited because we are doing the same work 
on the same critical weapons system, and we are doing it for $190 
million less.
  What the language of this bill would do, to the extent that they were 
capable of doing it, would be to stop that type of competition from 
occurring and mandate that that work be done in a Government depot, 
even though it might mean $190 million of additional cost to the 
taxpayer.
  Now, what is it that we want? Then I will explain to you why we want 
it.
  What we want is competition. What we want is to give the Defense 
Department the ability to compete this work, which they support. This 
is one of these rare instances where President Clinton and some 
Republicans are on the same side. The President wants to put this work 
out for competitive bidding, and he wants the contracts to go to the 
people who can do it for the smallest amount of money.
  The language of this bill attempts to stop that from happening. Now, 
why are we specifically involved? Well, partly we are involved because 
I care about $190 million on one contract and potentially a couple of 
billion dollars a year--a couple of billion dollars a year--that will 
be squandered if we do not have effective competitive bidding.
  Second, my State is a State that wants to have the opportunity to 
bid. So does California.
  Now, let me digress for a minute and talk about base closings. We 
have had three Base Closing Commissions. I was an original cosponsor of 
the Base Closing Commission bill. I vigorously supported it. I have 
voted for the conclusions of every Base Closing Commission. And every 
one of them has closed a base in my State.

  Did I like it? No. I hated it. Did I think you should close bases in 
other States where their Senators were not as supportive of defense as 
Senator Hutchison and I are? Yes. That would have been eminently fair 
and reasonable in my mind and would have probably been good for the 
country.
  But the point is, I am committed to the process of closing bases. I 
could not very well say, when the commission decided to close them in 
my State, that I am for closing them in Massachusetts; I am just not 
for closing them in Texas. Well, when we committed to a technical 
process, I supported it.
  Now, when the decision was made to close Kelly Air Force Base in 
Texas and McClellan Air Force base in California, we were in the midst 
of a Presidential campaign. So is anybody surprised that the most 
talented politician of our era, Bill Clinton, jumped right in the 
middle of it with both feet up to his eyeballs? I was not surprised. 
Nor is there any Member of the Senate that in similar circumstances 
would not have done exactly what Bill Clinton did and probably more.
  What did Bill Clinton do? He came to Texas. He went to California. We 
are the two largest States in the Union. I do not need to explain to 
people how the electoral college works in electing Presidents. And he 
stood there, tears welling in his eyes, and talked about feeling our 
pain.
  He did not go so far as to lay down in front of the bulldozers, and 
just as they were getting ready to grind him into dust, to have his 
faithful staff run in and pull him out, him shouting that he wanted to 
die rather than see it happen. He did not go quite that far, but he was 
very effective.
  For our colleagues who say, ``Well, the President played politics,'' 
he played it very effectively. And any one of us would have. But the 
point is, he did not do anything. The Base Closing Commission report 
said that one of the options that was available to the Air Force--they 
wrote it out in the Base Closing Commission report--was to put the work 
up for competitive bids. And if private contractors could come into the 
empty facility that would no longer be an Air Force base in Texas, 
would no longer be an Air Force base in California, if they could 
compete for the work and win it, they would get it.
  The President, of course, wanting the electoral votes of Texas and 
California, thought this was just one great idea. And he talked about 
it. He was supportive of it. And he was effective at it. But the point 
is, the Base Closing Commission made the decision. And now the Pentagon 
is trying to carry it out. Now some of our colleagues say, well, 
because the President gave a political speech in Texas or California, 
somehow he tainted the whole process.
  That, Mr. President, is not borne out by the facts. The Base Closing 
Commission report specifically set out the option of competitive 
bidding.
  We have had our first competitive bid, saving $190 million. 
Interestingly enough, a depot, a Government facility, won the bid by 
taking 500 workers out of featherbedding and by putting them on the 
project, and everybody benefited $190 million.
  Now, what our colleagues are trying to do is to come in and say that 
has to stop, that we cannot let contracts on any competitive basis 
until all these conditions are met with regard to

[[Page S11832]]

using these Government facilities, and they have 12 pages of all of 
these conditions, which boil down to no competition.
  In trying to reach a compromise, in working with the Pentagon and the 
White House, we came up with four simple changes that we said, if you 
will make these four simple changes, we will swallow hard and we will 
take this bad language. What were the changes? No. 1, was for 
commercial items. Those are items that are sold on the general economy; 
for example, maintaining the engine that is used on airliners. 
Obviously, airlines maintain their own engines. They are very efficient 
at it and can do it much cheaper than the Government can do it. So the 
Pentagon said don't force us to do routine maintenance on things in 
defense depots that are used by the private sector. Let us 
competitively bid it, and airlines will compete. We might save 40 or 50 
percent on bids. That is the first thing they wanted. Those who are for 
this language say, no, we don't want American Airlines to maintain the 
same engines they maintain. We want the Government to do it.
  The second thing we asked for was the change of one word. It is a 
very important word. It is complicated, but the principle is very 
simple. The principle is that our colleagues tried to write into the 
bill language to ``ensure the full utilization'' of all of these 
Government depots. The problem is, if you are forced to fully utilize 
them, then you can't have competitive bidding because there is not that 
much work. What the Defense Department wanted to do, they were willing 
to commit to promote the utilization of them, to try to utilize them, 
but they wanted to have the ability to engage in competitive bidding. 
So they asked that we substitute ``promote'' for ``ensure.'' They asked 
when you are going to have public-private teaming on these bids, they 
at least have an opportunity to figure out how they could keep 
Government facilities from hiding costs to balance the bidding process.
  Finally, they wanted the ability to take into account cost and 
performance risk in these competitive bids. The answer on all of these 
things was ``no.''
  So what is the issue that is before the Senate? The issue that is 
before the Senate is, in a defense budget that is inadequate, in a 
defense budget that is bleeding modernization and maintenance, should 
we have 12 pages of language that attempts to preclude competitive 
bidding that could save billions of dollars for the taxpayer, could 
allow us to improve pay and benefits, that could help us recruit and 
retain the finest young men and women who have ever worn the uniform of 
the country, savings that could help us procure miracle weapons that 
could protect American lives in the future, and that could maintain the 
quality maintenance of our equipment and the training of our people? Or 
should we forgo those savings and simply guarantee Government depots a 
monopoly, for all practical purposes, on doing this work? That is the 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 18 minutes. There are 16 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRAMM. Those of us who oppose this bill say we want competition. 
That competition is critically important.
  We have asked and the President has committed to veto this bill. He 
is going to veto this bill because it is anticompetitive, because it 
cheats the taxpayer, because it cheats the men and women who wear the 
uniform of this country by squandering money that could go to improve 
the operation and maintenance of their equipment, to modernize their 
equipment and to provide pay and benefits that would keep the best and 
the brightest in the service. So that is what this issue is about. It 
is about competition. This is a debate that has been building for 3 
years. Every year we have had this cry that really boils down to this: 
Defense is being cut and so Government depots have a right to be 
monopolists on this defense work. Even if it costs more, even if 
billions of dollars could be saved, they have a right to it. What we 
have done in this bill, I am sad to say, is we have turned defense into 
welfare. At the very time when we need efficiency and economy, we are 
denying it in the name of protecting special interests. I think it is 
fundamentally wrong.
  Now, I don't deny that competition would benefit my State because we 
have facilities that private contractors would like to use to bid. But 
the point is they can't get the work if they don't do it cheaper and if 
they don't do it better. What we want is competition. That is what we 
have fought for.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of my time to the 
control of the two Senators from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to be notified when 5 minutes 
have expired.
  I understand well the consternation of my good friends from Texas and 
California. My State of Utah has been there, too. We have suffered no 
less a proportionate loss of jobs and installations from the past Base 
Closing Commissions. The great difference here is we are a small State 
with just five electoral votes.
  The conference measure gives California and Texas, vote-rich States, 
something that Utah and other States never had, a second chance at life 
through a Presidential circumvention of the very BRAC process that the 
President himself previously enthusiastically supported.
  My friends from Texas and California had several months to work out a 
compromise. Under the threat of Presidential veto and Senate 
filibuster, the Armed Services Committee and the Senators and staff 
from such States as Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, 
Oklahoma, and Utah, among others, the so-called depot States or depot 
caucus States, which included Texas and California on other issues, 
have accommodated our friends. We could not be more sympathetic to 
their losses, which, after all, involve real people and families. As I 
said earlier, we have all been there.
  But we have given them just about everything they want, even though--
I repeat, even though--what we give them we do in a zero-sum sense. 
That is because we are giving up something that our people won and 
earned from the BRAC process and must now share. Our generosity in this 
sense goes beyond mere fairness and magnanimity. It is closer to 
sacrifice.
  Let me tick off some of the sacrifices.
  We allow competition for work that was originally designated for our 
depots by BRAC.
  We allow the Air Force's tier I depot, Hill Air Force Base, which has 
the highest military value, to bid for something rightfully owed to 
Hill, against McClellan Air Force Base, a tier III depot, or an 
installation with the lowest military value, according to Air Force 
assessments.
  We allow these same tier III depots to bid to keep the work there 
despite the $400 to $700 million higher cost to the taxpayers that the 
GAO and the Air Force have identified.
  Mr. President, that is sacrifice. But I say enough is enough. It is 
one thing for us to squawk and scream at each other on the floor of the 
Senate. We need to move ahead now and address this matter in the way it 
should be addressed.
  Hill Air Force Base also hosts two Air Combat Command air tactical 
fighter wings, one of which is an Air Force Reserve unit. These units 
are rotating to fulfill this Nation's peacekeeping missions in the 
Middle East and in Bosnia.
  What does that mean to us here today? Military persons are required 
to put the mission before all else: personal well-being and safety, 
family, and virtually everything else that matters. So important is 
this commitment that we have constructed a separate body of law called 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which allows military and 
civilian authorities to enforce and defend, where necessary, the 
obligation of self-sacrifice. Cowardice or desertion in the face of the 
enemy, for example, carries severe penalties.
  Having imposed such heavy obligations on the courageous men and women 
of our Armed Forces, we now find ourselves delaying the availability of 
the equipment and means they need urgently to execute their missions.
  So this bill needs to pass. We should not hold up the $93.8 billion 
for operations and maintenance, which is to say troop training and 
equipment

