Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for 25 years, Bread for the World has been putting principles of faith to work in pursuit of justice for the world's hungry people. Bread for the World members are now in Washington for their National Gathering, Silver Anniversary Celebration, and Annual Lobby Day. I want to take this opportunity to welcome them and to congratulate Bread for the World and its tens of thousands of members for 25 years of accomplishment in the service of humankind. It is a great honor for me to be a member of Bread for the World's board. Bread for the World remains true to its origins as a grassroots organization working from local churches on through to the national and international levels to address the fundamental causes of hunger and poverty. The organization was founded in 1974 by a small group of Catholics and Protestants who sought to mobilize persons of faith to influence United States policies relating to hunger and poverty. Bread for the World grew rapidly under the outstanding leadership of the Reverend Arthur Simon, and now includes more than 44,000 members and churches. The Reverend David Beckmann serves very capably as the group's current President. As a nonpartisan citizen's movement based in the Christian community, Bread for the World members work hard to promote policies that will improve the lives of hungry and poor people in the United States and around the world. Through their dedicated advocacy, Bread for the World members have been instrumental in winning key victories in the fight to alleviate hunger and poverty. They have, for example, worked successfully to improve and devote more resources to WIC and other child nutrition programs, to enhance food security in Africa by increasing investment at the farm and village level where it really counts, and to restore food stamp benefits to vulnerable legal immigrants. This year Bread for the World members are participating in the laudable worldwide effort, known as Jubilee 2000, to reduce poverty in developing nations through critically needed international debt relief. I am proud to be able to give thanks for the moral commitment and grassroots mobilizing of Bread for the World members as they celebrate their 25th anniversary year. I sincerely wish them continued blessings as they carry on their efforts toward seeking justice and ending hunger.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. One of the very important things he said in his speech was: You have taken a vital step by adopting this new convention. We will do everything we can to join with you. We will not tolerate children being used in pornography and prostitution. We will not tolerate children in slavery or bondage. We will not tolerate children being forcibly recruited to serve in armed conflicts. We will not tolerate young children risking their health and breaking their bodies in hazardous and dangerous working conditions for hours unconscionably long--regardless of country, regardless of circumstance. These are not some archaic practices out of a Charles Dickens novel. These are things that happen in too many places today. The President said: I am proud of what is being done at your meeting. In January, I said to our Congress and the American people in the State of the Union address, that we would work with the ILO on a new initiative to raise labor standards and to conclude a treaty to ban abusive child labor everywhere in the world. I am proud to say that the United States will support your convention. After I return home I will send it to the U.S. Senate for ratification, and I ask all other countries to ratify it, as well. Mr. President, today I had delivered to every office a letter, a cover letter, and a copy of the new convention on the worst forms of child labor. It has all the information in here that Senators and their staffs would need to understand what that new convention is. I did that because it is my intention to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to the State Department authorization bill stating our support for this historic convention. I hope my colleagues will take the time to look at the material that I sent to their offices. I hope that we can all join together in a bipartisan effort to support this convention. This convention offers a brighter tomorrow for all of our world's children. Yesterday, because I was in Geneva with the President for this very historic gathering and for this very historic speech by the President of the United States, I was necessarily absence from the Senate floor. Had I been here, on the military construction appropriations bill, I would have voted yes. Iowa is deeply saddened that I could not be here to vote on a bill for which I had worked for a long time with Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords, and so many others. I am happy to see that it passed the Senate 99-0. Had I been here, it would have been 100-0; and that is the Workforce Incentives Act. As the chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, this was sort of one of the final building blocks of ensuring that people with disabilities not only have the right and the civil rights to go out and get jobs and work, but this bill provides them with the necessary support in the health care that