Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Alaska. I will make just a few more remarks to clarify. First of all, this amendment strikes a provision that sets up a different procedure for progress payments to large business concerns. That is what the statute says. It does not say small business. It says large business concerns. We set up a requirement for 85 percent progress payments for large business concerns. The 75 percent which is customary in the industry remains the procedure for all others. So this is not a way to help small businesses; this is a way to help large defense contractors. To my knowledge, Mr. President, I do not believe anybody could come to the floor and critique or disagree with me on this.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, when you go down this list it is a list of some of our best corporations. They do a superb job in supplying products and services for the Department of Defense: McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed-Martin, Martin Marietta, General Motors, Raytheon, United Technologies, Northrop, General Dynamics, Loral, Grumman, Boeing, General Electric, Westinghouse Electric, Litton Industries, National Steel & Shipbuilding, Rockwell International, TRW, Texas Instruments, Textron, Tenneco. Mr. President, I do not believe that these companies should get any worse treatment than any other company that does business with the Government. I think they should be treated well. The Government should pay its bills on time. The Government should pay its bills promptly. I think it is appropriate we make the customary progress payments as they complete work on a contract. The customary progress payments are 75 percent--you get paid for 75 percent of the work completed--then there is some portion held back to ensure that the entire job is done well and you can pay the rest at the end of the contract. That is the customary way in which contracting is done. I do not think it is worth $488 million to the American people to change that, just for this next fiscal year, and begin paying them an extra 10 percent as part of these progress payments. It just makes no sense to me. I argued long and hard yesterday to try to get support from my colleagues for $26 million in funding for Indian education. This was not new money. This was to try to keep the 1995 level of funding again in 1996. We were turned down. People said there is not enough money, we cannot do it. In light of that, if those are the circumstances we face, if we do not have enough money, if we are trying to balance the budget, and clearly there is a legitimate desire to get to a balanced budget by many Members of this body, then clearly people should support this effort to cut out this $488 million from the bill. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I think it speaks for itself. I do not believe we will need additional time. Mr. President, I address a question to the manager of the bill, the Senator from Alaska. If the Senator from Alaska could respond to a question, if he would like to have the same kind of arrangement of 2 minutes for and 2 minutes against prior to a vote on this, I would have no objection to that course of action.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment which I do not think anyone should have any difficulty understanding. It relates to the earlier amendment I offered only in one respect, in that I did propose to amend this same section there as well. But this does not relate, I would point out to my colleagues who are here on the floor, to the LHD-7. It does not relate to ongoing operations. It does not relate to any specific funding program or any specific project in the defense bill. What it does is it says this provision which was included in the bill to require the Department of Defense to make 85-percent progress payments, rather than 75-percent progress payments as does the rest of the Federal Government, should be stricken from the bill. This is a particularly bad provision. This is section 8082 on page 81 of the bill. It says: None of the funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made available to make progress payments based on costs to large business concerns at rates lower than 85 percent on contract solicitation issued after enactment of this act. This provision, which I am proposing we eliminate from the bill, is particularly objectionable because it is limited to large business concerns. Why do we want to make 85-percent payments to large business concerns and retain the 75-percent progress payment to any other business concern, as is presently the case? Why do we want to have one set of rules which are more advantageous for defense contractors than the set of rules we have for all other contractors? I have great difficulty understanding the rationale for this. I am not just raising this as a philosophical issue. According to the figures we have been given, these five lines in the defense bill cost the American taxpayer $488 million. This is $488 million that the Department of Defense is going to have to spend in the 1996 fiscal year more than otherwise would be the case because of these five lines. All I am saying is we have some other needs in this country besides speeding up the rate at which we pay defense contractors. We need to pay these defense contractors. They need to be profitable. We do not want to fall behind on our payments. I agree with all of that. But I do not see why it is in the best interests of the people I represent in New Mexico, or the general public in this country, for us to spend $488 million in this way in the next fiscal year. So I think clearly the merits are on changing this to just eliminating this provision, allow us to continue the present arrangement where we pay defense contractors just as we pay others, particularly these large business concerns which are talked about in this language. Mr. President, in discussing the earlier amendment I also went over this issue to some extent and pointed out that these so-called large business concerns--I assume that term, although that is a fairly new term, at least in any bill I have seen--I assume that within that definition of a large business concern you would include the 20 top defense contractors that do business with the Federal Government. Just as in the previous debate I asked then to have printed in the Record a copy of the financial performance of the top 20 Department of Defense contractors during the first quarter of 1995, I again ask unanimous consent we print that as part of this debate.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response to my friend from Colorado, I still need to object. The Democratic leader has asked that we protect the rights of people to offer second-degree amendments. This would block that, if I understand what is being requested. [[Page S 12148]] Amendment No. 2391, As Modified