[[Page S11833]]

maintenance. We don't want to deny a pay raise of 2.8 percent for these 
folks in the military who need it so badly at a time when highly 
trained air crews are leaving at alarming rates. We don't want to deny 
bonuses based on years of service and skills or delay the 
implementation of studies to correct deeply rooted gender 
discrimination and abuses.
  Improvements of family housing, which is sometimes so awful I wince 
at some, we don't want to delay that.
  The President's request for $2.1 billion to move ahead on the F-22 
program, the airplane to replace the F-15C, the work horse of the Air 
Force fleet, we don't want to delay that.
  I could go on and on. I believe my point is made. We in Utah made our 
sacrifices. We shouldn't have to make these sacrifices. The President 
should have lived up to BRAC to begin with.
  Delaying this bill means increased risk for military persons putting 
their lives on the line:
  We are holding up $93.8 billion for operations and maintenance, which 
is to say troop training and equipment maintenance.
  We are denying them a pay raise of 2.8 percent.
  At a time when highly trained air crews are leaving the services at 
alarming rates, we are denying bonuses based on years of service and 
skill levels.
  We are delaying the implementation of studies to correct deeply 
rooted gender discrimination and abuses.
  Improvements in family housing, which is sometimes so awful I wince 
in shame, are delayed.
  The President's request for $2.1 billion to move ahead on the F-22 
program, the airplane that will replace the F-15C, the work horse of 
the Air Force fleet, will also be delayed.
  Mr. President, I can appreciate that my good friends from Texas and 
California want to protect the interests of their States. But, they 
want to change the rules of the game after they've lost in fair play.
  To help us make the really tough decisions about base closures, we 
created the BRAC process. We--Congress--created this mechanism to 
decide what bases to close and which to keep open.
  Congress itself selected several of the BRAC Commissioners; and, I 
heard no grievances about the criteria used by the Commission to make 
its recommendations. The process enjoyed the support of Congress and 
the administration. And, I believe that it has been managed by fair-
minded men and women and staffed by nonpartisan, skilled analysts. It 
is probably about as objective a decisionmaking process as you are 
going to get.
  During the BRAC 95 round, it was determined that Kelly and McClellan 
should be closed. I can understand why my colleagues from Texas and 
California are not happy about that--I was not happy when previous BRAC 
rounds put Tooele Army Depot and Defense Depot Ogden on the closure 
list.
  But, so far, those of us who represent States that have lost bases 
because of BRAC have not tried to jury-rig a method for keeping Federal 
dollars coming to a base on the closure list.
  The Clinton administration has inexcusably tampered with this 
process. In proposing privatization in place, the Clinton 
administration put electoral politics ahead of the integrity of the 
BRAC process, weakening the investment value of already shrinking 
defense dollars.
  No one has greater cause for protest on this floor than my colleague 
from Utah and myself. Utah, along with Oklahoma and Georgia, have been 
made the real victims of the President's tampering with this process.
  In the case of Utah, the administration's original proposal would 
have starved Hill Air Force Base of the work needed to maintain its own 
efficiency.
  The Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill AFB is rated by the Air Force 
as its No. 1 depot. It received a tier I rating, meaning it has the 
highest military value. By contrast, Kelly and McClellan were rated as 
tier III installations, those having the lowest military value.
  The original changes to BRAC proposed by the President could have 
been made only by dismissing merit as a criteria. It is no different 
than telling a grade school student that, although he or she is the top 
academic performer in the class, the honors will go to a less 
proficient teacher's pet.
  It is no wonder that the workers at these depots are offended by this 
message. The American Federation of Government Employees [AFGE] has 
vigorously opposed privatization in place --not just because private 
contractors would be allowed to take over work, but also because the 
quality of their work and the dedication of their members to America's 
defense has been given such short shrift.
  Nevertheless, Mr. President, Utah has a proud legacy of strength in 
adversity. The great majority of Utahns are descended from pioneers who 
pulled handcarts halfway across America. Utahns came together with 
ideas and resources and determination to overcome defense losses. We 
have long since absorbed the more than 5,000 jobs that previous BRAC's 
and DOD downsizing have cost us. Our losses are just about 
proportionate to those experienced by defense closures in Texas and 
California, considering the relatively smaller size of our workforce.
  But, I would like to point out that Utahns were working without a 
net. A net that the Clinton administration has graciously--but without 
justification, in my opinion--provided to Texas and California in this 
latest BRAC round.
  But, now let's talk about the compromise adopted by the Armed 
Services Committee in this legislation.
  First of all, as my remarks would indicate, I am strongly opposed to 
this sleight of hand known as privatization in place. I simply do not 
see that Federal dollars to contractors to perform the same work done 
by Kelly and McClellan--and which should have been redistributed to 
Hill, Warner-Robins, and Tinker--is a savings. Instead of 
consolidating, all that is achieved with this policy is maintained 
excess capacity. GAO reported that this concept would actually cost 
$468 million per year.
  Instead of five depots with excess capacity, we now have three depots 
and private contractors at Kelly and McClellan. This effectively locks 
in excess capacity at the three remaining depots and would sign their 
eventual death warrant.
  Let's be clear about one thing: This conference report does not 
repudiate privatization in place. It does not consolidate workload. 
Score a big one for President Clinton and for my Texas and California 
colleagues.

  But, though I would cheerfully chuck this whole concept, I can accept 
the compromise plan developed by the conferees. The provisions in the 
conference report at least allow fair competition for the maintenance 
work and will not stack the deck against Utah and the other similarly 
affected States.
  In my view, Utahns can compete with anyone. Our work force, our 
technology, our efficient State and local governments, and our 
cooperative spirit have been staples of the Utah economy.
  Some of the fruits of that spirit are the facts that:
  Salt Lake City was selected--after one of the toughest competitions 
you can imagine--to host the Winter Olympic Games in the year 2002;
  Business Week has called Utah the software valley of the world;
  Utah has the highest educational level in the country, according to 
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics;
  We are ranked second in the Nation in job creation;
  We are second in economic growth, which for 1997 is estimated at 6.9 
percent. This is well above the 2.5 percent average economic growth 
rate for all States, according to the U.S. Labor Department;
  Despite our small size and being an insular State, 17 percent of the 
adult population speak a foreign language, many fluently. Utah is the 
site of the Army's only linguist brigade, a reserve unit that in 
wartime will bring forward nearly 3,000 accomplished speakers of more 
than 20 languages. And, I might mention that the city of Provo, UT, 
beat out New York City and Los Angeles as the site selected by the Army 
to locate this unit.
  These achievements do not entitle my State to anything. There should 
never be any guarantees--no free passes. But, this exemplary track 
record does mean Utah has earned the chance to compete fairly, without 
having to play by rules that do not apply to others.
  The Air Force knows the value of Utah well. The BRAC Commissioners

[[Page S11834]]

learned it quickly. And the workers from Kelly and McClellan 
understandably wanted to share it.
  Utah's military value is unmatched. Our former colleague, Senator 
Jake Garn, fostered its development as a defense technology mecca. 
Former Governor Norm Bangerter added 20,000 aerospace jobs to the State 
during his tenure, which ended in 1992. Today, Congressman Jim Hansen, 
a longtime member of the House National Security Committee, has led the 
effort to sustain the high quality of Utah's defense installations.
  Mr. President, Utah has made a commitment to national defense. I am 
in no way questioning the motivation of others who have enjoined this 
debate; but, the level of investment and record of excellence exhibited 
by Hill, Warner-Robins, and Tinker, is a reason for making sure that 
the Federal Government conducts a fair competition.
  This conference report sets the stage for an acceptable process of 
fair competition. I expect that the Clinton administration will 
judiciously carry it out, and I will, of course, be following the 
implementation of these competitions closely.
  We have crafted a compromise that goes beyond mere equity and 
fairness. Utah, Oklahoma, and Georgia, after all, are directed to give 
up something they've earned--which is the right to perform the work 
BRAC stated they should have. That is an indisputable fact.
  And, perhaps this is a good time to remind my colleagues who do not 
believe that they have a dog in this fight that, if the rules can be 
changed to put Utah, Georgia, and Oklahoma at a competitive 
disadvantage, they can be changed to put your State at a disadvantage 
as well. Tampering with the BRAC process is a slippery slope.
  Back in July, I questioned Air Force Deputy Secretary Rudy DeLeon 
regarding several competition procedures. I ask unanimous consent to 
enter these questions and his responses for the Record, Mr. President.
  I accept Mr. DeLeon's responses as commitments by the Air Force. I am 
pleased that these commitments have been incorporated in principle or 
in explicit language in the depot provisions of the bill.
  The only exception regards the protest rights of the bidders. Under 
the President's original plan, public depot bidders, like Utah's Hill 
and Oklahoma's Tinker, would have been denied the normal rights of 
protest available to private bidders. Under the conference agreement, 
any public depot-private contractor team could pursue a protest through 
the inherent rights available to the private team member.
  In closing, Mr. President, I want to say that I intend to audit, 
oversee, and examine the details of each competition in the most minute 
detail. I will insist not only on compliance with the letter of every 
appropriate competition statute and regulation, but also with the 
nonstatutory language and other administration commitments found 
elsewhere in the legislative history of this debate. The danger of 
compromise is that those who implement it have the ability to spin 
things their own way.
  Members of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committee have 
invested significant blood and sweat on this issue. I appreciate the 
extraordinary effort by Senators Thurmond, Warner, and Levin. I also 
want to acknowledge the assistance of Senator Lott. Every now and then 
we needed a referee, and he was a fair one. At the end of the day, I 
believe we have come up with a compromise that is workable, and I have 
every expectation that the President will agree.
  It has also been a pleasure working with my colleagues from Oklahoma 
and Georgia, and, of course, my partner from Utah, Bob Bennett.
  Last, but not least, I want to thank my colleague, the senior Utahn 
in the House, Congressman Jim Hansen. Jim fought his guts out to make 
sure that Hill Air Force Base has a fair chance. And, I don't think 
this issue could have been as successfully resolved without his work in 
the other body.
  Mr. President, I believe we have reached a satisfactory resolution of 
this thorny issue. I urge all Senators to support it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent questions and answers in the 
Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Question for the Record, Senate Armed Services Committee Confirmation 
                         Hearing--July 17, 1997

