Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will take just a couple of minutes. I want to comment on the administration's discussions with us regarding Kosovo and just make one statement that I feel compelled to make on the Senate floor, which I have made to the administration and to a number of Senators. First of all, from this Senator's standpoint, it will be extremely difficult to support any kind of military action in Kosovo unless the President of the United States requests of us significant increases to the defense budget to address the shortfalls in military readiness, personnel, and modernization recently acknowledged by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From my standpoint, we ought not be supporting additional military action and putting our men and our equipment in harm's way unless and until we have a game plan to put adequate resources into our Defense Department for the readiness shortfalls that already exist. The crisis in military preparedness that has only belatedly been acknowledged by the President and his administration is very grave. To support ongoing operations around the world, our men and women in uniform are deployed far away from their homes and their families for unprecedented lengths of time. Morale among many of our troops is suffering, and recruiting and retention statistics are dangerously low. Modernization of our force is seriously underfunded across the services. Training in many of the combatant commands must halt well before the end of the fiscal year due to funding and supply shortfalls. Nearly 12,000 military families are once again on food stamps. And failing to provide additional funding for potential costly military operations in Kosovo while United States forces are about to complete 3 years in Bosnia at a cost of nearly $10 billion will, in my opinion, severely and perhaps irreparably exacerbate the critical readiness crisis that exists. In summary, if the President expects this Senator to support Kosovo action--and I am not sure the administration seeks a resolution--I have just stated succinctly what I believe is an absolute necessity on the part of the President and his administration; that is, tell us how you are going to make our military ready again before you send them into harm's way again, when we already know that we are short of much of the equipment and parts and our military is in many respects lacking and deficient in readiness. I think it is a simple proposition. I think they have time to do it. I think it is serious. I think when many Senators find out about the readiness issues, they are going to be saying the same thing: Let's see how we are going to fix that before we engage in another battle. I yield the floor. I thank the Senator. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 314(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the appropriate budgetary aggregates and the allocation for the Appropriations Committee to reflect an amount provided and designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. I hereby submit revisions to the 1999 Senate Appropriations Committee allocation, pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, in the following amounts: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget authority Outlays ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current Allocation: Defense discretionary....... 271,570,000,000 266,635,000,000 Nondefense discretionary.... 255,634,000,000 265,414,000,000 Violent Crime reduction fund 5,800,000,000 4,953,000,000 Highways.................... .................... 21,885,000,000 Mass transit................ .................... 4,401,000,000 Mandatory................... 299,159,000,000 291,731,000,000

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer strong support for the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. As several of my colleagues in the Senate have also recognized, we owe a great deal of gratitude to Senator Thurmond. As a soldier and as a Senator, he has fought to defend our country and safeguard our national interest. I thank Senator Thurmond his unceasing commitment and untiring service to this country and its institutions. Mr. President, this legislation contains many positive things for the state of New Mexico--both in the programs funded and the changes made to enhance research and development efforts. The most significant contribution made by this legislation to R&D efforts in our state will be realized by eliminating several barriers to cooperation between national laboratories and the private sector. The partnerships among our federal laboratories, universities, and industry provide important benefits to our nation. A substantial amount of benefits are attainable in New Mexico, given the unique assets in this state. These partnerships help to create innovative new products and services that drive our economy and improve our quality of life. I am pleased that this year's conference ruled favorably on so many of the requests for increases that I put forward. Many of these increases will leverage unique assets and capabilities in New Mexico to ensure that our national interests are protected. The bill authorizes $4.5 billion for Department of Energy defense activities, much of which is done at Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), in addition to DOE's Lawrence Livermore facility in California. Approximately $2.5 billion of this authorization will be spent in New Mexico. In addition, the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management programs are