Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished chairman. Amendment No. 446 (Purpose: To require States to verify that prisoners are not receiving food stamp benefits)

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like 5 minutes on an amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I do not object.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me ask just one question. In the last unanimous consent it was agreed amendment No. 423 would be set aside, subject to all of the unanimous consent requirements. Has it been now set aside?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today in my State and around the country we recognize the traditional anniversary of emancipation for millions of African-Americans. On this date, June 19, in 1865, slaves in the American frontier, especially in the Southwest, finally received the word that President Lincoln's great cause of freedom had finally been won. Since that date, throughout the American Southwest African-Americans have informally celebrated Juneteenth Independence Day. As with so many important cultural traditions in America, the meaning of Juneteenth was handed down from parent to child as an inspiration and encouragement for future generations. Earlier this year, the U.S. Congress recognized that tradition when it unanimously passed a resolution honoring the faith and strength of character of those in each generation who kept the tradition alive--a lesson for all Americans today, regardless of background, region, or race. Mr. President, Juneteenth Independence Day is an important and enriching part of our country's history and heritage. The history it represents provides an opportunity for all Americans to learn more about our common past and to better understand the experiences that have shaped our Nation. I join my colleagues in both Houses of Congress in honoring those Americans past and present to whom it has meant so much.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. As a matter of fact, I was very concerned about the appointment of a former staff member of a Senator from a State that was going to be in competition with our State on several bases. I was concerned about it. I asked Ms. Steele at the time if she would be willing to recuse herself, since she was on Senator Nickles' staff, from any of the decisions that would bear on a base that was in competition with Oklahoma, and she said no. I thought of objecting to her at the time. I decided that I would not object because I hoped that she would be fair and open and honest. I was concerned when, as a member of the Commission, she was doing the routine tour that Commissioners do of Kelly Air Force Base and she, at the time, said to the commander of the base, ``This is a really nice facility. I wonder what we will be able to do here when all of this is moved to Tinker?'' Now, this was when she was just in the research phase taking the routine trips that everyone takes, and she had made up her mind that this was going to be moved to Tinker. So I just think when I read the letters from the five members of the Base Closing Commission that stated clearly that privatization is an option that they meant to leave open in these base decisions, I just wanted the Senator to know what the background was on the letter from Wendi Steele.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. But she worked for Don Nickles before becoming a member of the Base Closing Commission.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, Wendi Steele was actually the defense legislative assistant for Don Nickles. She is from Oklahoma. I don't know if she lived in Oklahoma.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, I understand, and since I was willing to answer any questions you had, I think that is fair. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator has read a letter from one of the Base Closing Commissioners, Wendi Steele. And I just ask if the Senator from Oklahoma will tell us where Wendi Steele worked just before she went on the Base Closing Commission?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one question?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. This bill goes into effect on October 1, 1997. I would like to see sincerity on the part of the Senator from Oklahoma to work on this. Let's get a fair agreement so all of us can be together on this floor fighting for what is right for America, what is right for the Department of Defense, what is right for our young men and women who are defending this country. We have time to do it right. Let us do it right. Because he is correct, in the Senate we do not treat people the way they treat people in the House sometimes. In the House, they run over people. Normally, we have not done that in the Senate. That is why the rights of the minority in the Senate are protected. I think it is very important that we work together on this issue. I think we have an incentive to do it. We have plenty of time, and when we can come to a fair accommodation, I hope we can all work together on a bill that is good policy for America and allows us to use the precious defense dollars that we have for the readiness of our country and for the quality of life for our troops.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to respond, if the Senator from Oklahoma would allow me to?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me say this is the first time in this entire process that anyone has tried to get a fair solution to this issue. We were not able to do that last year in the armed services authorization bill, and we certainly do not have a bill that would allow for good public policy before us today. It is not as if the Department of Defense would go without appropriation if there was not an authorization bill because, in fact, many departments of Government go forward if there is no authorization as long as there is an appropriation. So there is no ongoing issue of the Department of Defense not having the ability to do its job and the money being there for them to do it. We are talking about a budget that starts on October 1 of this year, so we have time, and I think we need to take the time. I think we need to solve this problem in the best interests of the people of America, our armed services, our Department of Defense and all of the depots that we would like to protect. I think we have time to do that and do it right. I do not think it is in the best interests of our country to go forward with a bill that has such a flawed policy that will have such far-reaching implications and one in which I am not sure, because of parochial interests, we will be able to amend unless we are able to make an agreement before we take the bill up for consideration. What I am hoping is that before October 1 of this year, the members of the depot caucus will work with us in sincerity for something that they think is fair, that we think is fair, that is fair to the taxpayers, that is fair to the Department of Defense, and that we can go and negotiate and stand for together. Because, if we can stand together on something that is right, we will win and it will be better for America. So, we have time. Let's do it right. I thank the Senator for the question.