[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9533-S9535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997--CONFERENCE
REPORT
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to propound a
unanimous-consent request that we move to the conference report to
accompany H.R. 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 1997. I note the absence of members of the other party on the
floor. Obviously, they will want to be notified of this. I do not
intend to pull any surprises here. I will be propounding that UC in a
few moments.
The reason I do this, Mr. President, is that we have worked long and
hard and very diligently this year to avoid the problems that we
encountered last year in not moving the defense authorization bill for
fiscal year 1996 as quickly as we would have liked. There were some
issues that were contentious, and we had difficulty resolving some of
those issues.
There was a determination on the part of the chairman and members of
the committee this year to avoid the problem we had last year. I
commend Senator Thurmond for the extraordinary work that he led in
bringing this item to closure in a timely fashion. We held hearings
earlier than we ever have, we held markups earlier than we ever have--
at least since I have been on the committee--and we moved forward in an
extraordinarily efficient way. We resolved the contentious issues and
the differences between Members and between our parties on those
issues, and we have legislation which now has passed both the House and
Senate, and we have a conference report that we ought to be prepared to
vote on.
Now, the reason why this is so important is that within this
conference report are a number of significant items that are important
to the security of
[[Page S9534]]
this Nation. Most important is funding for antiterrorist activities
that goes to various committees. And there probably is not a more
pressing issue before the American people right now other than this
terrorist activity that has taken place in the United States and
questions as to what the response of the Congress and the
administration is going to be.
This legislation provides for $122 million for the strengthening of
domestic preparedness to deal with threatened or actual use of nuclear,
chemical, biological, or radiological weapons. We are facing a new
world today, a world that leaves no American safe in their home, on the
streets, at the Olympic games, in New York City, in Indianapolis, IN,
or anywhere else. It is vitally important that we move forward in
providing for adequate counters to these threats that exist to the
American people. This legislation begins the process of doing just
that, and the $122 million that is authorized in this authorization
bill is important to accomplish that purpose.
If we cannot move forward before we break for recess, we will have
delayed, for at least 30 days, and probably more, moving this
legislation onto the President's desk for signature, so that we can
begin the process of dealing with the terrorist situation that we face.
There is $201 million in here to carry out the provisions of the
Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, the Nunn-Lugar Act.
This is a cooperative effort between the United States and the former
Soviet Union. It is important to the security of the United States.
We have a number of other items in here, including pay raises for
military uniform personnel and civilian personnel. We have a dental
insurance plan for retired service members and their families. We have
money in here, or authorization, to support research into the gulf war
veterans' illness. We have $466 million of authorized funds for
construction of new barracks, dormitories and family housing.
For those Members who are familiar with the situation that exists
within the military on family housing, who have bases in their
districts or in their States, they know of the vital importance of
moving forward with the rehab and construction of existing housing and
the construction of new housing for our military. More than 60 percent
of current military housing is labeled as substandard by military
standards. It is housing that you, I, or anybody on this floor would
not let our families live in, if we could help it. Yet, our service
families have no choice. It is an urgent priority of the Secretary of
Defense, the Department of Defense, and this Congress to begin to rehab
and provide adequate housing for our military.
On and on it goes. There is $6 billion for increasing funding for
procurement of ships, aircraft, and tactical systems; $3 billion for an
increase for research and development; increased funding for
development of a national missile defense system and a tactical missile
defense system that protects our troops in the field and Americans here
at home.
I could go on, Mr. President, but we are faced with a situation that
unnecessarily delays our ability to provide necessary authorization for
vital national security interests that are important to the United
States. I, for one, do not understand why we can't go forward with
this. I believe I would at this point----
Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COATS. Yes.
Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from Indiana tell me, were the
Democrats who signed this conference report--my understanding was that
a majority of the Democrats on the committee signed this conference
report, is that correct?
Mr. COATS. This conference report is overwhelmingly supported by
Members of both parties, Democrats and Republicans. I do not have the
exact numbers.