authorized at $5.44 billion. Of that, approximately $415 million will be spent in New Mexico for waste management functions, environmental restoration activities, technology development efforts, nuclear materials and facilities stabilization functions, and a variety of cost-cutting and program support initiatives. Several other important items for defense efforts in New Mexico that are authorized in the bill. For example, this year's authorization for the High Energy Laser System Test Facility (HELSTF) at White Sands Missile Range is $23 million, including $8 million for solid state laser research. An additional $10 million is authorized for further research in the Theater High Energy Laser (THEL), an effort jointly funded and supported by Israel. The Exploratory Development of Advanced Weapons technology at Kirtland's Air Force Research Laboratory is authorized at $129 million for the coming year. A total of $40.2 million is also authorized to support the Advanced Radiation Technology Program at Kirtland's Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The lab is using its expertise in laser technologies to develop a new deep space imaging system, in addition to a special interactions development program. $24 million is authorized for Space and Missile Rocket Propulsion Program. The Air Force Laboratory at Kirkland is involved in this program. The Ballistic Missile Technology Program is authorized at $16. This funding was not included in the President's request. Kirkland AFRL and White Sands Missile Range are involved in this program. $75 million is authorized for the Advanced Spacecraft Technology Program, $32 million more than the budget request. These funds will advance space plane development, the Clementine microsatellite program at Kirkland AFRL, and the Satellite Orbital Transfer Vehicle which is worked on at the New Mexico Engineering and Research Institute. In a related endeavor, a total of $10 million is authorized for the Scorpius Low-Cost Launch program. This program utilizes assets at New Mexico Tech in Socorro and will be tested at White Sands in the coming months. The Airborne Laser Program is authorized at $235 million. The Special Programs Office for this critical Air Force effort in theater missile defense is located at Kirkland, and this program relies heavily on basic research in directed energy and adaptive optics at the AFRL there. The Air Force Operational Test & Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) at Kirkland is authorized at $29.5 million. This is $5 million more than the President's budget request and will support the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation Center's independent operational tests to evaluate weapon systems operational effectiveness and suitability. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Flat Panel Display Program is authorized at $41. This includes an earmark of $7 million for High Definitions Systems in integrated command and control technology. The Warfighter Information Network is authorized at $132.1 million for procurement of weapons communications equipment, including the Echelon Above Corps (EAC) communications program. This authorization level includes a $35 million increase to continue modernization of the Army's tactical voice and data communication system. Laguna Industries at the Pueblo of Laguna is involved in producing these shelters. $21.9 million is authorized for Ground Penetrating Radar Program & Landmine Warfare & Barrier Technology, including a $2 million increase for a ground radar and vehicle mounted mine detector. Also, this legislation authorizes military construction for several projects critical to the viability of New Mexico's military installations. This bill authorizes $6.8 million for the Nuclear Weapons Integration Facility and $1.8 million for the Fire Training Facility, as well as $6.4 million to improve family housing at Kirkland. Holloman is authorized $1.3 million for improvements to its War Readiness Materials Warehouse and $11.1 million to construct a state- of-the-art physical fitness center. $3.6 million is authorized for improvements to family housing at White Sands Missile Range, and a $3.3 million authorization is included to allow New Mexico's National Guard to build the Taos Armory. An additional $8 million is authorized to support the Big Crow Program Office--DoD's only asset for testing high power stand-off jamming capability in electronic warfare scenarios. These are some of the major programs related to U.S. military capabilities and research and development efforts that reside in the state of New Mexico. I thank Chairman Thurmond and the Senate Armed Services Committee for recognizing and supporting the many contributions to our national security needs that are based in New Mexico. Unfortunately, however, I cannot pretend that the measures contained in the legislation will ensure U.S. security. I cannot in good conscience purport that this legislation--or any legislation--can solve the current crisis faced by the armed forces. The strength of the U.S. military cannot simply be measured in numbers of soldiers or the state-of-the-art weapons they possess. The fortitude of this country's military is not only based on advanced weaponry, but rather is also a reflection of the strength of its morale. Mr. President, the morale of our military is under siege. When retired colonels are heard commenting that in their half a century of hanging around soldiers they have seldom seen the cutting edge of our fighting forces so dull, nor morale lower, there is good reason