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is right there. The important part of this recommendation from the BRAC Commission report is that the option is given to the Department of Defense through the Defense Depot Maintenace Council to move the workload to other depots, yes, or to privatize. The option is given because the Base Closure Commission understood that it was important for the Defense Department to have the flexibility. In fact, to augment that argument, I want to read a letter from the Chairman of the Base Closure Commission. The letter says: The Commission believes reducing infrastructure by expanding privatization to other DoD industrial and commercial activities will reduce the cost of maintaining and operating a ready military force. Privatization of these functions would reduce operating costs, eliminate excess infrastructure and allow uniformed personnel to focus on skills and activities directly related to their military missions. He goes on further to say: It is my view and the view of the Commission's general counsel that the commission's recommendation in the case of both McClellan Air Force Base and Kelly Air Force Base authorizes the transfer of any workload other than the common use ground communication electronic workload to any other DOD depot or to any private sector commercial activity, local or otherwise, including privatization in place. Signed Alan Dixon, Chairman, Base Closure Commission. A letter signed by four other members of the Base Closure Commission, which would make a majority with the Chairman: It was our clear intention to provide the Department of Defense with sufficient flexibility to maintain readiness, make optimum use of scarce resources and to exploit the strength of the United States commercial sector where possible, where doing so would provide the best economic value to the Government. The department has access to all of the relevant information and is in the best position to decide which option best fits its needs. They are saying clearly they do not expect the U.S. Congress to make that decision. They think the Department of Defense is in the best position to decide which option fits best. They go on to say: The Commission felt that privatization was a key tool the Department of Defense could employ to achieve significant savings. As members of the 1995 Base Realignment and Closure Commission, we support the department's efforts to remove legislative restrictions which are arbitrary and undermine effective depot maintenance management. Signed Rebecca Cox, Benjamin Montoya, J.B. Davis, and Josue Robles. That is in addition to the Chairman, Alan Dixon. It is very clear the intent of the Base Closure Commission, along with the actual wording, that privatization must be an option for the Department of Defense to be able to use the precious defense dollars for readiness of our country rather than wasting taxpayer dollars by artificially having mandates that 60 percent of all maintenance must be done in a public depot. That is what we are arguing about today. Now, the Senators have said that we have gone down to 50 percent from 60 percent, and they say that is an accommodation. At 50 percent, you are still mandating that there not be competition, that the Department of Defense not have the flexibility to do the job it needs to do in the most efficient and best way, and to save those defense dollars for readiness. In fact, I will quote to you from the people who are responsible for our readiness and their view of this issue. Admiral William S. Owens, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired, is talking about the importance of the fixed-costs versus the variable costs: The world's largest business-- The defense business, the Defense Department-- is 65 percent fixed costs and 35 percent variable costs. The variable costs, the 35 percent, translate to the war-fighting capability, but the money is in fixed costs. So what they are trying to do, according to Admiral Owens, is reduce those fixed costs. So he says, in order to reduce fixed costs, he believes they must have privatization. He says he would eliminate a particular percentage split and let the core work be decided by the services according to their needs. Dr. John White, Deputy Secretary of Defense: Privatization provides substantial savings. As we go forward, we have a situation where we have to emphasize modernization. Dr. White is saying we need flexibility to run this Department so that we can fight wars, and we need to save it where we can, and privatization provides savings. General Shalikashvili, our sitting Chief of the Joint Chiefs: I believe we must get on with privatization outsourcing. This is from March 6, 1996, testimony to the Defense Appropriations Committee: We need your support to make the hard choices and the changes to make these initiatives work. I particularly ask for your support where changes in law are required. The changes in law he is asking for is to do away with 60-40 or 50-50 so that they can have the full ability to decide what is core workload, what can be done in the private sector and how they can save money so that our money will go to, be able to go into the equipment that protects those young men and women who are out in the field who have given their lives to protect our freedom. In response to a question, General Fogleman, on March 14, 1996, said in answer to the question, how can the services close the $20 billion procurement gap that they face in trying to cut costs, one word: ``Privatization.'' General Viccellio, who was in charge of the depots, testified May 7, 1997, he needs the flexibility to privatize. DOD, he says, doesn't want to privatize everything, but they want the flexibility where they know they can do better. So, Mr. President, not only are we keeping the integrity of BRAC, which states in their recommendations they are leaving the option to the Department of Defense to move the workload to depots or to privatize, not only is it in the writing of BRAC, but it is augmented by letters signed by a majority of the members of the Base Closure Commission, who very specifically say to restrict privatization options would be wrong. That is further augmented by the Vice Chief of the Joint Chiefs, by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. I did not read to you the testimony from the Secretary of Defense, both William Perry and Bill Cohen. They all say if we are going to do the job you are giving us to do, which is cut costs yet remain ready and do the best for our troops, we need the flexibility to privatize. And yet the authorization bill that is tried to be brought up, which we are objecting to being brought up, continues to keep Kelly and McClellan from being able to bid in a public-private competition, to have the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. They would prevent the ability to have the competition, and instead say it does not matter if we waste taxpayer dollars; it does not matter if the Department of Defense has testified they do not want to do it; we are going to force them to do this work in one of the depots. Mr. President, it does not make sense. It does not make common sense. It does not make money sense. And we are going to try to come to an accommodation so that the depots feel that they will not be threatened. I do not want them to be threatened. But I do want what is best for the taxpayers. I do want the Department of Defense to make this decision based on the facts and based on what is best for the Department of Defense, and I think they are in the best position to make this decision. And that is what I am fighting for today. It has been stated that the GAO report says you cannot have savings by doing the privatization in place, and I think it is most important that we say for the record that the GAO has never taken into account bids in competition. They have told me that, and we must have the ability for the Department of Defense to take the bids so that we will know if we are going to be able to have the savings. So, Mr. President, I am trying to stand today for the integrity of the BRAC process. BRAC recommended privatization as an option. That has been thoroughly augmented by the majority of the members of the BRAC in letters since the closing of the BRAC. It has been augmented by every important military leader who has testified before the Armed Services Committee or the Defense Appropriations Committee. There is unanimity in the Department of Defense that they need this flexibility in order to use the millions of dollars that they can save by doing this work privately and put it in the readiness area. I have to say I am somewhat amused to hear privatization used as if this is un-American. Who makes the aircraft? Who makes the engines? I believe private companies make those. Why would we be against the same private companies that manufacture the engines, that manufacture the aircraft, repairing them? I really do not understand that argument very well. I think the Department of Defense is in the best position to know if they are, in fact, the best people to repair the engines that they built or repair the aircraft that they built, and I think we should let the experts make that decision. That is what we are fighting for today. We are fighting for public-private competition, we are fighting for integrity of the BRAC process. We are fighting for the experts to be able to make the decision of where those precious defense dollars would go. We are on the side of the right, and I hope we can work with those who are trying to protect three depots--which I want to be protected as well. But they don't have to be protected against competition. They don't have to be protected in the name of artificial constraints on the Department of Defense to be able to make decisions. They should be protected because the Department of Defense wants them to be there. I am ready to pass a law saying protect them. But I am not willing to pass a law saying you cannot have public-private competition by the Department of Defense even if that is the decision that the Department of Defense makes, because they know best, they are the experts that we have trusted to make these decisions, and we are trying to uphold the integrity of that process. Mr. INHOFE addressed the chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think it is important we look at this language. I have it right here: Consolidate the workloads to other DoD depots or to private sector commercial activities as determined by the Defense Depot Maintenance Council. The rest of it: Move the required equipment and any required personnel to the receiving locations. The airfield and all associated support activities and facilities will be attached to Lackland Air Force Base.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would be happy to yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is the BRAC recommendation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to talk about some of the issues that have been raised by my colleagues, because it seems that there are some very important issues that need to be clarified. A lot has been said about the integrity of the Base Closure Commission process. In fact, it is so important that everyone understand we are protecting the integrity of the base closing process. I want to read the language that comes straight out of the commission recommendation: The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria 1, 4, and 5. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign Kelly Air Force Base including the Air Logistics Center. Disestablish the Defense Distribution Depot, San Antonio. This is the important language: Consolidate the workloads to other DoD depots or to private sector commercial activities as determined by the Defense Depot Maintenance Council.