Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I inquire what the procedure is at the current time?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I have a hearing this morning at 10. If I could do that now, I will not take a lot of time. I will be happy to do that.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for yielding this time. I asked for the time in order to explain the situation to our colleagues over the whole issue of out-of-State trash. As my colleagues know, this has been an issue that I have been relentlessly pursuing now for 7 years or so, with great success in the U.S. Senate but lousy success in the House of Representatives, in terms of getting a bill to conference that we can then work out our differences on and put on the President's desk for signature. Five times in the last 6 years the U.S. Senate has voted for legislation I have presented regarding this question of out-of-State trash, and voted so in a fairly overwhelming, bipartisan fashion. The bills that we have presented have been the work of some very diligent and painstaking work with our colleagues and their staffs to attempt to find a resolution to a very difficult problem that exists in almost every one of our States. Many of our States, because of their population or their geographic location, environmental concerns or others, find themselves in a position where they are not able to adequately dispose of the volumes of trash that are generated on a day-to-day basis. Other States have less density and capacity to receive some of that trash. We are not attempting to impede the negotiated transfer of that trash from exporting States to importing States. What we are attempting to do, and what I have attempted to do now over the last 6 or 7 years, is to fashion a way in which the importing States, of which I represent one, have a say in the process. Right now, because the Supreme Court has decreed over a number of decisions that garbage, interstate trash, is considered interstate commerce, the States have virtually no authority to regulate or to monitor or to place any limitations on the amount of out-of-State trash that comes into their particular States. My effort has been to put them at the table so that they can sit down with the exporting States and find a way to negotiate, if it is in their best interest--and it is in the interest of many States to receive this because it is commerce and it does generate revenue--but also to say that either we cannot do this now or our own needs have placed us in a situation where we are at capacity and we cannot receive your trash, and you will have to work something else out. In other words, we want to give the recipient communities and States the right to dictate their own environmental future as it relates to the generation of everyday trash, which is literally millions of tons across this country. Recognizing the problems of the exporting States, recognizing the problems of the importing States, we have been able to work with Senators, Governors, legislators, experts, waste haulers and others to fashion a compromise piece of legislation which gives importing States the right to say no or to limit reasonably, but which also preserves the right of exporting States to enter into agreements with the recipient States and/or counties and/or municipalities if they so desire. As I said, these measures have passed the Senate in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, only to hit a roadblock, particularly in the last Congress, in the House of Representatives. The relevant subcommittee in the House passed out a measure, I believe, by unanimous vote but was never able to secure a full Commerce Committee hearing or full Commerce Committee disposition of that issue. And so, because that has been stalled in the other body now for more than a year, because our previous efforts have been frustrated, sometimes in the House, sometimes in the Senate, but frustrated in terms of completing the process, I took the opportunity, along with Senator Levin, to search out a vehicle which we thought was as close to relevant as we could get, and attach what the Senate had passed, on an overwhelming basis-- 94-6, a pretty solid vote--attach that to the energy and water appropriations bill. That is not my preferred option. My preferred option is to make it a stand-alone bill, as we did in the Senate, and have the House take it up in a stand-alone bill, but we were thwarted in that effort on the House side. So we thought, is there a way we can jump-start this process in the House? So we attached it to the energy and water appropriations bill, which then passed the Senate and went over to the House. After some diligent efforts to encourage the conference committee to pass back to the House and the Senate their conference bill with the Senate trash amendment attached, we were disappointed to learn that the House, despite some diligent efforts on the part of some Indiana colleagues and others, friends in the House who supported this effort, Congressman Souder, Congressman Buyer, Congressman Visclosky, Republicans and Democrats, we were not able to secure approval from the House conferees on this matter. So the energy and water bill conference report comes back to us without the interstate trash measure attached. I am bitterly disappointed that once again we are unable to deal successfully with a problem that everybody knows needs to be dealt with. It is not just my State of Indiana, which has seen a fairly dramatic decrease in the amount of trash come into the State. Since I have taken such a vocal and active role, I think maybe the exporters and trash haulers are trying to tone down my rhetoric or dampen my enthusiasm for moving forward on this legislation. But what has happened is that