Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. That is correct. The Committee does not believe this report language limits replacing C-5 High Pressure Turbines. Those replacements should occur to the entire C-5 fleet based on Defense Department requirements.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may I engage in a colloquy with my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii? As Senator Inouye knows, the Manager's amendment currently before the Senate includes an amendment to section 8014. That section addresses the procedures that must be followed by Department of Defense agencies which seek to outsource certain civilian functions to private contractors. Since 1990, this provision has been included in the Defense appropriations bills for each of the last ten years. Throughout that time, section 8014 has provided for certain exceptions to the procedures, including an exception when the private contractor is a Native American-owned entity. This exception has been included in furtherance of the Federal policy of Indian self-determination and the promotion of economic self-sufficiency for the native people of America. The exception for a private contractor that is a Native American- owned entity is an exercise of the authority that has been vested in the Congress by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, often referred to as the Indian Commerce Clause. As the senior Senator from Hawaii and vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs knows, this is by no means the only Federal legislation that recognizes the special status of Native Americans in commercial transactions with the Federal Government which is based upon the trust relationship the United States has with its indigenous, aboriginal people. There are, in fact, numerous examples of provisions of Federal law that seek to provide competitive assistance to businesses that are owned by Indian tribes or Alaska Native regional or village corporations. Congress has enacted such laws because they have been found to be the most effective and appropriate means of ensuring and encouraging economic self-sufficiency in furtherance of the Federal policy of self-determination and the United States' trust responsibility. There is considerable judicial precedent recognizing such laws as a valid exercise of Congress' constitutional authority, perhaps the most significant of which is the United State Supreme Court's 1974 ruling in Morton versus Mancari. It has come to my attention that a lawsuit has been filed challenging the Native American exception in section 8014 as a racially-based preference that is unconstitutional. That challenge is simply inconsistent with the well-established body of Federal Indian law and numerous rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Native American exception contained in section 8014 is intended to advance the Federal Government's interest in promoting self-sufficiency and the economic development of Native American communities. It does so not on the basis of race, but rather, based upon the unique political and legal status that the aboriginal, indigenous, native people of the America have had under our Constitution since the founding of this nation. It is a valid exercise of Congress' authority under the Indian commerce clause. While I believe that the provision is clear, we propose adoption of the amendment before us today to further clarify that the exception for Native American-owned entities in section 8014 is based on a political classification, not a racial classification. Because my colleague was Chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations in 1990 and involved in the drafting of section 8014, I would like to know whether my understanding of the purpose and intent of section 8014 is consistent with the original purpose and intent, and whether the amendment before us today is consistent with the original intent of section 8014.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. That is our intention.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to assure the Senator that I will work with him and the other interested members to ensure that this matter is addressed in our conference in a manner that will provide a favorable resolution for the Academy.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from New Jersey that I am aware of the environmental and infrastructure problems at MOTBY and I was pleased to join last year with the ranking member, Senator Inouye, and the Senator from New Jersey to be able to provide funding to address some of these problems last year. I understand that the other body has $5 million for stabilization of the South Berths at MOTBY. Let me assure my friend from New Jersey that I will do what I can in conference to provide significant additional funding for FY 2001.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the senior Senator from Nevada. I believe that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the military conducts its operations in a manner that does not pose an undue health and safety risk on the population. I support your proposal, and will seek to include this language in the conference report to the FY01 Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Launtenberg's point is well taken regarding research and development effort for nonlinear acoustic landmine detection research. I worked with Senator Lautenberg and Senator Inouye on getting this effort startled last year. Although this year's allocation prevented us from providing the necessary funding during the committee consideration, I am committed to working in conference towards the goal of an additional $3 million for the Stevens Institute effort for FY 2001. This could be an important breakthrough that can save lives, both among our service men and women and civilian populations. I yield to Senator Inouye for his thoughts on the initiative.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its position on this bill with the House and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Utah for his kind remarks. The ranking member and I remain fully committed to continuing DOD participation in the national cancer research program. I want to assure the Senator that National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers, like the Huntsman Cancer Institute of Utah, are an important part of cancer research and a necessary element to the DOD effort. I find the Senator's request entirely reasonable and intend to assist this anticancer effort.

Mr. STEVENS. Let me assure my colleague from New Jersey that I am aware of this important effort and I will do what I can in conference to ensure that the Sustainable Green program receives funding in FY2001.

Mr. STEVENS. I have always been a supporter of the LPD-17 program and the Committee very much appreciates the need for the lift capacity of this ship. In fact, it is my understanding that the San Antonio and her 11 sister ships will be the functional replacement for four classes of older amphibious ships. And in 2008, when the last LPD-17 class ship is scheduled to join the fleet, the amphibious force will consist of 36 ships or 12 three-ship Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs) consisting of one LHA or LHD, one LPD and one LSD.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, in recognition of the importance of the LPD- 17 program and the importance of these ships to the overall modernization program of the Navy and Marine Corps. During consideration of the FY2001 Defense appropriations bill, concern regarding delays in the design and construction of the lead LPD ship at the lead shipyard led to a decision by the Committee to defer funding for the fifth and sixth ship of the class. The Committee did, however, recommend a total of $485 million for this program.

Mr. STEVENS. Again I say to the Senator that I think Chairman Shelton's testimony was very persuasive. He urged against using our scarce airlift resources on the A-model upgrades. However, my friend makes a good point that changing the program at this point, before we receive MRS '05 and the AoA may be premature. I am willing to re- examine this issue when we go into the Conference with the House.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct, I do not believe that the Committee's language endangers any of our aircrews. Instead, it is a delaying mechanism to prevent investing in these planes before we are sure that they will be flying for the next 20 years. If, in fact, these studies suggest that, then we will take another look at the needs of the A-models.

Mr. STEVENS. The Committee is aware of the new standards, but is concerned that the Air Force is not investing in the proper mix of modernization and new aircraft to meet our strategic airlift needs. We are still waiting to receive the long overdue Mobility Requirements Study 2005 (MRS '05) that will clearly lay-out what our strategic airlift needs will be for the foreseeable future. In addition, once that requirement is clear, we will get the Air Force Analysis of Alternatives for Outsized/Oversized Airlift (AoA). This study will provide a clear understanding of what mix of aircraft will most efficiently and effectively meet the operational requirements of the military. When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, testified before our Committee, he expressed reservations about making further investments in the C-5A fleet.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I apologize to the Senate. There is one amendment we left out of the managers' package. I would like to present it at this time. It is amendment No. 3176, as modified.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Collins, I ask unanimous consent that Kristine Fauser, who currently works in Senator Collins' office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sarah Donnar and Jennifer Loesch of my office have access to the floor during the consideration of this bill today.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Securities and Financial Institutions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 13, 2000, to conduct a joint hearing on ``Merchant Banking Regulations pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999.''

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, June 13, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., in SD226.