they need. Too often, people with disabilities go out to get a job, and under the Americans with Disabilities Act they can get that job, but then they lose their health care. Because many of these jobs are low-paying, entry-level jobs, they simply cannot afford to take them. So I am really proud that the Senate, in a strong bipartisan fashion, passed the Workforce Incentives Act yesterday. Had I been here I would have of course voted yes. On the lockbox provision that came up, again, I would have voted no on that because there were no amendments allowed. I feel very strongly that the provision, the loophole that I felt was in the bill, that said that this was only good until Social Security reform was passed, I do not believe was adequate enough. The question is, What reform are we talking about? I think we needed to define the reform before we voted for the lockbox. On the energy and water appropriations, I would have supported that. On the legislative branch appropriations, I would have voted yes on that had I been here. I wanted to state for the Record why I was necessarily absent yesterday, and how I would have voted had I been here. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to speak about why I was necessarily absent from voting yesterday and explain how I would have voted had I been here. For the better part of a decade, I have been working to help end abusive and exploitative child labor around the globe and even in our backyard. I have come to the floor many times over the last several years to speak about this issue, submitting resolutions, working with the International Labor Organization, and others, to do what we can to end abusive and exploitative child labor. The ILO, the International Labor Organization, estimates that 250 million children worldwide are economically active--that means they are working--and many work in dangerous environments which are detrimental to their emotional, physical, and moral well-being. Yesterday was a very historic day. For the first time in the 80-year history of the International Labor Organization, the President of the United States addressed that body. The President traveled to Geneva and asked me to accompany him because of my work on this issue. I cannot really find the words to describe the impact of the President of the United States standing in front of a couple thousand people, all of whom have been working for years to end child labor, speaking as the President of the United States--it was the first time in the history of the ILO that a President ever spoke to this organization--about one issue: child labor. I could not have been more proud of our Nation and of President Clinton for the words he spoke, for the position he took on this issue. He endorsed this new convention. There is a new convention that was just signed today, a new convention to end the most abusive and exploitative forms of child labor around the globe. We were there. We signed it at the meeting. I am hopeful the President will very soon transmit this new convention to the Senate for ratification. It was a great speech President Clinton gave to the ILO. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the address by the President of the United States to the International Labor Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, on June 16.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. I was an original cosponsor of the Work Incentives bill when we introduced it last year, and again this year, and was at the White House when the President endorsed the bill. Almost nine years ago, the Americans With Disabilities Act became law. On that day, we told Americans with disabilities that the door to equal opportunity was finally open. And the ADA has opened the doors of opportunity--plenty of them. Americans with disabilities now expect to be treated as full citizens, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. And they are participating in American life like never before in our Nation's history. But we have not been as successful in employment. Far too many people with disabilities who want to work are unemployed. More than eight million people between 18 and 64 are on SSI and SSDI--and less than one-half of one percent of them return to work each year. Clearly, there are barriers to be torn down. Let me tell you the story of a young woman from Iowa named Phoebe Ball. Phoebe just graduated from the University of Iowa and she was shocked when she found that if she took an entry level job paying $18,000, she would suffer a huge loss--her health insurance. Phoebe wrote an article for an Iowa City newspaper. Here is what she said: I want off SSI desperately . . . I want to work. I want to know that I have earned the money I have . . . I don't feel good about the money the government sends me each month. I don't feel entitled to it because I know what I am capable of. My parents and my society made a promise to me. They promised me that I can live with this disability, and I can. . . . What is limiting me right now is not this wheelchair, and it's not this limb that's missing. It's a system that says if I can work at all, then I'm undeserving of any assistance, I'm undeserving of the basic medical care that I need to stay alive. . . . What is needed is a government that