Mr. SANTORUM. My understanding is that all but two Democrats signed
this conference report.
Mr. COATS. That is my understanding. The issues that divided us
within this report have been resolved and accepted and signed by all
but two Members.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Indiana if it
is his belief that, so often when there is a conflict anywhere in the
world where we may have to commit troops, that the one statement that
you hear universally from this body and the House of Representatives
is, ``We support our troops.''
Do you believe that if we take action on this defense authorization
bill that would be a strong signal to our troops that we support them
and that there is nothing that can stand in the way of authorizing that
bill tonight, and send the message that we support our troops?
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Idaho that, if
there were outstanding issues over which we had legitimate differences
and we had not been able to resolve those differences and that is one
reason not to go forward, that might be understandable. But the issues
have been resolved. Democrats and Republicans have agreed to the
resolutions of the contentious issues.
So, whether it is missile defense, or a pay raise, or readiness, or
modernization, or funds to combat terrorism, all of those issues have
been decided in the conference. We have done so in an expeditious
fashion, and the American public has asked us to come here and do our
work. I do not know of anything more important--I do not know of any
mandate the Congress has in the Constitution that is more important--
than providing for the national defense. I do not know of any issue
that is more important for Members of the Senate than being able to say
to the people that they represent that we have provided for the
national security of the United States. That is our foremost
obligation.
As I said, were there outstanding differences of opinion on issues
that we had not been able to resolve, I can understand why we might not
be able to do this before this Congress recesses for a 30-day period of
time. But, since that is not the case, since there is agreement, since
it is a bipartisan agreement, I believe we ought to, in the interest of
national security and the interest of combating terrorism, go forward.
And I for one do not understand why we can't do that.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one further
question?
Mr. COATS. Yes. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. This morning I received a personal phone call from
the Secretary of Defense, William Perry, who thanked me as a member of
the committee for all of the efforts that the committee put forth so
that we could have this bill completed in conference, and the fact that
it was here before the Senate. The Secretary indicated that he was so
pleased with this authorization of the conference report, and he said
that he was communicating to the President his strong desire that the
President sign this bill because this is what the Pentagon wants, and
this is what the administration wants.
Is that the Senator's understanding as well? And, again, is there any
reason in the world we should not move on this tonight and give the
administration what they have asked for?
Mr. COATS. I think the minority leader is about ready to tell us the
reason we can't move forward tonight. Again, that just points to the
bipartisan support. The administration has signaled through the
Secretary of Defense, President Clinton's appointed Secretary of
Defense, that they are happy with the bill. They thank us for moving
forward with the bill in an expeditious fashion. They do not want to
get into the situation that we got into last year any more than we want
to put them in that situation. I have received similar calls. It
appears to be a piece of legislation important to the United States,
important to the national security, one that is supported by Democrats
and Republicans, one that is supported by the administration, and, yet,
we are not able to resolve to go forward in what Senator Thurmond and
Senator Nunn a few hours ago said we can dispose of in 20 minutes.
Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COATS. Yes.
Mr. SANTORUM. I also want to add to that laundry list of support that
the House passed this bill with a vetoproof
[[Page S9535]]
majority. This has overwhelming support in the House of
Representatives. As the Senator mentioned, the President would like
this bill.
I am anxious for the Senator to propound his unanimous consent to see
why we cannot move forward with this very vital piece of legislation
for our national security.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will now do that. I am sure the minority
leader would like to comment on it. But I ask unanimous consent that we
proceed immediately to the conference report to accompany H.R. 3230,
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the comments made
by the distinguished Senator from Indiana and my other colleagues.
This is the bill. It is over 1,000 pages. I will not ask the
distinguished Senator from Indiana whether he has read every page or
not. But I daresay that I suppose that, if anybody has, he has, as
thoughtful and as studious as he is. But there are very few people in
this body who have read this report. It is 1,000 pages long. We got it
yesterday. Two Democrats on the conference refused to sign this report
because they had very serious concerns about it that they would like
the opportunity to discuss.
