Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Coats pertaining to the introduction of S. 1904 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, could we have order in the Senate, please.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I also want to thank Senator Gregg. As a member of the Armed Services Committee obviously interested in moving this defense authorization bill forward, I appreciate Senator Gregg's willingness to withdraw the amendment. But I guess I join my colleague from Oklahoma in stating that it is a perfectly justifiable amendment given the circumstances of the situation. I think a lot of us are feeling we do not quite understand what is going on down at the White House. The person in charge of the travel office, who is not political, gets fired because they want to put somebody who is political in the office; but the person who is political does not get fired. It seems to be kind of a double standard and a disconnect. So Senator Gregg is pointing out something that I think needs to be addressed. I just appreciate the fact that he is willing to allow, in deference to the Senator from South Carolina and those of us who feel it is important to go forward with the defense authorization bill, the opportunity to move forward with this legislation. But what is happening here is nothing more than what has happened to us. We have tried to move relevant legislation forward, and the Senator from Massachusetts and others insist on adding nongermane, nonrelevant amendments to every bill that the Republicans put on the floor. So, whether it is the minimum wage or whether it is the Glaxo issue, or whatever, there is a whole series of nongermane, nonrelevant amendments being offered to bills that everybody agrees need to be moved forward. So I think Senator Gregg is perfectly within his rights in offering that amendment. I think it is an appropriate subject for debate and discussion. I do commend him for recognizing the importance of the defense bill and being willing to withdraw it at this time. I hope, Mr. President, that Members on the other side of the aisle will not now take the opportunity to continue the practice of offering nongermane bills, and I hope Members on this side of the aisle would also honor that from this point forward. It is a little tit for tat here. We spent 3 weeks, or a little less than that, trying to resolve an issue of a nongermane, nonrelevant amendment being offered on bill after bill after bill. We finally had a tortuous unanimous consent agreement--it probably set a record for the number of words or pages in that unanimous consent agreement--finally worked out by the new majority leader and the minority leader. Maybe the best thing we can do here is to agree to both move forward with the business at hand and then allow Members to take up these other issues. Certainly the Senator from Massachusetts has the right to address the issue of minimum wage, but it ought to be done on a relevant bill. Certainly the Senator from Arkansas has the right to address the issue of the Glaxo-GATT matter, but it ought to be done on a relevant or standalone basis. Certainly the Senator from New Hampshire has the right to address what I think is one of the most fundamental ethical issues that we are dealing with at this particular time. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, America's preeminence in the world is accompanied by the opportunity and burden of leadership to shape the international community. I have been somewhat perplexed that our concerns with national defense are often no broader than the level of defense spending, which we generally debate only during the annual authorization and appropriation cycles. It is incumbent that we consider the scope of the demands and expectations placed on our military in support of America's role in shaping the work today, and through the next century. Included are the fundamental issues of our national security interests, the nature of future conflicts, and the most appropriate military strategy for which the Department of Defense should develop its military capabilities. These considerations must be made deliberately, not by default. Failing to do so will lead the United States to react, rather than control, events in the next century. The actions we take on the defense authorization bill will fundamentally influence our national security strategy and force structure well into the next century. Properly done, these decisions will be a powerful investment in the future. Unfortunately, there is widespread consensus--both in and out of the Pentagon--that the administration's 1993 Bottom Up Review strategy is not the strategy America needs to guide its military into the 21st century. The strategy has been chronically underfunded, with shortfall estimates ranging anywhere from $50 to $150 billion. There is great skepticism with the two major regional conflict [MRC] yardstick that undergirds the Pentagon force planning. And, perhaps most disquieting, is the BUR's implicit assumption that the nature of future conflicts will closely resemble those of the past. The effects of misinvesting in a strategy that has lost its relevance are immense. Congress has done its best to reconcile the sizable disconnect between the BUR's requirements to fight and win two nearly simultaneous MRC's and the funding needed to execute such a strategy. But, while Congress has supported the military in sustaining readiness, in modernizing for the future, and in holding the line against additional force structure cuts in order to meet the BUR requirements, the administration has accused Congress of pork barrel politics. When Congress has tried to rectify serious funding shortfalls in programs at the urgings of senior military leaders, the administration has accused Congress of contributing to inefficient defense spending. The political gamesmanship