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the tabling motion.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just summarize very briefly. I think the first question you ask when you go to put a defense budget together, or any budget, is, what is your top priority? Here we know what the top priority of the Secretary of Defense is if there is any additional money for defense. He has made it very clear. I am just arguing that we should do the responsible thing and fund that top priority. It will be dishonest, Mr. President, for us to put this off and then come back to the American people next year and say, Surprise. All of a sudden we have discovered that it costs us money in 1996 to operate this operation down in Guantanamo. Surprise. We find it is costing us money to do these activities over in Iraq. Surprise. We find it is costing us some money to do what we are doing in Bosnia, and, therefore, we have got an emergency and we need to pass a supplemental appropriations bill to add to the defense bill that we passed last year. So it is not just what the President requested for the 1996 defense bill. Is not just that. It is not just the $7 billion extra. It is that plus the $7 billion, plus what we ask for in the supplemental which we know is going to come if we turn down this amendment. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, pay our bills as we go. You hear a lot of talk about the importance of pay as you go around here. That is what we are asking people to do: Pay as we go; fund the top priority of the Department of Defense, and do so by putting off the purchase of this ship, which we will have 5 more years in which to consider whether or not we want to go ahead with this 12th amphibious assault ship. I think during that time we can make a much better judgment than we are making today. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Is there any additional discussion on the other side? I will ask the Senator from Alaska if he wishes to conduct any at this time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we have heard a great many arguments as to why this amendment should not be adopted. Let me try to go through several of them. First, the argument has been made that this ship is sorely needed by the military. I earlier erred when I was describing the request of the Department of Defense. I thought they had asked for this in the last year of the 5-year plan. It used to be they referred to the 5-year plan. The FYDP was an abbreviation for the 5-year defense plan. They have now gone, I am informed, to a 6-year defense plan, and now the FYDP stands for future year defense plan, and this ship is not requested in the 5 years; it is requested in the 6th year of the 6-year plan. So clearly there is a request, but it is way in the future, as far in the future as you can get and still be requesting. As I understand it, we just had the launching of one of these amphibious ships in February of this year. We have two more that are under construction at this very time. This will be the 12th of these amphibious ships if we go ahead and fund it as proposed in the bill. [[Page S 12146]] Mr. President, I do not doubt that in a perfect world it would be nice to buy a 12th amphibious assault ship and to do so in 1997 rather than the year 2001. But we have to exercise some discipline in this body and some sense of priorities. The priorities of this administration are to put the funds in ongoing operations where the Secretary of Defense has said we need them. Here is a quotation from the letter that the Secretary sent to our chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond. He says, ``I suggest that you fund these contingencies first if you decide to increase the DOD budget this year.'' Mr. President, we have decided, the Congress has decided to increase the DOD budget this year by over $7 billion, and yet we are not funding these ongoing operations. Not only are we not funding them first, we are not funding them. We are saying to the American people, ``Do not pay attention; we will come back next year and ask for this money next year, and we will tell you then that it is an emergency. And so, then you ought to be willing to accept it.'' Mr. President, that is not responsible. We should not be doing that. We should go ahead and pay for those things we know need to be paid for in this bill. I also want people to recognize that the debate has shifted very dramatically in this Senate on defense spending. I remember when we started the year I heard a drumbeat from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about how we had a shortfall in readiness, how we had been neglecting readiness, how the Clinton administration had not asked for enough money for readiness and the operations and maintenance of our troops. Mr. President, the administration is asking for funding for readiness. Anyone who votes against this amendment needs to desist from further requests for funding for readiness, because, quite frankly, we have a very direct request here, and anyone who is not willing to fund it is being given a very good chance to do so. Let me just summarize what we are doing in the amendment. I think it should be clear to my colleagues, but let me summarize it again. We