This is the most expensive legislation that we will pass this year in
one bill. I intend to vote for it, I think. I want to read it over the
next couple of weeks myself. I think I will be supporting it. But I
must say it wouldn't be a bad idea if we just took a little time, had a
little chance to read it, and discuss whether or not it is the bill we
want to vote for. That is all we are asking.
I have heard a lot of comments about how this would only take 20
minutes or 15 minutes. I must say when you have a bill like this of
1,000 pages, I can recall many times we have been on the floor--whether
it was health reform or many other bills--when someone has risen, and
said with indignation, ``We can't pass this because we do not know what
is in it.'' I heard that speech from my colleagues on the Republican
side probably a half-dozen times in the last Congress.
So I do not think it is too much to ask, Mr. President, that we have
the opportunity to look at it, read it, hopefully talk about it, have a
good discussion, and analyze it. After all, it is the defense of the
United States that we are talking about here. We should not minimize
it. We certainly should not demean it. And I am not implying that
anyone is. But this is a very critical decision. This is something we
ought to be careful about.
So we just are not prepared tonight, now that everybody is gone and
were told that there would be no more votes, to bring this up under any
circumstances, especially under a unanimous consent agreement without
any debate or any thoughtful deliberation, and without having read
this. I can't do that. Not many of my colleagues can do that.
So let us just take another breath, take another look, and we will be
ready to go when we come back in September.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the fact that
the minority leader is willing to read the bill over the August recess.
I just want to let him know, as a member of the committee who has
helped negotiate the bill and is familiar with all aspects of the bill,
that I will leave him my phone number in case he has questions. He can
track me down, and I will be happy to answer those.
But I would state to the minority leader that, as he well knows, we
frequently bring a bill that comprises a great number of pages to the
floor and pass them with less tribulation than would be accorded this
particular bill. We do so because they have been subject to weeks, if
not months, of negotiations between members of the committee, between
leadership, between all of those involved, and all of those who have
questions about the various issues.
So when the bill finally arrives at the floor, when it finally comes
here for final passage, we are all very familiar with it, and we know
what the differences are between us. In this particular instance,
probably the most knowledgeable Member of the U.S. Senate as to the
national defense issues facing this country is not a Republican but a
Democrat--Senator Sam Nunn, chairman of the committee for many, many
years, now ranking member of the committee. It was Senator Nunn that
just an hour ago stood on the floor and said we have resolved all the
differences here; there is no reason why this should take very long.
And that was propounded not by a Republican. That was propounded by the
Democrat ranking member of the committee. The distinguished chairman of
the committee, Senator Thurmond, agreed. Those of us who serve on the
committee, both Republicans and Democrats, indicated that we have
looked at it. We have been meeting in rooms for weeks attempting to
iron out the small details and the differences on this.
There really are no outstanding issues. We could talk about issues,
but they have already been discussed and they are already familiar to
everybody here. I would also point out to the minority leader that just
today the minimum wage conference report came to us, the safe drinking
water conference report came to us, the health bill came to us
yesterday, defense came on Wednesday.
Now, of those four--minimum wage, safe drinking water, health,
defense--defense is the one that got here first. Those other three were
passed today without extended debate, with very limited debate. Why?
Because all of the details had been worked out, because we have been
debating the bill for months and various committees have been meeting
and all of us had the opportunity to look and determine what is in the
bill, to raise questions about any details we had concerns about, and
to resolve the differences. All of that has been done.
So anybody who has been watching this proceeding knows that we have
just passed three major pieces of legislation that have been in
negotiation for months, and yet they were brought to the floor with
less time to debate than the defense bill. As important as those bills
are--health, safe drinking water, and minimum wage conference reports--
I do not believe they stand higher priority than the national defense
of the United States.
I regret that the minority leader felt constrained to object to this
bill. I regret that we have to delay moving forward to the important
provisions in this legislation that affect all Americans.
Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
____________________