J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and that it be charged equally to each side.

Mr. THURMOND. I now yield to Senator Kempthorne, the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. THURMOND. I commend the able Senator from Nebraska for the excellent remarks he made on this subject.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Hagel.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from Connecticut on his excellent remarks on this subject. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask the time be equally charged to both sides.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from Oklahoma for his excellent remarks. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee and does a fine job. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for the great service he is rendering on the Armed Services Committee. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time we have to Senator Roberts.

Mr. THURMOND. We don't have any more time.

Mr. THURMOND. I agree. The Department of Defense maintains a peacetime work force at these depots that can be supplemented with additional personnel if they are necessary. Ensuring efficiency while retaining surge capacity and reconstitution capability is accomplished under current policy by having the right number of personnel to perform peacetime workloads and simply adding the necessary personnel, or workshifts, to provide a sufficient surge capacity to support any contingency or strategic operations. In fact, when we drafted this language, we asked the Department of Defense to review it and let us know if the Department had any concerns, or if this did not reflect the Department's current policy. We made a number of changes to address the Department's written comments.

Mr. THURMOND. Absolutely not. The language specifically requires that the public depots retain a surge capacity and reconstitution capability necessary to support any strategic or contingency operations identified by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The requirement for a surge capacity for military emergencies by definition requires less than full utilization of the physical capacity during peacetime.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as we close this debate, I take this opportunity to commend Senator Levin for the magnificent work he has done on this bill. He is a man of integrity, ability and dedication. It is a great asset to have him on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, there are a few obvious reasons for Americans to focus on the defense of the United States. While there is no longer a superpower threatening to dominate us, threats still abound. Events in Iraq this week demonstrate that America must be prepared to protect her interests at a moment's notice. Other nations that might pose threats includes Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Mr. President, this bill is important to the young men and women who serve in our military forces. This bill includes pay raises and increases to special incentive pay, including vital aviator bonuses. Provisions in this bill affect every aspect of our national defense, including quality-of-life initiatives, modernization, and readiness. I remind all Senators that all military construction projects require an authorization as well as an appropriation and cannot be executed without this bill. Mr. President, I want to remind the Senate that all 18 members of the Armed Services Committee support this bill--10 Republicans and 8 Democrats--every one of them support this bill. The House has already passed this by a veto-proof majority of 286 to 123. The leaders of the Defense Department have indicated that they can make this compromise work and that they need this bill passed. It is hard for me to believe that any Senator would oppose and delay the entire Defense authorization bill at a time when American troops are deployed in Bosnia and serious trouble appears to be brewing again in Iraq. I strongly encourage all Senators to vote for this bill. We must send a strong signal to the White House to demonstrate to the President that this bill, which is so important to our national security, should be signed. We must show the young men and women in uniform serving our Nation around the world that their services are appreciated and that we are backing them up. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the Guard and Reserves. The National Guard of South Carolina is a magnificent guard, and we appreciate what they have done. And in the whole Nation, the National Guard is so valuable. I happen to have served in the Reserves myself for over 36 years. I appreciate the reservists and commend all of them for voluntarily serving their country. They have to carry on their civilian duties, but they do this extra work. I want to say, too, to the Members of this Senate, that this bill took not days, not weeks, but months. We have spent months on this bill. We have done the best we could. We have a lot of able members on the Armed Services Committee. All of them have worked hard on this bill. It is a compromise bill. I did not have my way on everything. Senator Levin did not have his way on everything. No one did. This is a compromise bill. National security was the driving force of this bill. We could not satisfy every Senator. We did the best we could to accommodate all we could. But national security was our driving force when we considered this bill. Again, I ask all Senators to support this bill for the good of the country and to support this bill for the good of our troops and to support this bill, too, for the public good. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THURMOND. Yes, I know the DOE's Technology Development Program does very useful work developing new technologies to tackle many of the tough waste management and environmental restoration challenges across the DOE complex.

Mr. THURMOND. That sounds like a good accommodation to me. When and if S. 1193 or a similar House version is signed into law, its language reauthorizing the Aviation Insurance Program should be controlling. If for some reason that bill is not approved before Congress adjourns for the year, and the defense authorization bill is signed into law, the defense bill provisions will serve to reauthorize the program until action on S. 1193 or a similar House bill is taken.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to Senator Coats.

Mr. THURMOND. Not initially. The Department provided the conferees with two rounds of written comments on the draft compromise language. In neither version did the Department suggest that ``promote'' be changed to ``ensure.'' It was only on the day that the conference report was finalized that the Department indicated that the use of the word ``ensure'' might be interpreted in such a way as to require all logistics workloads to be performed at public depots. We informed the Department that the requirement to ensure efficiency does not mean that all logistics workloads must be performed at public depots, and added language to the statement of managers to reaffirm that point.

Mr. THURMOND. There is nothing in this language that would preclude such consideration. In fact, the bill language specifically requires the consideration of all direct and indirect costs, and the report language specifically states ``The Department would be expected to consider real differences among bidders in cost or capability to perform the work based on factors that would include the proposed location or locations of the workloads.''