over issues crucial to America's national security has created such hyperbole that the merits in investing defense dollars today for an uncertain future tomorrow confuse most Americans. I have serious concerns over the impact this political spin may ultimately have a public support for our troops. In an era of competing budget priorities, an expanding continuum of military operations, the uncertainty of future threats and emerging new technologies, we can ill afford a business as usual approach on investing in our future defense. Senator Lieberman, myself, and a host of cosponsors have worked in a bipartisan effort to ensure that the Defense Department and Congress will make only the most prudent investments in defense. Through this amendment--a review of the Armed Forces force structure--we intend to do more than affect the next military strategy and its resultant force structure. In establishing an independent, nonpartisan National Defense Panel, prominent defense experts will assess alternative force structure strategies in light of future threats, emerging technologies, required capabilities, and a broad continuum of military operations that may be likely in the future. The National Defense Panel's assessment will be far more comprehensive than previous force structure assessments, and will explore innovative, forward-thinking ways of meeting future national security challenges. The complete assessment will provide alternatives to a singular military strategy and its resultant force structure that will, in turn, enable Congress, the Defense Department, and the American public to better consider the level of defense spending our Nation requires in support of its national interests. The National Defense Panel will also assist the Defense Department as it undertakes its quadrennial strategy review over the next year. The Department's Quadrennial review, while more narrow in focus, will examine force structure, modernization plans, infrastructure, defense policies and other elements of the defense program to develop a new defense strategy replacing the Bottom Up Review. A salient feature of this amendment is that it will challenge current thinking about defense. Senator Lieberman and I, along with the cosponsors of this amendment, share the concern that the tendency to focus on immediate issues has distracted from the task of structuring the military to meet new operating environments, accommodate revolutionary changes in military technology and prepare for the possibility of entirely new kinds of threats and competitors. As Paul Bracken wrote in his 1993 article entitled ``The Military After Next,'' The military posture for the next 20 years is conceptualized implicitly in terms of the problems of today, rather than in terms of deeper forces that reflect both the changing character of war and the military transformation taking place in the world. Immediate U.S. problems are characterized by deep military budget cuts, regional contingencies, ``messy operations'' [such as Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia] and a substantial military capacity inherited as a legacy from the Cold War. All of these are worthy of attention. But, if anything is certain, it is that in 20 years the current budget crisis, the regional strategy . . . will be forgotten as new problems of national security and international order appear. Although our Nation still faces a range of current threats, we must not let current threats lead us into assuming that incremental improvements to our military will be sufficient to deal with the range of scenarios we may face in the 21st century. Our country has a strong tendency to defer revolutionary changes in favor of these incremental improvements. The BUR strategy of fighting 2 MRC's is a prime example, taking the Desert Storm model and geographically tailoring it to future scenarios. But it is not an adequate guide for future innovation. We can no longer afford to conveniently fit current situations to existing planning and resource allocation processes. Doing so will yield a defense program geared to the most familiar threats, as opposed to those most likely to occur. In closing, I would submit that the familiar path of the past--as convenient as it may be--will not necessarily lead us to the future we wish to shape. The review of the Armed Forces force structures amendment before us now will provide Congress and the Defense Department with comprehensive analysis addressing a range of force structures and capabilities appropriate for future threats. It is our hope that, ultimately, this amendment will serve to further public and congressional debate over the priority our Nation should place on its defense. Our Nation must have confidence in its military strategy, must provide for the capabilities our Armed Forces require to perform the missions expected of them, and must understand and accept the risks of doing otherwise. I urge the support of this amendment--it is a major step forward toward smarter defense planning and investing, and enjoys wide bipartisan support from Members throughout the Senate. Mr. President, let me state this is the culmination of some effort on the part of the Senator from Connecticut, who has taken the lead in this effort, myself, and a number of other members of the Armed Services Committee who are concerned that we are not adequately addressing some of the major questions that need to be addressed in preparing a strategy and setting a program in place relative to our national security needs for the next century. The next century sounds like a long way away, but it is only 3\1/2\ years. In fact, it is actually the next millennium. It is almost difficult to comprehend. As history has shown, civilizations have been weakened and even collapsed, and mighty armies and navies have been defeated because they were rooted in the wars of the