Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to speak in opposition to the Murray-Snowe amendment and give a little bit of history. It is not the first time we have visited this amendment. In fact, we have been debating it each year, I believe, since I have been in the Senate. So we are not plowing any new ground here. We are replowing old ground. Nevertheless, it is an important issue. On the amendment that has been offered, I think it is important that Members understand the current state of play and understand what it is we are voting on. Some history can perhaps help. Mr. President, let me inquire as to how much time is remaining on this side.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to be notified when 10 minutes have been used. I don't believe I will use more than that. Mr. President, since 1979 the Department of Defense has prohibited the use of Federal funds to perform abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. The bill before us today, the Department of Defense bill, continues that prohibition. When we debated this issue last year, it was abundantly clear that the current restriction was not onerous. It did not put any women at risk. It is a policy which is fair. It was fair and sound last year and was supported by the Congress, and it remains fair and sound today. What we are trying to do is maintain a consistency in Federal policy relative to abortion. That policy, described as ``the Hyde amendment,'' states that taxpayer money should not be used against the wishes of taxpayers for elective abortions except in some very limited circumstances--exceptions are allowed in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. But beyond that, the Congress has consistently supported prohibitions against the use of taxpayer dollars to perform abortions. That is something that has been upheld by the Court. It is constitutional. The case of Harris v. McRae upheld the Hyde amendment. It did not find a constitutional right to require the taxpayers to fund abortions. So I don't believe the Constitution is an issue here. Time and again we have disallowed the use of Federal funds for abortions, except in cases where, as I said, rape, incest or life of the mother is at issue. We are trying to maintain that policy. That was a policy that was maintained without problem until 1993 when President Clinton issued an Executive order to reverse the policy. Rather than go through the Congress and have the people exercise their will through their elected Representatives, the President just simply issued an Executive order, saying, ``I don't like the current policy that Congress has established, and I am going to override it with an Executive order.'' Under that policy, the President's change in policy, defense facilities were used for the first time in 14 years, not to defend life, as our military hospitals are charged to do, but to take life, and to do it with taxpayer funds. In 1995, the House and the Senate voted to override the President's Executive order, reversing that policy and making permanent the ban on the use of Department of Defense medical facilities to perform abortions with the exceptions of rape, incest, and endangerment of the mother's life. So again we are today debating that issue. The amendment before us would strike that ban and reinstate the policy instituted by the President through his Executive order that the Senate overturned 3 years ago. Proponents of the amendment argue that abortions under the Clinton order did not involve use of taxpayer funds since servicewomen are required to pay for their own abortions. But, Mr. President, that statement evidences a misunderstanding of the nature of military medical facilities. Military clinics, unlike the private hospitals, receive 100 percent of their funds from Federal taxpayers. Physicians are not private physicians who happen to be contracting with the hospital, but they are physicians that are government employees paid entirely with tax revenues. All of the operational and administrative expenses of military medicine are paid for by taxpayers. All of the equipment used to perform abortions is purchased at taxpayers' expense, and, therefore, it is impossible to separate out that which is Federal funds utilized for abortion from that which is private funds. The only way to protect the integrity of these taxpayers' funds and the integrity of the policy is to keep the military out of business of performing abortions. Taxpayer money should not be used if it goes against what I believe and I think the Congress has supported, the moral and religious beliefs of the taxpayer, and in this case the taxpayer, through their Representatives, elected to Congress have expressed time and again that they don't feel their tax dollars are appropriately used to perform abortions. The question is raised: If abortions are disallowed, does that not put those servicewomen who are seeking to have an abortion at risk? It does not. As we have repeatedly demonstrated and said, along with certification from the Department of Defense, nothing in this policy dictates the decision of the woman, whether or not she wants to have an abortion or has an abortion. It simply says you can't use taxpayer funds for an abortion. Because of the commingling of funds and the impossibility of separating funds, we don't want to use military hospitals for that abortion. But nothing prevents that woman from going outside of the military hospital facility to utilize another hospital in countries where there are those hospitals. Because the law of the country--say Italy--does not allow abortions or support abortions; the military has provided transport for that individual who seeks the abortion. There has never been a complaint filed about inability to go and have that abortion. So I think Members confuse the issue sometimes when they come to the floor without having heard the debate and say, ``This is a vote on a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.'' I have strong and deeply held feelings about that. We have debated that issue on this floor time and time again, and we will debate it more--the nature and the meaning of life, the right of the unborn versus the right of a woman, and the decision in terms of whether one right has a