trash has simply moved to another State--Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Virginia. A number of other States have now become unwanted recipients and virtually have no power to do anything about it. By the same token, we have seen a fairly dramatic increase in the export of trash to Indiana. The first two quarters of 1996 now total almost the entire amount we received in 1995. So our line has gone back up, and the problem is becoming serious again in Indiana. But I am really here speaking for a broad coalition of States, of members of both parties, of Governors who represent both the Democrat and Republican parties, of States that feel that they have no control over their environmental future, over their environmental destiny. And they are basically saying, ``Look, we're taking care of our problem intrastate, and we are simply asking that we have an opportunity to address successfully our environmental goals in disposing of our own waste without being overwhelmed by someone else's environmental problems that are loaded onto trucks and loaded onto trains, on a daily basis, shipped overnight, and dumped in our landfills.'' We have landfills in Indiana that, by referendum and painstaking efforts on the part of municipalities, have been created, with the promise to the taxpayers, the promise to the citizens of the community, that it will take care of disposal needs for that municipality or that county for 15, 20, 30 years in the future. And so bond referendums are passed, the taxpayers commit to it, only to find out those landfills are filled up in 2 years by a massive influx of out-of-State waste over which we have no ability to say no or to let us reason together here. ``We can't take yours, but there's one down the road that might be able to accept it, or you can enter into an agreement, and maybe if we can work out some negotiated payments, and so forth, we can create a bigger capacity, and we will take it to generate revenue for our communities and our schools and our roads,'' et cetera. So here we are now with the energy and water conference report back without the trash. Trash, once again, has been allowed to flow without any reasonable restraints. I regret that. But I wanted to let my colleagues know the diligent efforts that we have been making in the Senate, the representation of our Senate conferees, Senator Domenici, Senator Johnston, representing the Senate position, but we simply were not able to prevail over the House position and those in charge who wanted to keep the energy and water appropriations report free of this particular legislation. I realize it is not directly relevant, but I am frustrated that I do not have any opportunity to move the process forward except to offer these kinds of amendments. I will conclude simply by putting the majority leader on notice that Senator Levin and I, Senator Specter and others, are seriously considering adding an amendment to a continuing resolution if, in fact, we have to have a continuing resolution--not because we want to make the majority leader's life any more difficult than it already is, not because we want to delay the Senate adjournment, not because we think it even necessarily belongs on a continuing resolution, but because we have literally run out of options. It will do no good in the Senate to pass the bill a third time. The House has made every possible effort--maybe there are some other means they could use between now and the end of the session to try to force the key people in the House to accept some type of legislation that deals with this so we can at least get to conference and resolve our differences. Every effort that has been attempted over there has come up with an inability to finalize the process. So we will be looking at that. I just want to put the majority leader and my colleagues on notice that this issue is not going to go away. It is not getting any better. It is getting much worse for many, many States. As long as I have breath and am privileged to represent the people of Indiana in the U.S. Senate, I am going to look for every way possible to pass this legislation to give our States and other States the right that I believe they should constitutionally have to make decisions that affect their own environmental destiny, their own futures, and deal with their problems. It is reasonable legislation. We have every reason to believe it is constitutional legislation. The Court has clearly said that this Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. We are not attempting to stop interstate commerce. We are simply attempting to put the receiver and the Senator at the table so they can reasonably negotiate this flow of trash from one State to another without imposing one State's burden on another State, when that State has no ability to negotiate terms. I want to thank the Senator from New Mexico for his efforts in helping us to try to move the Senate position. I want to thank the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Johnston, for his efforts. I know I have loaded their bill with something that they were not happy to see, but yet they attempted to advance the Senate position. They have been supporters of my efforts. I appreciate their efforts. I know they feel it is also unfortunate that we have not been able to move this. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to address the question just asked by the Senator from California.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for yielding for the purposes of a question. I would like to ask the sponsor of the amendment, Senator Wyden from Oregon, a question and see if I can get a clarification. I have just been advised that the amendment that he has offered preempts current State law; our current law. Is that correct?

Mr. COATS. What if States decide to go a little more narrow?

Mr. COATS. That is my dilemma because Indiana has, in my opinion, dealt with it in a thoughtful way. In some instances, the statute that we have is broader than the amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon and therefore I would think would be acceptable. But in other instances it is narrower. In other words, it is crafted to how Indiana best sees the need to provide information to consumers to protect them. So that I assume then the answer is that that portion of the Indiana consumer protection and consumer information statute, which does not conform to the amendment, is preempted.

Mr. COATS. If the Senator will yield further, that was not directly my question. Indiana has made a determination through its legislature, through its Governor, through consultation with consumer groups, patient groups, provider groups, about the best means of providing information and protecting consumers. And so my question is, does the Senator's amendment preempt those decisions on the part of Indiana citizens and the Indiana legislature that do not happen to conform, that would be construed by the Senator as being more narrow? In other words, they might not meet all of the Senator's criteria but they certainly meet the criteria that the people in our State believe appropriate to provide protection to patients.

Mr. COATS. I think I have the Senator's answer. The Senator's amendment does preempt those portions of Indiana law that do not conform with his definition of a floor or minimum standard. I believe our State has taken adequate steps to provide protections and information for consumers and therefore I will have to oppose the amendment. The Senator answered my question. I do not need to know the history of what happened in the committee or whether Mr. Ganske is right or wrong. I am just looking out for my State of Indiana which made a determination of what is best for our consumers, and we are very happy in Indiana. I cannot support an amendment that preempts what we have done.

Mr. COATS. That is my last word here. I know that the Senator is very familiar with what the State of Oregon has done. The constituents of Oregon have elected him because they feel he knows what is going on in that State. It does not sound to me as if the Senator from Oregon knows what the State of Indiana has done. They elected this Senator because they know I know what is going on in that State. So I think it is presumptuous for the Senator from Oregon to say what Indiana has done is incorrect when he does not even know what it is. All I am saying is I want to protect Indiana's right to make a determination of what is in the best interests of their citizens, and the Senator has answered my question. He preempts that part of our law which does not conform to what he thinks is right, but obviously it has to reflect what we in Indiana think is right. So I thank the Senator for his responses.

Mr. COATS. Less than that, 5 minutes.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio essentially made the points I was going to make in response to the Senator from California, who I think has mischaracterized the issue before us. The issue before us has nothing to do with a woman's right to have an abortion. It has nothing to do with an amendment that, in her words, denies the choice of women, takes away a woman's right to choose. It is not an amendment to stop anyone from getting a perfectly legal procedure accomplished. So I think it is important for our colleagues to understand what the amendment does and what it does not do. This is not a debate on whether or not a woman has a right to an abortion. I have suggested for a number of years, ever since I have been in the Senate, that we ought to have that debate. We have had that debate on occasion. But this is not the debate we are having today. The debate we are having today is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio, which simply restores to the Senate bill the language that was incorporated in the House, that says, except in the cases where the life of the mother is in jeopardy or in cases of rape or incest, the taxpayer will not be asked to fund abortions chosen by a woman under the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan. There are a number of perfectly legal procedures, medical procedures, that are not covered by the health insurance plan. Not every health insurance plan covers every procedure. I do not know what percent of private insurance policies cover the cost of abortion, but that is not an issue either. The question is whether or not the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan, which every Federal employee participates in, will cover abortion. There are, as I said, a number of procedures that are not covered. That is a matter of determination by the organization that provides the insurance. We have the ability to select from a number of different insurance plans. But the issue is whether or not the taxpayer will be asked to pay for it. This is not just another medical procedure. This is a procedure that is extraordinarily controversial, where American opinion is divided, where taxpayers, for religious reasons, moral conscience reasons, and other reasons feel they should not have to use their tax dollars to pay for something they believe fundamentally violates their religious beliefs, their moral convictions. This is a debate we have had now for 20 years, and pretty consistently over the last 20 years, with a couple of exceptions, the Congress, whether it has been a Democrat-controlled Congress or a Republican-controlled Congress, has pretty consistently supported the proposition that taxpayers should not be coerced into paying for a procedure which many of them feel violates some of their most deeply held beliefs. That has been, as I said, supported by both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats controlled the House throughout the decade of the 1980's and the early 1990's, and the Hyde amendment, which is essentially what the Senator from Ohio was offering, was supported by both parties. It has been supported here in the U.S. Senate. It says that, except in those instances of rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother, we will not ask the taxpayer to pay for it. Since the Federal Government subsidizes our insurance costs--up to about 74 percent, I think is the latest figure--clearly, the cost of an abortion would be subsidized and paid for, at least three-fourths of it would be subsidized and paid for, by the Federal taxpayer. That is why the amendment is being offered. So I think it is important we focus on the amendment that is here. We can reserve time--I am sure both sides would be willing to accommodate it at some point--to discuss the larger issue of abortion: the meaning of life, when life begins, what restrictions if any should be placed on abortions, the whole idea of Roe versus Wade, the Supreme Court decision. Those are all issues that are legitimate issues but have nothing to do with this amendment. So let us make sure that we focus on what the amendment seeks to do and what the amendment does not seek to do. I have more I can say in this regard, but I think in the interests of time here, since my 5 minutes is up, I will cease at this point and then we will talk about it, but let us keep the discussion focused on what the amendment is all about.

Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield on that point for a question?

Mr. COATS. I understand. We will use our time. I would like to ask a question. The Senator from California said we are denying women who work for the Federal Government the same rights that all other women have. Are you saying that every insurance policy in America has coverage for abortion and therefore every other woman in America has the right to have an abortion paid for under her insurance policy? Or, are there different policies, some that offer it, some that do not offer it?

Mr. COATS. We checked with Planned Parenthood and asked them that question. They disagreed with what you just said. They said there is no way, they do not have specific information about the availability of abortion coverage, how many insurance policies cover it, how many do not. The point is, it is not an accurate statement to say we are denying women who work for the Federal Government the opportunity that all women have. That is not an accurate statement.

Mr. COATS. I say to the Senator from California, who asked would we be willing to accept an amendment which would allow reimbursement for an abortion for that portion of the premium which is paid for by the Federal employee, again, I think the Senator misses the point here. From one standpoint, she is saying these women have no other place to go, they can't get an abortion. One-fourth the premium is $62, if it is a $250 abortion. I have been told that is the going rate for an abortion. So are you telling me that an employee of the Federal Government who has a job, a full-time job, who is working for the Federal Government is unable to come up with $62 in order to pay for an abortion?

Mr. COATS. I would like you to respond on my time, but you did not let me respond on your time.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, just to summarize so Members know exactly what it is we are voting on. This is not, despite what has been said, this is not an issue over whether or not a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion. We do not change any constitutional rulings. We do not change anything in that regard. This is simply an issue as to whether the taxpayer will be forced to pay for an abortion of a Federal employee's demand for an abortion. Mr. President, 70 percent or more of the citizens of the United States, whether they are pro-life, pro-choice, or neutral on the question, have consistently stated in polls and surveys that, regardless of their position, more than 70 percent have said no in an issue that is this controversial, which violates the conscience and religious beliefs of many people, or that is simply a taxpayer issue. We do not believe the taxpayer should be forced to pay for the abortion of someone else. This goes one step further because it limits it to just Federal employees. The Senator from Ohio wants to retain the policy that has effectively been in practice, totally, almost consistently for more than 20 years, consistently supported by both Democrats and Republicans, whether Democrats have been in control of the Congress or whether Republicans have been in control of the Congress. So I hope my colleagues will vote to maintain the current law--the current law being that we will not force taxpayers to pay for the abortions of Federal employees. And we do allow exceptions to that rule: If the life of the mother is in jeopardy or in cases of rape or incest. I think that is a reasonable policy, and it has been consistently supported. I hope we retain that law.

Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. COATS. That is what you asked me to do. That is appropriate.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today's debate concerns an issue of extreme import and controversy--extending civil rights protection to sexual orientation. This is an issue of great importance because, for the first time in our history, Federal legislation would protect an individual's behavior, rather than an individual's status, as traditional civil rights laws have done. The practical impact of this bill is that employers will no longer be able to consider or hold an employee accountable for any acts related to their sexual orientation. The fact that this issue--the extension of civil rights to an individual's behavior--is controversial goes without saying. This is an issue about gay rights in the workplace, which the American people have not reached a moral consensus. Many Americans, including business people, those who support strong traditional families, and persons with religious or moral objections, have serious concerns about promoting homosexuality as a lifestyle. This is important, because if this bill becomes law, it will give the Federal stamp of approval to activities that are still considered illegal in many States. It is significant also because individual employers, employees, forprofit religious organizations and enterprises will no longer be able to conduct their business without the fear of Federal intrusion and potentially costly litigation. Mr. President, we are not speaking of extending rights that every citizen of the United States is guaranteed--rather we are considering special rights for persons based on their lifestyle choice, as evidenced by their behavior. I share the concern of many that no person be subjected to violence and hatred simply because they do not meet with societal approval. But I am just as concerned about individuals who, because of sincerely and deeply held religious or moral convictions, find certain lifestyles to be morally unacceptable and yet are told by the Government that those beliefs must be kept private and may not be applied to their business decisions. These individuals are told that the first amendment's protections do not apply to the way they run their businesses, their family bookstore, or their day care center. This should not be the case. I ask my colleagues to join with me in voting to preserve one of our Nation's most cherished rights: The freedom to freely exercise our religious beliefs and to not be coerced by the Government into accepting into our employ those whose behavior violates our deeply held religious convictions. I yield back any time I have.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. As I said earlier, it is disturbing that the debate is necessary at all. I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss the importance of traditional marriage. For too long too many people have just assumed that marriage will survive whether or not it is encouraged, nurtured, or promoted. The sad news is that the evidence is in. Marriage, like any other institution such as communities, churches, and schools, can suffer, and is, without the critical support of Federal, State, and local governments, communities, religions, and societal norms. We need to begin a process of reminding ourselves what marriage is. We must tell our children what it means to be married. We must encourage young men and women to get married. We must help married couples to stay together when times are difficult. There is no longer any doubt that the slow demise of marriage in our country has been terribly harmful to children. It is time that we remind this country and ourselves how critically important heterosexual marriage is to a healthy society. The Defense of Marriage Act is a wake-up call for our society. This bill gives us clear guidance as to the definition of marriage. It tells the States, clearly, that they are responsible for the marriages within their State. This bill ensures that States maintain the freedom to establish their own definitions and policies relating to marriage. I encourage all of my colleagues to use this debate and the ensuing vote to make their support and belief of traditional marriage absolutely plain. Without a doubt, this vote is of the utmost importance to our children and to the very future of this country. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for the time.

Mr. COATS. I ask if I could have one more minute.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today on the floor of the Senate, along with many of my colleagues, to support the Defense of Marriage Act. In doing so, I am reiterating my strong, unequivocal support for traditional marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Marriage is the institution in our society that civilizes our society by humanizing our lives. It is the social, legal and spiritual relationship that prepares the next generation for duties and opportunities. An 1884 decision by the Supreme Court called marriage ``the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.'' I don't think anything has changed that would change that definition given by the Supreme Court more than a hundred years ago. The definition of marriage is not created by politicians and judges, and it cannot be changed by them. It is rooted in our history, in our laws and our deepest moral and religious convictions, and in our nature as human beings. It is the union of one man and one woman. This fact can be respected, or it can be resented, but it cannot be altered. I suggest that our society has a compelling interest in respecting that definition. The breakdown of traditional marriage is our central social crisis, the cause of so much anguish and suffering, particularly for our children. Our urgent responsibility is to nurture and strengthen the institution of marriage, not undermine it with trendy moral relativism. The institution of marriage is our most valuable cultural inheritance. It is our duty--perhaps our first duty--to pass it intact to the future. Government cannot be neutral in this debate over marriage. It has sound reasons to prefer the traditional family in its policies. A social thinker, Michael Novak, has written: A people whose marriages and families are weak have no solid institutions . . . family life is the seedbed of economic skills, money habits, attitudes toward work and the arts of independence . . . parent-child roles are the absolutely critical center of social force. So when we prefer traditional marriage and family in our law, it is not intolerance. Tolerance does not require us to say that all lifestyles are morally equal. It doesn't require us to weaken our social ideals. It does not require a reconstruction of our most basic institutions. And it should not require special recognition for those who have rejected that standard. It is amazing to me--and I join Senator Byrd and others in this--and disturbing that this debate should even be necessary. I think it is a sign of our times and an indication of a deep moral confusion in our Nation. But events have made the definition of traditional marriage essential because the preservation of marriage has become an issue of self-preservation for our society. We have a straightforward bill before us. We define ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' for the purposes of Federal law, and we ensure that no State will be required to give effect to a law of another State with respect to same-sex marriage. It is the reserve and the simplicity of the bill that I think ought to be commended. It does not overreach. It does not bring to bear the full range of authorities that Congress could invoke. Rather, it simply restates well-known and well-understood definitions and only legislates concerning a constitutional provision, the full faith and credit clause, which was to become the means by which same- sex marriages are promulgated throughout the States. I'd like to discuss the two facets of the bill in greater detail. The definitions included in this bill for the words marriage and spouse are based on our common historical understanding of the institution of marriage, and simply state that marriage is the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. This definition is not surprising. But as Hadley Arkes wisely commented: ``in the curious inversion that seems characteristic mainly of our own time, the act of restating, the act of confirming the tradition, is itself taken as an `irregular' or radical move. That we should summon the nerve simply to restate the traditional understanding is taken as nothing less than an act of aggression.'' But no act of aggression is being undertaken. Rather, the definition included in this bill merely restates the understanding of marriage shared by Americans, and by peoples and cultures all over the world. The Defense of Marriage Act also legislates concerning the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Through this bill, Congress avails itself of the power reserved for Congress in the Constitution and ensures that no State be required to give legal authority to a relationship between two people of the same sex which is treated as a marriage under the laws of another State. Let me be very clear. This bill does not outlaw same-sex marriages: it merely ensures that if one State makes same-sex marriages legal, no other State will be automatically required through the full faith and credit clause to uphold that marriage in their own State. That is our prerogative. That is what we seek to do today, and that is what I believe we should do.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I commend the fine leadership of Chairman Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia. Together, they worked to achieve strong bipartisan support of this year's Defense authorization bill. The conference bill before us provides for an $11.2 billion increase to the President's Defense budget request. The increase, when adjusted for inflation, is still $7.4 billion less than last year's Defense budget. I wish to stress this point because the trend toward lower defense spending is an issue that concerns me. Given the uncertainties and adversaries our Nation will continue to face, slashing defense spending or force structure without a coherent military strategy is not the answer to preserving our military superiority into the 21st century. By the same token, the familiar path of the past--as convenient as it may be--will be less likely to lead us to the future we hope to shape. In that regard, I believe much debate remains in addressing the future of our national defense. This bill addresses many of the fundamental concerns of our military. It will improve the quality of life of our Armed Forces by increasing their pay and authorizing the construction of new barracks and military family housing. It also moves to address the critical modernization issues our military's senior leadership raised during their testimony before Congress this year. In that regard, the bill supports the Army's efforts toward battlefield digitization, modernization of tactical aircraft for the Air Force and Navy, and funds the modernization of our National Guard and Reserves. Also included in this bill is what I consider to be a major step forward in the debate over the future of our Armed Forces in meeting the national security requirements of our Nation. The Military Force Structure Review Act of 1996 is a provision I cosponsored with Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, Senator Robb, and many other distinguished colleagues in the Senate. This act will establish an independent nonpartisan, nine-member National Defense Panel that will conduct a long-range assessment of future threats, military force structure, and operational concepts in support of our national security strategy. It is our hope that this panel will challenge the Defense Department to be more forward thinking as it moves beyond the Bottom-Up Review, and develops a strategic construct to guide our military forces into the next century. Mr. President, the bill before us addresses critical issues facing our men and women in uniform--improving readiness, their quality of life, and their need to modernize weapons systems in order to keep pace with rapid technological changes. As recent events have demonstrated, our military must be ready and capable of responding to myriad, uncertain threats. We must be willing to provide our military with the funding they need today, and tomorrow, to prepare for these unforeseen contingencies. I urge the final passage of the Defense authorization conference bill for 1997. Amendment to Prohibit Criminal Bomb-Making Instruction