       Question A1. Senator Hatch. Contract term. Why was a 5-year 
     contract with three option years selected? Is this a 
     customary period for such workload contracts? What are the 
     criteria for determining whether 3 plus year extensions to 
     contract performance will be granted?
       Answer. Mr. De Leon. The contract period of performance is 
     a critical decision in the acquisition strategy process and 
     is based on factors peculiar to the particular acquisition. 
     The contract needs to run long enough to attract serious 
     bidders and bids favorable to the government. A contract 
     shorter than 5 years would likely fail to provide sufficient 
     time for bidders to recover their initial investment expenses 
     and realize cost savings. In other depot maintenance and 
     contractor logistics support contracts the Air Force has used 
     five year periods. Over the past 5 years the Air Force has 
     found it cost effective and beneficial to write contracts for 
     10 or even 15 years, basic contract and options combined. For 
     example, many contractor logistic support contracts, such as 
     JPATS, C-12 and C-21, run 10 or 15 years. Additionally, the 
     Arnold Engineering and Development Center contract is a 5 
     year basic with a 3 year option. With options, the government 
     always has the flexibility to not exercise the option(s) in 
     order to recompete the work if the incumbent is not 
     performing satisfactorily.
       The inclusion of options (three, one-year extensions to 
     contract performance) under an innovative ``award term'' 
     approach is being considered for the workloads at McClellan 
     to provide additional incentives to the winner to deliver 
     cost-effective, reliable products to the customers. In the 
     case of award term, continuation of the contract is awarded 
     for exceptional performance. This type of approach is 
     designed to incentivize the winning competitor to lower costs 
     and provide exceptional performance to the Air Force.
       Question A2. Senator Hatch. Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ). 
     The BEQ for the KC-135 aircraft is offered at 35-40 annually. 
     What is the current rate of serviceable KC-135s entering 
     depot level maintenance annually? If the current number is 
     smaller, how does the Air Force plan to raise the number to 
     the RFP BEQ?
       Answer. Mr. De Leon. The draft request for proposal (RFP) 
     contains two separate pricing schedules for KC-135 
     maintenance. The first schedule is based on an annual BEQ of 
     15 aircraft, and an aggregate BEQ of 75 aircraft over the 
     period of performance. The second potential schedule is based 
     on an annual BEQ of 35 with an aggregate BEQ of 175 aircraft 
     over the period of performance. The final RFP will contain 
     only one of these pricing schedules. The determination of the 
     schedule for the final RFP will be based on the best estimate 
     quantity at that time.
       Recent trends show 100 KC-135s inducted for programmed 
     depot maintenance in FY96, 77 expected in FY97, and 83 
     projected for FY98. These include inductions to all sources 
     (OC-ALC, SM-ALC, and contract). The Air Force is considering 
     the higher quantity to allow for the cost savings derived 
     from economies of scale.
       The current total inductions of KC-135 aircraft are well 
     above the contemplated BEQs.
       Question A3. Senator Hatch. Twenty-five percent cost 
     savings. It is my understanding that the Air Force 
     anticipates a 25-percent cost savings during the first five 
     years of the contract. How was that number calculated?
       Answer. Mr. De Leon. The Air Force believes the best 
     opportunity for savings can be achieved through a fair 
     public/private competition. Since the competitions are not 
     yet completed, the Air Force cannot, at this time, be sure 
     what the savings outcome will be; however, the Air Force 
     anticipates that it will be significant.
       Question A4. Senator Hatch. Excess capacity costs. GAO 
     estimates that the Air Force cannot achieve cost savings from 
     excess capacity that will remain under the current 
     privatization-in-place concept. The audit agency reports that 
     higher prices can only result. How do you respond to GAO on 
     this matter?
       Answer. Mr. De Leon. The Air Force is not privatizing in 
     place but rather, conducting public/private competitions. 
     Under these competitions, the public and private bids will be 
     evaluated to ensure that any potential consolidation savings 
     and resulting recurring and one-time costs are carefully 
     considered in the decision process. This includes considering 
     capabilities, risks, costs and savings in evaluation of both 
     the public and private bids. Along with public/private 
     competitions, the Air Force will look at eliminating excess 
     capacity using strategies such as transferring workload, 
     partnering with industry, and reducing infrastructure.
       Question A5. Senator Hatch. Transition costs. My 
     interpretation of the section on transition costs in the 
     December 1996 Public Private Competition documents 
     [hereafter: ``PPC''], and page 32, secs. a-b specifically, 
     tells me that the public bidder must show adjustments for 
     such personnel costs as severance pay, relocation, VERA/VSIP, 
     etc. Yet, I believe these costs are covered by 
     congressionally appropriated funds under BRAC. How does the 
     private bidder account for these costs in its bid submission?

[[Page S11835]]

       Answer. Mr. De Leon. The intent of the language on 
     transition costs in the December 1996 PPC documents was to 
     have the public and private bidders provide a list of all of 
     the transition costs included in their proposals. This would 
     allow the cost proposal evaluation team to determine whether 
     all appropriate transition costs were captured and, if not, 
     make the necessary adjustment. For cost comparison purposes, 
     the Air Force did not need to distinguish between BRAC and 
     non-BRAC funded costs since they are both included.
       Question A6. Senator Hatch. Depot facilitization and 
     upgrade costs. What is the comparable state of the depot 
     facilities at Ogden and Sacramento--more specifically: what 
     improvements have been made to each depot, at what aggregate 
     cost, over the past five years? In addition, please comment 
     on the following related topics:
       a. Do both public and private bidders account for personal 
     and real property (equipment and facilities) over the 
     contract term?
       b. If the question at sub-sec. 6a is answered in the 
     negative, how does the competition comply with policy (DOD 
     7000.14R) and cost accounting standards which seem to require 
     identical treatment of depreciation by both classes of 
     bidders?
       Answer. Mr. De Leon. Capital investments in facilities, 
     equipment and other infrastructure have been made in planned 
     modernization strategies by McClellan and Ogden to perform 
     their designated mission workloads. New facilities are 
     acquired and maintained through the MILCON, minor 
     construction, and Real Property Maintenance (RPM) programs. 
     Capital equipment is replaced, added, and upgraded through 
     the Capital Purchase Program (CPP).
       For FY90-96 (projected end of year), investments for these 
     two bases include the following:

                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    McClellan    Ogden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILCON............................................      38.75       25.9
RPM...............................................       41.3       45.8
CPP...............................................       49.3       57.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (a) In the case where equipment and facilities are 
     purchased or acquired for the proposed workload and would not 
     otherwise have been purchased or acquired, both public and 
     private bidders will account for such assets over the 
     contract period of performance.
       (b) N/A
       Question B1. Senator Hatch. Rights of protest. Do public 
     and private bidders have identical rights of protest? If not 
     why not?
       Answer. Mr. De Leon. No, public and private parties do not 
     have identical rights, primarily as a result of statutory 
     provisions of law relating to bid protests.
       Question B2. Senator Hatch. Personal property rights. My 
     interpretation of 32 CFR Part 91.7, para. (h)(5)(l) and (v), 
     and 10 USC 2687 suggests that a successful public bidder may 
     acquire personal property such as equipment, from Kelly or 
     McClellan where such property is required for the operation 
     of a unit, component weapon, or weapon system transferring to 
     the successor public depot as a consequence or outcome of 
     competition or realignment. These rights, I believe, also 
     accrue to the successful public bidder where the property 
     meets the needs of an authorized program and which would 
     otherwise require the government to expend monies to acquire 
     similar equipment if the transfer was not made.
       Do you dispute this interpretation?
       Answer. Mr. De Leon. I agree that under 32 CFR Part 91.7 
     (now 175.7) if personal property at Kelly or McClellan is 
     required for the operation of a depot function transferring 
     from one of those bases to another public depot as a result 
     of the public-private competition, then such property may be 
     transferred to the successor public depot. August 1996 Air 
     Force guidance explicitly provides that ``if another DoD 
     depot wins a depot maintenance competition, or limits of 
     federal statutes require certain depot maintenance workloads 
     remain under governmental control, then the associated 
     personal property will be transferred as required.'' In 
     addition, the regulation provides that personal property may 
     be removed from the installation when ``the property meets 
     known requirements of an authorized program of another 
     federal department or agency that would have to purchase 
     similar items. . . .'' These regulations are fully consistent 
     with the statutory provisions in the GRAC Act, 
     Sec. 2905(b)(3)(E), set out as a note to 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687.
       Question C. Senator Hatch. It is my understanding that the 
     Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) activity has been 
     restricted to the compilation and submission of bids to the 
     Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC). The Source 
     Selection Authority (SSA), however, will be situated within 
     the Air Force secretariat. I appreciate the foresight 
     demonstrated by the Air Force in restricting the Air 
     Logistics Command acquisition authorities from award making. 
     However, what assurances does Congress have that the SSA will 
     not submit to political influences that could distort a truly 
     merit-based award?
       Answer. Mr. De Leon. The policies and procedures that were 
     developed and published in ``AFMC Procedures for Depot Level 
     Public/Private Competition'' addressed the roles, 
     relationships and responsibilities to ensure a level playing 
     field and a merit-based award. This was further augmented by 
     the Cost Comparability Handbook which provides standardized 
     procedures and techniques to ensure cost comparability when 
     competing depot maintenance workloads. The Source Selection 
     Authority is a career civilian who over the past 28 years has 
     been the source selection authority on many critical 
     programs, including most recently the Space Based Infrared 
     Radar System, Airborne Laser, Joint Directed Attack 
     Munitions. The SSA chaired the source selection advisory 
     council for the Joint Strike Fighter, the Evolved Expendable 
     Launch Vehicle, and the Joint Air to Surface Stand-off 
     Missile. The SSA has an impeccable record of integrity and 
     objectivity.

  Mr. BENNETT. I thank my colleague for his summary of the circumstance 
with relation to Hill Air Force Base. I want to take my 5 minutes and 
refer to the arguments made on the floor.
  We have heard that the bill as currently constituted contains 32 
pages of anticompetitive language. I challenge that, Mr. President. I 
believe it contains 32 pages of rules by which the competition will 
occur.
  Do we refer to rules as anticompetitive when they establish the 
framework in which a competition will happen? I will take a sports 
analogy. Is it anticompetitive when there is a referee on the floor 
that prevents one player from fouling another in a basketball game? If 
I have a team filled with very rough players, I consider that 
anticompetitive. But if the purpose of the game is something other than 
to beat each other up, but to score baskets in the form of the rules of 
the game, the existence of the referee and, yes, the rule book which 
runs for more than 32 pages, in fact, enhances competition rather than 
cuts it down.
  Mr. President, 32 pages of oversight language. I must report my own 
experience with this issue. We have only one set of numbers before us 
as a Congress as to what happens with privatization in place, and those 
are the numbers that come from the GAO. The GAO says if you proceed 
with privatization in place, it will cost the taxpayers over half a 
billion. That is not right, says the Air Force, nowhere near, we will 
save money with competition. I said, fine, give me the numbers. ``We 
don't have any numbers. We just know we will save money.'' I had Sheila 
Widnall, the Secretary of the Air Force, in my office. I asked for 
numbers. She refused to give me any and just said, ``We will save 
money. GAO is wrong.'' If GAO was wrong, give me specifics. No, the Air 
Force said, we won't give you specifics. Just trust us that they are 
wrong.
  General Babbitt was put forward as the general who would command this 
activity. I held up his nomination until he came to my office. I said, 
``General, you are undoubtedly qualified for this. I will let you go 
forward. But there is something I want from you before I will let you 
go forward.'' He said, ``What is that?'' I said, ``I want you to agree 
to give us the numbers. If indeed you can improve that privatization-
in-place will save taxpayers dollars, you ought to be able to prove 
that with numbers rather than rhetoric. If you have those numbers I 
want you to be willing to share them with the Congress.'' He looked at 
me and said, ``Why, of course, Senator, we will be happy to share those 
numbers.'' I said, ``General, you are the first person in the Air Force 
ever to agree to do that.''
  That is all we are asking for, a little sunshine here, not quite so 
much rhetoric and not so much ``trust me,'' a little sunshine, a little 
oversight, a little understanding. So in these 32 pages that have been 
attacked, there are requirements that the Air Force tell the Congress 
how much money they are spending, how much money, presumably, they are 
saving and how they are following the rules, and then have those 
numbers reviewed by the GAO.