for concern. Rather than focusing on the hardware issues encapsulated in the term ``modernization,'' I would like today to emphasize the problems with readiness, morale and quality of life. Equipment is secondary to the well-being of the men and women in uniform. The best weapons cannot bring about victory without adequate training in their use and the firm loyalty of the soldier to buttress the military objectives fought for. We are now in our fourteenth year of decline in defense spending. What can no longer be ignored is that the increase in non-traditional deployments coupled with down-sizing is steadily eroding readiness and morale. Our reduced force structure is overextended. Overextension is eroding retention rates, quality of life, operational readiness, and, most importantly, morale. Whereas the U.S. military had 22 foreign missions during the 1980s, they have already been involved in 36 foreign missions since 1990. At the same time, our forces have been down-sized by 35 to 40%. In addition, forward basing has decreased by two-thirds--from 39 major installations to 13. This translates into more forces based in the U.S. while deployments are overseas. The result? More frequent and longer deployments, due to down-sized forces and up-sized involvement in foreign missions. The OPS TEMPO required under these constraints lead to grueling days even after returning home from prolonged overseas missions. Some soldiers are currently required to spend up to 150 days away from their families annually. Then, upon returning home, they still have too many additional duties to really spend quality time at home. Retention rates continue to plummet, especially in the Air Force. This is not happening because we are not offering generous pay bonuses to re-enlist. Last year, 800 pilots refused re-enlistment bonuses of $60,000. The Air Force is planning to increase these bonuses to $110,000, but the Air Force is also planning for this problem to get worse. Why? Although military planners contend that competition with a booming U.S. economy and the private sector is the cause for defection, the reality is more complex and points to the same problems already discussed. Heavy deployment schedules and no down-time between deployments cause stresses on service personnel, especially those with families. A related issue is that the men and women in our armed forces increasingly believe that their loyalty is a one-way street. In addition to demanding more for less from our soldiers, their quality of life is also eroding. The United States, the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, currently has military men and women who require food stamps to provide for their families. The Defense Department says it would be ``too expensive'' to solve this problem. Housing for our military families is also inadequate. According to a study from the Defense Science Board, 62 percent of our barracks and 64 percent of our family housing are unsuitable. In the face of this, the President's request for military construction and family housing for 1999 was $1.1 billion less than Congress provided in 1998. Some in Washington are saying this is a money problem. It is a money problem, but it is also more than that. It is also a leadership problem, and it is a question of how competently our defenses are being managed. Our pilots and other specialists are leaving the services in droves not just to get better paying jobs; they are also leaving because they are being worn out; and they are not getting the support they need from their own leadership. They are being worn out by repeated deployments. And they are not always convinced that what they are being asked to do makes sense. Back home their spouses resent the military for turning their families into single-parent households. And the quality of life offered to these military families can't begin to compensate. Is it any wonder that with a booming economy and plenty of good jobs available in the private sector that our soldiers are voting with their feet? Is it any surprise that given inadequate housing for the families back home that they rarely see due to deployments abroad for missions they don't understand that our soldiers are frustrated, ill-prepared and low on morale? Perhaps most disturbing, I am beginning to see too many reports that the leadership is not addressing the real problems. There seems to be an emerging question of the confidence in our military's senior leadership. There is a growing concern that the top leadership is not willing to make the hard decisions to restrain our military missions to the available human and material resources or to expand those resources to meet the increasing demand. That brings us back to the question of money. There is simply not enough money in the defense budget as it is currently projected to do everything that needs to be done. There is an effort underway to provide emergency supplemental funding for military readiness. I support that effort. However, this will not solve the bigger problems. Our military leaders are beginning to agree. In a recent Armed Services Committee Hearing with the Joint Chiefs, U.S. military leaders finally conceded that they do, indeed, have a severe problem. The $1 billion in supplemental funding will help, but according to the most recent Joint Chiefs' testimony, between $10 to $13.5 billion would be necessary in the coming year to meet U.S. defense needs. One thing is blatantly clear. We must strive to adequately feed, house, and train our most precious military resource--the men and women