Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. This morning, at 10:15, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill and begin debate on amendments to the bill. Senator Brownback is expected to offer an amendment regarding Pakistan, which will be followed by an amendment by Senator Kerrey of Nebraska regarding strategic nuclear development systems. Under a previous consent, at 11:45 the Senate will resume consideration of the BRAC amendment. At least one vote will occur in relation to the BRAC amendment at 1:45 p.m. Therefore, Senators can expect the first vote for today to occur at approximately 1:45 p.m. Senators who have amendments to S. 1059 should contact the bill managers so action on this bill can be completed prior to the scheduled Memorial Day recess.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for yielding. In response to the Senator from Oklahoma, I agree that funding for our military has been dismal, particularly in light of the fact that this administration has continued to have more deployments than President Bush and President Reagan put together. Yet, we have cut defense from time to time, and I am very sympathetic to and voted for increased funding for the Department of Defense. I understand there are problems with the Air Force, but I think this is where the Civil Air Patrol, with their voluntary program, helps with the budget; they don't hurt the budget. If we have shortages at the Air Force, as far as adequate funding for oversight, it seems to me that taking over the whole program is going to require more personnel, more time, and it is going to cost the Air Force more. It seems to me that the responsible thing to do at this particular point is to, first of all, get our studies and facts in order and then find out if we can't come up with a commonsense resolution that has some reasonable oversight by the Air Force and still keep this a voluntary organization. The strength of it is the voluntarism. I hate to take that away from it. I think we save the Air Force money. So that is why I believe it is important that we go ahead with the amendment that I am proposing, because I think in the long run the Air Force can benefit. We just have to get the oversight problems taken care of. We can do that. Once we get the facts before us--and that is what my amendment does--then we can move forward. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Oklahoma yielded to me. What is our time limit?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLARD. All Members cosponsoring this amendment recognize we have some oversight problems. We are struggling because we don't have the facts firmly before the Senate. It seems to me, as with any other problem that comes before this Senate, we can go through the same channel as any other agency. We can have hearings--public hearings; we can have a GAO study, and an inspector general study to have some basis in fact with which to work. Once we have all the facts, we can put together some reasonable recommendations. At this point, to turn total control over to the Air Force is a rather draconian action until we get the facts. I hope I can sit down with the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, whom I respect dearly, and work out a way to make it accountable without having to turn over total control to the Air Force. I am afraid we will lose the volunteer aspect. I think that is one of the real values of the Civil Air Patrol. The volunteer aspect used to go down to young students, high school age. They learn to work the radio; they learn to be part of a team; they get experience with flying, and eventually they may very well apply to the Air Force Academy or the Navy to fly. I think it is a great recruiting mechanism with lots of advantages. I think it all boils down to the volunteer organization. My hope is we can work out a plan that would bring accountability to this very serious problem yet maintain the volunteer aspects of the organization and local control.

Mr. ALLARD. I will sit down with my colleagues, both of my colleagues, and go over some of this language. The way I read the language, the Air Force Secretary appoints the national board of directors, and they have total control over the rules and regulations. It looks to me as if they have total control. Maybe I am misinterpreting it. I am willing to sit down with my colleague and see if this happens or not, and maybe we can work out a compromise. With that in mind, I yield the floor so the chairman can move ahead.

Mr. ALLARD. I think we are getting some common ground worked out. I am hopeful we can get something put on paper.

