Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this week, Heads of State and Government of the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance met in Madrid and agreed to expand of NATO by inviting the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland to begin accession talks with NATO. These central European countries were always considered the likely first nations to be invited to join since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergency of democracy in these countries. Since the end of Soviet hegemony in Central and Eastern Europe, these countries have strived to break free from the oppressive burden of State controlled economies and one party governments with great success. I applaud the advances which these nations have made. There are other nations which deserve recognition for their enormous accomplishments. While their successes have been more recent, they nonetheless have demonstrated a commitment in a positive direction which should be acknowledged and encouraged. Both Romania and Slovenia present a tremendous case for NATO enlargement. While the administration has determined not to pursue their accession at this time, I believe that these nations have made significant strides which certainly recommend them for NATO membership in the near term. The Senate has supported the concept of expanding NATO for those emerging democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, which have struggled and successfully shaken the yoke of their former communist systems. In October 1996, Congress voted overwhelmingly by 81 to 16 to approve the NATO Facilitation Act. This bill provides valuable resources to assist these nations in making essential changes to their defense structure in order to help prepare them for NATO membership. Last month in the State Department bill, the Senate included Romania, the Baltics, and Bulgaria as eligible for this assistance. This positive step reflects the progress in democracy-building and economic development being undertaken in these nations. I believe that more needs to be done to encourage these new democracies along the positive path they are following. They need firm commitments and a clear understanding that NATO is not off limits to them. The amendment I am proposing, along with Senator Breaux, Senator Brownback, and Senator Gordon Smith, is a sense of Senate that NATO strongly signal other Central and Eastern European nations that enlargement process will not end with these first three nations. The communique from the NATO Madrid Summit states that: The Alliance expects to extend further invitations in coming years to nations willing and able to assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership, and as NATO determines that inclusion of these nations would serve the overall political and strategic interests of the Alliance and that the inclusion would enhance overall European security and stability. There should be invitations extended to other nations that meet the criteria for membership at the NATO summit associated with the 50th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty in April 1999. It is important for the United States and NATO to continue to clearly demonstrate the intention to continue to enlarge NATO based on the progress of these emerging democracies. By so doing, NATO sends an unmistakable message to other central European countries that they will have an opportunity to become a part of NATO as they continue to strengthen democratic institutions, pursue free market economies, and modernize their military in support of NATO objectives. I believe that Romania presents a particularly strong case for future membership. Last November, the people of Romania voted overwhelmingly to elect Emil Constantinescu as their new President. His election demonstrated that Romanians wanted to firmly put the communist era-- which had dominated Romania's Government and economy--behind them. In voting to oust Ion Iliescu in favor of Constantinescu, they rejected state socialism, stagnant economies, corrupt government practices in search of a revitalized economy, a new political openness and reconciliation, and a pro-western posture. With Constantinescu they got a reform-committed President and a parliament to match. The process of change in Romania is now firmly in place. Romania's new Government has initiated price liberalization and privatization. They are enacting laws to encourage greater foreign investment, a step which was desperately needed. The President has been clear from the start that economic reform would be difficult but the Romanian people have continued to support his policies. The international financial institution's recognize Romania's positive ecomomic steps and have reward them accordingly. In April the International Monetary Fund announced a loan of $430 million to Romania and the World Bank loans of up to $530 million. In addition, Romania has put aside historic differences with its neighbors. They have produced political agreements with Hungary and Ukraine to reconcile border disputes and resolve ethnic tensions. Indeed, President, Constantinescu has showed a tremendous effort to reach out to the Hungarian ethnic minorities in Romania by bringing Hungarians into the government. As a military alliance, NATO needs to take seriously the commitment of prospective members to contribute to NATO's