understands its responsibility to its citizens . . . then we'll see what we are capable of, then we will be working and proving the worth of the ADA. Mr. President, the Work Incentives Improvement Act is a well-crafted, comprehensive bill that would be the answer to Phoebe Ball's dilemma. It provides health care and employment preparation and placement services to individuals to reduce dependency on cash assistance; It creates new options for States to allow people with disabilities to purchase Medicaid coverage; It lengthens the current period of extended eligibility for Medicare coverage for working disabled individuals; and It establishes a return to work ``ticket'' program that will allow people with disabilities to secure the best possible services they can find to get and keep jobs. If only 1 percent--or 75,000--of the 7.5 million people with disabilities, like Phoebe, who are now on benefits were to become employed, Federal savings would total $3.5 billion over the work life of the beneficiaries. That not only makes economic sense, it also contributes to preserving the Social Security Trust fund. Mr. President, the disability community and members from both sides of the aisle here in the Senate have wholeheartedly endorsed this bill. The Work Incentives Improvement Act has 78 cosponsors. 78! Rarely do we see in this chamber such broad bipartisan support. The Work Incentives Act will open the door to full participation by people with disabilities in our workplaces, our economy, and our American Dream, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. It strikes the provision which allows the Department of Department to go ahead and lease. It says: Let's do a study before next March 1. What are our requirements? What are our alternatives? And let's examine the leasing versus the purchasing. We don't even have that documentation yet. So I don't think there is such a need that we have to rush ahead and allow them to go ahead and enter these long-term leasing agreements before March 1 of next year. There is not that requirement there. They tried to put this into the supplemental appropriations bill, and that was knocked out because it wasn't an emergency. Now they have come back on the regular appropriations bill. So all our amendment is saying, fine, leasing may be the best way to proceed, but we haven't gotten to that point yet. Do we even need these aircraft? We haven't gotten to that point yet. I make the point that I am not certain we need this. Let's take it one step at a time and see if these are really operational requirements. The Senator also said that it would be costly; we have these old aircraft in inventory we have to repair and keep them up and put new engines in them and all that stuff. It is sort of like my old car. I have an old car, and it needs a new engine. I can put a new engine in that car, and it is going to cost me about $1,300. The car runs fine. In fact, it is a pretty darned nice car. It is just a little old and has a lot of miles on it. If I go out and buy a new car, it will cost me about $20,000. I ask you, which is the better alternative, if I am looking at it costwise? It is a lot cheaper for me to put a new engine in that old car. These are 30-year-old, well-maintained aircraft. They are the best maintained aircraft in the world. They go through their periodic inspections, their 100-hour inspections, their annual inspections, and they have all kinds of new engines on them and everything. It is much cheaper to keep those flying, to repair them, and to keep them up than it is to go out and pay $40 million for one of these, I can assure you. Second, my last point: The chairman says that this will not affect the number of aircraft that we have out there now. I beg to differ. It will affect the number of aircraft we have out there now, because if in fact the amendment of the Senator from California and myself is adopted, it is going to require them to take a really hard look at what they have in their inventory, at what their needs are, and at how they can better utilize them. That may affect the other aircraft out there. We may be able to meet the mission requirements of the CINCs with all of the Gulfstreams, the Learjets, the Citation jets, the 707s, the 757s, the 727s, and the DC-9s that we have out there if they are better utilized. That is the missing ingredient. We don't have that kind of an accounting. That is what our amendment calls for. If it turns out that they really need these aircraft to meet the warmaking capabilities, and it proves that it is cheaper to do it this way than to repair and fix up the older aircraft--if that can be shown--I will be first in line to vote to make sure they get the aircraft. But I am telling you, this Senator does not have adequate information right now to vote to spend probably upwards of $600 million to $700 million over the next 10 years to lease these Gulfstream Vs and operate them for that period of time. That is why we need to just step back, take a deep breath, and have them to report back. One year is not going to be a big loss to them, if they have to wait one year. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I think the Senator has put her finger on it: We are willing to give the generals what they need but not what they want.