in our armed forces. To do this will mean more resources for our defense budget and it will mean better management of the resources-- human and material--that we already have. For next year, for the fiscal year 2000 budget, I believe, we need to start the new millennium by at least stopping the ebbing tide and end the 15 year decline. Each year the Armed Services Committee is given the difficult task of balancing between current and long-term readiness under current budget constraints. In recent years, they have had the impossible task of ensuring that personnel, quality of life, readiness, and modernization programs are adequately supported, while funding levels remain insufficient to achieve that objective. The Committee recognizes, as do most of us concerned about our national defense, that combat readiness of our armed forces is at risk. The risk is a function of older equipment resulting from inadequate modernization and a force structure too small to meet ongoing demands. Aging equipment and weary soldiers cannot possibly defend this country adequately. Nor can dominance result from this equation. I am gravely concerned about preparedness, modernization and procurement. However, I am most concerned about the human element of our armed forces. The best equipment and the most rigorous training cannot compensate for too lengthy, too frequent deployments and time away from loved ones. Mr. President, the solution is clear. We must stop the ebbing tide in our national defense budget. If we don't the hollowing out of our military forces will continue. Our national security will be at risk during a time of international uncertainty and growing threats. Our soldiers deserve better and U.S. citizens are counting on us.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senators from Washington are correct. I am informed that the Mount St. Helens Decision Document does indeed set for the levels of protection for communities along the Cowlitz River. The Decision Document was the basis for the cost-sharing agreement with state and local entities and commits the Corps to maintain these specified levels of protection.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it would seem prudent and responsible for the Corps to use available funds during fiscal year 1999 to address this important issue.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Harkin, let me thank you very, very much for the consideration you are giving us today in letting this very important bill pass. I think the Senator knows that while a lot of what I do as chairman of the Budget Committee is fun work, a lot of it isn't very much fun. That part that isn't very much fun is the issue of who is right on the scoring--OMB or CBO. I am charged with the responsibility, if there is a difference between them, of going through it, line by line, program by program, with my staff, and if there are, indeed, errors that run in favor of OMB, which means you would have more money to spend, if they are based on policy differences that were not taken into consideration when CBO did theirs, we make the adjustment. I can report, as staff on your committee knows, we have found $215 million in outlays where we found policy errors, and they came mostly from the IDEA program where they made changes and they were taken into consideration regarding the new policy costs, so we are at $215 now. I assure the Senator that I am totally aware of the difficulties in the bill. I will continue to review the scorekeeping baseline assumptions made for your bill by both OMB and CBO and see if there are any other adjustments that need to be done to accommodate the concerns the Senator has expressed on the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the regular order says we finish this discussion, but we are waiting for one of the Senators to see if they really want to speak.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will try to stay within 5 minutes. I thank the Senate which will be adopting the conference report. It is a good report. We will put a statement in that identifies some of the very new approaches to better governance. We do not have that completely in the Department yet, but we have some new ideas that we are imposing on the Department that will permit it to be run a little better than in the past. I want to change to another subject, and that is the Tennessee Valley Authority and the $75 million that was, this year, put in the President's budget for the nonpower aspects of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Mr. President, I hope that nobody is trying to make political hay out of the fact that the U.S. House of Representatives would not fund the $75 million for the TVA in this year's appropriations bill, and as a consequence we did not fund it. Let me tell you why the House would not fund it, and make sure that the Record is replete with the background information that the U.S. House had last year and this year regarding the $75 million. First of all, there is a gentleman, who I do not know, named Craven Crowell--Chairman Craven Crowell. I think he was appointed to the board by the Clinton-Gore administration in 1993. In 1997, meeting with Members of Congress and the administration, the Chairman argued that TVA's so-called ``nonpower programs,'' which include flood control and navigation on the Tennessee River, as well as management of some unique resources on the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area, indicated that these nonpower programs should be transferred to other Federal agencies, leaving