collective security. Romania has also shown the commitment needed to bring its military to modern standards. They have expressed a willingness to take on the responsibilities and costs associated with NATO membership. Romania was the first nation to join the Partnership for Peace program and have participated in missions in Bosnia and Albania as well as other peacekeeping missions. They understand that NATO is not a one-way security arrangement. Romania fully intends to contribute effectively to the security and stability of the alliance. They are already increasing their defense budget and their military is firmly under civilian control. They are incorporating new training procedures to conform with NATO standards. In addition, Romania is well on its way to meeting the considerable interoperability objectives established by NATO. I believe also that Romania's geographical location would serve NATO's strategic considerations as well. Romania's membership would be an important asset in strengthening NATO's southern flank and provide a key geostrategic position at the Black Sea. Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment as a commitment to continue the process of a NATO enlargement. Amendment No. 818 (Purpose: To provide for research, development, test, and evaluation of Multitechnology Integration in Mixed-Mode Electronics) On page 46, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I do not intend to talk any longer than necessary, until we get a signal that we are ready to go to final passage. I don't want to hold anything up. I know a lot of people have planes to catch and commitments to make, and are very anxious to finalize this bill as quickly as possible. But, in that we were in a quorum call and not quite there yet, let me just take this opportunity to say how profoundly disappointed I am that we were not able to do anything to move toward additional base closings. I doubt there is a Member in this body that doesn't understand that we have too much capacity. We had a force structure designed to address the cold war. The threats have changed, the force structure has been reduced, but the base infrastructure has not been reduced accordingly. As a consequence, with a fixed top budget line, that means we have to spread our resources around in areas that are not essential and sacrifice areas that are essential. We do not begin to have the amount of money needed to modernize our forces. We have been talking about this for years and we keep postponing that. The quality of life for our soldiers, particularly in housing, has suffered. The state of our military housing is deplorable. Nearly two-thirds of current military housing is substandard and substandard by military standards, which is even below civilian standards. I am ashamed at what we ask people who commit to serve this country to live in; how we ask them to live. I have toured and visited those barracks, those homes. As former chairman of the personnel subcommittee, I made it a point to visit many bases both here and abroad. The state of our military housing is deplorable. We cannot begin to shift enough funds there if we can't find the funds to shift. One of the ways proposed to address that is additional rounds of base closings. I know they are painful. None of us want to close bases in our States. I have had to participate in two base closings in our State and we only had two bases. But the people of Indiana supported that because they felt it was necessary, we did have excess capacity. And it was done in a fair manner. It was not easy. It was not painless. But it was necessary. The argument that we have heard here on the floor that we don't know what the cost is going to be is a ludicrous argument. If you take that to its logical conclusion, we ought to be doubling the number of bases because it is going to save us money, because if cutting bases costs money it just makes sense that adding bases, new bases, would save money. Every industry in America has had to adjust to the global changes that are taking place in business and become more productive. They have had to do more with less. So whether it's auto companies or electronics manufacturers or whatever, they have had to close excess capacity. Does that mean people get laid off? Yes. Transferred? Yes. Does it mean that communities are impacted? Yes. But for the institution to be viable for the future, it is a necessary step. Otherwise everybody gets hurt. Yet we refuse to do that here. I am just disappointed that we could not at least put some process--not even defining the process--but some process that would move us toward reducing this infrastructure and addressing the long-term problem that we have. We might not get the savings in 3 years. It might not directly offset in the 5-year budget plan. But we know it is going to accrue positively for the Department of Defense at some point in the future; that maintaining these bases is simply going to continue to drain money from essential functions, to put pressure on pay, to put pressure on health care for the military members and their dependents, to put pressure on housing, quality of life, modernization and everything else. Mr. President, we are moving toward finalizing this bill. It looks like an agreement is reached and I will yield the floor. We can talk about this more at another time. Several Senators addressed Chair.