Mr. HARKIN. I can ask a question of the Senator from California, I believe.

Mr. HARKIN. I asked the Senator to answer a question. I asked the Senator to respond to a question.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am joining with Senator Boxer in offering this amendment to strike the provision that allows the Pentagon to lease six of these executive aircraft. The military designation is C-37A. We know them as Gulfstreams in the civilian world. They are very lavish and very nice aircraft. In fact, I will show you what we are talking about. This is a Gulfstream V. It is a very nice airplane. I am sure that millionaires who have made a lot of money in the stock market probably have those. Billionaires have them. I am sure they fly them around. It is a very nice, luxurious aircraft. All of the statistics are very good on that aircraft. It is quiet. It flies high. It goes long distances nonstop. It is quite luxurious on the inside. As you can see, this is a very nice business executive jet. I wouldn't deny that it is a good tool for a lot of businesses to use in fact. I am not here to say that Gulfstream V is a bad aircraft, or that it shouldn't be built, or that there is no reason to have this in anybody's inventory--not in the least. This aircraft serves a very valuable purpose for a lot of businesses here and around the world. In fact, the Gulfstream corporation has to be a good corporation, for all I know, and builds a pretty darned good airplane. That is not our point. Our point is--the more I have looked into this the more it has become apparent to me--that all branches of the military have become top- heavy, not only top-heavy in terms of the command structure itself but top-heavy in the number of executive jets they have to ferry them around from place to place. I am beginning to wonder if these are really all that necessary. Are they really for wartime use, or are they really more for just convenience? For example--I will get more into this in detail later--we are told that a lot of these executive jets such as this can go 4,000 or 5,000 miles without refueling, as necessary to get to theaters of operation around the world. But the fact is, during the gulf war operations very few of these were used. We have to ask the question: Is it really for the benefit of generals to use for rapid movement during war, or is it more for convenience in peacetime? As the Senator from California said, we have a lot of budget problems here at the military. I, for one, have been trying to do something about getting WIC programs, as the Senator said, for our military personnel overseas. It is a blot on our national character and on our military that we have military personnel on food stamps. That is not right. It is not right that we have enlisted personnel who need the Women, Infants and Children Supplemental Feeding Program. Last year, the Senator from California and I tried to offer an amendment here that would say at least when they go overseas they get the same WIC Program as they got here. If I am not mistaken, I think it came to the grand total of right around $5 to $20 million. The military said they couldn't afford to do it, but they can afford $40 million for six of these aircraft. Something is wrong when the military says they can't afford it, that the Department of Agriculture has to pay for it; the Defense Department can't, but they can afford a business jet such as this. That got me when I saw that. Something has to be done about this. I understand they want to lease several of these Gulfstream V aircraft. I would like to have one to go back and forth to Iowa. I wouldn't have to go through Chicago anymore--probably nonstop right to Iowa. The Senator from California could use one, get on the jet right here and go to any airport in California nonstop. Let me show you the interior of the aircraft: A nice, luxurious interior. Lean back, have your own personal TV set, a glass of wine. That is pretty nice travel. Again, I am not saying that we have to strip down everything, that a general has to ride in a harness on a side bucket strapped onto a C- 130. That is not what I am saying. There probably is a need for some of these aircraft to transport these people rapidly. My question has to do with the number of aircraft. For example, I note that there are now over 300 aircraft in inventory, over 150 jets. I can't quite get an accurate count. Last time I counted, there were 154 jets, 70 Learjets. Regarding the C-9, the same as a Douglas DC-9, the Navy has 27, the Marines have 2, and the Air Force has 5. Gulfstreams, we have 16 already. We have some Gulfstream IIIs and IVs, the predecessor to the Gulfstream V. They are about as nice, but they can't go as far. They are a good airplane. We have 70 Learjets total; 727s, we have 3. I am reading just the jets. And I didn't realize we already have two Gulfstream Vs in our inventory. Cessna Citation 560, which is pictured here, is a pretty nice jet, not quite as big as the Gulfstream V and doesn't go as far, but we have 14 of those. The old Saberliners, we have three still in existence. We have seven 707s in our inventory. There are quite a lot of jets to be flying around. Again, I am wondering, with the inventory that we have, why do we have to lease seven more? Or are we cutting back on some of the aircraft? Again, they may serve a legitimate purpose, but I am wondering, and I go back to a GAO report that the Senator referred to from 1995, ``Travel by Senior Officials,'' dated June 1995. One of the their recommendations in that report was to develop the appropriate mechanisms to ensure the availability of each service's aircraft to help fulfill the OSA, operation support needs, of other services. The third recommendation, reassign or otherwise dispose of excess OSA aircraft. Now, the chairman and ranking member may know better than I, but it seems to me that a lot of the services have the aircraft and they just don't go from one service to the other. It seems to me what we really need is an effective structure in DOD that puts these business jets and other aircraft under one operational command that really works. If a senior officer in the Navy needed one for something, they should go to this command to get it; Marines the same, Air Force--all this would be the same. The Navy/Marine should go to one central structure to get the aircraft and have them assigned from that structure. That is how it should work. It looks as though we are in the same old military gamesmanship: Air Force, ``I got mine''; Navy, ``I got mine.'' The Navy has Navy markings and the Air Force has Air Force markings and the Army has Army markings and never the twain shall meet. I am curious as to how much money we waste and how much operational support aircraft we waste because we don't have that one effective integrated command structure working as it should. That was the suggestion made by GAO in 1995. If nothing else comes out of this, I hope we might move ahead in some way to provide an effective overall operational structure. I said earlier that there is a DOD Directive 4500.43 that requires that OSA aircraft inventories must be based on wartime needs. However, few OSA aircraft were used in theater during the Persian Gulf war. From the GAO report: Actual use of OSA aircraft during the Persian gulf war suggests that the primary role of OSA is not wartime support but peacetime support. Again, I quoted that from the GAO report of June of 1995.

Mr. HARKIN. There are nine CINCs, so we are getting seven Gulfstream Vs for nine CINCs.

Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield for a question.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the Senator asking that question because I think it points up--first of all, I am not saying we do not need any of this; I am saying we do need some of these planes. I was talking with the chairman about this. Let's say a four-star officer has to go from Washington to Florida to Texas to Chicago for a series of meetings. He possibly cannot do it with a civilian plane. I understand that, if one has to go overseas for a certain meeting and get back. There are times when you cannot use civilian airplanes. But this type of a jet could be used for any kind of domestic travel in the continental United States. You might have to land and refuel. That does not bother me a whole heck of a lot. I am saying with the Gulfstream Vs that we have now--which I said we have two or so right now in inventory, plus we have a number of Gulfstream IVs and Gulfstream IIIs--let's say a general needed to get from the Pentagon to someplace overseas in a big hurry for something. OK, requisition one of them and use it for that. But if they have to go to Florida and then to Texas and then to California and make all these meetings, use one of these smaller aircraft because they are going to land anyway, while they are at the meeting, they can refuel, take off and go. It is a much cheaper way of operating. I seriously question whether we need six Gulfstream Vs for whatever purpose they are asking--I really question that--and I question whether or not other versions of aircraft like this or others can be used more for domestic travel. I have a letter to Chairman Stevens dated March 8, 1999, from the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Hamre, and General Ralston, U.S. Air Force. I was reading it over and was struck by a paragraph. It is an assessment of CINC support aircraft. This was required by the Senate Appropriations Committee report last year. I was struck by this paragraph which says: This study evaluated all military and representative commercial aircraft to determine which aircraft would both be configurable and available for CINC support airlift. It goes on. This is the paragraph: The study revealed that when CINC-- Commanders in Chief-- requirements, combined long, unrefueled range--4,200 to 6,000 nautical miles--more than 18 passengers and short runway capabilities--5,000 to 7,000 feet--a modern commercial aircraft was needed. I find it interesting. If you go to the CINCs and ask, ``What are your requirements?'' and they define their requirements, guess what. They meet the requirements of the Gulfstream V. If you ask me what my requirements are to fly around the United States, I bet I can come up with a set of determinants that I need a Gulfstream V: I travel a lot; I go to the coast once in a while; I am always in Iowa; sometimes I have to be in one place for a meeting and then another place for a meeting. I would love to have a Gulfstream V. And I have short runways, too, sometimes. It is not surprising that we ask the CINCs, ``What do you need?'' and they then define their needs and come up with Gulfstream Vs. It seems to me we ought to have someone else defining the needs rather than the commanders in chief, because they are the ones who use the aircraft. They said: Based on historical CINC support aircraft usage and future requirements, and discounting the probable need of backup aircraft inventory, seven C-37A aircraft-- that is the Gulfstream V-- should minimally satisfy the existing CINC requirements. What I cannot figure out--does the Senator from California know?--is, how many CINCs are there? Do we know how many CINCs there are?

Mr. HARKIN. The basic answer to that is, yes--depending on the mission, of course. Now, if a general or a four-star wanted to fly from here nonstop to Europe, they couldn't take this airplane which only has about a 2,000- mile leg. However, I might add, it could fly to Reykjavik and refuel. It can fly to Shannon and refuel. It will take an hour and a half or more; you have to land, refuel, and get out of there. But it is perfectly capable of doing that. A lot of businesses fly these overseas all the time. You just have to stop and refuel in one place, that is all. It even has a bathroom on board.

Mr. HARKIN. I think I do.

Mr. HARKIN. If I might interrupt, these are what in common nomenclature would be called executive business jets, converted. For example, in military terms, they call it a C-37 but it is really a Gulfstream V.

Mr. HARKIN. Cessna Citation Ultra. By the way, it is a very good plane.