Mr. THURMOND. I wish to commend the able Senator from West Virginia not only for his work on this bill but for all he has done over the years for good Government in this Senate. We are proud of you.

Mr. THURMOND. I commend the able Senator from Indiana for his remarks, which are very helpful, and also commend the Senator for the great work he has done on the Armed Services Committee for many years. We are very proud of the Senator, and we are going to miss him when he leaves the Senate next year. We hope the Senator will reconsider and come back with us.

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

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Senator for those comments.

Mr. THURMOND. Yes; this work is what we expect from the Department of Energy's Technology Development Program. I am also pleased to hear Assistant Secretary Alm is working with you and the INEEL to take full advantage of the enormous capabilities of that national lab. I urge the Senator from Idaho to keep me apprised of the progress of this important work.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would just like to take a few moments to address some of the issues that were raised yesterday regarding the compromise depot language included in the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. I believe it is important to clarify the issue and ensure that all Members are fully aware of the contents of the compromise language, and the negotiation process that resulted in this language which provides for fair and open competitions. First of all, I would like to put to rest one very important allegation--that the committee demonstrated bad faith on this issue-- that there was some agreement that was subsequently changed in the dark of night. This allegation is simply not true. Given the unprecedented involvement that was afforded to the Department of Defense and the staff of the concerned delegations; given the efforts that were taken to ensure that all interested parties, including those who were not conferees, were kept fully informed on what was taking place; I reject any assertion that the committee treated any Member unfairly, or disregarded any agreement. There was never an agreement on any package prior to October 22, 1997. Proposed agreements drafted by the committee and provided to everyone--depot caucus, Texas and California delegations, and the administration, were either rejected or there was no response. This includes the proposed agreement regarding depot-level activities that was provided for everyone's review and comments on October 17, 1997. After talking with the interested parties, both in the administration and Congress, the committee put together the October 17 proposed agreement and submitted it for everyone to review and either accept, or provide input to us regarding those changes that would make this proposal acceptable. After reviewing the language, Senator Bennett and other Members expressed concern regarding the language in the bill that stated: No offeror may be given any preferential consideration for, or in any way be limited to, performing the workload in-place or at any other single location. Appropriate consideration may be given to differences in cost or performance risk associated with the location of performance. The concern of these Members was simply with the appearance of the language. After agreeing to give up their position that privatization- in-place must be prohibited, a position very important to these Members and their constituents, they believed that the Congress should at least insist on a clear statement that the administration could not give preferential treatment for privatization-in-place. Therefore, they asked that the second sentence be moved from the bill to report language. Mr. President, just to be sure that everyone understands, this language does not state that the Department cannot consider cost or risk. In fact, the bill language still requires the Department to take into account: the total estimated direct and indirect costs that will be incurred by the Department of Defense and the total estimated direct and indirect savings (including overhead) that will be derived by the Department of Defense. Furthermore: the report language, which Senator Gramm himself declared has the effect of law, states: The Department would be expected to consider real differences among bidders in cost or capability to perform the work based on factors that would include the proposed location or locations of the workload. The consideration of such differences does not constitute preferential treatment. Unfortunately, when the committee scheduled a meeting with the staff of the concerned delegations to discuss this and other proposed changes, the Department of Defense as well as the staff of the Texas delegation refused to participate. Taking what input we received from those Members who were able to identify concerns, the committee made a couple of changes to the language that we believed were reasonable. This included moving the bill language discussed above to report language and some changes requested by the Department. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Texas that if the sentence that was moved is technical, is inconsequential, there is no reason why it had to be dropped; other than for the sake of appearance. However, since Senator Bennett and other Members wanted a clear statement that preferential treatment could not be given to a bid solely because the workload would be done in place, and since we could not even discuss this with the other Members because their staff refused to participate in meetings, the language was moved. Mr. President, given the administration's past attempt to politicize this process by advocating privatization-in-place, Senator Bennett's concerns appear to have merit. The Congress should be on record stating that the most competitive bidder should do this work wherever they can do it best. That is the only way the American taxpayer, and our military personnel, will receive the best deal. Mr. President, I would now like to address the issue of the so-called anticompetitive language that was the point of discussion on the Senate floor earlier this week. The assertion that this language is anticompetitive could not be further from the truth. As many of you know, the original language that was rejected by the Senate contained an effective prohibition on such competitions. This provision is not included in this bill. In fact, this bill specifically authorizes such competitions and merely includes some of the criteria that must be considered in order to ensure that they are fair and open. Furthermore, the Department would retain complete flexibility to consider any other criteria that the Department believes necessary to ensure that these competitions are fair. In fact, this provision is very similar to what Senator Gramm advocated when he addressed the depot issue on the floor of the Senate earlier this year and asked for competitions with criteria. One of the criteria that the Senator from Texas would like to have changed because he believes it to be anticompetitive, is the clause that would require the Department of Defense to allow public depots and private corporations to form teams to compete for the workloads at Kelly and McClellan. I am not sure why this clause, which opens the competition to more potential bidders, would be viewed as anticompetitive. I see no reason why we should preclude the