  Is this so anticompetitive, if you are saving the taxpayers millions 
or hundreds of millions of dollars, that you are willing to share the 
information? I don't think it is anticompetitive at all. I think, 
again, it is like the rule book in a basketball game that says: These 
are the rules and there will be a referee to enforce them. The rules 
are fairly voluminous, but the end result of the rules is that you have 
a game that works.
  We have been told again and again, ``no, we believe in competition.'' 
I believe in competition. But I believe in competition in the open. I 
believe in competition where the information is available, particularly 
to the policymakers in the Congress.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that this bill passes. I hope the President 
signs it because I think we can pass it by a

[[Page S11836]]

wide enough margin to send a veto-proof message to the White House, and 
I hope when it's over, we will then, by virtue of the language that has 
been added to the bill on the depot issue, as a Congress, be able to 
see what is done, be able to understand what is done and, if at that 
time they come back and say we would save the taxpayers this much 
money, and they get specific with numbers, I am perfectly willing to 
have them spend that money on privatization in place. But I am not, Mr. 
President, willing to accept a ``trust me'' attitude, given the history 
of the Air Force's unwillingness to talk to us on this issue up to this 
point.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains of my 30 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want this record to reflect my 
disappointment with the levels authorized in this bill for the National 
Guard.
  Since the end of the cold war, we have undertaken the most massive 
restructuring of our military forces since the end of World War II.
  The cornerstone of these initiatives has been greater reliance on the 
National Guard and Reserves to meet both day-to-day and major crisis 
military requirements.
  Sadly, the bill before the Senate retreats from, and does damage to, 
the expanded role for the Guard.
  This year, tens of thousands of Guard and Reserve personnel have been 
deployed to Bosnia, Haiti, Southwest Asia, Central America, and Korea.
  By the account of every regional commander in chief, they have 
performed these duties with a level of professionalism and excellence 
indistinguishable from the Active Force. They are simply that good.
  Their performance in the field merits the total support of the House 
and Senate.
  The Guard and Reserve comprise 38 percent of the total force. 
However, funding for these components in this bill equates to only 8 
percent of the total funding for the Department of Defense.
  The cost of forces in the Guard and Reserve is less per capita--
significantly less than the active components.
  But 38 percent of the force deserves more than 8 percent of the 
available funding. The Guard needs modern, new equipment. They need 
training--particularly flying hours and adequate maintenance money for 
tanks, trucks, and other vehicles.
  They need ammunition and travel money. They need the funding to 
continue to be fully ready to deploy.
  This bill does real damage to the force structure, readiness, and 
morale of our National Guard.
  Fortunately, the Defense appropriations bill passed by the Senate 
last month does provide the increased funding for the Guard.
  The Defense appropriations and military construction bills achieved a 
real bipartisan consensus in support of the National Guard.
  We carefully reviewed the needs identified by the National Guard and 
Reserves.
  We allocated funding to meet their most urgent personnel, readiness, 
and modernization priorities.
  The National Guard and Reserves cannot be asked to take on more 
missions, more deployments, and more responsibility without the support 
of Congress. This bill fails that test.
  The levels authorized in this bill would require a 5,000 personnel 
reduction in the Army National Guard.
  This bill authorizes $108 million less in the vital Army Guard 
Operation and maintenance account that was appropriated by the Congress 
and signed by the President for 1998.
  This bill reduces funding for the Air National Guard by almost $14 
million.
  I regret that on the levels provided for the National Guard there are 
these differences between the 1998 authorization and appropriations 
bills. I do not regret the actions we took in the appropriations bill, 
which provided greater support for the National Guard.
  Even that was not enough. Our committee deserves to be criticized 
also for not having provided even more. But this bill means we can't 
spend the money we have already appropriated.
  There are other differences between our two bills--especially in the 
procurement and research and development accounts.
  Our committee worked hard to pass an appropriations bill early that 
incorporates the Department's and the Senate's priorities.
  We attempted, as much as possible, to follow the authorization bill 
that passed the Senate. When the Defense authorization bill undercuts 
these accounts and programs, it causes great concern within the 
Department of Defense.
  They will be asked by the Armed Services Committee not to spend the 
money as it was intended by the appropriations bill--and DoD cannot 
spend the money for items in this authorization bill for funds were not 
appropriated in the bills that were already passed.
  The funding could has been allocated more effectively. This does not 
serve the institution well.
  A further blow against the position taken by the Senate in support of 
the National Guard was the rejection of the increased rank and role for 
the next chief of the National Guard.
  Forty-nine Senators cosponsored this effort on a total bipartisan 
basis.
  Instead, this conference report creates two new advisory positions 
for the National Guard and Reserves.
  The National Guard already has a chief and two very capable 
directors--it does not need additional advisers.
  This legislation is, in fact, a step backward for the National Guard 
and Reserves, and they do not endorse or support this approach.
  I want to assure the Senate, and our friends in the National Guard, 
that we will be back next year--this matter is not closed, as far as 
this Senator is concerned.
  The men and women of the Armed Forces deserve, and should receive, 
the pay raise funded in the Defense appropriations bill that is 
authorized in this legislation. They must have that.
  The military construction projects appropriated for 1998 will be 
stalled unless we pass the bill.
  Incidentally, 38 of the projects in the military construction bill, 
line-itemed by the President, are in this bill. All 38 of them are 
authorized by this bill, and the House will soon send us a bill to ask 
the President to reconsider the line-item veto of each of those 38 
projects.
  So, I am not asking the Senate to defeat the bill. I do urge others 
to speak up and to commit to readdress these significant Guard and 
Reserve component issues next year.
  It is with great regret, however, that I announce to the Senate I 
will not vote for this conference report. It will be the first 
conference report on a Defense authorization bill that I have not voted 
for in 29 years. I feel very strongly about this. That is why I want to 
make it a matter of record. I don't intend to support an authorization 
bill again until we do address the problem of the readiness account and 
the status of the National Guard in the defense structure.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me begin by congratulating the Senate 
Armed Services Committee for completing their work on the National 
Defense Authorization Act conference report for fiscal year 1998. 
Nevertheless, I'm very disappointed that the conference committee was 
unable to agree on the amendment by Senator Stevens, and 49 of his 
colleagues, to make the Director of the National Guard Bureau a four-
star general and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  When I spoke before the Reserve Forces Policy Board back in 
September, I began my speech talking about Union general, ``fighting 
Phil Sheridan.'' Sheridan didn't strike people as having the stature of 
a war hero. He was a bit on the short side. Yet at the head of the 
cavalry, he was an invaluable leader, helping General Grant win many 
key battles during the Civil War. His battlefield successes led Abraham 
Lincoln to joke that at the beginning of the war he thought a cavalry 
man had to be 6'4". ``But now,'' he said, ``I've seen 5'4" will do 
``just fine'' in a pinch.
  I tell that story because all too often the National Guard is being 
dismissed out of hand for being nothing more than ``weekend warriors.'' 
But after seeing their work in international hot spots like Kuwait, 
Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti, it's clear the Guard will do more than 
``just fine'' in a pinch.

[[Page S11837]]