past. They were rooted in the procurement of weapons to fight those wars based on what worked before, not what they might need in the future. None of us has a crystal ball that can tell exactly what will constitute an adequate national security apparatus and national defense in the future. Yet we need to examine the questions about the kinds of threats and the nature of those threats that we will be faced with in the future. We are in the midst of a technology explosion that obviously is impacting on warfare. We had a glimpse of that explosion and what it means during our viewing of the Persian Gulf war on ``CNN Live.'' There were remarkable pictures of a war in progress and a demonstration of what technology can do in terms of changing the terms of warfare. I am sure the nation of Iraq thought it was amply prepared to successfully defend its aggressive takeover of Kuwait, only to find itself hopelessly, not outmanned, but outsmarted, from a technological standpoint. No nation is going to make that mistake again. No aggressor is going to make that mistake again. Future aggressors will contemplate about what it is going to take in the future to encounter the United States. The conflicts we face in the future will be much different from those we have encountered in the past. We need to take advantage of the remarkable research, development, time and ability to bring new technologies to bear in terms of our armed services and our national defense. Unfortunately, it seems the Congress is locked into a ``what do we need right now'' mentality. We do our thinking and spending and planning in 1-year increments, 2 years at best. As a result, it seems we are measuring on the basis of what we did last year, and trying to make a decision on what incremental changes we can adjust to for the future years. Basically what we do is make incremental changes. The Pentagon is well aware of this problem, and they are attempting to address this through a strategy called the quadrennial review. That takes a 4-year look and it coincides with the possibilities of each administration, each new administration. But we need to look beyond that. To do so, we are asking the Pentagon to address a number of issues of concern to us, and establish an independent review panel to give us certain assessments. The results of these assessments will provide us with a better, broader body of knowledge with which to evaluate the potential threats, with which to evaluate the potential strategies--and I use the plural, not the singular use of the word-- which we might employ to deter or counter those threats and on which we can make procurement decisions, research decisions, and allocate the increasingly scarce dollars available for our national defense. This was less of a problem in the 1980's because we had ample funds available from which to take advantage of many different alternatives and select the one which best fit. We do not have that luxury now. We do not have anywhere near that luxury. Defense is now in its 12th straight year of decline in terms of budget allocations. The military has been scaled back nearly 40 percent in just about every category. We have to make decisions on the basis of a far smaller margin of error. In that regard, having a broader assessment of our potential threats, our potential responses to those threats, is going to allow us to make better decisions to spend those dollars more wisely. That is really what this amendment is all about. I was pleased to have the opportunity to work with the Senator from Connecticut and with others of my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I am pleased this amendment has a growing list of bipartisan--nonpartisan--support. I think a year from now we are going to be in the midst of a process which is going to give us some very relevant information from which we can base decisions that are extremely critical to our future. So I am pleased to be a coauthor and a cosponsor of this amendment. With that, I observe we might be prepared, unless the managers are aware other Senators are coming to the floor to speak, to move to a vote. I believe it is appropriate to ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside. I am not exactly sure what the parliamentary request needs to be in order to bring this amendment up. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending business be temporarily set aside and I be allowed to speak in morning business for no longer than 5 minutes.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, earlier today I joined with my colleagues from the House, the chairman of the Budget Committee, John Kasich, in reintroducing a program that I have been working on for a long time. It is called the Project For American Renewal. It attempts to address the question of how we can more effectively provide assistance to people in need, people living in poverty, without resorting to more of the same, which is simply funneling money into Washington, establishing a bureaucracy, and handing out welfare checks to, in many cases, perpetuate a lifestyle and a behavior that is not desirable, not giving us the results we wanted. A lot of well-intentioned programs have been offered to deal with some of the social problems that exist in our country: teen pregnancy, spousal abuse, juvenile delinquency, substance abuse, and on and on it goes. Many of those, as I have said, have been well-intentioned but have simply missed the mark. They have not solved the problem. And, in many cases, they have made it worse. It seems that the alternative to that that has been discussed in the last year or so is what was called devolution, a word that I hate. I do not know for sure exactly what it means, but I think it means washing our hands of the problem, and let somebody else worry about it. I do not believe either of those alternatives are acceptable alternatives. I do not believe more of the same or none of the above are the alternatives we ought to be examining. I believe there is a place for our encouragement of hopeful solutions to some of the problems that exist in our society as it affects our families and our children and our neighborhoods and our communities. The Project for American Renewal is my attempt at addressing those questions, to strengthen families, to encourage communities and to utilize mediating institutions of volunteer associations, of charities, particularly of faith-based charities, to address some of these most pressing problems. Utilization of these institutions, other than Government institutions, means that we can bring to bear not just efforts to meet the material needs of individuals, but also the spiritual needs of individuals. We can bring to bear values that are important in addressing some of these more fundamental problems. The Project for American Renewal consists of 16 separate pieces of legislation designed to strengthen families, to provide mentors where fathers are not present, to strengthen communities, rebuild communities across America, and to provide effective compassion. The centerpiece of this is the charity tax credit, which will allow a joint-filing couple to contribute up to $1,000 a year as an offset against their taxes. Today I joined with Congressman Kasich in announcing how we would pay for this charity tax credit, estimated at $44.8 billion over a 5-year period of time. We propose that we will ask the Ways and Means and the Finance Committee to designate a third of that amount in corporate loophole closings, corporate welfare. We think if we are addressing some of the most fundamental problems in America, we ought to look for funding sources to offset the revenue loss from subsidies given to special interests over the years that do not serve as high a national purpose. We also think it is appropriate to shift some resources from some of the existing Federal social policy programs that have not proven effective. While we do not specify directly what those offsets should be in the corporate welfare area, we do specify offsets of some of the Federal programs that we do not think are as effective as they ought to be. The goal here is to encourage mediating institutions to play a greater role in addressing some of our more fundamental problems. They can bring hope and a vision of hope that, in many cases, Government is constrained to bring or is unable to bring. I am today reintroducing this legislation, with the hope that it will continue to be a topic of discussion among our colleagues as to where we go next with some of these great social debates. It is my hope that it can be a very important part of our party's platform, a very important part of the discussion that will take place, as this is a Presidential election year and an election year that will elect or reelect 435 Congressmen and 34 Senators. It is then, finally, my hope that we can seriously address this issue in the next Congress, make it part of our budget discussion, and examine ways in which we can more effectively provide assistance to those in need. These programs are directed to those in poverty. The credit is available to those programs either currently existing or which will be constituted as a result of this legislation that devote 75 percent or more of their effort to either preventing or alleviating poverty. It is a solution that goes beyond Government. It acknowledges the failure of Government, in many instances, to address these problems. It does not offer the total solution, but it offers, I believe, a step in the right direction. I hope it will become an important part of the debate ahead.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, earlier today I joined with my colleagues from the House, the chairman of the Budget Committee, John Kasich, in reintroducing a program that I have been working on for a long time. It is called the Project For American Renewal. It attempts to address the question of how we can more effectively provide assistance to people in need, people living in poverty, without resorting to more of the same, which is simply funneling money into Washington, establishing a bureaucracy, and handing out welfare checks to, in many cases, perpetuate a lifestyle and a behavior that is not desirable, not giving us the results we wanted. A lot of well-intentioned programs have been offered to deal with some of the social problems that exist in our country: teen pregnancy, spousal abuse, juvenile delinquency, substance abuse, and on and on it goes. Many of those, as I have said, have been well-intentioned but have simply missed the mark. They have not solved the problem. And, in many cases, they have made it worse. It seems that the alternative to that that has been discussed in the last year or so is what was called devolution, a word that I hate. I do not know for sure exactly what it means, but I think it means washing our hands of the problem, and let somebody else worry about it. I do not believe either of those alternatives are acceptable alternatives. I do not believe more of the same or none of the above are the alternatives we ought to be examining. I believe there is a place for our encouragement of hopeful solutions to some of the problems that exist in our society as it affects our families and our children and our neighborhoods and our communities. The Project for American Renewal is my attempt at addressing those questions, to strengthen families, to encourage communities and to utilize mediating institutions of volunteer associations, of charities, particularly of faith-based charities, to address some of these most pressing problems. Utilization of these institutions, other than Government institutions, means that we can bring to bear not just efforts to meet the material needs of individuals, but also the spiritual