[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6906-S6907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this is the fifth day of debate on S. 1745.
  I think it is appropriate to give the Senate another update--a very 
brief one--this morning on where we have been, and more importantly 
where we are going on this important measure.
  Thus far, we have debated this bill for almost 28 hours. We have 
disposed of 39 amendments. I will state, as I did yesterday, that we 
have not been keeping track of the exact amount of time consumed by 
consideration of the nonrelevant amendments offered thus far to our 
bill. But I am able to state that the Senate has spent too much time 
talking about things that are not relevant to this defense bill, that 
are not in our jurisdiction, would not be in the jurisdiction of the 
conference, would require outside conferees if they are put on this 
bill, and would be very unlikely to receive conference approval and be 
signed into law.
  So we are basically using our time to debate amendments that are not 
going anywhere in the long run, and we are doing that at the expense of 
completing this bill this week.
  Yesterday, we were running along at a pretty good clip. We completed 
a number of defense amendments. We had a number of other people ready 
to present amendments and were working for a unanimous consent 
agreement to have a finite list of amendments in order. Then we had 
another legislative hurdle which was put in our way; the fourth 
nonrelevant amendment to our bill; this one on the matter of FBI files. 
This effectively shut us down for the rest of the day, a situation that 
I know disappointed the chairman and disappointed me, as well as other 
committee members.

[[Page S6907]]

  The business before the Senate is the defense authorization bill. I 
hope that we can make this day the start of our quest to finish this 
bill this week and secure final passage without nonrelevant amendments.
  Mr. President, there is a difference between a relevant amendment and 
a germane amendment. A germane amendment is very technical. It has to 
be a deletion to the bill, or a deletion of money.
  There are all sorts of relevant amendments here, including amendments 
by the Intelligence Committee, most of which have been worked out, that 
are not germane. If we had invoked cloture a few minutes ago--and I 
voted against cloture--all of those intelligence amendments would be 
knocked out. Virtually all the amendments--not all but most of the 
amendments--that we have worked out that are going on this bill that 
are relevant but are not germane that we have already accepted but have 
not passed yesterday would have been knocked out. Any amendments 
relating to relevant ballistic missile defense--I see the Senator from 
Arizona on the floor--would be knocked out. The Nunn-Lugar-Domenici 
amendment which deals directly with the kind of terrorist threat that 
we have just witnessed in Saudi Arabia brings it home so that we can 
better protect our own cities. That is the subject of that amendment 
and certainly a matter of national security, but it would not have been 
germane to this bill, and that would have been knocked out.
  So I know there is a real and a very sincere effort here to get to 
the bottom line and pass this bill. But in doing so, we cannot prevent 
our colleagues from offering relevant amendments that are important to 
our national security, whether we agree with them or not.

  So there is a big difference between a relevant amendment and a 
germane amendment. Germaneness is required after cloture is invoked. I 
do not think it is time to invoke cloture. I think it would be a 
mistake to invoke cloture because we would then basically have not 
considered the serious amendments.
  We have spent most of our time considering nonrelevant amendments on 
this bill. As important as the stalking amendment is, the one that is 
now pending, that one is not relevant to this bill because it is not in 
our jurisdiction. It is in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. 
It is going to require outside conferees when we to go conference, if 
it passes. I intend to vote for it, but we are going to have a hard 
time getting that through. It is going to slow up the bill. It is very 
likely going to precipitate a gun amendment then on this side of the 
aisle, which we all know is going to take time.
  So I am just describing to our colleagues that their actions do have 
an effect on whether we can pass this bill or not.
  If we do not stick to relevant amendments that have a connection to 
national security and that are in the jurisdiction of this committee 
and in the jurisdiction of the conference, then we are going to be on 
this bill all this week. I know the leader said that we are going to 
stay until we finish it. I applaud that. We will not finish it this 
week. If he is determined to finish it, it may require next week.
  That is the way I see it now, unless we have cooperation from all of 
our colleagues and stick to amendments that are within the jurisdiction 
of this committee and this bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________