are adding $1.188--$1,188,000,000--to pay for known bills for ongoing operations in northern and southern Iraq, in Cuba, and in Bosnia. This is not a honeypot that we are creating here. I heard my colleague from Mississippi say we are creating a honeypot. These are ongoing operations. These bills are coming due every day, and they will be coming due every day as we get into this new fiscal year as well. So we need to provide these funds. We are providing the $1.3 billion for the LHD-7 amphibious assault ship not because it is a good ship but because it has been requested in year six of the future year defense plan, and it is something we need to put off until someday when we can afford it. We cannot afford it this year. In addition, this amendment strikes two provisions of the bill which I believe really cannot be justified. I have noticed that none of the comments on the other side in opposition to the amendment have even addressed these issues because there is really no argument to be made. I am striking two provisions in the bill that increase outlays by $1.238 billion by forcing the Pentagon to pay large contractors 85 percent rather than 75 percent progress payments and to pay bills in 24 days instead of 30-days. We do not require that anywhere else in the Government. We do not require it of any other Department of Government. We are saying to the Department of Defense, you have to pay these defense contractors faster than you have paid them in the past. You have to give them a higher progress payment than you have given them in the past or than we give to anyone else who does business with the Government. General Sheehan when he testified to our committee did not equivocate on this. He said it would be nice to buy these things, but we cannot afford everything. And that is essentially the point of our amendment here today. We cannot afford everything. The claim that we are going to save $700 million by going ahead and buying this LHD-7 right now is pure speculation. Nobody knows what the bidding climate is going to be in the year 2001. I tend to think that there may be some defense contractors out there who are very willing to give us a good deal in the year 2001 just like they are willing to give us a good deal this year. So I do not buy the argument that we are saving money and we are necessarily going to have to spend more later if we put this off as the Department of Defense is requesting. There are higher priorities for this country this year than buying a 12th amphibious assault ship. One of those priorities--in fact, the first of those priorities in the eyes of the Secretary of Defense--is to fund these ongoing operations. That is what we are trying to do in this amendment. I think it is clearly the responsible thing to do. It is what the American people want us to do. I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to put our priorities in order in this legislation, to go ahead and adopt the amendment, fund the ongoing operations which all know have to be paid for, and then do so by putting off, as the Department of Defense requested, any funding for this additional ship. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield myself all but 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much remains for the opposition?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment does several things. Let me describe what those are. It provides over a billion dollars--in fact, $1.63 billion--for ongoing military operations which the Secretary of Defense stated was his highest priority for funding if we were able to find any additional funds to use this year in addition to the President's requested budget. It does so by striking the expenditures in the bill by $1.3 billion for the LHD-7 amphibious assault ship. It also, Mr. President, strikes two other provisions of the bill, which I think need to be stricken, and which I will explain as I go forward. Mr. President, prior to the Armed Services Committee markup of the bill, we had a breakfast in the Armed Services Committee with Secretary Perry and General Shalikashvili to discuss what the needs of the Department of Defense were. The Secretary at that time told the committee that he would need $1.188 billion in fiscal year 1996 to fund ongoing operations in Iraq--on [[Page S 12141]] Iraq's borders, that is, and at Guantanamo Bay and in Bosnia. He stated that if these operations were not funded in the authorization and appropriations bills that we pass this year, then he would be forced to come back to Congress with a supplemental next year asking for this exact amount of money--at least this amount of money. He indicated that he knew for a fact we were going to have to be spending this much in these different areas. Mr. President, this chart, I think, captures the essence of what the Secretary has asked for. Under Iraq, we have two ongoing activities there at the present time which are well known to those who follow the news in that part of the world. We have what we call the ``provide comfort'' activity in northern Iraq and the ``southern watch'' activity in southern Iraq. The first of those, the Secretary indicated, will cost a minimum of $143 million in 1996. The second of those in southern Iraq will cost a minimum of $504 million in the next fiscal year. So, in addition to Iraq, we have ongoing refugee support at Guantanamo. We are all aware of the fact that the military is having to expend funds to deal with the refugee problem in Guantanamo. The figure the Secretary gave us--again, this is a minimum figure as he presented it to us--is that the Department of Defense will have to expend $178 million, minimum, in the next fiscal year to carry through as they were directed by the President. In Bosnia, if we do nothing more than we are presently doing--and there has been criticism on the Senate floor that we are doing too little--if we do nothing more than we are presently doing, that is, offering humanitarian support and the ``deny flight'' activity there, the estimate the Secretary gave us is that we will spend a