preeminence over another right. But that is not what is at issue here today, and it shouldn't be confused in this debate. The issue is not over whether a woman has the right to an abortion. That is a debate for another day. The issue is whether that abortion should be partially paid for by taxpayer funds, or performed at military hospitals. We have a policy in place that allows women who seek to have an abortion while they serve in the military, or their dependents, to have that abortion. Nothing prohibits them from doing that. But we simply have to have a policy that says that cannot be performed in a place where taxpayer funds are being used to accomplish that, or at least to accomplish part of that. We have not received any evidence that indicates that this is a prohibition on women, on their ability to have an abortion, to make a choice to have an abortion. It simply retains a policy that has been consistently upheld by this Congress and by the Court that says that the taxpayer has a right to put limitations on whether or not their taxpayer funds are used to provide abortions. The Congress has consistently voted to uphold that policy. They make what I think are legitimate and reasonable exceptions in cases of rape, cases of incest, and cases of where the life of the mother is in danger. So I hope that Members would see this issue for what it is--not a women's right to choose; we can discuss that at another time--but whether or not taxpayer funds should be used to perform abortions. Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time. In fact, I see the Senator from Idaho is on the floor. I would be happy to have the chairman yield him whatever time he desires.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this may sound surprising, but the committee agrees with Senator Bumpers. We have studied this and we absolutely have language in this bill that requires testing before we buy or before we fly. We have carefully worked out a compromise on this issue with the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Air Force, contractors, Members of Congress--those for the F-22 and those against the F-22--to ensure adequate testing, but also to do so in a way that doesn't add unnecessary costs--some estimated at more than billions of dollars by delayed production--by unnecessary testing. The Secretary of Defense has to certify before we can go forward. We urge people to support the committee position. We studied this and we agree with Senator Bumpers: More testing before we fly--but not as much as Senator Bumpers thinks we need.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am happy to respond to the Senator as a member of the committee that has addressed this problem. I am just looking back at the Senator from Arizona to see if he is prepared to propound a unanimous consent request. I think this Senator and perhaps the Senator from Arkansas are willing to proceed with the amendment and will try to conform our remarks to the conditions of a unanimous consent request, if the Senator from Arizona is prepared to propound that yet. I am not sure that he is. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this is an emotional subject, a difficult subject. I am former chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee and still a member of that subcommittee. And it is an issue at which I have looked and studied and struggled with for some time. I have come to an opposite conclusion of some of my friends, and I want to tell you why I have. First of all, everyone needs to understand the Byrd amendment is not an effort to return to segregated military units. It is simply designed to say that at that initial entry point, we are dealing with a situation that involves young people, many coming out of very disruptive backgrounds, many in a very vulnerable position. And we have seen--tragically seen--some exploitation of that, which is wrong and absolutely needs to be handled in the most direct way and that sends out a very clear signal that we have zero tolerance on this. But I want to make clear, nevertheless, that the situation we are dealing with in this amendment is with young people at their initial entry point. Now, we do not need another commission. We enacted a commission because I think a lot of Members did not have any faith that the DOD- appointed commission would give an objective view. I think everyone was surprised, including the Secretary of Defense, when the commission, led by our former colleague, Senator Kassebaum, came back with the conclusion and the recommendation that we ought to have segregated training at that initial entry point, and then that a merger of those two separate units of male and female trainees at the next level of their training. The question is, Why? Why did that commission come back with that recommendation to the surprise of everyone, including, I think, the Secretary of Defense? The reason is that the Kassebaum commission went and visited those same sites that I have gone and visited. And they talked to female and male trainees, and male drill instructors and female drill instructors. And they came away with the inescapable conclusion that I think any of us would, or at least most of us would if we went and asked the females, asked the women and men, asked the people at that initial entry point what they preferred, what they thought worked, what was best? I went to Fort Jackson where the Army trains with integrated male- female training. About 30 percent of the females do not have female drill sergeants in their platoons. They have all male drill sergeants. And those females said, ``We want female drill sergeants.'' Then I went to Parris Island, and at Parris Island, the female marines said, ``This is the best thing that ever happened to me to be associated with a mentor who can provide me guidance as a young lady in how to deal with these questions, how to deal with these kinds of decisions, how to deal with these tough situations, how to deal with this pressure, how to deal with this demanding training. It prepares me.'' I cannot say it better than the letter that was forwarded by a female corporal in the Armed Forces. And it reads: `Sir: . . . This is very distressing news to me and my fellow women marines. There is no way I