Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the desk on behalf of Senator Santorum.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4886 (Purpose: To set aside $3,000,000 for acceleration of a program to develop thermally stable jet fuels using chemicals derived from coal)

Mr. STEVENS. We support the amendment, Mr. President, and I ask for the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I withhold that.

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall vote on this amendment take place at 4:15 and not be subject to second- degree amendments; that the rollcall start at 4:15.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we concur in the statements made by the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Indiana. The Senator from Hawaii and I support the amendment. We are prepared to either accept it or to have a rollcall vote. What is the desire of the Senator from Georgia?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a vote on this amendment--we will not make a motion to table it--if desired by the sponsors, at no later than 4:15 today.

Mr. STEVENS. Could we agree to another 20 minutes on this amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. We are prepared to accept the amendment without a vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield just one moment? Would he be interested in a time agreement on this amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. We are prepared for the Senator's amendment and welcome it.

Mr. STEVENS. I will withhold that request for a minute.

Mr. STEVENS. May I inquire of the Senator from Iowa, does he wish to make any further statement in this regard? Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the ratio of general officers to enlisted ranks in the Air Force is 1 to 1,380; in the Army, it is 1 to 1,552; in the Navy, it is 1 to 2,143; in the Marine Corps, it is 1 to 2,558. There are 57 members of the headquarters staff who are of general rank; they are admirals in the Navy. There are 51 in the Army, 45 in the Air Force and 18 in the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps has the lowest number of generals. That is the lowest number of generals per enlisted ranks, and it has the lowest number of generals in the service headquarters. They are more with their troops than the others. The others have probably more sweeping responsibilities in terms of headquarters staff. I am not being critical to the alignment. I say, I do agree with the Senator from South Carolina. We have never tried to regulate through the appropriations process the number of general officers. The time might come when we take that battle on. But we have not done it so far. I see no reason to do it now. The Senator's amendment would say that none of the funds appropriated by this act could be used to support more than 68 general officers on active duty in the Marine Corps. It is opposed by the Marine Corps, obviously, because they have this, what we call, the tooth to tail ratio of 1 to 2,568, which is almost twice that of the Army. And they have one-third of the general officers in their headquarters staff than the Army does. So I really urge the Senator again to not persist. This matter was debated on the Armed Services bill. It is in conference. I see the Senator from Idaho, who is the chairman of that subcommittee, is here now. I will be happy not to make a motion to table yet if he wishes to speak to the matter. But it is my feeling that this is not an appropriate debate for an appropriations bill. We do not deal with force structure. We do not deal with the allocation between the generals and the enlisted, and officers in general, between officers and the enlisted corps, except at the request of the Armed Services Committee when we do fund separate items they have requested. So I believe, I say to the Senator, this is not a proper debate for the appropriations process. I do not say that in the sense of judging this Senator's right to bring the matter to the floor. But I intend to make a motion to table as soon as the Senator has completed his statement. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Alaska is going to move to table the Senator from Iowa's amendment, but I want to be courteous.

Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Iowa wish to respond to that again?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Iowa is here. We have discussed an agreement concerning an amendment he is to offer. He is going to offer an amendment to the bill pertaining to the number of general officers, I believe, in the Marine Corps. I just simply want to ask unanimous consent that his amendment not be subject to a second-degree amendment but that he be permitted to modify that amendment during the debate if he so wishes.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would say to the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania that I have long been a supporter of telemedicine and its application to military medicine. I believe that telemedicine can significantly enhance medical readiness and I encourage the Department of Defense to seek innovative opportunities to expand those capabilities. I will be happy to work with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania and the Department of Defense to ensure that such proposals, especially those qualified proposals being put forward in the northeast region of the United States, receive a thorough review for possible inclusion into the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense telemedicine programs. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. That is the subcommittee's intent. Depriving the attrition reserve bombers of the maintenance and modifications required for them to operate in combat would be inconsistent with the subcommitte's understanding of what attrition reserve status entails.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. Additional funds have been provided for operations and maintenance, militaray personnel, and procurement at levels considered appropriate to allow all B-52's to be retained in active and attrition reserve status.

Mr. STEVENS. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Virginia that if the Department of Defense wishes to conduct performance tests to determine the merit of a synthetic metal conditioner for military use, the Department should consider funding such tests from within available funds.

Mr. STEVENS. I have heard of the Virginia product my distinguished colleague describes, and I concur with his interest in giving our military the opportunity to have the advantage that many law enforcement agencies already enjoy.