best team, whether public, private, or public/private, from competing to perform this work and doing it if they have the best proposal. In fact, at a recent hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. F. Whitten Peters, the Principle Deputy General Counsel for the Department of Defense and nominee to be the next Undersecretary of the Air Force, stated that he also did not believe such language to be anticompetitive. If someone truly believes that allowing an organization to compete is anticompetitive, they should explain their position to the Congress and the American people. Mr. President, the compromise language also amends the current 60/40 law so that the Department might outsource up to 50 percent of its depot maintenance workload. This will provide substantially more flexibility to the Army and the Navy, and some additional flexibility for the Air Force despite the fact that the compromise would also codify the definition of depot maintenance to include interim contractor support and contractor logistics support. Furthermore, the depot compromise codifies the Department's own policy of maintaining, within organic Defense depots, the capability to meet readiness and sustainability requirements of the weapon systems that support the JCS contingency scenarios. This does not require that the Department perform depot maintenance on all mission essential weapon systems in public depots. It simply requires that the Department retain a capability to maintain this equipment should it become necessary. The Senator from Texas has expressed some concern regarding the use of the word ``ensure'' rather than ``promote'' in this provision. He stated that this was a major concern for the Department of Defense because someone might interpret it in such a way that it would require the Department of Defense to perform all depot maintenance in public depots. All I can say is that it would take an extremely creative imagination to give that interpretation to this language. Both ``promote'' and ``ensure'' are subjective terms that will be interpreted by the Secretary of Defense. He is not going to interpret ``ensure'' in the manner feared by Senator Gramm when it is clearly contrary to the intent of the Congress. in fact, when the committee asked the Department to provide in writing any concerns they had regarding this language, the Department did not express any concern regarding the word ``ensure'' or suggest changing the word ``ensure'' to ``promote.'' Mr. President, the Senators from Texas and California have asserted that the depot compromise contained in this bill ``undercuts the ability of the Secretary of Defense to conduct price competition so that we can have bidding on this work.'' However, the compromise language specifically requires the consideration of all costs and savings, and would ensure price competition. Most of the Members involved in this issue have always insisted on price competitions as opposed to schemes which would allow more subjective judgment. It is also asserted that this language skews the competitions in favor of public depots because it allows them to hide their overhead costs. There is no clause in the depot compromise that allows the public depots to hide overhead costs. The compromise specifically requires that all costs and savings must be taken into account when considering any bid. Concern has been raised that this language would require the Department to procure expensive and unnecessary equipment in order to be able to maintain commercial systems that have been integrated into military equipment. This is false. in fact, the provision requiring the retention of a core capability specifically provides an exemption for commercial items. Finally, concern has been raised because there was bill language which the Department did not like that was moved to report language. I believe that this must refer to the report language that simply notes that the Department of Defense has denied the General Accounting Office access to information that the General Accounting Office is entitled to obtain by law. I could understand why this would be objectionable if this were not true. Unfortunately, the Department is refusing to disclose information on the earlier C-5 workload competition so that we can be sure that it was fairly conducted. Perhaps the conferees would not have agreed to include such language if the Department would allow the General Accounting Office access to the information necessary to perform the review requested by the committee. Mr. President, this bill contains a fair compromise that was drafted by the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee after consulting with all interested parties; including the administration and the concerned delegations. It is fair to assert that none of the parties involved are completely happy with this compromise language, however, that is what happens when you have to compromise. If we all insisted on getting everything our way, nothing would ever be accomplished by the Congress. Mr. President, Senator Levin, the ranking member of our committee, and I worked together in a totally bipartisan manner to achieve this compromise and we both agree that this compromise enables the Department of Defense to conduct fair and open competitions for the workloads currently performed at Kelly and McClellan. During the drafting of this compromise language the Department of Defense, as well as the staff of the concerned delegations, were provided numerous opportunities to review this language and identify their concerns. We made significant changes to this language in order to alleviate many of the concerns they raised. Mr. President, as I previously stated, this is a good compromise; a fair compromise. It allows all parties to compete for these workloads in a fair and open manner. I ask the other Members of the Senate to support this compromise, and this bill, by voting in favor of final passage.

Mr. THURMOND. I would be happy to clarify what the conference agreement requires. First of all let me just say that this language does not require the Department of Defense to withdraw depot maintenance workloads from the private sector and perform the work in public depots in order to achieve efficiency. As the statement of managers indicates, it simply requires the Secretary to assign sufficient workload to these facilities to ensure that they are operated as cost efficiently as possible. The report clearly states: The provision does not require that maintenance for all weapon systems necessary for the execution of DOD strategic and contingency plans be performed at public facilities. Rather, it requires that the capability to perform maintenance and repair on these systems be retained in the public depot activities and that these activities be assigned sufficient workload to ensure that they are operated as cost efficiently as possible while preserving sufficient surge capacity to support the strategic and contingency plans of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the division of time on the pending conference report be as follows: Senator Thurmond in control of 20 minutes, Senator Levin in control of 20 minutes, Senator Gramm and Hutchison in control of 45 minutes, Senator Feinstein and Boxer in control of 45 minutes, and finally Senator Stevens be recognized to speak up to 30 minutes.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the able Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner.