Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the chairman for his graciousness. I urge my colleagues to vote affirmatively on this. I hope we can get a very overwhelming vote. My amendment simply protects children at the Department of Defense housing or playgrounds, day-care facilities, schools, from poisonous and toxic materials. It is consistent with the DOD guidelines. Frankly, it seems to me we should all support it. Basically, the guidelines say they will stay away from these poisons when they do routine spraying. We ought to codify this because there is a little bit of ambiguity. I am very proud of the Department of Defense in so many areas that deal with children. For example, child care centers at the Department of Defense are the best in the world, truly, and certainly are a model for so many other child care centers in our country. However, it did take some horrible mistakes before that was straightened out. We don't want to have a horrible mistake, a mistaken spraying. We want to make sure it is done right. I am very pleased that the EPA is supporting this amendment. They helped with it. We spoke a number of times with Colonel Driggers who said he believed this was, in fact, consistent with the DOD written guidelines. It could be that they would rather not have us do this. I think it would be good for this Senate to go on record stating that for routine spraying against pests in these areas, let's use the less toxic materials. If there is an emergency, an outbreak of something horrible such as encephalitis, we make room for that. We certainly have a clear exception in emergency situations. We are talking about routine situations. We have seen Administrator Browner, with bipartisan support, ban some of the very harsh pesticides. I think we can work very well together in a bipartisan way to stop the routine spraying of these dangerous toxins.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER. First of all, we are not buying them. We are leasing them, and that costs money. If we were to buy these nine, it would cost a half a billion dollars. I am embarrassed to say it. That amount of money could put 5,000 police on the streets. That amount of money could double the number of children we have in afterschool. That amount of money could take care of a lot of veterans' health care. The other plane that is in the same category is called Bombardier. It is made in Quebec. I don't have a photo of it. It is just as luxurious, just as expensive. It goes for about the same. I say to my friends who want to make sure our generals have what they need: Why do we have to go to the top of the line? If the answer comes back that we are not necessarily doing that and we are not spelling it out, then why not preclude them from going to the top of the line? Two things have happened that are important since this debate last year. No. 1, those who said the Air Force would never buy the top of the line were proven wrong. We said they would do it, and they will leased these top of the line jets. No. 2, Senator Harkin, Congressman DeFazio, and I wrote to the General Accounting Office. Because we respect our friends who said these operational support aircraft were necessary, we said to the GAO, which is our investigative arm, Will you do a study? They did. Guess what they titled this study. The title of this study comes back: ``Operational Support Airlift Requirements are not Sufficiently Justified.'' Let me reiterate sort of the partridge and the pear tree about why we should strike this language. Last year, we were told they needed the aircraft. Here is the GAO report, the investigative arm of Congress, coming back saying we do not need any more right now because we don't know what we have. I will share the quotes from that study. Second, the Air Force proved they were going to go to the top of the line. This is the same exact language. After all, I guess if the Air Force has it, the Army needs it, the Marines, and the Navy, then we are going to allow them to have the same latitude. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Presiding Officer let me know when I have used 20 minutes?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I want to share with my colleagues the results of this GAO study. GAO report: ``Operational Support Airlift Requirements are not Sufficiently Justified.'' The processes that DOD uses to identify its requirements for operational support airlift have a number of weaknesses that make it difficult to assess whether the current inventory meets the wartime needs. That is one statement. We will go through the statements with you. The next statement: Although DOD directive 4500.43 states that operational support airlift requirements should be based solely on wartime needs, the methodology that DOD used in 1995 and 1998 does not draw a clear link to the scenario for two major regional conflicts specified by the National Military Strategy. In other words, the operational support aircraft have to be linked to what military needs in case of war--not that it is comfortable for generals in time of peace. I understand that it is comfortable to go on a plane such as this, but that is not what taxpayers should be paying for. We should be paying for what we need in time of war. That is what the DOD is supposed to do. What else do they tell us in this report? The lack of clear linkage to wartime requirements raises questions about whether the support aircraft fleet is appropriately sized to meet short-notice mobility needs in wartime. My friends, this is serious. We are going ahead with this appropriations--this green light--to lease all of these airplanes when the GAO is saying to us that the ``lack of clear linkage to wartime requirements raises questions about'' the fleet and whether it is appropriately sized. It may be terribly overly sized. Let's see what else we have. This is the one I think says it all. The joint staff . . . has not maintained records documenting its previous requirements reviews, so it is not possible to determine whether some options for reducing requirements were examined. I have to say to my colleagues who I hope are watching this from their offices that there is a need here to defend the United States of America, and we should do everything we can to do that. If we are going under the scenario of being prepared to fight two major conflicts--some people think that is outmoded, but if that is what we are doing--then everything we do in this budget should reflect that need. And we are being told that the Joint Chiefs do not maintain records documenting their requirements for these aircraft. How on Earth can we possibly justify this kind of open-ended language in this bill? The GAO sums up: For all these reasons, we believe a more rigorous process is needed to better ensure that support aircraft requirements accurately reflect wartime needs. I think if you really believe that supporting our military is one of the most important things we can do in making sure we have dollar for dollar the best military in the world, then you should vote for the Boxer-Harkin amendment. There is no reason given in any of the documentation in the Department of Defense as to why they need this aircraft. There is no rationale. The GAO has studied this. They are nonpartisan. They are the investigative arm of Congress. They have come back and told us they can't even find their records. Yet we are going blindly ahead, it seems to me, and providing this open-ended language, which will result, I predict to you, in nine more of these aircraft, and they could be the most luxurious in the world. We already know that the Defense Department has 144 jets in its fleet of operational support aircraft. This includes 71 Learjets, 13 Gulfstreams, the one Gulfstream V, and 17 Cessna Citations. We know the GAO has studied all of this, and they are saying to us: Time out. What is the rush? When I take a look at these luxury jets, I can only say this: We know there are cheaper luxury jets that would have to make just one stop--I have a photo of that--just one stop. This plane is about $18 million compared to $50 million, which would have to make one stop to refuel. I have to say to my friends that it is a beautiful plane. It is a comfortable plane. For a general to stop and stretch his or her legs, as the case may be, and fill up the tank once on the way to a meeting in peacetime----

Mrs. BOXER. I would be happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. Certainly. I will finish my sentence, and then I will yield. Then I am happy to yield. I have to finish my thought.

Mrs. BOXER. This is a smaller aircraft. We were hoping that the Air Force was going to look at this. But they came back with the Gulfstreams. I yield for a question.

Mrs. BOXER. That is a Citation X. The point I am making is there is nothing in the language, I say to my dear friend, that suggests exactly what plane they are going to use. There is nothing in this language. Last year, under the same language, the Air Force leased the Gulfstream. That is the point we are making. We are not limiting them to this. I have to say that I know we are in a surplus situation. But we have a lot of needs for our military personnel. I know my friends fought for that. We are looking at military personnel who are not living in adequate housing. We know that Senator McCain has taken the lead in trying to get our people off food stamps. We have an unfunded priority of veterans' health. I think what Senator Harkin and I are simply saying is this: It is unnecessary to have this many planes when we now have a quite unbiased report that says, ``Operational Support Airlift requirements are not sufficiently justified.'' Why would we run off and buy more when we don't know what we have? We have seen with vague language we could wind up with top-of-the-line jets. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mrs. BOXER. Not at all. As my friend knows, we don't even really know how the jets they have now are meeting our needs in a situation such as during wartime, which is the directive that they have to go by. The DOD has to rationalize and tell us, under their own directive, how their support meets the needs in wartime. Clearly in this report it is stated there is no rationale for what they have now, let alone what they have to have. Furthermore, we are saying that if they got these nine additional planes, which we don't even know if they need, under this language they would be able to buy the fanciest jets in the world, despite the fact that Senator Stevens doesn't think they will. The Senator of Alaska wasn't positive that the Air Force was going to lease the six Gulfstreams last year, yet they did. It is the same language.

Mrs. BOXER. They put out an RFP. The only two companies that qualified for the RFP happened to be the two companies that made a $50 million luxury jet. The Air Force is moving forward and doing exactly what we said they were going to do.

Mrs. BOXER. I wanted to make sure my friend was aware we have a copy of the RFP done by the Air Force. I ask unanimous consent this document be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. What it shows is exactly what my friend is saying, aircraft should be able to fly no-wind range of 5,000 nautical miles. Only two aircraft, this one called the Global Express--that is made in Canada, and then the Gulfstream V, which, as my friend pointed out, the Air Force has put out this proposal, it is in the 5,000 nautical mile range. So this is the characteristic. If you look at this and other characteristics, it can only be these luxury jets. But I wanted to ask my friend if he saw the letter from the Department of Defense to the General Accounting Office on page 27 of this report. I ask him to take a look at it because it seems to me, any thinking person would read this and say the Department of Defense agrees with Harkin and Boxer. If you look at this letter in the second paragraph, it says: The department agrees with many of the findings in the GAO report. Accordingly, it will take the GAO's findings into consideration in future determinations of operational support airlift. That is very nice. When will they take it into consideration? After they have sprung for half a billion dollars of the taxpayers' money? What we are saying is we have this report, folks. Yet in this particular bill before us, I wonder if my friend is aware, in order to take effect these leases must be done before 2004. So they are essentially rushing to run out and lease these aircraft so, as my friend says, they can have the same aircraft as the Air Force.