Mr. ALLARD. We think we have reached agreement. We are getting it put down on paper. We can put this vote off until tomorrow, if that is the Senator's question. Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tim Coy, a staff person, be granted the privilege of the floor for the debate.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. In response to comments in the cases that were presented by my esteemed colleague from Oklahoma--I will add at this point, it is a pleasure to serve with him on the Armed Services Committee; he is somebody that I highly regard in the Senate, a very honorable individual. I know that he has a love for the Civil Air Patrol and he wants them to be able to do their job effectively. I know that his concerns are out of love for that very organization, because he is a pilot himself. I will respond that from the information I have on the misallocation of the personnel uses, I understand there is a high probability that that occurred. But in other organizations where this happens, we don't go and just take away complete control of the organization without some hearings, without some oversight from this Congress. I understand that the Air Force has spent some time in overviewing it, and it has been done within the structure of the Air Force. I think, before we move ahead with an amendment as dramatic as what is in the defense authorization bill before us, that we ought to have some hearings, that we ought to, as Members of Congress, spend some time and delve into the actual facts. I don't think we can do this without having some agency do some reporting for us. That is why in the amendment that I have put forward, I ask the GAO to look at the financial structure--this is an area my colleague has suggested where there could be some problems--and report back to Congress whether or not there are abuses. And also in the amendment, I have the Inspector General, who can look at the administrating aspects of it, how they established policy, see if they are following through with their goals, if they are doing what they have promised to the Congress and to the Air Force, and give a report on those incidents. And we ask that this be given in a timely manner so that next year when we come back in and this bill is before us then we can go ahead and look over the report and, hopefully, maybe have a hearing or two based on the report and put something reasonable and responsible forward. I have some real concerns about saying, OK, we are going to turn over total control to the Civil Air Patrol, take it away from being a voluntary nonprofit organization. That is almost like a chapter 11 in the real business world. When you take over the board of directors, you completely change everything. I don't think it is that serious. I don't think we ought to put the Air Force in control of the board of directors. But I do think there are some things that we need to investigate. For example, on the cruise issue brought up by my colleague, my understanding is that the Air Force was the one that OK'd the disbursement for that cruise. So there might be some question of where the responsibility lies, who was culpable for some of these actions. I know the Air Force has some oversight on some of the equipment. Now, maybe we don't have the Air Force doing what their responsibility should be. So if that is the case, then there might be enough blame here to go around to everybody. I think the only way, as Members of the Senate, we can begin to sort this out is if we have hearings, we ask for a report from the General Accounting Office, and ask the inspector general to give us a report, so we have some facts on which we can work. For that reason, I am continuing to push my amendment. I hope the Members of the Senate will support me. A number of my colleagues also come from mountainous States where the Civil Air Patrol is vital and their response needs to be made on a local decisionmaking process. We can't be waiting to go out to search until after it has been filtered through Washington and goes back to the State. On these search efforts, when they come up, there is an immediate need and there has to be an immediate decision made locally. My hope is that we can adopt my amendment and take out the more onerous provisions that we have in the bill until we can get the facts before us. And then, after we have those facts, perhaps we can move forward in a more informed and responsible manner. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered, with Senator Harkin, and others, dealing with the Civil Air Patrol, is, in the greater scheme of this defense authorization, probably not that big a measure. But for the Civil Air Patrol, its members, an the job they do, it will prevent a huge and unfortunate change. This defense authorization contains a provision that would force the civilian, volunteer, locally controlled Civil Air Patrol wings into a more rigid and centralized Air Force command structure. My fellow sponsors of the current amendment and I feel this forced change would hamper the patrol, hinder their activities, and hurt, ultimately, results. The Air Force fights wars. Their structure and administration are designed for fighting wars. The Civil Air Patrol, a nonprofit civilian service organization, is fundamentally different. The Patrol was started to watch our borders during war time. But now their focus is search and rescue, counterdrug operations, and humanitarian efforts. Last year, the patrol saved 116 lives through their search and rescue operations. In 1998, they also flew 41,721 hours in support of counterdrug operations. Over the last 4 years, the Patrol membership has increased 20 percent, and the youth cadet program has increased its membership by 30 percent. Newspaper are full of stories about Patrol efforts to find downed planes, lost hikers, and others, or emergency flights to provide supplies, transport people, and shuttle other vital items. After the recent tornados in Oklahoma, Patrol wings flew damage assessment missions for relief authorities. In January, the Colorado wing found two missing hikers in Mesa Verde park in Colorado. In April, they flew search and rescue looking for the Miller family of Iowa. As the Omaha-World Herald said on Tuesday, May 11, ``When a small plan goes down in the unforgiving mountains of southwest Colorado, the story seldom ends well.'' But the Patrol kept at it, doing what they have been called on to do time and time again. The Air Force conducted a week long review of the Patrol at national headquarters. They found what they deemed to be irregularities. The Civil Air Patrol has responded to the review, point by point. They have shown a willingness to deal with the Air Force by instituting some of the proposed measures, an by negotiating on the others. But from my understanding the Air Force, however, does not wish to negotiate in a sincere manner. While I understand Air Force Secretary Peters position, I do not believe the only option on the Civil Air Patrol was to do it the Air Force Way. I would prefer to do it the correct way. And so what is the proper congressional response now? This section of the defense authorization is certainly not the answer. The provision that we are trying to remove with this amendment could very well be a ``fix'' for something that is not broken, or a surgical amputation instead of a band-aid. There have been allegations of financial impropriety and safety lapses. I am willing--in fact, I am eager--to have these fully investigated. The amendment before us mandates a Department of Defense Inspector General audit on the financial and management structure of the Civil Air Patrol, and requires them to present the report, with recommendations, to the congressional defense committees. The amendment likewise calls for the GAO to investigate and make recommendations on the CAP management and financial oversight structure, as well as the Air Force's management and financial oversight structure of the Civil Air Patrol and their recommendations for improvement. Both reports are due by February 1, 2000, so that we can consider the reports and recommendations for next year's authorization. But the amendment does not overwhelmingly change the makeup and leadership of the Patrol, without hearings, congressional oversight, or joint party consultations. It allows us to take an informed and reasoned approach to dealing with the allegations. The Civil Air Patrol is not some loose-cannon. It is not some rogue agency. The Patrol is already an auxiliary of the Air Force. Their financial practices are overseen by the Air Force. Air Force personnel must sign off on Patrol expenditures and billing. Air Force personnel work at Patrol headquarters, with daily access to financial records, and these records are all public information. I do not know the motives for this attempt to subsume the Patrol into the Air Force after all these years. If the desire is merely to react to charges of impropriety, then the language as it stands is obviously excessive, and our amendment is the far better approach. But if I don't know the reason why, I certainly know reasons why not to allow this language. I worry the Patrol will lose its local control. It is very important in States such as Colorado that we have immediate decisions when a plane goes down. Because we live in a State that has a lot of rough terrain, the weather changes quickly and dramatically, it is important that decisions be made quickly. With our local decisionmaking process, those decisions do get made properly and we can get out and save peoples' lives, in States such as Colorado, through the efforts of the Civil Air Patrol. It will sour those locally based volunteers who make up the overwhelming majority of the wings, who donate their time and energy and often equipment. Many of the assets of the Civil Air Patrol are gifts the Patrol received from donors willing to give to a charitable organization. How can we justify the Air Force wresting control of these items away from the local volunteers? How can we justify the added expense of substituting high- ranking, paid, benefit-earning Air Force personnel for unpaid, volunteer Civil Air Patrol leadership? How can we justify doing it with so little discussion, so little oversight, so little recognition of the severity of the action? I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair let me know when I have reached the 15-minute mark.