needs of individuals. We can bring to bear values that are important in addressing some of these more fundamental problems. The Project for American Renewal consists of 16 separate pieces of legislation designed to strengthen families, to provide mentors where fathers are not present, to strengthen communities, rebuild communities across America, and to provide effective compassion. The centerpiece of this is the charity tax credit, which will allow a joint-filing couple to contribute up to $1,000 a year as an offset against their taxes. Today I joined with Congressman Kasich in announcing how we would pay for this charity tax credit, estimated at $44.8 billion over a 5-year period of time. We propose that we will ask the Ways and Means and the Finance Committee to designate a third of that amount in corporate loophole closings, corporate welfare. We think if we are addressing some of the most fundamental problems in America, we ought to look for funding sources to offset the revenue loss from subsidies given to special interests over the years that do not serve as high a national purpose. We also think it is appropriate to shift some resources from some of the existing Federal social policy programs that have not proven effective. While we do not specify directly what those offsets should be in the corporate welfare area, we do specify offsets of some of the Federal programs that we do not think are as effective as they ought to be. The goal here is to encourage mediating institutions to play a greater role in addressing some of our more fundamental problems. They can bring hope and a vision of hope that, in many cases, Government is constrained to bring or is unable to bring. I am today reintroducing this legislation, with the hope that it will continue to be a topic of discussion among our colleagues as to where we go next with some of these great social debates. It is my hope that it can be a very important part of our party's platform, a very important part of the discussion that will take place, as this is a Presidential election year and an election year that will elect or reelect 435 Congressmen and 34 Senators. It is then, finally, my hope that we can seriously address this issue in the next Congress, make it part of our budget discussion, and examine ways in which we can more effectively provide assistance to those in need. These programs are directed to those in poverty. The credit is available to those programs either currently existing or which will be constituted as a result of this legislation that devote 75 percent or more of their effort to either preventing or alleviating poverty. It is a solution that goes beyond Government. It acknowledges the failure of Government, in many instances, to address these problems. It does not offer the total solution, but it offers, I believe, a step in the right direction. I hope it will become an important part of the debate ahead.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I came to the Congress in 1980, in the class that included Bill Emerson. It was a special class, elected at a unique time, so we developed a pretty close relationship. In addition to serving with Bill in the House of Representatives for 8 years, we were friends of the family. Bill's daughter, Tori, is the same age as my son, Andrew. They went through school together and just recently graduated together. We attend the same church as the Emersons, and so we have a number of things in common with them. I have had the opportunity to observe Bill and his reaction to the tragic news of his illness and the way in which he handled that. It was an extraordinary demonstration of courage and faith that he so magnificently handled what many would view as a tragic situation. There are many measures of Bill Emerson. It would be impossible for me to list them all--diligent worker, someone who knew Congress inside and out, starting here at the age of 15, someone whose life was devoted to public service, someone who deeply loved his family and was a man of considerable faith. But I think the memory that I share of Bill Emerson is one passed on to me by my wife during the graduation ceremony when our two children graduated just a week or so ago. I did not see Bill at that time. I rushed in from the Senate to the graduation just in time for the beginning of the ceremony, but Marsha had met Bill, just literally days away from his death, suffering from terminal cancer, sitting in a wheelchair, assisted in his breathing with oxygen, with two dozen roses in his lap and a big smile on his face, watching as his daughter received her high school diploma.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, very briefly, I wish to add to the remarks just made by the Senator from Virginia. I had planned to be here when the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, introduces this amendment. It is something that the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Georgia and I have worked together on. Unfortunately, I have a schedule conflict which will take me off the floor, so I would like to make a preliminary statement prior to our going to the amendment. This amendment is a natural convergence of thinking of members on the Armed Services Committee and other Senators regarding the need for more information with which to make assessments about future defense spending programs and plans. Clearly, we rely a great deal on the Department of Defense for provision of information and guidance in terms of how the committee operates, but I think many of us felt we needed additional information in order to take a longer look at how we strategize, plan for, fund, and program Department of Defense needs. We felt it might be helpful to have an outside review panel help us in that process. So over the past several months, a number of us have talked about coordinating and combining our efforts into language that we can insert in the next fiscal year's defense authorization bill. This language will direct the Secretary of Defense to appoint and work with an independent review panel to give us a broader, longer look at defense strategy and defense needs. I am pleased to join with Senator Lieberman in authoring this effort. Senators Robb, McCain, Nunn, Inhofe, Kempthorne, Warner, Hutchison, Santorum, Murkowski, Levin, and Ford have all joined in this effort. It is bipartisan, and I believe you could say a nonpartisan, effort. We do not provide for our national security as a partisan issue. We do not view it even necessarily as a bipartisan issue. Rather, our national security is a nonpartisan issue. We want to take as objective a look as we can at our current situation, at future threats to our national security and what kind of strategies, forces, and implementing needs we will have to face in the years ahead. This is a worthy effort. I wish to commend my colleague from Connecticut for taking the bull by the horns and pulling this effort together. It has been a cooperative effort among a number of us who worked with the Department of Defense to iron out some concerns they had, and I think we have an excellent provision which we will shortly be adding to the Defense Department bill. Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment which addresses Medicare subvention, a key issue to the military health care program and Medicare-eligible military retirees and their families. To understand why Medicare subvention is so vital to the military health care system, it is necessary to understand how Medicare-eligible retirees are treated under the current system. Under Medicare everyone over the age of 65 receives medical coverage through Medicare. Therefore, when military retirees reach the age of 65 they lose their eligibility for CHAMPUS and may only use military medical facilities on a limited space-available basis. This care is delivered on a nonreimbursable basis, which means that Medicare does not pay for the health care which the Department of Defense provides to Medicare- eligible beneficiaries. The Department of Defense estimates that this cost exceeds $1 billion annually. As defense downsizing progresses, and TRICARE, the managed care support initiative of the military health system moves toward full implementation, there will be less and less space available in military treatment facilities to provide care to retirees. This means that Medicare-eligibles will be forced out of a system which they understand and have come to rely on. Medicare subvention would ensure Medicare-eligible military retirees health care by allowing them to enroll in TRICARE. Our military retirees have made great sacrifices for the defense of this Nation and have dedicated many years to military service. Medicare subvention would prevent military retirees and their families from being locked out of a system which they trust, which they understand, and which has been promised to them. The amendment before us today does not provide authorization for Medicare subvention. It does, however display a commitment to this important initiative. While I am encouraged by the progress that has been made in this area, I also believe that it is necessary to incorporate Medicare subvention into an overall Medicare reform package. I urge your support of this support amendment. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am tempted to move the question here because the Senator has presented his amendment, and he has presented his argument. There is no one on the floor to either argue against the Senator's amendment, to speak for the Senator's amendment, or to offer an amendment to the bill that we are debating. Here it is now 12:30 p.m., and we are in this typical nothing- happens-during-daylight hours in the U.S. Senate. We have an important bill on the floor. We have amendments that we are aware of, but no one is here to offer those amendments. I am not going to move for adoption of this amendment by voice vote yet, in deference to those that may want to speak against it or for the Senator's interest in getting a rollcall vote, but the bill before the Senate, the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997, is not being debated. The Senate is wasting a lot of time. Once again, we will find ourselves here late into the evening doing work that we ought to be doing during the day. I urge colleagues who have an interest in this bill, who have amendments that they wish to offer to this bill, to notify the managers of their interest so that we can structure some time for them to do this. Without that, we are going to, at some point, come to the conclusion that no one is interested in amending the bill as it is presented, other than the amendment, the two amendments that are currently up, and we will have to move to some disposition.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I further ask the treaty be considered as having been read for the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I wonder if I can inquire from the Senator from New Hampshire what amount of time he requests we yield on this?

Mr. COATS. But that would not prevent the Senator from going ahead and offering her amendment; there would just not be a time constraint?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from California what her question is.

Mr. COATS. I will be happy to yield for questions from the Senator from California.

Mr. COATS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am sorry. The Senator from South Carolina was asking me a question and I did not understand or hear what was propounded.

Mr. COATS. That is fine. And then the Senator is going to check to see what she has on her side and I will do the same, and if we can come to an agreement we will yield back our time. That is acceptable, Mr. President.