would ever have made it through basic training with men present. I experienced mixed boot camp for just a few days while in basic training. It was the worst training days we had. I am all for equality, but this is madness. With no disrespect to the Army, the problems they have had [ought to] be proof [of this madness]. I can honestly say that if I had it to do over again and basic training was mixed gender, there is no way I would do it. I would not make it, not with the level of dedication and concentration it took when there were only females. I can't imagine having to deal with the underlying sexual tension, the jealousy, and unconscious way I would feel every day.' I am convinced that any of us who would take the time to go and visit the women marines in their initial training at Parris Island would feel as proud as any American would ever feel about the abilities of women coming out of sometimes very, very difficult situations, gaining the self-esteem and bonding together with their female drill instructors and each other, and being prepared to move on to that next stage in their training. And if you listened and asked them, literally to a person, they told me--this entire company of women marines told me-- ``This is the way it ought to be initially. Then we're prepared to move on in our advanced training and integrate with the men. But we wouldn't give up this experience for anything in the world. This is the way we ought to be trained.'' The Marine Corps model is a model that works. It has demonstrated its effectiveness. The other services are struggling to make it work, without the requisite number of female instructors, and with a very uncomfortable situation. So why not take a model that works and why not follow the recommendations of the commission that has already been in place, appointed by the Secretary of Defense, headed up by our former colleague, Senator Kassebaum, which I do not think anybody thought had a bias in favor of separated training going in, but came away, after their exhaustive experience in examining all of the training camps for all of the services, and came away with the inescapable conclusion that we ought to have gender segregation at the initial entry training level. That is what the Byrd amendment is about. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I would be happy to do that if I could just do a unanimous consent request. Then I would be happy to yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. First of all, Mr. President, in relationship to the issue of discussion, I believe it important to the legislative history of the Line Item Veto Act to have the brief prepared by the Senate counsel in support of the line item veto submitted to the Record. However, in the spirit of fiscal responsibility, to spare the taxpayer expense of printing the entire document, I ask unanimous consent that the front cover of the brief be printed in the Record. The cover provides the necessary source information to assist anyone seeking to review the full document in locating a complete copy. I encourage Senators to examine this excellent brief along with the Court decision.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona for his kind remarks. I also want to congratulate the Senator from West Virginia for a significant victory. The Senator had indicated during the debate that he believed and had reason to believe that the bill we were sending to the President, which was signed by the President and exercised by the President, would not stand constitutional muster. The Court affirmed that conclusion. I also congratulate the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, for being the guardian of this institution. He stands at the gate to retain its hallowed practices and rules and traditions. And in this modern age of seeking the expedient and convenient over the tried, tested, and true, the Senator's contributions are extremely important to the future of this institution. I commend him for that. He is also a constitutional scholar without peer in this institution. This Senator, as I did yesterday and as I do today, stands up with some trepidation in terms of discussing issues and matters of the Constitution, because I know I am doing so with someone who has studied it for far longer and has a far better understanding of it than I have. When Senator McCain and I addressed the issue of the line-item veto, we consulted a number of constitutional scholars. It is fair to say that there is disagreement. There are constitutional scholars, recognized scholars, who believed that the process of enhanced rescission was not line-item veto, per se, enhanced rescission was a constitutionally acceptable process, that it did retain a balance of power, it did retain the prerogative of Congress to override the Presidential veto. And it is my understanding, along with Senator McCain's, on a quick reading, I would say--not even a full reading, but a very brief overview of the decision that is handed down, and I look forward to reading the entire case--that what the Court addressed was more procedural than principle, the procedure of the omnibus bill being presented to the President and, as the Senator from Michigan said, being signed, and then in a sense accepted and then reviewed relative to certain aspects of that. The Court obviously sided with the argument so ably presented by the Senator from New York, who has left the floor--the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from New York, the Senator from Michigan, and others. It is the principle that Senator McCain and I are attempting to address, not the procedure. We had spent numerous hours of discussion and debate in attempting to establish a procedure whereby the principle of a balance against what we considered to be--and many, I think, of the American people considered to be --an irresponsible exercise of the spending power of the Congress--not the right to have the power of the purse, but an irresponsible use of that, and the voluntary transfer of some of that power, yet retaining a balance in terms of the division of power between the branches, as the founders intended. That was our intent. As Senator McCain said, the bill that passed the Senate with 69 votes as a separate enrollment procedure