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of the defense authorization bill with Senator Feingold being recognized to offer an amendment on Air Force tactical jets, with 30 minutes for debate. I ask the Senator, is that 30 minutes equally divided between opponents and proponents of the amendment?

Mr. COATS. For the information of Senators, Mr. President, the Feingold amendment will have 30 minutes of debate, with 20 minutes allocated to the Senator from Wisconsin and 10 minutes allocated to those opposing the amendment. Following the debate on the Feingold amendment, the Senate will resume debate on the Bingaman amendment regarding space-based missiles, with 15 minutes of debate remaining on that amendment. A vote will occur on or in relation to the Bingaman amendment at approximately 9:45 a.m., this morning. Following that vote, the Senate will resume consideration of the remaining amendments to the Defense authorization bill. Therefore, Senators can anticipate rollcall votes throughout the day up to and including final passage of the defense authorization bill. As indicated last evening by the majority leader, the Senate will complete action on this bill today. And with the cooperation of all Members, the Senate will hopefully finish the Defense authorization bill early this afternoon.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, as the Senator from Arkansas has mentioned, we have been discussing this not only with each other but with other Members who have an interest in this particular subject. We think it makes a lot of sense on our side. The Air Force has specified in testimony before us and in a public statement that they believe, with the adjustments that Senator Cohen has made and the QDR has made in terms of the total number of planes to be built, they can meet the cost projection. It makes a great deal of sense, I think, for the Congress to say we encourage you very, very strongly--in fact, we will put language in to give that encouragement-- to meet that cost. If we are going to have a viable tactical modernization program in the future, given the realities of the budget that we have to deal with our entire defense structure, we have to set realistic cost caps on how much we will spend. If we don't do that, we will run into problems that we have run into before, as in B-2 and other modernization programs, and we jeopardize the entire tactical air modernization program as well as funding for other aspects of our national security. I think this makes perfect sense because we have something here that simply ratifies what the Air Force has said they can already do. They have assessed this. They said they can do it. They are working with a contractor to work out an agreement to do this. We are saying, ``Amen. This is what you need to do and we will urge you and support you in this effort.'' I commend the Senator from Arkansas for his amendment. We have worked together, and I believe there is agreement across the aisle that we ought to go forward with this. I think we should do just that.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, let me just address a question that has been raised by the Senator from California. I think the Senator misunderstood what I said or perhaps I did not say it right. I said that while there is a philosophical debate among Members of Congress as to the constitutional right of a woman to have an abortion, I said we have debated that at other times and we will debate it at other times in the future. But what I thought I had said is that that is not what is at issue here. There are no constitutional rights of any woman being denied under this current policy and so that is not at issue here. Perhaps my remarks were misunderstood. Second, let me just say that this is not a policy that divides necessarily Republicans and Democrats. Congress changing hands had nothing to do with the change in this policy. The policy was changed by the President of the United States. This Congress has consistently voted, whether it was led by Democrats or led by Republicans, to uphold the Hyde amendment which prohibited the use of taxpayers' dollars except in cases of life of the mother, rape and incest. That has gained support from Republicans, gained support from Democrats. When the Democrats were in charge of this Senate, that policy was enforced. And when the Republicans were in charge of the Congress, that policy was enforced. So it really is not something that necessarily drives a stake, a lane down between Republicans and Democrats. Then the question raised by the Senator from Washington about the cost of military transport. Military transport is available to women on a space-available basis. Those who have had the privilege of serving in the military, as I and others have, realize the military is constantly flying planes back and forth not only to the United States but various bases within the theater of operations. If you are in Korea, there are flights on a regular basis and a voluminous number between the various bases in Asia. If you are in Europe, the same takes place. Women who cannot have an abortion because they are stationed in a country that prohibits that abortion have easy access not all the way back to the United States--there if they choose--but easy access to countries in Europe where we have other bases or other countries where they can go to get that abortion. So what we are saying here today has nothing to do with a woman's right to an abortion. It has everything to do with whether or not we will uphold, consistently support a policy and uphold a policy that says we cannot and should not force taxpayers who have a moral or religious basis to oppose abortion, to use their tax dollars to pay for those abortions. That is what is at issue here. We are simply trying to uphold the standard that this Congress has adopted that is currently law, law which, by the way, despite his own personal feelings, was signed into law by the President of the United States. There are no instances of any woman in the military who has been denied access to an abortion. So let us make sure that we understand the nature of this amendment, the nature of the issue that is before us and what we are voting on. Those who come down to this floor and vote on the basis that a woman's right to an abortion is being denied have not understood the nature of the current policy. I urge Members to uphold the Hyde language which allows abortions for life of the mother, rape or incest, to uphold the current Department of Defense policy which gives women the access to abortions if they serve overseas but cannot have it performed in that country. But let us not open up military hospitals that are constructed with Federal funds and equipped with Federal funds, let us not open up military hospitals whose doctors and nurses are paid with taxpayer funds. Let us maintain the current policy. It makes sense. It does not deny women opportunity to have an abortion if they want that abortion. We can have the debate about the constitutionality of abortion or what restrictions we ought to put on those abortions as we have had on partial-birth abortion and as we will have in the future, but that is not what is at issue today. I urge rejection of the amendment of the Senator from Washington. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Absolutely. She would be.