Mr. COATS. I have been discussing with the Senator from Washington the timing here. I have some responses I would like to make to statements that have been made. I do not anticipate that will take more than 10 minutes at the most, probably less. I know the Senator from Washington has indicated an interest in just taking a couple of minutes to wrap up the debate in support of her amendment, at which point, I believe, we would both be ready to go to a vote. I say that to notify Members, who may be watching the debate who are interested in when we will vote, it appears we will vote earlier than the time originally projected, in terms of the 2-hour debate, maybe as early as the next 10 or 15 minutes. I just say that to alert Members. I would like to respond to some of the things that have been said relative to the Murray amendment. I sit here somewhat baffled by the remarks that I have heard, because it sounds to me as if a crisis situation exists that is in immediate search of solution, relative to female members of our armed services and their dependents obtaining the right to have an abortion if they so chose. But the problem described and the rhetoric used to describe the situation is totally at odds with the facts of the situation. The picture that has been painted is a false picture. We are left with the perception, as presented by supporters of the Murray amendment, that we are placing women who serve in our military in extraordinarily dangerous situations; that the policy currently in effect is forcing them into foreign back alleys, that their health and perhaps even their life is in jeopardy if we do not immediately repeal a policy which has been in place for a very substantial period of time and has caused no problems. There have been no complaints registered by women in the military. There have been no incidents of problems relative to women being unable to have an abortion. There has been no denial of constitutional rights. Yet we keep hearing about these terrible health risks that are being forced on women who serve in our military overseas. Terms were used: The cruel, indecent, inhumane policies; women have been victimized; it is extreme policy. I just wrote down some of the things that were said. ``Placing huge obstacles in front of women.'' That just simply is not the case, Mr. President. Those are not the facts. If those were the facts of the situation, there might be a basis for at least debating, in seriousness, the Murray amendment. I would like to quote from a response to a letter that I sent to the Assistant Secretary of Defense to try to ascertain the facts of the case. I asked him several questions. I said: Has the Department of Defense had any difficulty in implementing the current policy? That is the policy in effect that basically said military facilities will not be used to perform abortions on the basis of an elective abortion, not an abortion in terms of a need for abortion, but an abortion which is simply elective, a woman wanting an abortion. Has the Department had any difficulty in implementing the current policy? Answer: No. Have any formal complaints been filed concerning this policy, to the best of your knowledge and information? The answer: No; no formal complaints have been filed. Have any legal challenges been instituted concerning this policy? The answer: No. Have any members or their dependents been denied access to an abortion as a result of this policy? I think that is a very important point here. I am not sure our colleagues are listening. But the question I posed to the Secretary of Defense is, have any members or their dependents been denied access to an abortion as a result of the policy that the Senator from Washington is seeking to overturn? And the answer was no. I do not understand what the problem is. There has not been a denial of constitutional rights for women. There has not been a denial of access to abortion for women. The policy has been to enforce a policy that was adopted not just by Republicans but also by Democrats, I will state to my friend from New Jersey, that taxpayers' funds in the performance of abortions should not be used. That is a policy that has been upheld by the Supreme Court, which said simply because someone has a constitutional right to something does not mean the taxpayer has to fund that right. That case is Harris versus McCray, which basically upheld the Hyde language. What we are seeking to do here is uphold the Hyde language which has been adopted on numerous occasions by Republicans and Democrats, in both the House and in the Senate, as it applies to use of military facilities which are constructed, operated, paid for, doctors are paid for, equipment is purchased, all with taxpayer money. Now, if it was a valid argument that we were forcing women into foreign back alleys, I think that is a legitimate question for us to address, because these women are serving in the interest of their country and they are being deployed to places that would not necessarily be a place of their choosing. But that is not the case, because the Department of Defense will provide transportation back to whatever place that woman wants to go to, and I do not know of anybody who has to wait weeks for that transportation, because I asked that question also of the Assistant Secretary of Defense: Have any members or their dependents been denied access to military transport for the purpose of procuring an abortion? The answer is no, none. Nobody has filed a complaint saying they have been denied access. Nobody has raised a question saying they have had to wait weeks. No one has said, ``I have been forced into a back alley.'' They have had the opportunity to seek legal, safe abortions without risk to their health. If there is a risk to their health in such a way that it endangers their life or potentially endangers their life, or the abortion is as a result of a rape or incest, then that woman can obtain an abortion from a military facility. We do not want to deny them that opportunity in that situation. That is an abortion that is needed. But an abortion that is just simply wanted, for whatever reason, we are simply saying we do not believe the taxpayers should have to fund an abortion simply because a woman wants an abortion. Now, if that woman wants an abortion and she has the right to get that abortion under the law, we are not denying her that right. It is just difficult for me to understand the rhetoric that is used by people who say we are taking away the constitutional rights of women. (Mr. GORTON assumed the chair.)

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. COATS. I yield all time remaining to the Senator from New Hampshire.