Mr. ALLARD. That would be fine.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of the 1998 United States Air Force Academy Football Team. The 1998 ``Falcons'' may go down in history as one of the greatest football teams in Academy history. Their 12-1 record included their first outright Western Athletic Conference Championship, a bowl victory over the University of Washington, and the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy, which is the most prized possession of the three service academies. This team of over-achieving young men was lead by their Head Football Coach Fisher DeBerry, and his assistant coaches Richard Bell, Todd Bynum, Dee Dowis, Dick Enga, Larry Fedora, Jimmy Hawkins, Jeff Hayes, Cal McCombs, Tom Miller, Bob Noblitt, Jappy Oliver, Chuck Peterson, and Sammy Steinmark. They are recognized as one of the finest coaching staffs in the country. On offense, the team was lead by seniors Mike Barron, Joe Cashman, Spanky Gilliam, Ryan Hill, Frank Mindrup, Blane Morgan, James Nate, Dylan Newman, Matt Paroda, Brian Phillips, Barry Roche, Jemal Singleton, Matt Waszak, and Eric Woodring. The defense was lead by seniors Tim Curry, Bryce Fisher, Billy Free, Jeff Haugh, Jason Sanderson, Mike Tyler, and Charlton Warren. Special team seniors Jason Kirkland and Alex Wright took care of the punting and place kicking duties. The most impressive thing about these outstanding young men is that following their graduation from the Academy they will all be moving on to serve our county as 2nd Lieutenants in the United States Air Force. They are true student athletes who play the game for the enjoyment of the sport. These young men are tremendous role models for the youth of our country, and our nation can take pride in their accomplishments. I commend the Superintendent of the Air Force Academy, Lt. General Tad Oelstrom, and Athletic Director Randy Spetman for their leadership in development an outstanding group of young men. They clearly possess the ``right stuff.''

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask for an hour equally divided.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, just to clarify, I don't have any objection to that unanimous consent request, but I want to make some general remarks in regard to the total bill. I just wanted to try----

Mr. ALLARD. That would be fine. I appreciate that. I think if we set aside 20 minutes, that would be fine. I appreciate that.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Doug Flanders of my staff have floor privileges during the entire debate on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Roberts amendment. The reason I do that is I think that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which we refer to as NATO in this debate, is suffering from mission creep. I look at what has happened with the Strategic Concept in 1991. I look at the passing of the 1999 new Strategic Concept, and I think it becomes clear how mission creep is moving in. In 1991, NATO established a new Strategic Concept which altered the concept dramatically from the original treaty. It allowed for more flexibility in the ability to get into a wide range of military operations. However, I add that it did maintain in part 4, under Guidelines for Defense, entitled ``Principle of Alliance Strategy''--I want to quote specifically from that Strategic Concept. The alliance strategy will continue to reflect a number of fundamental principles. The alliance-- And this is underlined-- The alliance is purely defensive in purpose. None of its weapons will ever be used except in self defense. And it does not consider itself to be anyone's adversary. Then, if we look at the 1999 new Strategic Concept, it still says that their core purpose is the collective defense of NATO members. It adds that NATO: . . . should contribute to peace and stability in the region. But, while a lot of the debate here on the floor has been about what does the Concept say, the important point I want to make here is what is important is what it does not say. In the 1999 new Strategic Concept, there is no mention that the alliance will never use its weapons except in self-defense. So, in 1991 the new Strategic Concept said the alliance was purely defensive in purpose. In 1999, there is no mention that the alliance will never use its weapons other than in self-defense. I think that is a real important distinction. That is why I think it is so important we have a debate on the mission of NATO.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. What is the regular order?

Mr. ALLARD. I have been waiting. I was here most of the morning and then waiting this afternoon for 3 hours to have an opportunity to make some general comments on this bill. I do not anticipate taking much longer. My agreement is 20 minutes, if I remember correctly.

Mr. ALLARD. Maybe there would be an opportunity--I would like to get in on this meeting Senator Warner is attending at some point in time-- probably the last part of it. But I would like to have the opportunity to address this bill. What is it the Senator from Pennsylvania is seeking, as far as the privilege of the floor?