  I think we all agree that as we enter the 21st century the common 
goal of the U.S. military should be to create and maintain a seamless 
total force that provides our military leaders with the necessary 
flexibility and strength to address whatever conflicts that might 
arise.
  The QDR should have been the vehicle to achieve that goal. 
Unfortunately, it fell far short. And one analyst went so far as to 
describe it as ``another banal defense of the status quo.''
  There are close to one-half million men and women in the National 
Guard, accounting for about 20 percent of this Nation's Armed Forces. 
Because of their dual Federal-State mission, National Guardsmen and 
women are on hand to serve in both the international arena and in our 
own backyards. Perhaps more than any other soldier, Guardsmen embody 
our forefathers' vision of the citizen-soldier. That's because the 
citizen-soldiers of the National Guard find their roots not only in the 
history of this country, but equally important, in the communities of 
this country.
  The Army National Guard alone provides more than 55 percent of the 
ground combat forces, 45 percent of the combat support forces, and 25 
percent of the Army's combat support units--all while using only 2 
percent of the Department of Defense budget.
  But if you look at the QDR process you would think the Guard has 
outlived its usefulness * * * that their cost-effectiveness, their 
flexibility, their readiness are all figments of this Senator's 
imagination.
  Experts have called QDR a ``cold war relic,'' and I agree with them, 
especially when it comes to the Army. Back in July, the Senate was 
forced to add $437 million to the Pentagon's budget request just to 
meet the minimum spending needs of the Army National Guard.
  While both the Marine Corps and the Air Force have successfully 
integrated their reserve fighting units into their total combat force, 
the Army continues to fail to include its National Guard combat troops 
in national military strategy. To this day, none of the Guard's eight 
combat divisions is in the Nation's war plans, despite the fact that 
they have undergone the same training as their active duty 
counterparts.
  This contentious relationship got even hotter, last spring when 
leaders of the National Guard expressed outrage at never being given 
the opportunity to present their case before the QDR and over the 
Army's failure to be up-front about how deeply they wanted to cut the 
Army Guard.
  The outrage was well placed. The Washington times was right on target 
when they wrote back in June that ``the Guard has a greater relevance 
today than during the cold war--exactly the kind of relevance the 
Founding Fathers envisioned when they elected to place the 
preponderance of the Nation's military strength in the State 
militias.''
  As a classic dual use system the Guard is not a relic of the past, 
rather the wave of the future. That same article said, ``There is no 
inherent reason the Guard cannot perform adequately across the range of 
missions. The Marine Corps and Air Force have demonstrated what can be 
accomplished when reserves are treated as assets, not rivals * * *. In 
short, the Guard's proficiency is limited only by resources and 
creativity--by a standing Army that, for reasons of its own, prefers 
not to acknowledge it.''
  This is not a new battle. And the QDR is just another symptom of a 
dysfunctional relationship that must change.
  That's why I believe that after assuring the Reserve forces needs are 
met in this year's budget. Our biggest priority was to make the Chief 
of the National Guard Bureau a four-star general and a member of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff. I was proud to cosponsor Senator Stevens 
amendment to the Defense authorization bill doing just that.
  As Senator Stevens said during debate on the amendment, this change 
``will help ensure that the National Guard's needs will be met during 
the formulation of the Department's budget and not solely by the 
interventions of Congress * * *. It has taken the intervention of 
Congress each year to get the Guard the money it needs to perform its 
job.'' The amendment would have gone a long way towards changing that 
status.
  When you compare the National Guard with the U.S. Coast Guard, the 
inequity becomes even more clear. There are an average of 10,000 men 
and women deployed outside the continental United States by the 
National Guard every day. And working with an annual budget of $10 
billion, the National Guard manages a tremendous amount of equipment 
and runs 3,360 facilities in 3,200 communities touching every State in 
the Nation.
  The Coast Guard, which also has a dual mission, runs an efficient, 
tight ship. At the head of that ship is a four-star admiral. But what 
is startling to me is that the Coast Guard is a fraction of the size, 
with a fraction of the budget of the National Guard.
  Look at the Marine Corps. Like the National Guard, they serve as a 
free standing force, maintained under a parent service. Again, with a 
budget and a troop strength smaller than the Guard, they are under the 
leadership of a four-star general, and have a seat on the Joint Chiefs. 
Those changes were made after the Marine Corps came before Congress 
arguing that to be heard they needed a general's rank, not a colonel's, 
when dealing with the other services.
  The Pentagon must recognize that the Reserve components are the only 
contact the majority of Americans have with the military. When they see 
a neighbor, a child's teacher, or their family doctor on hand when 
natural disasters strike or representing the United States in the 
international arena, they have a direct link to the military.
  That bond has remained strong for more than 200 years. And despite 
resistance from the Pentagon, I believe Congress has no intention of 
seeing that bond damaged through insufficient funds or a lack of 
resources.
  But passage of Senator Stevens amendment in the Senate was a sign 
that we're no longer willing to accept the status quo either. We 
believe it's a critical first step not only toward giving our citizen-
soldiers a seat at the decisionmaking table, but toward creating a 
Total Force.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, the conference committee disagreed with 
the Senate position of making the National Guard Director a four-star 
general. Instead the conference ``split the baby'' by establishing what 
they thought was a new position for the Army Guard and Army Reserve--
two new two-star general positions serving as advisors to the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  The problem with this decision is that the National Guard already has 
such a position within the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This new language 
won't solve the problem faced by the National Guard. I hope my 
colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee understand that the 
issue of a four-star position on the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not going 
to go away.
  I'm also disturbed by the conference committee's decision to cut the 
National Guard by 5,000 spaces without any corresponding cuts in the 
Active Duty Army or the Army Reserve. This cut for the National Guard 
isn't right and it isn't consistent with what we've done on the Defense 
appropriations bill. That bill, which was just signed by the President, 
fully funded the Army National Guard.
  General Sheridan might have been on the short side, but when the 
smoke cleared at the end of the battle, he sat very tall in his saddle. 
While detractors might refer disparagingly to our National Guard Forces 
as weekend warriors, I hope my colleagues will remember that at the end 
of the day, whether helping families return to their homes after a 
devastating flood or flying in supplies to war torn countries, they 
stand just as tall.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, do I have any further time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has about 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Coverdell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alaska for 
yielding time. It is with great pleasure and relief, I must say, that I 
come to the floor to hail what I believe will be final passage of the 
1998 Defense authorization conference report. As many

[[Page S11838]]

of my colleagues know, this was not an easy process. This bill, of 
vital importance to our men and women in uniform, has sparked much 
controversy over the last several months.
  My colleagues may remember my taking the floor, along with several of 
my colleagues, this summer to denounce what we felt was a 
politicization of the BRAC process by the President. At the time, I 
stated that we will not begin a new round of BRAC, as the 
administration has called for, until the previous round's 
recommendations have been carried out effectively. To my satisfaction, 
a new round of BRAC has been averted and we have taken a step in the 
right direction toward restoring BRAC integrity.
  The approach we have taken on military depot work in this bill is a 
win for our Armed Forces and taxpayers. In this bill, we promote 
private-public competition, as my colleagues called for, while 
establishing more objective criteria in making contract awards.
  I would like to commend my colleagues on both sides of this issue for 
working to develop a solution to the impasse we reached. Obviously, as 
a Senator with a remaining air logistic center, I have a vested stake 
in the issue. While not a member of the Armed Services Committee, I 
voiced my opinion strongly with my colleagues from California and Texas 
and have respected their position. It is unfortunate that we have not 
been able to reach an ultimate agreement on the issue, but we have come 
to our disagreement after much debate and consideration on both sides.
  I point out to my colleagues, however, that it says a great deal 
about a piece of legislation when the chairman, ranking member, and 
majority and minority leaders all agree on the approach we have taken 
in this bill.
  I would be remiss not to mention the tremendous contribution that our 
chairman, Senator Thurmond, has once again added to this process. He 
and his staff have worked tirelessly to develop this legislation and to 
work for a compromise on the depot issue. I also want to thank my 
colleagues from Utah and Oklahoma--particularly Senator Inhofe, who has 
worked equally as hard in trying to reach a compromise on the issue. 
They are all to be commended.
  Finally, I understand that there is an important pay raise provision 
in this bill for our armed services members. This is of great 
importance because I think we have arrived at a good place, a solid 
plan. I encourage my colleagues to support it. Further, I call on the 
President to sign it as quickly as possible. We need to move on with 
this bill and what I feel is correcting a fundamental flaw in the 
system.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask our colleagues who want to speak to 
come over and speak. It becomes a sort of curious game when people want 
to be heard, but they don't come over, and one side is forced to use up 
all of its time, or else see the time run off, when we would like to 
have a debate. I wish those who wanted to debate would come over.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
Michigan.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of 
the floor be granted to the following staff member of the Committee on 
Foreign Relations: Mrs. Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, a Pearson Fellow 
detailee from the Department of State, during the pendency of this 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, one of the arguments that has been made is 
that if this conference report is enacted that the private industry 
will be reluctant to bid on the work of the closed depots. In fact, 
some elements of industry had announced that they intended to bid on 
the Kelly and McClellan work well before the compromise was even 
written. Most of the concerns raised by those groups relate either to 
features of the current law that they don't like, or to features of the 
compromise that the Department of Defense has accepted as fair and not 
sought to change.
  We cannot just simply give the work to industry without any 
competition. We must have fair competition. That was the purpose of 
these provisions in the bill. Those of us who wrote these provisions 
have no depots at stake, and no issues at stake in our States. In fact, 
we voted against the provision of the Depot Caucus in the conference 
because we thought it was one-sided. I voted against a similar 
provision which was offered by Senators here during our deliberations 
in the Armed Services Committee. But those of us who have drafted the 
provision in this final bill have intended and attempted--and we think 
succeeded--in drafting a provision which will ensure fair and open 
competition. That is our goal. We don't want to tilt this one way or 
the other.
  We couldn't get the parties to reach an agreement. We waited months 
for the parties to try to reach an agreement. We tried to negotiate an 
agreement that everybody would agree to. We couldn't get everybody to 
agree to any particular language. We never could reach an agreement.
  Finally, those of us who had the responsibility of bringing a bill to 
the floor, and getting a defense bill passed because of all the 
critical provisions in here for our military people, decided we would 
draft the best possible provision that we could that would guarantee 
open and fair competition and would not tilt this one way or the other. 
We have that responsibility, and we think we carried it out fairly.
  One significant part of this compromise is a simple sentence which is 
aimed at guaranteeing a level playing field for both sides. The 
sentence states:

       No offeror may be given any preferential consideration for, 
     or in any way be limited to, performing the workload in-place 
     or at any other single location.

  That sentence means exactly what it says. No preferential 
consideration may be given to Kelly and McClellan, and no preferential 
consideration may be given to the depots that remain open. They have to 
compete on a level playing field.
  That is what this compromise is all about. At one point the argument 
was made that by prohibiting the Air Force from giving preferential 
consideration to either side that we might somehow preclude them from 
considering real differences in cost or risk. I don't accept that 
argument. We consider legitimate differences in cost and risk in 
virtually every competition. That is fair consideration--not 
preferential consideration. It is not preferential treatment to 
consider differences in cost and risk any more than it is preferential 
treatment to award a contract to the low bidder.
  My staff has confirmed this with top procurement officials at the 
Department of Defense. Although we did not believe the concern to be 
well-founded, the conferees decided to remove any question over the 
interpretation of this language by clarifying in the statement of 
managers that the consideration of differences in cost or risk 
associated with the location of performance is not preferential 
consideration, and the managers' language states that consideration of 
such differences in cost and risk is not only permitted but it is 
expected.

  In short, we bent over backwards to address concerns about this 
proposed compromise. This is a fair compromise. It provides a level 
playing field without preference to either side. And I hope that the 
Senate will act to put this issue behind us.
  We also heard the statement that the requirement for the Department 
of Defense to ensure that the depots are operated as cost effectively 
as possible will have the effect of precluding any work from going to 
the private sector. That statement is not accurate.
  Nothing in the depot maintenance provisions requires that all the 
work go to the depots, as has also been stated. Under these provisions, 
the Secretary would retain broad discretion to

[[Page S11839]]

determine which workloads should be retained in public depots and which 
should be subject to private-public competition.
  First, the sentence in question is nothing more than a clarification 
of existing law which already requires the Department of Defense to:

       . . . maintain a logistics capability, including personnel, 
     equipment, and facilities to ensure . . .

  That word is in existing law.

       . . . a ready and controlled source of technical competence 
     and resources for contingency situations.

  And prohibits the contracting out of any logistics activity 
identified by the Secretary as necessary to maintain that logistics 
capability.
  Second, this sentence applies only to workloads that the Secretary of 
Defense determines to be necessary to maintain core logistics 
capability. Under current law, the Secretary gets to decide what 
capabilities are core logistics capability. And the Secretary gets to 
decide what workloads are necessary to maintain those capabilities.
  Third, the Secretary of Defense--not the Congress--gets to decide 
what is cost efficient and how much workload is necessary to ensure 
cost efficiency. The statement of managers expressly states that this 
provision does not require the performance of all core logistics 
workload in public depots.
  This is what the statement of managers says:

       The provision does not require that maintenance for all 
     weapons systems necessary for the execution of DOD's 
     strategic and contingency plans be performed at public 
     facilities.