Mrs. BOXER. Hundreds of millions of dollars more, according to the New York Times.

Mrs. BOXER. How much time remains on our side?

Mrs. BOXER. I yield my friend 4 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield on the remaining time he has? I thank my friend for joining me. This is someone who knows what it is to fly military aircraft. I could not have a better partner on this amendment than Tom Harkin. I want to close this particular portion, and then we will have a few minutes left to respond to the criticism that I am sure will now be leveled at us from some very astute people. Here is the point: Last year when we got in this fight, they told us: Oh, no, they were not going to go out and get these Gulfstreams. We said we thought they were; nothing in this language precludes it. They went out with an RFP. We were right: Luxury planes, $50 million a copy if you were to buy it. Secondly, we said OK to our friends, you don't believe us; we will have a GAO report, the nonpartisan arm of Congress, investigate. That is what they do, they investigate. Guess what they said. ``Operational support airlift requirements are not sufficiently justified.'' Guess what else. The Department of Defense says they agree. So why are we in this bill allowing for leases of nine jets which are not defined? They can well be these luxury jets. I thank my friend and ask for his final comments.

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. I yielded to my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. I did certainly yield to you.

Mrs. BOXER. I did; I did.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3311.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the managers. I have had a few amendments. I think this one is not one they support. They have been very supportive of my others. I am very proud that the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, has once again teamed up with me. We have been the team on this particular subject for awhile. When I was in the House of Representatives, I served on the Armed Services Committee. It was a great honor to do so. There is nothing more important than our national security. What I found was that we were wasting many dollars. I thought we had cured some of those problems. For awhile I really didn't bring these issues before the body because I was convinced we were moving in the right direction. Suddenly, I am afraid, we see a reversal. For example, in this bill, the military asked us for $3 billion less than the committee actually voted out. This particular bill that is before us is $3 billion more than the Defense Department requested. Why would we do that? Why would we not go along with what they say they need, and why would we pad this particular area, our national defense? And why do I say that? Because if we look through the bill, we will find instances of waste. We understand why this bill is padded when we particularly look at one area that Senator Harkin and I joined forces on last year. That is the area of operational support aircraft. These are aircraft used for travel by the upper echelons of the military. What we do with our amendment is strike the section that allows nine of these operational support aircraft to be leased. In this bill, they are not specified as what they are, how much they each cost. We know nothing except that the Army can have three, the Navy can have three, and the Marine Corps can have three. What do I suspect they are going to do with this? I think we have to learn from history and look back to last year's Defense appropriations bill. I offered an amendment with Senator Harkin then that would have struck this same exact language that was used by the Air Force to lease six operational support aircraft. Senator Harkin and I lost that fight. I thought we made a valiant effort, but we are back for this reason: A lot has happened since Senator Harkin and I brought this matter before the body. First, we know the Air Force plans to lease the most luxurious jets there are, despite the fact we had people here telling us they weren't going to lease these big, beautiful jets; they were going to go smaller. Let's take a look at the Gulfstream. It is pretty slick. We are told if one were to buy this, it costs $50 million a copy--luxurious travel. The Air Force has leased six. The Air Force took the same language they had in the appropriations bill last year and leased six of these. Let's take a look at the interior of this plane. Senator Harkin has a little different view. It is beautiful. This plane is used by billionaires. This plane is used by the top echelon of wealthy people in this country. We wonder why this bill has been padded with $3 billion. I think it is to do things such as this that, with all due respect, were not spelled out in this bill. If I were to read--I don't have time because I have agreed to a tight time limit--the language, all one would know about it is, it is the same as was put in for the Air Force. But they couldn't find anywhere listed a Gulfstream. Yet last year we were told, at this very same time in the debate, that the Air Force was not going to go for these Gulfstreams: ``There is nothing in this language that says that.'' Yet that is, in fact, what they did. We were right last year, and it is costing taxpayers a fortune to lease these jets. Let me say, it is cheaper to buy them than to lease them. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a New York Times article that discusses the fact that it is actually cheaper to lease these jets than to buy them.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?