[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 200 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18698-S18699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, on behalf of the 
majority leader, I will move that the Chair lay before the Senate a 
conference report to accompany H.R. 1530, the Department of Defense 
authorization bill.
  It is anticipated that there will be an objection. Since this is not 
a debatable motion, then at such time as the majority leader 
indicates--I believe it will be shortly after the motion to oppose 
moving forward--there will be a rollcall vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the distinguished senior Senator from 
Virginia and the distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina, both 
of whom are dear and respected friends of mine, and I have had some 
discussion on this. I anticipate asking for--and there may be others 
for that matter--a vote on the motion to proceed.
  I tell the Senate and my distinguished colleagues that if I had 
intended to hold up the motion to proceed, of course, I would use the 
parliamentary tactic, instead, of asking for a vote on the motion to 
proceed requiring the reading of the bill which--it is about this big 
for anybody who cares. That is about 1\1/2\ feet high, and it would 
take a very considerable time to read. I am not going to request that, 
of course. I have never engaged, in my 21 years here in the Senate, in 
such tactics. I will, however, ask for the vote on the motion to 
proceed, and I assume the majority of Senators will vote to proceed.
  I do this because of my concern about one provision, as I said 
earlier, on landmines. This is a provision that was neither in the 
House bill nor in the Senate bill. We passed by a two-thirds rollcall 
vote in the Senate a provision on landmines. The House had nothing.
  When it became contentious, I said to the distinguished chairman of 
the committee, to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, and to the 
distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Nunn, ``Why don't we just 
remove the Senate provision?'' In other words, recede to the House, 
which is no provision.
  It is my understanding that was going to be done. It was my 
understanding in the conversations with the Senators involved that 
would be done.
  I was then told by Senate staff--not by Senators, but by some Senate 
staff--that they could not allow their Senators to go along with such a 
commitment. I find that frustrating, of course, because Senators are 
the ones elected. And I have found that the Senators I have dealt 
with--especially those whom I have just talked with--have always been 
extremely truthful with me, as I have always tried to be with them. But 
my concern was--and 

[[Page S18699]]
apparently sometimes we are considered merely constitutional 
impediments by our staff. In this case, the staff did not want us any 
longer to be impediments. In any event, this is a matter that could be 
solved, and could be solved easily before the conference report comes 
to a final passage.
  I made suggestions to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, 
following a suggestion made by the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina, of a way that we could solve this problem. That would require 
cooperation from the other body, and I hope that cooperation might be 
forthcoming.
  I just thought this explanation, for Senators wondering what is going 
on, would be required.

                          ____________________