Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I call up amendments Nos. 576 and 585 and ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think it would be interesting for the Senator to know that the plane of our commander in Europe, General Clark, who we all see on the news--and we have met with him respectively, and our committee has twice--the C-9A, cannot land at half of the airfields in Europe because of environmental restrictions. I don't understand why we can't move to make available the process that has been pioneered and developed by American industry and even States and cities. They lease their aircraft. They lease their fleets of cars. It is cost effective. We are giving them the authority to do this. We are not mandating them to do it by the provision of the bill. But if people want this substitute amendment--the Senator from California would require a study for more than a year--we would be back here again. But we faced this. People forget. In the current year appropriations bill, we required an assessment of consolidated CINC support aircraft. It was required to be submitted, and it was submitted by March 1. Here it is. It led to this provision. We have had a year. We had the study. They have told us what they need. I hope the Senate will support the need as outlined, but the needs can be met by exercising the authority. We are not mandating anything in this bill. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. To lease for another year.

Mr. STEVENS. I have one question. The first sentence says to strike the provision on page 104.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa have not more than 10 minutes and the Senator from California not more than 5 minutes and I be recognized again to make a motion to table.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me again say what we are trying to do. We believe under this amendment, by giving the authority to lease aircraft, we will be able to get at least six aircraft in less than 2 years to replace these aircraft that are now well over 30, 40 years old. We believe the savings in retiring these aging, expensive-to- maintain 707 aircraft will be cost effective. But what is more, this move will be very good for the Department, because by pooling these aircraft they will be able to use them efficiently. Nobody will have a dedicated aircraft that is underutilized. They will be able to be used by others when not being utilized under this plan. We adopted a similar plan last year at my suggestion, and that is when we were going to have aircraft for FEMA, CIA, and the FBI. We formed a special unit, and they have pooled the aircraft and they are available to them. They will have them available for one or all of them, depending on the needs of the people involved. This is a cost-effective utilization of air transportation to meet the needs of our National Government. I hope we can defeat this amendment. I am going to make a motion to table. I will be happy to consider time for the Senators to speak. They have spoken almost an hour and a half. I will honor their suggestion if they want some time before I make that motion.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am somewhat surprised by the length and specificity of the argument against this amendment. This amendment, on page 104 of the bill, would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to obtain transportation for the commanders in chief, the regional commanders, to lease aircraft. It does not mandate any leasing. It authorizes leasing. Currently these commanders in chief, regional commanders, are already flying 707 aircraft built 30, 35 years ago. Commercially, those airlines had 250 seats. They have 45 seats on those aircraft now. They are big. They are old. They are costly to maintain. It is possible to have modern replacements now. The Senators would have us replace one a year. We will keep operating these old dumbos at enormous cost for repair and replacement of engines, instead of moving out and accepting the fact that there are planes there now, American-built planes, and the Department estimates it will cost $750 million to operate and maintain the current support fleet over the next 10 years. We would reduce that cost and put our people immediately in more cost-effective, quiet, efficient planes. Yes, they are small compared to what they have now. Today a commander in chief takes along with him up to 45 people. This will reduce that size; there is no question about that. Further, we reduce the number of aircraft from nine to seven. They didn't mention that. This has nothing to say about all those other aircraft. I would like to have a study of the flights of these airplanes that are owned by the Federal Government, particularly those owned and flown by the White House. We tried to get that and couldn't get it. We would like to find out who flies in the State Department airplane. We couldn't get that. Now, be my guest and go get those, but these are commanders of our military who are serving as regional commanders of forces. I wonder if the Senate knows there are forces of the American people in 91 different countries today. We are operating at about one-third the staff we had just 5 years ago. We are trying to carry out missions that are almost impossible. Our reenlistment rate of pilots is down to less than one-third of what it was just a year ago. The deployment of our forces is overwhelming. The degree of fatigue on our managers is overwhelming. I really never expected this kind of argument about replacing the 707s. I do not think anyone wants to continue to fly on the 707s. If nothing else, they are just old.