Mr. COATS. That is correct. Any military personnel has access to military transport on a space-available basis. The DOD has never had an instance where a woman who is seeking access on a space-available basis on military transport has been denied that because the purpose of her transport was for an abortion.

Mr. COATS. That is accurate.

Mr. COATS. That is correct.

Mr. COATS. That is also correct. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde amendment, and the Hyde amendment has been adopted time after time and reasserted time after time by the Congress on a bipartisan basis and signed by Presidents of both parties.

Mr. COATS. That is our national policy as adopted by this Congress and signed into law.

Mr. COATS. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, let me address some of the questions that have been raised here. First, on the question of denial of constitutional right, that is not an issue. Whether we agree that a woman ought to have a constitutional right to an abortion or disagree, that is not the issue here because no woman is being denied her constitutional right, whether that woman is in the military or not, or whether that woman is in the military serving in the United States or in the military serving overseas. That right is not taken away from that woman. So the issue here that will be debated, and has been debated, and will be debated in the future over a constitutional right to an abortion is not the issue that we are debating today. The issue that we are debating today is whether that abortion that is sought by a military woman ought to be performed in the military hospital. The proponents of the amendment say that we can avoid the Federal prohibition against use of Federal taxpayer dollars if the woman herself pays for the abortion. But that ignores the fact that the military hospital was constructed with Federal funds, is equipped with Federal funds, that the salaries of the doctors and the nurses and the staff in that hospital are paid 100 percent with Federal funds, and that it will be an accounting nightmare as identified by the Department of Defense to try to separate out the two. But again let me go back to what is more fundamental. That is this inequality of treatment. There is no inequality of treatment. A woman today who serves in the military in the United States can only get an abortion in a military hospital if the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. That same standard applies to women in the military serving overseas. So the standard is exactly the same. If the woman serves in the military and is based in the United States and does not fall under the category of exception, that woman, of course, could get an abortion at a nonmilitary hospital in the United States. If a woman is serving overseas and seeks an abortion and it doesn't fall within the exception, she also can receive an abortion, either in a hospital in the country in which she is serving, or, if that country has a prohibition against an abortion, she can take a military transport at no additional cost back to the States, to Great Britain, or to some other country at which an abortion is performed. It is a legitimate question to raise as to whether or not that woman is being denied access to a hospital. Say she is serving in the military in a country that by law prohibits abortions and, therefore, a hospital is not available to that woman. Does the military in any way deny that woman the opportunity to have an abortion at some other place? I specifically inquired of the Department of Defense as to what was the answer. Their reply to me in a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Defense is that there have been no military people to their knowledge that have requested an abortion that has not been provided the opportunity to have an abortion, that has not been provided military transport to have that abortion at a place where that abortion is legally performed. I asked the question. Has the department had any difficulty in implementing the policy that abortions can only be performed in military hospitals in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother? Their answer: ``No. We have had no difficulty on that.'' Have any formal complaints been filed concerning this policy? ``No. No formal complaints have been filed.'' Have any legal challenges been instituted concerning the policy? ``No.'' Again, have any members or their dependents been denied access to an abortion as a result of this policy?'' The answer again was no. Have any members or dependents been denied access to military transport for the purpose of procuring an abortion? The answer was no. Then I asked the question relative to the mixing of taxpayer funds, doctor salaries, nurse salaries, equipment purchased with taxpayers' funds, and they said it would be impossible to separate all of that out. It would be an accounting nightmare. So what we have here is simply a proposal by the Senator from Washington that addresses a problem that does not exist. The Senator from Washington would have a legitimate point, if there was a problem that existed. But no women are being denied constitutional rights to have an abortion. There is no unequal treatment. There is not any treatment available to a woman serving in the military in the United States in a military hospital that is any different from a woman serving overseas. The only difference is that if they happen to be serving in a country which prohibits abortion in that country, they have to go out of the country to have the abortion. But the military has never had a case where they have denied military transport--not commercial transport paid for by the military personnel but military transport available for that person for the purpose of securing abortion. So there is no problem. There is no constitutional problem. There is no equal access problem. There is no denial of constitutional rights. And there is no case presented to us out of difficulty in this particular instance on this particular problem. So that while the amendment may be well intended by the Senator from Washington it is clearly a solution in search of a problem. I understand the philosophical difference that exists between Members of the Senate relative to abortion. That is a debate that we have had before. We will have it again. But it doesn't apply to this in this particular instance. The President clearly in 1993 shortly after he took office was philosophically advancing his position relative to abortion. I happen to disagree with that position. The President has the right to hold his position. Those of us who oppose it obviously have the right to hold ours, and we debate that. But this amendment doesn't go to that debate. It doesn't go to that issue. For that reason, I hope the Senate will reject the Murray amendment.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, how much time is available on this side?