Mr. HARKIN. They may want to travel in this kind of luxury, but I am not certain we ought to just give it to them. There are nine CINCs. Each one now would have their own Gulfstream V. Do we know what the per-hour operating cost is of a Gulfstream V? As best I can determine, the per-hour operating cost is over $2,000. I think it is actually higher than that, because I do not think that takes into account depreciation; I think that is just fuel and other requirements. Let's just say it is $2,000 an hour. A four-star officer gets on one of those Gulfstream Vs and flies 2 hours someplace for a meeting and 2 hours back; that is 4 hours, $8,000 just to go to a meeting someplace and come back. That is a good use of taxpayers' dollars? I will lay you odds that 7 times out of 10 that four-star officer could go right out here to National Airport or Dulles, get on an airplane, and get a first-class ticket--How much is a first-class ticket?--fly to that meeting, and fly back for less than $1,000. I ask you: When is the last time you ever got on a commercial aircraft in the United States flying anywhere and saw a general or admiral on that plane? I cannot remember when. I see a lot of lieutenants and commanders and captains, but I never see an admiral or general. Then again, why would you? They are on their Gulfstream Vs, jetting around. I am not saying there is never a purpose--there may be--but I think this is just a little bit too much. There are about 36 four-star officers in the U.S. military, I am told--about 36 four-star officers-- and for that, we have over 154 jets in inventory to fly people around. What is going on here? In fact, I know our proposal only deals with the Gulfstreams, but if I am not mistaken, the bill also provides for the purchase of five additional C-35s.

Mr. HARKIN. Those are the Cessnas. We are already going to buy five of these, and we are going to lease six more of the Gulfstream Vs. So it is not just the Gulfstream Vs. The Navy already has six Gulfstreams, the Air Force already has Gulfstreams, and, as I said, 70 Learjets, C- 21s. I remember one time when I went on a congressional trip--was I still in the House or the Senate? I can't remember. I may have been in the Senate. We went to Central America. It was during that war in Central America. We flew from here to Florida, to MacDill, refueled, and we were in a little Lear. There were about six or seven of us crammed into that thing with no bathroom. But obviously, because of my Senate duties, I had to get down there to go on a trip that could not be done commercially. So we went from here to MacDill, refueled, then went to Guatemala and Honduras; and then I think we went to El Salvador; then we went to Panama City, had to refuel again, fly to MacDill, refuel again, and then fly home. I tell you, it was not that comfortable a flight if you are one of those in a little Lear, six or seven people crammed in there. For a Senator, that is fine. I bet you a general or admiral would never do that. But we had staff. We had committee staff along with us. I am just saying, sometimes if you are going to do these things, sometimes you have to put up with that. There is no way I could have done it commercially, so I had to take a military aircraft. You do not have to go in elaborate luxury every single time. That is my point. I do not think there is a critical shortage of these executive jets that should take precedence over the immediate needs of our military. Besides the sheer numbers of aircraft in each of the armed services indicating there is no shortfall, again, I repeat from the 1995 GAO report that said the armed services should ``develop the appropriate mechanisms to ensure the availability of each service's aircraft to help fulfill the OSA needs of the other services.'' In other words, the GAO concluded the armed services needed to learn to share. This is a simple concept that should be used to relieve any conceivable strain on the number of executive aircraft. The Pentagon counters this sensible solution by claiming that existing aircraft are being fully used. However, the GAO also found that DOD's operational support aircraft fleet ``far exceeds any possible wartime requirement.'' The Defense Week article that the Senator from California referred to of May 24, 1999, had some interesting things in it. They said: In particular, the article said, ``There are about 600 to 800 users in the DC area authorized to request SAM [VIP Special Air Mission] support for missions'' which meet prescribed criteria. As I understand, that does not include Senators and Congressmen. At least that is what I am told. When I first read there are 600 to 800 authorized users for VIP special air missions, I thought that must include the 435 Members of the House and the 100 Senators. I am told that is not so. I am wondering, who are these 600 to 800 people? I am wondering if some of these jets are being used for less than really vital needs and perhaps could be used to meet the needs of the military CINCs. Again, quoting from the Defense Week article of May 24: Brig. Gen. Arthur Lichte, the Air Force's director of global-reach programs, says these support aircraft are all meeting other requirements [all these other aircraft that we have in inventory] so [they] could not be used by the commanders. Again, I am wondering, why not? What are these other requirements? If the commanders cannot use them, who is using them? Hamre says most of these support aircraft are too small for commanders' staffs. Plus, the four-stars need to be able to fly non-stop intercontinental trips while staying in contact with the president. I am not so certain about that. I am not certain that a refueling stop in Shannon is all that burdensome. The article goes on to say: Some on Capitol Hill respond that the CINCs could get by with smaller staffs on board and could live with refueling stops, but Hamre and Lichte don't agree. I do not know why not. I know a lot of times we go on congressional factfinding trips. We stop and refuel different places. I don't know why generals can't. They can still be in contact. That does not stop your contact with the White House, simply because you land and refuel-- not at all. What about the existing support fleet? ``No,'' Hamre said, ``we don't have aircraft that can fly from here to the Persian Gulf. I suppose you could go on a C- 12. You could island-hop like you did in World War II, but I mean that doesn't make any sense. This big inventory of 500 [operational support aircraft]--most of them are tiny airplanes, four-passenger, six-passenger kind of airplanes.'' That is just not so. These are not four-passenger airplanes.