minimum of $363 million next year. Quite frankly, Mr. President, I think these are low figures. The Secretary himself indicated he thinks these are low figures. But he says he knows for a fact that we are going to have to spend at least this much on ongoing operations. These are not contingencies; these are not things which might or might not happen; these are ongoing. It is not an emergency that we are responding to here. We know for a fact that these are expenses we are going to have in the next fiscal year. Despite the Secretary's plea to us, Mr. President, the authorization committee chose to meet only $125 million of the Secretary's request. That is about enough to fund these operations for 37 days and get us through to the 7th of November. The funding which the Secretary proposes for the operations was a minimum, as I indicated. We have added to this bill $7.1 billion above what the Pentagon requested. The Pentagon's request was $245.8 billion. We added $7.1 billion to that. But in adding all of that money, we have not funded what the Secretary says is his top priority request for additional funding. Last fall, and earlier this year, the issue of near-term readiness of our active duty forces was the central issue in the defense debate. I heard many Senators coming forward and saying we have to do more about readiness, we have to do better by our troops. President Clinton, at Secretary Perry's urging, added funding to the defense budget to address the problem, and both the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee have now essentially endorsed the Pentagon's operations and maintenance budgets for the next year. However, because of a long history, which I understand began during the Vietnam war--it goes back at least that far--the Pentagon did not include in its original request the necessary operations and maintenance for these ongoing operations. So that is what we are trying to correct with this amendment. Secretary Perry has promised in all future years to include the minimum cost that he can see for ongoing operations in the budget request that is sent to the Congress at the first of the year. Funding for new contingencies is not discussed in my amendment. Certainly, I agree with those who will say we do not know what additional costs we might have in Bosnia. I would be amazed, Mr. President, if we got through 1996 only spending $363 million in Bosnia. I think most of us would be amazed. If Saddam Hussein again makes a feint toward Kuwait, obviously, we will need additional expenditures there. If the United States has to deploy ground forces in Bosnia, clearly, that will be a very, very major expense for which the Secretary would have to come back to Congress with a request. But, Mr. President, I think for us to add $7 billion to this bill and still not provide the funds the Secretary and administration have asked for for ongoing operations is really dishonest with the American people, because we know that we are going to have to pay for these items. There is no question about that. We ought to go ahead and pay for them in this bill, and that is what I am trying to get accomplished with this amendment. Now, the offset that I have identified is the LHD-7. This is an amphibious assault ship which is not in the Navy's budget request until the year 2001. A great deal is being made of the fact that it is in the FYDP. For those people who have been around Washington too long, they know what that means. The FYDP is the 5-year defense plan that the military gives us each year. They say this is what we want next year and, by the way, here are the things we would also like in the 4 years after that. That changes every year. Things that are in the 5th year of the 5-year plan may not be in next year's 5-year plan, or they may. We just do not know. But the committee has chosen, in the case of this amphibious assault ship, the LHD-7, to move the procurement from 2001, where it appears in the long-term plan of the Defense Department, up to next year. I think that is a mistake. I think the question that we need to be addressing in this amendment, and we are addressing in this amendment, is: Should we fund the top priority of the Secretary of Defense for next year, or should we begin next year to buy a ship which the Secretary says he may in fact want us to buy for the Navy in the year 2001? To my mind, it is very clear that we should go ahead and put this money in these ongoing operations instead. There was a discussion we had before the Armed Services Committee earlier this year and General Sheehan, who is the commander of USA Com said in that discussion, ``The force that we have in the inventory right now is a quality force.'' This was his response to questions being raised by my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott. ``The real issue is what we can afford. This Nation very frankly has got to manage risk in a better way than we have in the past because we just cannot afford to buy everything we need.'' Mr. President, that is why my argument with regard to the LHD-7--I am not opposed to buying another amphibious assault ship at some stage if the need is still there, and I understand also the argument which will be made by the proponents of maintaining that funding, that we can save money if we buy it now. Mr. President, when I first came to Washington I was startled to see that they were having enormous sales out at all of the department stores one weekend. On Friday I picked up the paper and it seemed to me that every major department store was having a great big sale that next day. I thought how fortunate I am to have discovered or to have been in town on the day when all these department stores are having a sale. Now I have been here 13 years, and I notice every Friday they are having enormous sales at all the department stores the next day. That is exactly what we are faced with here. The contractor on this project has indicated they will give us a better price if we go ahead and buy this now than in the year 2001. I say that there is no defense contractor that has