  In short, it is the Secretary--not the Congress nor the depot caucus. 
It is the Secretary who gets to decide what functions will be performed 
in-house under this provision.
  On the basis of extensive consultation with the Department of Defense 
officials, starting last spring, we are convinced that the depot 
maintenance provisions in the bill are consistent with the Department's 
current policy and practice on core logistics capability, and will not 
require the Secretary to bring in-house any work currently performed by 
private contractors.
  In fact, the Department of Defense has informed us that on the basis 
of the bill's change from 60-40 to 50-50 they expect to be able to 
contract out slightly more work than they can under current law.
  The main argument that is being made here is that somehow or other 
this bill prevents real competition. I assure our colleagues that this 
bill not only intends to guarantee fair competition, but is the best 
effort that we know how to make--those of us that have no stake in the 
outcome of this debate--this is the best effort that we can make to 
objectively and fairly come up with provisions which will guarantee and 
ensure as fair and open a competition as possible.
  Far from prohibiting public-private competition, these provisions 
mandate competition for depot maintenance work, and require that all 
qualified public and private sector offerors be permitted to compete.
  The provisions establish seven simple conditions to ensure that this 
competition is carried out on a level playing field. Again, I emphasize 
these provisions were written by Members and staff who are neutral in 
the fight between the closed bases and the remaining Air Force depots. 
The sole objective here is to ensure fair competition. And each of the 
provisions was included for that purpose alone--a level playing field 
for competition by ensuring that appropriate factors are considered in 
a balanced manner. The bill expressly prohibits the Department from 
giving any preferential treatment to either the closed depots or the 
remaining ALCs.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 6 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the remainder of that time.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I inquire of the chairman of the committee 
how much time he can yield.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to Senator Coats.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding this 
time. I rise to urge my colleagues to support the vote coming up here 
on the Defense Authorization Act. I congratulate Senator Thurmond and 
Senator Levin for their leadership on this issue. We have continued a 
bipartisan effort in the Senate Armed Services Committee for addressing 
the key issues facing our national security policy.
  It has been a contentious and difficult process this year, but one, 
nevertheless, that has gone ahead, and we are here today just a few 
moments away from voting on this and sending it to the President.
  It is important to note that we have reached support in the Senate 
Armed Services Committee; all 18 members of the committee have signed 
the conference report and, most importantly, we have been able to 
address some of the most difficult issues in a way that I think, while 
not perfect and while not the solution to everybody's concerns, clearly 
moves us in the right direction.
  Senator Levin and others have talked about the depot provisions. I 
appreciate how difficult it has been and the very strong views of 
Senators on both sides of the aisle on these provisions.
  Earlier, I opposed the depot provisions which were originally 
recommended by the readiness panel because they explicitly precluded 
competition for the resolution of the Kelly and McClellan Air Logistics 
Centers issue. We went back to work --a number of people spent a great 
deal of time and effort trying to find a way in which we could develop 
a substantive set of provisions that would promote competition, and I 
said that if we could do that, I would support it.
  Now, if I were drafting this legislation, I would have gone much 
further than we have been able to go. I think, clearly, if we can't 
move further faster on privatization efforts, we are going to continue 
to face shortfalls in modernization, shortfalls in research and 
development, and in other vital areas for the military.
  This, I believe, is the best we are able to do at this particular 
time given the polarization on this issue between members on the Depot 
Caucus and those who were promoting greater competition. We have been 
able to move the percentages from 60-40 to 50-50. I know that 50-50 is 
not defined in the way all of us would like, but it is a step in the 
right direction. Hopefully, it will open the way for further discussion 
and determination of what core capacity we need to retain within the 
services and how we can also move toward privatizing maintenance in a 
way that saves the Department money.
  It will also, hopefully, open the door to another round of BRAC 
closings. There should not be any disagreement that we still have too 
much infrastructure given the size of our force. It is aging 
infrastructure. It is costly infrastructure. Unless we can find ways to 
close that infrastructure, and modernize and streamline the way in 
which we provide for our national defense, we are going to continually 
face a shortfall of funds, particularly given the fact that we have a 
fixed top line, as stated in the budget agreement.
  One of the provisions of the depot compromise involves an initiative 
that was suggested to us by the Business Executives for National 
Security Tail-to-Tooth Commission, the so-called BENS Commission. It's 
private partnerships within the public sector. This commission is made 
up of people from both parties, former Members of the Senate and 
Cabinet, leaders of industry and retired members of the Joint Chiefs. 
And their insights, I believe, ought to be given significant attention.
  Let me just quote from one of the sections of the bill which 
incorporated one of their suggestions. Section 359 of the depot 
provisions is titled, ``Requirement for Use of Competitive Procedures 
in Contracting for Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair 
Workloads Formerly Performed at Closed or Realigned Military 
Installations.''
  And this provision states, and I quote:

       Any offeror, whether public or private, may offer to 
     perform the workload at any location or locations selected by 
     the offeror and to team with any other public or private 
     entity to perform that workload at one or more locations.

  This provision enables the Department of Defense to leverage the core 
competencies of our public-sector depots with those of private industry 
in

[[Page S11840]]

building the most effective and the most efficient team for maintaining 
our military's equipment, and it does so in a way that keeps 
competitive pressures on both the private and the public sector that 
will ensure that the Pentagon and the U.S. taxpayer continue to get the 
best value for their defense dollar.
  The Pentagon has indicated that this is a workable approach to 
resolving the highly charged issues surrounding Kelly and McClellan Air 
Logistics Centers. I know there is not agreement on that point, but my 
analysis of this is that it moves us significantly in the right 
direction. And given the dynamics of the political considerations that 
we are facing, it is the best we can do this year. We are not going to 
get a bill without this. I trust the administration will think long and 
hard before they consider a veto over this provision. I do not believe 
we are going to be able to go back and adjust it one way or the other 
in any significant measure without creating a loss of support on one 
side or the other, depending on which way we go.
  So I urge the administration to understand the process that we have 
been through, where we started and where we now are and take this as a 
significant incremental step in the necessary effort to move toward 
privatization.
  Mr. President, I would also like to briefly talk about some things 
that we have done in my role as chairman of the Airland Subcommittee. 
First, the national Defense authorization supports the Army's Force XXI 
initiatives which significantly enhances the situational awareness and 
combat effectiveness of our land forces through information technology. 
Yet, we need to do much more to get the spectrum of digitization 
efforts, which were so strongly endorsed by the Pentagon's Quadrennial 
Defense Review, adequately funded. But at least this is a fair start.
  And for the record, I wish to correct a statement reported in press 
this morning that the first flight of the second Comanche armed 
reconnaissance helicopter would be delayed because of a 2.75 percent 
tax levied on acquisition programs in the fiscal year 1998 Defense 
authorization bill, which we are voting on today. I want to emphasize 
that this Defense Authorization fully funds the Comanche program at the 
level requested in the President's Budget, and that it does not include 
a tax. The tax reported in this article was levied in appropriation, 
not authorization, legislation.
  We have been able to incorporate in this bill a significant 
enhancement in the military's tactical and operational mobility through 
increases in tactical trucks, the establishment of multiyear 
procurement for the family of medium tactical vehicles, and increases 
in V-22 procurement. We have also added increases for tactical air and 
missile defense capabilities.
  Specifically, however, I want to talk about the F-22. I spoke at 
length about my concerns with F-22 cost overruns and technology risks 
during our deliberations over Defense appropriations. This national 
Defense authorization provides the same F-22 funding levels, but goes 
the very important further step to put key oversight provisions in 
place that will help Congress and the Administration keep this program 
on track.

  First, this Defense Authorization includes the Senate's total cost 
cap provisions which limit the level of engineering and manufacturing 
development to approximately $18.7 billion and production to $43.3 
billion.
  Second, the Defense authorization requires an annual review of the F-
22 program by the General Accounting Office. This report will address 
whether the F-22 EMD program is meeting established goals in 
performance, cost, and schedule; and whether the F-22 program is 
consistent with the cost caps we have established. The Comptroller 
General also must certify to Congress that he has had access to 
sufficient information to make informed judgments on the matters 
covered by the reports. This seriesof annual reviews will provide us a 
visibility into the F-22 program which we have not had to date. And it 
will also provide a means of independent assessment on the spending and 
technical performance of the program so that this body can effectively 
continue its long history of oversight on the key F-22 program.
  In conclusion, this national Defense authorization makes great 
strides in supporting the defense strategy of shape, respond, and 
prepare now. It provides significant increases in our readiness 
accounts by adding over $750 million to address shortfalls in flying 
hours, real property maintenance, and ammunition procurement.
  It also takes better care of our military servicemembers and their 
quality of life through a 2.8 percent pay raise and a reformed approach 
to quarters allowances.
  And it accelerates investment to address shortfalls in key mission 
capabilities such as adding over $700 million for theater and missile 
defense programs.
  Finally, this national Defense authorization provides a reasonable 
compromise to the depot issue through a fair and open competition which 
serves the best interests of the military and the American taxpayer.
  In short, this bill provides the policy and fiscal provisions 
representative of the prudent oversight from our Senate authorization 
process. It provides a framework for setting a course which ensures 
U.S. military dominance into the 21st Century.
  This National Defense Authorization has my full support, and I urge 
my colleagues to support us when the vote comes forward in just a few 
moments.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. I commend the able Senator from Indiana for his 
remarks, which are very helpful, and also commend the Senator for the 
great work he has done on the Armed Services Committee for many years. 
We are very proud of the Senator, and we are going to miss him when he 
leaves the Senate next year. We hope the Senator will reconsider and 
come back with us.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the chairman for his kind remarks.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time we have to 
Senator Roberts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, might I inquire as to the amount of time 
that is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Defense authorization 
bill. I wish to thank and pay tribute to the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan, Mr. Levin, and obviously to our chairman, the distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina, for his long record of support and 
leadership for our men and women in uniform is almost unequaled in the 
history of the Senate.

  Some of my colleagues are opposing passage of this important bill for 
reasons I know they are committed to, and they certainly feel they are 
taking action in the best interests of their constituents. But I feel 
strongly we must as a body demonstrate unity and support for our 
military by passing this bill.
  Yesterday, we were briefed on the serious events in the Mideast, in 
particular in Iraq. The day before, several Members of Congress met 
with the President to discuss the U.S. military commitment of lasting 
peace in Bosnia. Early next year this body will debate the enlargement 
of NATO and the implication of extending the military security of NATO. 
We all watched with great interest the developments on the Korean 
peninsula. That is a very dangerous place.
  We are at peace, but we all understand this is a fragile peace. 
Congress is charged with the responsibility to raise and support 
armies, and in this troubled time we cannot forget that is our 
responsibility.
  We have all heard of the morale problems and the difficulty in 
retaining key leaders in the military. We all understand the long and 
frequent deployments we ask our men and women to make are taking a 
terrible toll on their families. We all understand we rely on these 
dedicated and patriotic Americans to be the instruments of our national 
policy. We should not hold this bill hostage because of internal 
differences between Members of this Congress. I feel it would be a 
terrible signal to send to the men and women of the military that we 
are so egocentric and so parochial that we are unable to provide a bill 
to provide a pay raise or quality housing.

