[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9533-S9535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing 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.

                          ____________________