ever been in business that would not make a similar pledge in order to get business committed at an early stage. Mr. President, I need to make another point which I think is obvious to most who try to follow defense-related issues. We have in this bill, and it is admitted in the committee report accompanying the authorization bill, we have in this bill more defense than we are able to afford under the budget resolutions, the budget plan, that has been adopted in this Congress for the next 7 years. It is clear to me that we do not have the resources and are not going to have [[Page S 12142]] the resources in these outyears to buy everything that is in these defense bills. I think it is also clear to those who are proponents of this additional LHD-7 amphibious assault ship, that they know that the getting is better now than it is likely to be 2 years from now or 4 years from now, and they want to get this ship authorized and appropriated now while there is still money to be had in the defense budgets. Mr. President, as I say, I have no particular dislike for that ship. I think it is a question of priorities. I think it is clear that if this amendment is adopted we will do several things: We will fund the ongoing operations which the Secretary of Defense has said is his top priority for any additional funding that we can find. We will save taxpayers over $100 million because, in fact, the savings by not going ahead and purchasing this ship next year, will fund all of these ongoing operations and, in addition, save us $111 million. That is the estimate I have been given. It does those two things. Let me say there is also another very good part of my amendment which I want to call to the attention of my colleagues. When looking at this bill which we are now dealing with, there are some provisions in there, Mr. President, which I have great difficulty understanding, and I propose to strike those provisions out. I call my colleagues' attention to section 8082 on page 81 of the bill. It provides ``None of the funds available to the Department of Defense shall be available to make progress payments based on costs to large business concerns at rates lower than 75 percent on contract solicitations issued after enactment of this act.'' That is one provision, Mr. President. Let me just focus as to what this language means. I am proposing in my amendment to strike that language. I want to tell people why. Essentially, that is saying that the present practice of paying 75 percent progress payments of total amount due as progress payments, that is going to be changed in the case of large businesses, large defense contractors, up to 85 percent. In other words, the government is going to start paying money faster to large contractors. Not to all of its contractors, but just to those that meet this definition of large business--whatever a large business is. Mr. President, I certainly am not arguing that we should not pay our bills. We should pay our bills. We should pay them promptly. There is no doubt about that. I have great difficulty understanding why we need to be paying 85 percent of progress payments instead of 75 percent as we historically have. I have tried to keep some general knowledge about the financial performance of some of our defense contractors. I am pleased to say that they are doing very well, thank you. I have here a chart that is entitled ``Financial Performance of Top 20 Department of Defense Contractors for the First Quarter of 1995.'' We can go right down the list. McDonnell Douglas reports profits of $189 million; Lockheed Martin, $137 million; General Motors, $2.154 billion; Raytheon, $173 million. Each of these companies is doing quite well in its profit reports and its financial performance, Mr. President. I wish them well. I think it is important that we have successful, profitable, defense contracts in this country. I cannot understand why we are putting a provision in law here saying we have to pay them 85 percent progress payments rather than 75 percent progress payments. Let me also focus my colleagues' attention on the other provision that I am proposing to strike as part of this amendment. That is section 8083. It says in this provision ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of Defense shall execute payment in not more than 24 days after receipt of a proper invoice.'' Mr. President, the practice throughout the business community as far as I am aware and the practice throughout government as far as I am aware is to pay your bills within 30 days. I think that is a reasonably good practice. I certainly believe we should pay our bills and do so promptly. I cannot understand why we are separating out the Department of Defense for a different standard and saying, no, no, when we are dealing with defense contractors, we do not want to use the general provision that applies to all other contractual arrangements the Federal Government makes. When we are dealing with defense contractors, instead of paying them in 30 days we have to pay them in 24 days. That is exactly what this provision calls for. Mr. President, I have proposed to strike the provision in the bill that says we have to go to 85 percent progress payments rather than 75. I have also proposed to strike the provision which says that we have to go to 24 days for payment of all of our bills, rather than 30 days. I have proposed to fund all of the ongoing operations, the remainder of the ongoing operations that the Secretary of Defense has indicated are his top priority for funding and which we all know--every Member of this body--knows that we are going to pay the bill that is being identified here. It is a question of whether we do it in a straightforward above-board way in this bill or whether we put it off until next year and come back to the American people and say, by the way, we had an emergency, unexpected contingency came up and we will have to spend this money. The truth is, we know we have to spend this money. The Secretary of Defense has said it is his top priority. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I think it is a very straightforward amendment which will return over $100 million to the taxpayers of the country. In addition, we will see to it that our priorities are straight in this legislation. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment reflect that Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Exon, and Mr. Kerrey from Nebraska are listed as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I would like 5 minutes to sum up my position before we go to a final vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I defer to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I see very little percentage in me agreeing to a time limit under those circumstances.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, can I ask the Senator from Alaska if he would add to that one-half hour for the amendment that I will offer after the Senator from North Dakota on my side, and one-half hour in opposition, also without no second-degree and with an up-or-down vote? It would be the amendment I just gave the Senator.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the two floor managers of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, and the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, and their staff, for their management of the Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations Act for the Department of Defense. I would like to take a few moments to discuss an amendment I have proposed, which has been cleared by both sides. My amendment encourages agencies funded under the bill to become more energy efficient and directs them to reduce facility energy costs by 5 percent. The agencies will report to the Congress at the end of the year on their efforts to conserve energy and will make recommendations for further conservation efforts. I have offered this amendment to every appropriations bill that has come before the Senate this year, and it has been accepted to each one. I believe this is a common-sense amendment: the Federal Government spends nearly $4 billion annually to heat, cool, and power its 500,000 buildings. The Office Technology Assistance and the Alliance to Save Energy, a nonprofit group which I chair with Senator Jeffords, estimate that Federal agencies could save $1 billion annually if they would make an effort to become more energy efficient and conserve energy. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will encourage agencies to use new energy savings technologies when making building improvements in insulation, building controls, lighting, heating, and air conditioning. The Department of Energy has made available for governmentwide agency use streamlined ``energy saving performance contracts'' procedures, modeled after private sector initiatives. Unfortunately, most agencies have made little progress in this area. This amendment is an attempt to get Federal agencies to devote more attention to energy efficiency, with the goal of lowering overall costs and conserving energy. As I mentioned, Mr. President, this amendment has been accepted to every appropriations bill the Senate has passed this year. I am pleased my colleagues support it, and again, I thank the floor managers for their assistance. Thank you. amendment no. 2361 (Purpose: To revise the availability of funds for loan guarantees for the defense dual-use assistance extension program) On page 29, strike out the period at the end of line 13 and insert in lieu thereof ``: Provided, That the funds made available under the second proviso under this heading in Public Law 103-335 (108 Stat. 2613) shall also be available to cover the reasonable costs of the administration of loan guarantees referred to in that proviso and shall be available to cover such costs of administration and the costs of such loan guarantees until September 30, 1998.''.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the two floor managers of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, and the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, and their staff, for their excellent and efficient management of the fiscal year 1996 Appropriations Act for the Department of Transportation. I would like to take a few moments to discuss an amendment I offered last night, which passed by voice vote without objection. My amendment encourages agencies funded under the bill to become more energy efficient and directs them to reduce facility energy costs by 5 percent. The agencies will report to the Congress at the end of the year on their efforts to conserve energy and will make recommendations for [[Page S 12118]] further conservation efforts. I have offered this amendment to every appropriations bill that has come before the Senate this year, and it has been accepted to each one. I believe this is a common-sense amendment: The Federal Government spends nearly $4 billion annually to heat, cool, and power its 500,000 buildings. The Office of Technology Assistance and the Alliance to Save Energy, a nonprofit group which I chair with Senator Jeffords, estimate that Federal agencies could save $1 billion annually if they would make an effort to become more efficient and conserve energy. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will encourage agencies to use new energy savings technologies when making building improvements in insulation building controls, lighting, heating, and air-conditioning. The Department of Energy has made available for government-wide agency use streamlined energy saving performance contracts procedures, modeled after private sector initiatives. Unfortunately, most agencies have made little progress in this area. This amendment is an attempt to get Federal agencies to devote more attention to energy efficiency, with the goal of lowering overall costs and conserving energy. As I mentioned, Mr. President, this amendment has been accepted to every appropriations bill the Senate has passed this year. I am pleased my colleagues support it, and again, I thank the floor managers for their assistance. Thank you. terminal doppler weather radar (tdwr)