Mr. COATS. I yield to the Senator from Arkansas such time as he may consume.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, how much time is available?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield myself a couple of minutes. I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Idaho, chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee. This is not an easy issue to deal with. We have dealt with it on numerous occasions here on the Senate floor. We are attempting to maintain a consistent Federal policy relative to abortion. That policy, known as the Hyde amendment, essentially says that taxpayers' money should not be used against the wishes of taxpayers for elective abortions except in some very, very limited circumstances. Separation of that has been accepted on a consensus, at least a majority, basis now for a couple of decades. We are trying to maintain that. We do not want to make an exception in this instance because we do not think an exception needs to be made. There has been no demonstration that women who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies in the military are denied the right to have an abortion. They have that right. They can exercise that right. We are simply saying we do not think we should compel the American taxpayer to pay for it. That is something that has been the subject of debate and discussion ever since I've been in Congress and even before that. By a majority vote, time after time after time, upheld by this Congress, we have disallowed the use of Federal funds for abortions except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened or in cases of rape or incest. We are trying to maintain that standard, consistent throughout all Federal agencies, including the military. In one sense, really, in a very real sense, this is a solution, this amendment offered by the Senator from Washington is a solution in search of a problem. We simply have not had any problems with allowing women to obtain abortions at the place of station if it is allowable in that country, and if it is not allowable in that country overseas, to find military transport, not at their cost, but military transport back to any place in the United States that they choose for the performance of that particular abortion. In doing so, we allow the woman to exercise--even though it is not a right, I agree--a right guaranteed by the Supreme Court at this particular time, and she is not denied the opportunity to have an abortion. The question before the Senate is, will we maintain a consistent policy that says that taxpayers' money should not be used if it goes against their moral beliefs, their religious beliefs? Taxpayers' money should not be used for the performance of elective abortions except in very limited circumstances. I yield back, reserving the time.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield whatever time the Senator from Idaho desires.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I withdraw that request. I wouldn't want to do anything to offend the rules. I have been flying in from Nairobi, Africa, for the last 32 hours on British Airways, which has been on strike, and had to change. And I can't tell you what I have gone through in the last 32 hours to try to get here for these votes. But I wouldn't want to offend the rules. So I will leave it at that. I withdraw my request.