the Tennessee Valley Authority to focus solely on the production of electrical power. Less than 1 month later, this very proposal to no longer fund that kind of activity because it should be transferred to other Federal agencies found its way into the 1998 budget request. The TVA Chairman had made an interesting proposal just a couple of weeks prior, and already it had been incorporated into the administration's budget. There is no way that that would have happened if people in the administration had not been aware of what Chairman Crowell was planning to propose, and if they had not given him the green light to do that. I would like to incorporate in the Record a news release dated February 6, 1997, ``President's Budget Supports Ending TVA Appropriations.'' I ask unanimous consent that the news release be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. This is a TVA release that suggests that Chairman Crowell and others have decided that they do not need the $75 million and that other Federal agencies are going to take over. And the U.S. House had this release, had the proposal to eliminate Federal funding of TVA's appropriated programs in January of 1997. Mr. President, what has happened is that after doing this, and leaving the distinct impression with the U.S. House Subcommittee on Appropriations that they were not going to need the money anymore, and surely were not going to need it for the 1999 appropriations bill, they have changed their mind. That is, both the Chairman down there in the Tennessee Valley Authority area and the White House. They now want the money, after going through all of this that I have just discussed with the Senate. Let me tell you, what they did by proposing this was to get all of those in the surrounding areas who do not necessarily agree with the TVA to join in saying they do not need the money. And there are private power companies who clearly do not think TVA needs this nonpower money. But both the administration and the Chairman, Chairman Crowell, had indicated they do not need the money. Mr. President, in spite of that, because the administration changed its mind, and the Senators from Tennessee and from Kentucky and others came to me and said, ``Well, we know we said we don't need the funding anymore, but will you fund it another time for us?'' I did. The Senate approved. Mr. President, what has happened is the U.S. House said no, and, frankly, there is no way to change their mind because what they throw back at us is, we were just told in 1997 that that was the last year we needed that subsidy, that $75 million. Frankly, if there is any blame to go around, it does not lie with the Senators, who did everything humanly possible. They got the Senate to fund it, they encouraged me to hold it, they even met with Members of the House to tell them to put it back in, but what they got was what we might have expected. You just told us last year you don't need it anymore. The chairman down there issued this plan saying we don't need it. The President's budget said we don't need it. Now, if there is any reason that we didn't get it, it is because of that, not because of partisan politics. There are no Democrats on the committee who went to conference with me who are in favor of that. No one in the House is in favor of it, because you tell the House, and apparently this is how it works over there; it is not too bad. It sounds like the way you would behave. Tell the House this is the last year we are funding TVA $75 million, and they aren't too sure you want to fund it anyway. You do it and then you come around and change your mind after you have had this exhaustive plan and this commission appointed so that you won't have to have this money. You come along and say, as I said, we need it in another year, and they are saying the House will not vote for it another year, we can stay here until Hades gets a little cool, but we will not approve it because you told us you don't need it, and now we have too much support against it and it will not be funded. I am very hopeful for those who wanted to point fingers either at this Senator because he is Republican or some of the other Senators from the Tennessee Valley area. It is not their fault. Frankly, I don't think it is the committee's fault. It is just one of those things where, the way the House argued the case, you can't make them change their mind. And what they said was pretty logical. They had some good points. I know the occupant of the Chair served in the House. When you tell the House committee you are not going to fund it one single year beyond this one and come back and say, after all those plans and us getting money out of you, we need another year, it is not easy. Nonetheless, I want to say I am trying, because the Tennessee Valley Authority has some very expensive interests on some outstanding long- term obligations, bonds and indebtedness, that they know they have to refinance, and in the process of refinancing, there would be a change in the interest rates. Obviously, it would be better and they would save money. We are trying to put together an amendment that would be taken care of as part of overall appropriations which would give them some interest rebate. So to the extent that this would help offset what they now think will be a big void because of the $75 million, we will try that. It actually has strong support from a number of Senators, including the Tennessee Senators, that we try to do this. I say to the people there, I am going to try to do this with their help and with the help of Chairman Stevens and others here in the U.S. Senate who I think will understand this issue and have understood it and will try to help us.