would have, I believe, addressed the concerns of the Court by presenting to the President separate bills on each line item of spending. We didn't include the tax issue. That was added at the request of members of the Finance Committee. Ours went specifically to spending items. That was different from what was passed in the House of Representatives and perhaps now, in retrospect, a faulty decision. We ceded the Senate procedure to the House procedure, and we paid the price of that ceding--or perhaps not; we don't know for sure what the Supreme Court would have done with that. The principle of each decision by the Congress standing on its own merits--having the light of day shine on that spending decision, so that the American people know that our yea is a yea and our nay is a nay, and not the procedure of hiding what arguably could be decisions on spending that would not stand the light of day and not receive a majority of support, because it is subsumed by the importance of the broader legislation--is really the principle that we are attempting to address. We want what is decided in the back halls to be debated on the Senate floor. We want to give each Senator and Representative the opportunity to say, ``I support that,'' or, ``I don't support that,'' and discuss it on the merits, rather than saying, ``I didn't know about that because it was added in the back room. It was part of a thousand-page bill, and we didn't have the time to peruse each line of that legislation. And, yes, had I had an opportunity to vote on that separately, there is no way I would have supported that irresponsible use of the taxpayers' dollars.'' So we are seeking a way of attempting to bring into the process a means by which we could achieve a check against imbalance, against what we considered to be spending that had not been given the opportunity to be addressed and discussed and debated on the merits. We think it is a deceptive practice. We think it is a distasteful practice. We think it does not enhance the public's opinion of this institution and the processes by which we make decisions. We think it is an irresponsible exercise of the fiscal discipline that the taxpayers of America expect us to exercise in the spending of their dollars. That is the genesis behind the legislation that Senator McCain and I have authored and fought for 10 years to pass, and finally did pass. So are we disappointed with the Supreme Court decision? Yes, deeply disappointed. Do we see it as a permanent defeat? No, we don't. We think a preliminary reading, and hopefully a further careful reading and study of the Supreme Court's decision, will indicate that the Court decided on the basis of the procedure used, not on the basis of the principle involved. The principle involved ought to be at the center and heart of our debate and discussion. I hope that as we engage in future battles--I guess that is the proper word, because those were heated debates, but principled, heated debates--we can focus on the principle and not the procedure. Questions have been raised about the cumbersome nature of separate enrollment procedurally, with a large piece of legislation having to be broken down into its separate pieces. Up until a few years ago that was an argument that carried a lot of persuasion and a lot of weight. But with the advent of modern technology--computer technology--and with some visits by myself and others to study with the enrollment clerk, and the witnessing of the utilization of that modern technology in terms of how bills are printed, how they are enrolled, and how they are presented for enrollment, we have the opportunity to take advantage of those marvelous improvements in the way in which we procedurally enroll legislation that is now technologically feasible. What would have taken literally days and perhaps hundreds of enrollment clerks, scribes, working away diligently in the basement of the Capitol separating out the bill, enrolling separate pieces of legislation, and having those signed and presented to the President of the United States, and having the President attempt to deal with it to the point he would have no other time to deal with any of his other duties and certainly achieve writers' cramp, that no longer is a problem. Technology has allowed us to bypass that. So we intend to introduce as early as today a procedure--a process-- which 69 of our Members, on a bipartisan basis, have supported, which addresses the principle of the issue and not the procedure of the issue. We look forward to the debate that will occur. We look forward to the opportunity to give our Members, all 69 of them--Democrats and Republicans--the opportunity to, once again, support a responsible practice of spending the taxpayer dollars in the most responsible way that we can. Mr. President, I will close. I wish I were as eloquent and as articulate as the Senator from West Virginia. I wish I could reach into my mind and recall the words of the famous scholars, constitutional experts, or a poem that was appropriate to the discussion. I don't have that capacity. I don't have that talent. I admire that greatly in Senator Byrd. What discipline it must have taken to commit to flawless memory the words of historians, the thoughts of some of the greatest thinkers that this world has ever seen, the magic and beauty of the poetry that expresses those thoughts in the recall that the Senator has. I am leaving the Senate this year. I will take with me many lifetime memories, not of process but of people--some of the most extraordinary people, I think, ever to have had the privilege of being born into this greatest of all nations and serve in this greatest of all institutions. I take away a vast reservoir of memories of 100 unique individuals with some of the greatest and most extraordinary talents to be found anywhere. And none of them, I think, transcends the abilities and the extraordinary capabilities of the Senator from West Virginia, who I have enjoyed serving with, even though we have found ourselves on opposite sides of a number of issues, and we have found ourselves on the same side on several issues. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask before I yield to the Senator how much time is remaining on the earlier allocated time?