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for stating his concerns here. I notice the distinguished committee chairman is also here. I think it is very important that the rights of Members be upheld here because there is a significant issue that is very important to the Department of Defense for the readiness of this country that is at issue in this bill. Heretofore, our side has not really had any ability to have an accommodation or to make sure that what the Department of Defense wants to do, what BRAC allowed them to do, in fact they will be able to do. Because in the bill that would be brought before us, it vitiates any public-private competition for depot maintenance work by the Air Force. That is the effect of this bill. To think that someone, for parochial interests, would put language in a bill that would do away with what BRAC said to the Department of Defense was their option, which is to go out and spread the workload to other depots from the bases that are closed, or privatize in place, the Department of Defense should be able to make the decision based on the efficiency of taxpayer dollars and where we need the defense dollars to go. The Department of Defense should be able to make that decision. That is what BRAC said. The Department of Defense made the decision. They said it would be more efficient and save more money to privatize in place. They are doing public-private competition to make sure that the price is better. Yet the bill that would come before us says they cannot do any of that work, privatize in place, until the depots get the work and are up to 75 percent of their capacity. Well, that is impossible, because some of those depots may not ever get to 75 percent capacity, nor does that have anything to do with efficiency. So, Mr. President, yes, we are standing on principle. We are standing on the principle that the Department of Defense should be able to have a public-private competition, to save taxpayer dollars and to put those defense dollars into readiness. We can save millions of dollars for the taxpayers and for the Department of Defense. And those millions of dollars, rather than being wasted, can be put into equipment that will keep our troops safe and secure. We are standing for the integrity of the BRAC process. We are standing for the integrity of the Department of Defense and for their ability to make their decisions without congressional mandates that cause the waste of millions of dollars for the taxpayers and for the young men and women who are putting their lives on the line to protect our freedom. That is what this issue is. So, yes, Mr. President, we are objecting. We hope to find an accommodation. I will say that the distinguished chairman of the committee wants to find an accommodation that will give the Department of Defense the flexibility they need, that will do right by the taxpayers of this country, that will do right by the people who are in our Armed Services, and that will do right by the depots that are still left in Oklahoma, Utah, and Georgia. We want something that will be fair to everyone. And when we come to that fair conclusion, then we will be happy to debate this bill and hopefully authorize a good defense bill. But, Mr. President, make no mistake, if there is not a defense authorization bill that can be worked out that can be fair, I hope that we will not go forward putting shackles on the Department of Defense and wasting taxpayer dollars. I hope we will have the strength to resist that.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am very pleased to hear that the daughter of the Senator from Connecticut is having her moving-up ceremony, because she is a special friend of mine and I think she is a potential future Senator from Connecticut. So I am glad that he is going to be able to make that important ceremony. He will give her my regards, I hope.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, my colleague from Connecticut asked if he could take 3 minutes. I am happy to give him 3 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that I believe is agreed to by both sides. I am very pleased that both sides have agreed to this because it deals with NATO expansion and is something that I think will strengthen our ability to expand NATO, will make sure that we have considered many of the potential problems that could arise, and have a dispute resolution process to deal with those so that we will not have to call on Article Five. As everyone knows, Article Five says that any attack on any NATO country is an attack on the United States or any of the other NATO allies. We want to make sure that, if there is a border dispute or some sort of internal dispute within a country or between two neighboring countries or between any two countries who are members of NATO, we have a dispute resolution process so that we can have a way for people to go to the bargaining table, and the process is a binding arbitration--much like binding arbitration in labor negotiations in the United States--so that rather than have a question about whether we are going to be on one side or the other in a military conflict, that we have a process that everyone who is a present member of NATO and any future members of NATO would agree to that would be perhaps--this is not in the agreement yet--perhaps where each country in the dispute would pick one other country in NATO as their representative. Those two representative countries would then pick a neutral representative to arbitrate the differences. The important thing is there would be an agreement for binding arbitration. So, if there was a flare-up between two present members of NATO-- say Greece and Turkey, or a future member of NATO, Hungary and Romania, for instance--there would be a way for us to have a process that everyone agreed to before there were new members added and that could be brought into fruition right at the time of the dispute so that there would not be a problem, so there would be no dilution of Article Five. So, Mr. President, this amendment is a sense of Congress that NATO would consider a formal dispute resolution process and that it would do so within NATO prior to the December 1997 ministerial meeting. It is a sense of Congress that says to our NATO allies, let's sit down and think of all the ramifications of the NATO organization as it is now and any future members that would come in. Let's look at any of the ramifications that might come--a border dispute, or disputes among countries--let's have a process that does not include warfare where everyone agrees to abide by the decision as the process is set. I am very pleased that this sense of Congress will be accepted. I think it will strengthen any future members coming into NATO. And, frankly, Mr. President, best of all, I think it will strengthen the alliance as it stands today because I think this will avoid many future conflicts. I think the more we can do today to settle questions that might arise, the stronger this alliance will be. Mr. President, I do think NATO is the best defense alliance in the history of the world. I want to keep it strong. So I appreciate the acceptance of this amendment. I urge its adoption. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.