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, H.R. 5060, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1999, complies with the Budget Act's section 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays. The conference report provides $20.9 billion in budget authority and $13.0 billion in new outlays to fund the civil programs of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, certain independent agencies, and most of the activities of the Department of Energy. When outlays from prior year budget authority and other actions are taken into account, this bill provides a total of $20.7 billion in outlays. For defense discretionary programs, the conference report is below its allocation by $11 million in budget authority and $1 million in outlays. The conference report also is below its nondefense discretionary allocation by $20 million in budget authority and $46 million in outlays. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of this conference report be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DOMENICI. I recognize the importance of this project to the state of Florida, and I look forward to working with the Senators from Florida to identify any potential funding alternatives or reprogramming options for the Kissimmee River project. We will work together in the next year to include appropriate funding levels for the Kissimmee River restoration project in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington is correct. There has been some confusion regarding this study and the funding for the Green-Duwamish ecosystem restoration project under the Section 1135 program.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I agree that, if appropriate, the Corps of Engineers should seek to reprogram funds to keep this study moving forward. I am not aware of any opposition to the project and do not anticipate a problem with a reprogramming request.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from South Carolina. I appreciate his interest in this bill and in medical research. The Subcommittee appreciated the Senator bringing the Medical University of South Carolina's needs to the Committee's attention last year and he has again made a convincing case for them this year.

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from South Carolina is correct. I thank him for clarifying this matter.

Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator's observations. The licensing of technologies to handle the storage and transportation of various types of spent fuel is one of the few areas within the Commission's budget in which the demand for regulatory activity is clearly increasing. In addition, I hope the agency will examine further management initiatives, such as those currently under review, that might be necessary in the short term to address existing budget constraints and to ensure that the resources that are available are being utilized to maximize the likelihood of succession review of application for new technologies. I agree with the Senator from Georgia that the Commission should continue to monitor the workload of the SFPO to ensure that adequate resources are available to meet demand for application reviews.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, all time is yielded back.

Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. When that is finished, I ask that I be recognized for 1 minute on a matter as if in morning business, and then to make a unanimous consent request.

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator might want to ask for 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Do you want to ask for 5 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. No, I don't need the Senator to yield to me. I wonder, when you are finished----

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I strongly support H.R. 4103, the Defense appropriations conference report for fiscal year 1999. The pending provides $250.5 billion in total budget authority and $168.1 billion in new outlays for the Department of Defense and related activities. When outlays from prior years and other adjustments are taken into account, outlays total $245.1 billion. There are some major elements to this bill that are important for the Senate to review. The bill is consistent with the bipartisan balanced budget agreement. It funds a 3.6 percent pay raise for military personnel, rather than the 3.1 percent requested by the administration. It contains quality-of-life enhancements for our Armed Forces, which total $455 million more than was requested. I strongly support this bill, and I urge its adoption. I want to complement the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on his very skillful handling of this important legislation and for his statesmanlike approach to some serious and troubling issues in this year's defense budget. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Senate Budget Committee table displaying the budget impact of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes, with the following exceptions: The first 20 minutes under the control of Senator Murkowski; 20 minutes under the control of Senator Gramm of Texas; 25 minutes under the control of Senator Roberts; 30 minutes under the control of Senator McCain; 30 minutes under the control of Senator Hagel; 15 minutes under the control of Senator Johnson; 1 hour under the control of Senator Dorgan or his designee.