Mr. HARKIN. These are eight right here. How much staff does a general have to take with him when he goes to a meeting? I would like to find that out. He said, ``The CINCs aren't [even] happy they have to live with a 12 passenger aircraft.'' Again I ask, how much staff do they need to take to these meetings they go to? So, again, the Senator from California and I have this amendment that says basically: We ought to put this lease aside. Let's take a look at this. Let's get a good report in. Do these really meet the warmaking needs of the Pentagon? Plus, I do not know where the facts lie on this one, but I will just say that, according to the New York Times, the lease will cost the taxpayers more than $475 million over 10 years. Purchasing the planes may prove cheaper. Some say purchasing is going to cost more; some say it will cost less. But we do know that for these aircraft, for the cost of the aircraft, plus the operation of them over the next 10 years, it is going to come in at somewhere----

Mr. HARKIN. I think the lease is going to cost over $475 million. And then there are operational costs. Now you are up to $600 or $700 million over the next 10 years just for these aircraft. That may be small change to the Pentagon, which is used to operating with $270 billion budgets, but that is a lot of money for our taxpayers. I just do not know where the facts lie in whether or not leasing is better than purchasing. We have seen very little information as to the cost tradeoffs of leasing versus purchasing. We have not seen a full report from the Pentagon covering all possible options to cover these CINCs' needs, nor do we have much information as to the needs of the military for all of these such aircraft. That is why our amendment requires a report detailing the requirements and options for such aircraft as an important first step. We do not have that. Quite frankly, regardless of how our amendment fares, I say to the chairman, and others, I plan to come back to this issue, along with my colleague from California, year after year, until we get a clearer picture. How many flights do senior officers take with senior executive aircraft? We do not even know that. What are the costs? What are the per-hour costs? What are the costs for that trip? Could that trip have been utilized with an alternative such as commercial aircraft? At what cost savings? Could some of these aircraft be sold off as excess aircraft if we better managed the total number of executive aircraft that we have? For example, we know that senior officials and officers fly from base to base and facility to facility. They fly from Andrews Air Force Base to NAS Jacksonville or to MacDill or to other air bases around the country. Could you utilize commercial aircraft for that? Sometimes yes; sometimes no. But we need to ensure that the DOD is looking for cheaper alternatives, including commercial airline alternatives. It may be slightly less convenient, but it sure would be a lot less costly, and it would free up existing DOD aircraft we have now for the unique missions for which they say they are needed. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I would be glad to do 10 minutes and wrap it up.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska has made a good point that the military should consider leasing and not consider purchasing. That is what our amendment does. Read our amendment. It says: Not later than March 1, 2000, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the inventory and status of operational support aircraft, Commander-in-Chief support aircraft, and command support aircraft of the Department of Defense. The report shall include a detailed discussion of the requirements for such aircraft, the foreseeable future requirements for such aircraft, the cost of leasing such aircraft, commercial alternatives to use of such aircraft, the cost of maintaining the aircraft, the capability and appropriateness of the aircraft to fulfill mission requirements, and the relevancy of the missions of the aircraft to warfighting requirements. That is exactly what our amendment does. But we want to know, should we even lease them?

Mr. HARKIN. Strike the provision----

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, as an old military pilot myself, I must say that if the generals want to get someplace in a real hurry--it may be necessary--and if it is part of our warmaking capabilities, they can get in the back seat of an F-16, get inflight fueling, and they can be there a lot faster than any commercial aircraft or a Gulfstream or anything else. That is the fastest way to get there.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Chair please advise the Senator when he has used 15 minutes.