[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11322-S11323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                  FISCAL YEAR 1998, CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate turn to the consideration of the DOD authorization conference 
report, and it be considered as having been read.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I sought recognition.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, if I might have the indulgence of the 
majority leader to try to explain where we are, and I will do it very 
briefly.
  We have before us a bill that would take 17 hours to read. It has 30 
pages in it that are aimed primarily to prevent competition from 
occurring in defense. In preventing competition from occurring, it will 
cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and it will prevent 
private contractors--some of whom might use facilities at Kelly Air 
Force Base in Texas or might use facilities at McClellan Air Force Base 
in California, or might use other facilities anywhere in the country--
from competing.
  Despite the fact that we have a bill that would take 17 hours to 
read, despite the fact that we have 30 pages of language which is 
primarily aimed at preventing this competition, in working with the 
Defense Department and with the White House, we have come up with 1 
page of changes that if it could be made in technical corrections to 
the language of the bill, then we would happily get out of the way and 
let the bill pass.
  The President, who is committed to veto the bill--and I put his 
letter in the Record--would then gladly sign the bill. So the point I 
would like to make is that while we are here to resist to the best of 
our ability--and we will resist--that we are only a few changes away 
from the ability to move ahead with a bill that not only could we pass 
this afternoon but that the President could sign.

  It is my understanding that there may be other technical language 
changes related to an amendment that

[[Page S11323]]

Senator Domenici wrote that was adopted by the Senate, and then 
subsequently was technically changed by the staff. Senator Domenici is 
seeking to get a technical change to correct this mistake. I think if 
you look through the 30 pages of depot language--what the Leader is 
looking at--you can see that we are asking for hardly any changes, but 
that these are changes the Secretary of Defense and the President 
believe are critical to their ability to operate the Defense Department 
efficiently and to meet the national security needs of the country.
  So, while we are here today to obstruct, we are willing, with just a 
few changes, to allow the bill to go forward, and in the process we can 
get a guarantee that the President will sign the bill.
  So I would like to urge my colleagues to work with us to correct this 
30 pages of language which is aimed at preventing competition.
  So, while we obstruct, we hope to make progress.
  And, based on that hope, I object.
  Mr. LOTT. Under his reservations, would the Senator withhold on his 
objection, and allow me to make a comment and ask a question?
  Mr. GRAMM. Certainly.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if he would yield for a response, I 
understand that these few changes are about 30 pages.
  Mr. GRAMM. No.
  Mr. LOTT. I have been notified by four Senators that they have 
objections.
  Mr. GRAMM. Those are the 30 pages in the bill. The only changes we 
are making are the changes that are written in black ink.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me just say I have worked with this issue, as the 
Senator knows, and the other Senator from Texas, over the last 2 or 3 
years. I know there are other Senators that have an interest in it and 
have different views. I know a mighty effort has been made on all 
sides. This is not a partisan issue. It is a difficult issue between 
some States, though, to try to resolve it.
  I really felt like we were never to bring it to a head until we get 
this legislation started. That is my intent here. We are going to get 
it started off.
  I have discussed with Senator Daschle the possibility that we at some 
point--we met this afternoon--we meet to see what else can be done. I 
am certainly willing to continue to work with both sides to try to find 
a resolution.
  But we are running out of time in this session. This is a very, very 
important bill for national defense and the security of our country.
  So I thought we should go ahead and get started. And hopefully that 
will cause us to try to find some way to resolve this one remaining--
one remaining--very difficult issue to resolve.
  I thank the Senator for withholding so I could make that comment.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the minority leader seek recognition?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I do, Madam President. But I would be happy to allow the 
distinguished Senator from Texas to complete his remarks.
  Mr. GRAMM. I was seeking recognition, Madam President, both to 
complete my remarks, and to object. If the distinguished minority 
leader wanted to speak before I objected, I would be glad to withhold.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate the accommodation of the Senator from 
Texas.
  Madam President, just very briefly, because the distinguished 
majority leader made some comments relating to the ISTEA bill, let me 
just say as succinctly as I can, there is a difference between 
desirable outcome and an essential outcome. A 6-year bill certainly is 
desirable. I have long favored a 6-year bill with my full support. But 
a 6-month bill is now essential. House leaders have said they are not 
taking up the desirable bill. They are taking up the essential bill--
the 6-month bill that bridges the two legislative sessions to 
accommodate our Nation's highway, transit and safety needs. We have 
come to the recognition, given our current circumstances, that the 
essential bill may be all we can do.
  So I do think it is important as we consider these bills to recognize 
that there is a difference between essential and desirable. We 
recognize the importance of getting the essential work done. That is 
the reason we would support this afternoon taking up that bill.
  I again appreciate the accommodation of the Senator from Texas.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the unanimous-consent 
request.

                          ____________________