[[Page S11841]]

  Let me highlight some of the important aspects of the bill I feel 
strongly about.
  Active duty pay raise. The bill includes a 2.8 percent pay raise for 
active duty military members. If the bill is not enacted, the pay raise 
for active military will be limited to 2.3 percent because of the 
statutory link between pay raises for the military and pay raises for 
Federal civilians.
  Active duty end strength. The bill, compared to current law, provides 
lower end-strength levels and increased flexibility for the managing of 
military personnel strengths. If this bill is not enacted, the military 
services will be held to the higher fiscal year 1997 end-strength 
levels that were based on the Bottom Up Review.
  Special pay and bonuses. The bill includes authority for significant 
increases in the special pay and bonus structure designed to respond to 
critical recruiting and retention problems highlighted by DOD.
  If the bill is not enacted, these authorities will not be available 
to DOD to address these problems. Specific groups that would be 
affected include--listen to this--aviators, nuclear-qualified officers, 
dentists, military members on overseas tours, military members 
receiving family separation allowances and/or hazardous duty assignment 
pay, and also the military members serving on hardship-duty locations.
  Reform of housing and substance allowances. This bill includes 
significant reforms of the existing structure for housing allowances 
and subsistence allowances for military members. These reforms are 
intended to simplify the management of these allowances and to better 
target the allowances to those individuals and geographic areas where 
the need is most acute. If the bill is not enacted, the Department of 
Defense will continue to use the existing allowance structure with all 
of its demonstrated inefficiencies and also inequities.
  Military construction projects? The bill provides authority for the 
Department of Defense to begin construction on the fiscal year 1998 
military construction projects. If the bill is not enacted, that 
construction cannot begin.
  Mr. President, my fellow colleagues, there are many other examples of 
why this bill must be supported now. Despite the differences we have in 
our ranks, I think this is a fair and credible bill, the best bill 
possible. The Members of both Houses worked hard to reach compromise. 
It was a very difficult task, but when the work was done the Members of 
both committees--the House side and Senate side--were satisfied with 
the results. The system worked the way it was designed. Now the Senate 
should act on the bill. I urge the Senate to pass on the bill.
  One thing about a Presidential veto. Tuesday night we were with the 
President, 40, 50 Members. Senator Thurmond rose to his feet and said 
that our policy in Bosnia cannot be separated from this bill. It is 
inseparable. And that if we pass this bill, it will be commensurate 
with our goals in Bosnia and with our vital national security 
interests. And he pleaded with the President, eloquently, with fervent 
passion. He said: Mr. President, do not veto this bill. And I will tell 
everybody here, the President has not made his mind up. He looked at 
the Senator and said he would consider his remarks.
  The Department of Defense will agree with this bill. I do not think 
the President will veto it. We need to pass the bill. We need to do 
what is right, and our first obligation as Members of this Congress is 
to do everything we can for our national defense.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend Senator Roberts for his 
excellent remarks on this subject. He is a new member of the Armed 
Services Committee, and he has done a magnificent job. As chairman, I 
want to let him know that we appreciate all he has done for defense 
since he has been on that committee.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much time do we have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 6 minutes, the 
Senator from Alaska has 8 minutes, the Senator from Texas has 8 
minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
at this point to assign 3 of my 6 minutes to Senator Thurmond so we can 
finish up with 3 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
that it be charged equally to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND. I ask unanimous consent the remaining time not be 
charged to Senator Levin or to me.
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I don't want 
to object but I am here ready to debate. I am waiting for people who 
want to defend this bill to come to the floor to speak. What we are 
doing is we are running off time that I have to debate because people 
don't want to come over here and debate. If I knew they weren't coming, 
I could close out, make about 2 or 3 minutes of statements, and we 
could vote. Our colleagues are ready to vote.
  Let me ask unanimous consent that we might conclude this debate, that 
we might have 3 minutes for each person holding time to conclude, and 
that we might then have a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. INHOFE. I was not here when the senior Senator from Texas made 
his unanimous-consent request. I ask if that would in any way vitiate 
the time that was given, remaining for the Senator from Alaska, Senator 
Stevens?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It reduces it from 8 minutes to 3 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, now that the 
Senator is here, if he wants to be heard--what I was trying to do was 
go on and vote if nobody wanted to debate. But if the Senator wants to 
speak, let me ask unanimous consent that we return to the status quo 
ante, before my unanimous-consent request, so that the Senator can 
speak if he chooses to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the time 
remaining for Senator Stevens has been given to me, which is 
approximately 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is unfortunate, since we have a bill 
that is the most significant bill that we will be dealing with during 
the course of this year, that it has gotten bogged down into a debate 
and discussion about depot maintenance. This is very unfortunate. 
However that has been the case.
  Let me just devote a little bit of time to that, because, having 
listened to the arguments as put forth by the two eloquent Senators 
from California and the Senators from Texas, I didn't hear any new 
arguments. But I do think that we need to, once and for all, respond to 
these arguments. I was hoping to be speaking last because I know what 
will happen, since I am obviously not speaking last. But let me just go 
ahead and bring up four arguments that I heard. I think these four are 
pretty much the total argument of those who want to stop competition in 
ALC's.
  First of all, I heard the quote saying, ``We are telling the DOD that 
you can't have real competition.'' This bill does allow competition. 
This allows competition and takes into consideration all direct and 
indirect costs.
  They said that ``The bill was crafted by Members seeking special 
protection, whose sole purpose is to block private competition.'' I 
suggest that everyone in this Chamber knows, and certainly everyone on 
the Senate Armed Services Committee knows, that when we had our 
language in there that did clearly carry out the intent and the letter 
of the BRAC recommendations, we felt we were going to lose the bill 
because the

[[Page S11842]]

two Senators from both Texas and California wanted an opportunity to 
privatize in place. Then we agreed to have open competition.
  I was not even in on that. The ones who agreed to that language--that 
was drafted by members of the committee who were totally neutral on 
this subject. They didn't have a dog in this fight. But they got 
together and came up with the agreement that this is the way to do it. 
Let's take all costs into consideration. We did that. I think the 
eloquent remarks of Senator Levin pointed this out.
  They were the ones who put this together so that, yes, even though 
this is not what the BRAC committee wanted, still it did open up an 
avenue for privatization-in-place if they took into consideration all 
the costs. And then they voted and it was 18-to-nothing, all Democrats 
and all Republicans voted for it.
  Closely related to that, I have been quoted as to a statement that I 
made in Oklahoma. Let me say that is an accurate statement. That is 
true. I wasn't misquoted. And I was stating it as a businessman. I 
spent 33 years in the real world and I know, as Senator Bennett has 
pointed out several times, that you can't operate and leave three out 
of five ALC's at 50 percent capacity and have any kind of competitive 
operation.
  So I said very definitely that, in my opinion, those individuals who 
were interested in competing in McClellan in California and in Kelly in 
Texas, wanted to compete on a basis where they had a tremendous 
advantage which is paid for by the taxpayers.
  So they did two things. They put two considerations in. First of all, 
if they want to bid and privatize in place and bid at Kelly or 
McClellan, they had to pay for a fair value for that facility they are 
using. In other words, you can't take a $200 million facility and give 
it to a private contractor for a dollar a year and say now that's fair 
competition. That is not fair competition.
  The second thing we did was say, according to the GAO--and this has 
been pointed out already by several Members here--that if you leave 
three air logistics centers operating at 50 percent capacity, the cost 
annually to the taxpayers is $468 million. So that has to be 
considered.
  Those are the two major changes that were made. I agree I think they 
did a good job coming up with these. Even though that would still 
violate the intent of the BRAC system, that at least made that fair.
  There is one last thing I will say and then I will put this to rest. 
I am not going to say anything more about this. I am going to read this 
one more time, because I think it is really significant.
  I came to the U.S. House of Representatives, before I was elected to 
this body, in 1986. That was a year that a Congressman--I might add, 
and say to the senior Senator from Texas, he also is a Ph.D. He got his 
from Oklahoma, you got yours from Texas--he came out with an idea how 
we can close the excess capacity, the infrastructure, and do it without 
political interference. So he came up with the idea of the BRAC 
committee. The BRAC committee was supposed to be free from political 
interference.
  I hope every Member who is watching on their tube right now, anyone 
who is going to come down here and vote on this, will listen to this. 
This is what Representative Dick Armey, the author of the BRAC process, 
said on June 23, 1997:

       We had three rounds of 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 invention.
       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.

  With that, Mr. President, I think we beat up that issue. We have 
argued and debated this hours and hours on the floor. I know Senators 
from Texas and California would like to have an opportunity to have 
more jobs in their States, but that is exactly what the BRAC process 
was put in place to prevent.
  In the remaining time, let me just make a couple of comments. I am 
the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, and I can tell you right 
now, during this process it was very civil, in our Senate Armed 
Services Committee, but we didn't agree on everything.
  Quite frankly, I agreed with the Senator from Alaska as far as the 
National Guard was concerned. I did not agree with Senator Levin, the 
ranking minority member, as far as the B-2 was concerned, but we voted 
on it. I lost and they won. So we went through this very arduous 
process and successfully came up with a bill.
  In the meantime, I have been spending my time as chairman of the 
Readiness Subcommittee all over America and all over the world going to 
our various installations. I can tell you right now, we have a very 
serious problem in defending America. We can't do it.
  As pointed out by the Senator from Connecticut, for 13 consecutive 
years, we have reduced every year our defense budget at a time when 
most people realize, finally, that we have a greater threat facing 
America than we have had since World War II. Yet, we are at one-half 
the force strength that we were in 1991. I am talking about the number 
of Army divisions, the number of Air Force wings, the number of ships 
floating out there.
  So it is a very critical thing, and it is exacerbated by the fact 
that we have troops in places like Bosnia. It is very, very expensive. 
The President said it wouldn't be over $2 billion. It is now looking at 
closer to $6.5 billion to $8 billion. Where does that come from? It 
comes from the defense budget.
  While this is not a perfect product--can I have 1 more minute from 
the Senator from South Carolina?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Carolina yield?
  Mr. THURMOND. We don't have any more time.
  Mr. GRAMM. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator have 1 additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the senior Senator from Texas.
  Mr. President, I will only conclude we do have a very serious problem 
in talking to the troops out there about tempo. We have these guys 
operating at about 60 percent higher capacity than they are supposed to 
be operating. Sure, they can handle it for a while, but the divorce 
rate is up, the retention rate is down, and we have a serious problem 
in our underfunding of our military.
  I would like to have done a better job than we did in this bill, but 
this was the best we could do in the spirit of compromise on a 
bipartisan basis. I strongly support the passage of our Defense 
authorization bill. Thank you.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from Oklahoma 
for his excellent remarks. He is a member of the Armed Services 
Committee and does a fine job. I want to take this opportunity to thank 
him for the great service he is rendering on the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we are coming to the end of the debate. I 
will conclude by making just a couple of points.
  I first thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Thurmond. I am always unhappy when I am not on his 
side. I don't think I need to tell the Senator from South Carolina 
about the high esteem in which I hold him.
  Let me also say to my dear colleague from Oklahoma that there is 
nothing personal about this battle. It really comes down to principles 
and where you stand on those key issues. I don't question that everyone 
involved in this debate is trying to do the best and that their 
intentions are good.
  Let me conclude with the following points. First of all, a great deal 
has been made about what the President and what the White House and 
what the Defense Department have said. So let me let the President and 
the White House speak for themselves. I sent a letter to the desk and 
asked that it be printed in the Record 9 days ago after this conference 
report had been written. I just want to read three paragraphs from the 
letter. I think anybody