Mr. COATS. Is that sufficient? I yield the Senator the remainder of our time.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator for those remarks. They are generous, and also the Senator from Connecticut, I appreciate his remarks. I don't want anybody to misunderstand those remarks or interpret those remarks to mean that the Senator is finished for the year. I expect to be back in the Chamber, and I hope that Senators feel the same way about me at the end of the session as they do now.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator for saying that. Mr. President, if I could ask, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the 1 hour special order, the following Senators be recognized in order to offer the following amendments: Senator Dodd, regarding Reserve retirement, 10 minutes for debate, equally divided, and no second-degree amendments in order; Senator Murray, relating to burial, for up to 10 minutes, equally divided, no second-degree amendments in order; Senators Murray and Snowe, regarding Department of Defense overseas abortions, 1 hour, equally divided, with no second-degrees in order prior to the vote; Senator Reid, relating to striking Senator Kempthorne's language, 2 hours, equally divided, with no second-degrees in order; Senator Harkin, regarding gulf war illness, 30 minutes, equally divided, with no second-degrees in order prior to the vote. I finally ask unanimous consent that any votes ordered in relation to any of the above-mentioned amendments be delayed, to occur in a stacked sequence at a time determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Democrat leader.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think this has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. COATS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 10 seconds to Senator Warner.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield our remaining time to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COATS. We have no problem with the Senator closing debate. I don't think 42 seconds is going to swing things one way or another, unless I come up with something really clever.

Mr. COATS. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time just yielded to the Senator from West Virginia not be deducted from the time of the Senator from Arizona. I yielded because I was under the false impression that the Senator was going to speak in favor of our position on this amendment. I am reluctant to fail to yield to the Senator from West Virginia, but had I known he was asking for time for this purpose, I would have been sorely tempted not to yield. I probably would have, but I would have been sorely tempted not to. I appreciate the Senator's interest in that subject, however. I know we have and will continue to have debates on that.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, very briefly, in the time we have, I don't enjoy opposing matters offered by my friend from Oklahoma, but I have a fundamental disagreement with him on this particular issue. We do four basic things in defense: We pay for people and their quality of life; we research, develop, and purchase modern weapons and give them the very best capabilities; we support the readiness of our forces; and we pay for infrastructure--the bases and all the infrastructure for support. We know four things: We know that our military people are underpaid and that their quality of life is suffering; we know they live in inadequate housing; we know we have a $10 to $15-billion-a-year shortfall in research, development, and modernization; we know that we have strains in growing, cracks and fissures in our readiness; and we know that we have too much infrastructure. The Department of Defense says we cut personnel and everything else by 40 percent, infrastructure by 20 percent. What this amendment does is send a message. It sends a message that we will subordinate the interests of caring for our people, of supporting new modernization of weapons, of making sure of our readiness, in order that we keep the infrastructure that we have, in order that we protect civilian jobs and bases that the Department of Defense does not want and does not need. It is exactly the wrong message to send to our service people, to send to our national defense. It jeopardizes our national security. We want to take reasonable steps to put in place a process to remove excess infrastructure so we can address these three other critical needs. I yield to my friend from Arizona.

Mr. COATS. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Virginia.