Mr. STEVENS. No. I am going to table this, follow this bill through, and get it done. I can't understand that an amendment like this would delay this bill, because it is only an authorization to lease. All we have heard today, talking about the number of aircraft, is immaterial. Those aircraft are out there. They are not going to be affected by this amendment at all. What we are trying to do is say that these commanders who stand in for the President as regional commanders in chief should have the state of the art of American industry in terms of their transportation. That is what this is. What we are doing is trying to get them to lease them, because if we started replacing them, I have to tell you, there is not money in this bill to allow us to buy seven new aircraft for these commanders. We can give them the authority to lease them and replace them, and those leases can be options to buy later. We can fill that if we want to buy the planes later. We can't do it now, but these planes they are flying now are expensive, and they are too large. They are not what these commanders need. A DOD report promised us a savings of $250 million over this 10-year period if they had this authority. It doesn't mandate them leasing it. It authorizes them to lease some, buy some, lease with an option to buy, whatever it might be, to get the best deal possible to replace these aircraft. Now, in terms of maintenance alone, this option would save us a lot of money. I think the problem of having dedicated aircraft is something we ought to look at. The Senator says he hasn't seen many four-star admirals or four-star generals on airplanes. I see them. They do not wear their uniforms on airplanes. Why should they? They would automatically be a target. It is not what we want anyway. These people are known throughout the world. I think if anyone in the world needs protection, it is the commanders in chief of the regions. We do not provide that, but we can provide them the capability for security and safety as they move around the areas over which they have command. Talk to the people in industry. Why do you think the big industries are leasing fleets of cars now? Because after the end of a year or so, they turn them back, get a new model--no maintenance, no replacement of parts. The vehicles are out on the civilian market with a good value, because they have only been used for a short while. We could do the same thing with these aircraft if people would wake up and use the leasing operation. We are not talking about leasing combat aircraft; we are talking about leasing transportation that is vital to the regional commanders. Again, our section only deals with transportation for the regional commanders, not for all the 684 people. If you want to know who they are, they are people in the State Department. We will be glad to give you a list. State Department, commanders of bases overseas, they are eligible for flight on these aircraft. But above all, I am sort of taken aback by the fact that we are giving the Department of Defense the right to think about taxpayers' money as they provide this vital transportation link for these regional commanders. This saves money. The study shows they save money. Before they can complete the lease, they have to come back and get the money to lease. There is no money in this bill to lease. As a practical matter, I really don't understand. Here we are trying to save money. We are trying to replace these antiquated airplanes. These places these people go, most of them have no commercial connections. They just do not. I took a trip this last week to California and down to the desert in Arizona and back here on business, down at the border to look at some problems there. I will tell the Senate about that later. There were no connections to Douglas, AZ, commercially. I thought I would get down there and see that problem to determine whether we ought to spend taxpayers' money. They have the same problem. How can they tell us what they need in these remote places of the world under their command? And how can they come to meetings and listen to the Commander in Chief or to the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? These planes are needed by these people. I think one of the great things brought about by the Goldwater-Nichols Act was, in fact, regional commanders. It gave us the kind of command and control we needed to maintain a very efficient military, with fewer people, and utilizing the talent of some very distinguished people. I have to tell you, the longer I am here, the greater respect I have for people who get four stars on their shoulders. That is what we are talking about--the people who have come through the services and have reached the point of ultimate command-- and I mean ultimate. They can make decisions in lieu of the Commander in Chief in a time of crisis; I am talking about in lieu of the President. They have the power under that act to act in a crisis. Now, what do you want to do--let them ride commercial planes? I challenge anybody who has been out in the Pacific and has gone from place to place, from island to island, where we have our military, to figure out how to do it commercially. Even in my State, if you want to go out to Adak, you can go out and come back 2 days later. As a practical matter, this is transportation for the 21st century. If nothing else, this Senator doesn't want to see representatives of the Nation that leads the world in building aircraft to be traveling in 1960 airplanes in the years 2001, 2002, and 2003. That is what we are talking about. There is a lot here in terms of advertising America to the world. I want these people to be flying in the best we have, because they are demonstrating this country's ability to maintain its position in the world. I cannot believe there would be this kind of dialog about giving the authority to use a system that American business has now used very efficiently for 40 years--the leasing of equipment as opposed to buying it. I hope to God they use this authority and save us some money and put our people in safe, modern, efficient transportation. Does the Senator want to speak before I make a motion to table?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am happy to listen to the comments of the Senator. On the second page, it says, ``. . .and the relevancy of the missions of aircraft to warfighting requirements.'' It is the position of the committee that the aircraft we are talking about are for basically multimission functions and are really not designed for warfighting requirements. They are designed for transportation, basically to meet normal needs. If the Senator would delete that last clause, we will be happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are so many fellows being admitted that I am going to ask on the next one that comes up that all fellows that are working with Senators be limited to not more than 1 hour each on the floor during the consideration of this bill. Those chairs in the back of the Senate are for people who are working with us on this bill. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bill Adkins, a legislative fellow on Senator Abraham's staff, be granted privileges of the floor during the Senate's consideration of this bill.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I must oppose the Senator's amendment. I think it will change the direction we are going in terms of how to meet the pressing needs of the Department of Defense and, at the same time, balance those needs against the rest of the needs of the country. I urge that this amendment be defeated.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. STEVENS. I send to the desk a second-degree amendment. It will modify this amendment in a way that is acceptable to both sides. I ask that this amendment, as modified, be agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. I call up amendment No. 589.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is about time to vote on the McCain amendment. We thought we would have another amendment offered by this time. But it has not been offered. I believe it is time we start voting on these amendments. I will state for the Chair that it is my intention to find some way to call up these amendments in the order they were presented and dispose of them now as quickly as we can. There is a vote on cloture tomorrow on the Y2K proposition. I assume that will carry. We certainly do not want to have this defense bill waiting around for the completion of a long process that is related to cloture. I urge Members to cooperate with us. I will inquire of Members as they come to the floor now on this vote as to when they will be able to present their amendments to see if we can find some way to get some time limitations. It is possible, I believe, to finish this bill tonight with the cooperation of Members of the Senate. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. We are in agreement, Mr. President.