[[Page S11843]]

who listens to these three paragraphs can be in no doubt as to what the 
position of the White House and the President is on this bill. I am 
reading from a letter from the Executive Office of the President dated 
October 28:

       This bill includes provisions whose intent is to protect 
     public depots by limiting private industries' ability to 
     compete for the depot 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 business practices, would 
     severely limit the Department's flexibility to increase 
     efficiency and save taxpayer dollars. We need to encourage 
     more competition from private industry, not less. Billions of 
     dollars in potential savings are at issue. These resources 
     should be used to maintain the U.S. fighting edge not to 
     preserve excess infrastructure. If the numerous problems 
     cited above cannot be overcome, the impact on the 
     Department's costs and on our Nation's military capacity 
     would be profound. The President's senior advisers would 
     recommend that he veto the bill.

  That is not me talking, that is the Executive Office of the 
President. I think that defines the issue and where they stand.
  Our colleague from Utah talked about a GAO study. We have heard this 
GAO study discussed over and over and over again in this debate. It is 
a typical problem of where a study is directed to look at one thing, 
and then we all talk about it as if it concluded another. Let me read 
you one sentence from the GAO study and then put this issue, hopefully, 
to rest forever. The GAO study says:

       The Air Force's planning has not progressed far enough to 
     support a precise comparison of the cost of privatizing depot 
     workloads in place with a cost of transferring the work to 
     other underutilized depots.

  So what the GAO study concludes is something with which I completely 
agree. That is if the choice is between maintaining five depots or 
three, it is better to maintain three. That is what the GAO study is 
about. Nobody disputes what it is about. But what it is not about is 
any conclusion that funds can be saved by consolidating into a depot as 
compared to having price competition.
  So the GAO study is relevant for a point that we all agree on, which 
is why we are closing two depots. But it is completely irrelevant to 
the issue of whether we should have price competition.
  I hope and believe the President will veto this bill. Then the 
question is, what do we do about it? Let me conclude on a positive note 
by making a suggestion as to how we can simply solve the problem.
  We all say we are for competition. It reminds me of one of Abraham 
Lincoln's speeches where he talked about how the Confederates and the 
Union supporters all prayed to the same God; they both felt they were 
in the right; they both felt God was on their side, but one of them had 
to be wrong.
  We all say we are for competition, but, obviously, we have great 
differences as to what that is. Let me remind my colleagues that I 
offered to try to break this logjam with a definition of competition 
that would have given a 10-percent premium for depot work. In other 
words, I offered that if depots could do it for only 10 percent more 
than the private sector, that we would let them do it. But if the 
private sector could go do it and save more than 10 percent, that they 
would do it. So let me remind my colleagues that I have not been 
unwilling to try to find a solution. But let me propose one that is 
very simple.
  We now have five major accounting firms in America. We used to have 
six, but two of them consolidated. If the President vetoes this bill 
and if that veto stands, either we don't vote on it in February when we 
come back or we sustain it, I propose that we ask each of the five 
major accounting firms who, in language the people understand, don't 
have a dog in this fight, to each appoint one of their major partners 
and let them form a commission. Let them define what a level playing 
surface is in competition between Government depots and the private 
sector. Let them look at all costs from retirement to capital. Let the 
five accounting firms come up with what they believe is a free and fair 
competition, and then let's agree that whatever they decide is a free 
and fair competition, whatever they say is a level playing surface, 
then let's agree to accept it. I, for one, agree to accept it. Whatever 
the five major accounting firms in the Nation conclude is a fair way to 
have price competition, I am for it.

  My proposal is, if the bill is vetoed, we change it very simply by 
taking out this anticompetitive language, set up a simple commission 
made up of the representatives of the five major private accounting 
firms in America, and let them tell us how to have a fair competition. 
We will give them 6 months to do it. Whatever they conclude becomes the 
practice of the Defense Department, and we have this competition.
  That is a simple way to solve this problem, and we have been fighting 
over this issue for 3 long years. I submit that I hope this will 
happen. The President has said that he will veto the bill; that the 
bill, as it is now written, despite the best intentions of many, will 
cost the taxpayers billions of dollars that will not go to weapons, 
that will not go to maintenance, that will not go to pay and benefits, 
but instead will go to preserve the status quo and to prevent 
competition.
  We need competition. We all agree we don't have enough money. We can 
get more use of our money through competition. I urge my colleagues, if 
you are concerned about these things, to join us in voting ``no.'' I 
urge the President to deliver on the veto so that we can end this 
debate and have price competition. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let us be clear about the letter 
that was printed in the Record. That letter is not a statement of the 
President. That was what the senior advisers said they would do if 
certain problems cannot be solved. We think those problems have been 
solved in this bill. They can be solved in the implementation of this 
bill.
  One of the arguments, just to give you an example, that the opponents 
of this bill made, is that the provision authorizing teaming agreements 
between public depots and private contractors is anticompetitive. We 
asked the Defense Department when they were up in front of us as to 
whether or not they were anticompetitive. And here I am going to read 
the specific question of Senator Kempthorne:

       Do you believe that allowing public depots and private 
     enterprise to team together to bid on these workloads is 
     anticompetitive? And, if so, would you explain why.

  We have heard this morning, and we heard before that the teaming 
provision is one of the so-called anticompetitive provisions in this 
bill. What does the Defense Department have to say about that? Their 
current Deputy General Counsel, Mr. Peters, who was before the Armed 
Services Committee the other day, when asked that question by Senator 
Kempthorne said the following:

       Senator Kempthorne, I do not believe and I do not believe 
     the Department feels that that provision is anticompetitive. 
     We certainly do not feel it is anticompetitive.

  This bill has been stymied for months over one provision. We need a 
defense authorization bill for many, many reasons. There are provisions 
in here that are critically important to the well-being of the men and 
women in the military. When the parties who have a direct interest in 
this dispute could not resolve this dispute in a way satisfactory to 
all of them, Senator Thurmond and I decided that we would get our 
staffs working and do the very best we could to have a fair and open 
competition provision.
  That is what we have accomplished. There is not one senior defense 
official who is on record as saying that this provision does not 
provide for a fair and open competition. It is not the Defense 
Department that has gone on record as saying that this is not a 
workable provision to create a fair and open competition. Not one 
senior official in the Defense Department has so stated on the record.

  May I say, I have had a number of off-the-record conversations with 
members of the Defense Department which lead me to conclude that this 
is a very workable provision, indeed.
  Mr. President, the President has not said he will veto this bill. I 
don't believe he has decided what to do. I hope that when he weighs the 
pros and cons in this bill that he will sign this bill. It is important 
to the uniformed military. It is important to the security of this 
Nation.

[[Page S11844]]

  I want to close by thanking my good friend, Chairman Thurmond, and 
his staff. He and our staffs have worked together, very, very well 
together, throughout the consideration of this bill.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as we close this debate, I take this 
opportunity to commend Senator Levin for the magnificent work he has 
done on this bill. He is a man of integrity, ability and dedication. It 
is a great asset to have him on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

  Mr. President, there are a few obvious reasons for Americans to focus 
on the defense of the United States. While there is no longer a 
superpower threatening to dominate us, threats still abound. Events in 
Iraq this week demonstrate that America must be prepared to protect her 
interests at a moment's notice. Other nations that might pose threats 
includes Iran, North Korea, and Libya.
  Mr. President, this bill is important to the young men and women who 
serve in our military forces. This bill includes pay raises and 
increases to special incentive pay, including vital aviator bonuses. 
Provisions in this bill affect every aspect of our national defense, 
including quality-of-life initiatives, modernization, and readiness. I 
remind all Senators that all military construction projects require an 
authorization as well as an appropriation and cannot be executed 
without this bill.
  Mr. President, I want to remind the Senate that all 18 members of the 
Armed Services Committee support this bill--10 Republicans and 8 
Democrats--every one of them support this bill. The House has already 
passed this by a veto-proof majority of 286 to 123. The leaders of the 
Defense Department have indicated that they can make this compromise 
work and that they need this bill passed. It is hard for me to believe 
that any Senator would oppose and delay the entire Defense 
authorization bill at a time when American troops are deployed in 
Bosnia and serious trouble appears to be brewing again in Iraq.
  I strongly encourage all Senators to vote for this bill. We must send 
a strong signal to the White House to demonstrate to the President that 
this bill, which is so important to our national security, should be 
signed. We must show the young men and women in uniform serving our 
Nation around the world that their services are appreciated and that we 
are backing them up.
  Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the Guard and Reserves. The 
National Guard of South Carolina is a magnificent guard, and we 
appreciate what they have done. And in the whole Nation, the National 
Guard is so valuable. I happen to have served in the Reserves myself 
for over 36 years. I appreciate the reservists and commend all of them 
for voluntarily serving their country. They have to carry on their 
civilian duties, but they do this extra work.
  I want to say, too, to the Members of this Senate, that this bill 
took not days, not weeks, but months. We have spent months on this 
bill. We have done the best we could. We have a lot of able members on 
the Armed Services Committee. All of them have worked hard on this 
bill. It is a compromise bill. I did not have my way on everything. 
Senator Levin did not have his way on everything. No one did. This is a 
compromise bill.
  National security was the driving force of this bill. We could not 
satisfy every Senator. We did the best we could to accommodate all we 
could. But national security was our driving force when we considered 
this bill. Again, I ask all Senators to support this bill for the good 
of the country and to support this bill for the good of our troops and 
to support this bill, too, for the public good.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 296 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--10

     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gramm
     Grams
     Hutchison
     Kohl
     Stevens
     Wellstone
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Mexico [Mr. Domenici], is recognized.

                          ____________________