Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Washington and the amendment that was just offered, it is true this is not some radical new idea. This is an issue that has been debated by this body on a number of occasions over the past several years. Since 1979, the Department of Defense has had a policy of prohibiting the use of Federal funds to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be in danger if the fetus were carried to term. The bill before us today carries that ban, which was enacted in last year's authorization bill, and it incorporates also the exceptions for rape and incest. What the Congress has always debated are the two separate questions, both of which are legitimate questions and both of which need to be debated. The separate questions are, one, whether or not a legislative body ought to intervene in the decisions made in Roe versus Wade by the Supreme Court and enact restrictions or a constitutional amendment on the issue of abortion. The second issue, however, is a separate issue. That is whether or not a taxpayer ought to be coerced into supporting something that goes against his or her moral conscience or moral beliefs. So in 1979, Congressman Hyde introduced the Hyde amendment, which essentially said that taxpayers' funds would not be used in support of abortion. The amendment offered by the Senator from Washington attempts to address the situation as it applies only to military personnel and their dependents, under the argument that many of these individuals are deployed overseas and may find themselves in situations where performance of an abortion is either banned by the laws of that country or there are situations which are not of the quality or safety that women would seek. But it ignores the fact that the Department of Defense has had in place a policy which allows women the opportunity to seek an abortion with their own funds at essentially a hospital of their choice. The Department of Defense makes military transportation available to these women. What we are really dealing with here is the question of whether or not Federal funds should be used in the performance of abortions. It is also important to note that during the time that the policy prohibiting the use of Federal funds to perform abortions in military facilities, during the time that that policy has been in effect, there has been no difficulty in implementing the policy, there have been no formal complaints filed concerning the policy, there have been no legal challenges instituted concerning this policy, and no members of the military or their dependents have been denied access to an abortion as a result of the policy. So it is simply not accurate to say that the policy currently in effect places women in an unfair situation and, to quote the Senator from Washington, ``blatantly restricts their constitutional rights.'' This does not restrict the constitutional rights of women at all. Let me repeat that. This policy currently in effect does not restrict the constitutional rights of any woman in the service, or her dependents. That woman has full access to an abortion, to a legal abortion under the law. I do not condone that. I do not support that. But that is not the issue we are arguing. The issue that we will be voting on is not whether you are pro-choice or pro-life. It is not whether you think a woman ought to have the right to choose. Military women have the right to choose. No one is denying their opportunity to have an abortion. We are simply saying that the use of Federal facilities which are paid for, operated by the use of Federal funds, is violative of a policy that the Congress has adopted on numerous occasions, described as the Hyde amendment, which says that essentially no Federal funds will be used for the performance of abortions except in certain cases, life of the mother, and more recently life of the mother if the fetus were carried to term or in the cases of rape or incest. There have been no recorded or official complaints, not only for women in uniform being denied access to an abortion, but their dependents being denied access to military transport for the purpose of procuring an abortion. This, I believe, was a sound and a fair policy. It worked. If it had not worked, there would have been complaints filed, there would have been challenges issued concerning the policy, there would have been military personnel or their dependents denied access. That was not the case. It remained in place until 1993 when President Clinton issued an Executive order reversing it. Under the Clinton policy, defense facilities were used for the first time in 14 years, not to defend life, but to take life, and to do so with taxpayer funds. Last year the House and the Senate reversed that policy when we voted to override the President and make permanent the ban on the use of Department of Defense medical facilities to perform abortions except in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. So today we are faced again with this issue, because this amendment would strike that ban and reinstate the former Clinton policy regarding military facilities. Supporters of the Murray amendment will argue that this policy does not involve the use of taxpayer funds since women are required to pay for these abortions. But to maintain that fiction is simply to misunderstand the nature of military medicine. Unlike other medical facilities, military clinics and hospitals receive 100 percent of their funds from Federal taxpayers. Physicians in the military are Government employees, paid entirely by tax revenues. All of the operational and administrative expenses of military medicine are paid by taxpayers. All of the equipment used to perform the abortions are purchased at taxpayer expense. So that is the issue that is before us. Are we going to require the taxpayers of America, whose fundamental religious beliefs or whose moral beliefs or values are such that they do not approve of the use of their tax dollars for the Government providing an abortion, to fund abortions? It is true that the payment for this abortion will be made by the person seeking the abortion and not the taxpayer. But it is not true that taxpayers' funds are, therefore, not used in the procedure, because the procedure is being performed by employees whose entire salary is paid by the taxpayer, in a facility whose entire cost of construction is paid for by the taxpayer, whose entire operating costs are paid by the taxpayer, and which equipment used in the procedure is purchased at taxpayer expense. It is therefore impossible to imagine that taxpayer money can be preserved from entanglement of abortion in military medicine. Any attempt to do so would present an accounting nightmare, according to the Defense Department's own analysis. The only way to protect the integrity of taxpayer funds is to keep the military out of the abortion business. We must not take money from citizens and use it to vandalize their moral values. Mr. President, I suggest the Murray amendment is a solution in search of a problem. No problem has been identified. When the prohibition was in place, no one was denied access to an abortion. I repeat that for my colleagues to consider: When this policy was in place banning the use of military facilities to provide abortions, no one was denied access to an abortion. If safe, acceptable facilities for elective abortion were not available to military women based on where they were stationed or living, these women were permitted to use military transport, for whatever reason they chose, to go wherever they wanted to go to have that abortion. Supporters of the Murray amendment have argued that in the past, women in the military have been stripped of their rights, but not a single case has been filed challenging this policy. The bottom line is that the need for the legislation or the President's policy has not been proven. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, to retain the present policy as enacted last year in the House-Senate conference, and now as part of current law, to retain that policy, because that policy makes imminent sense. To repeal that would violate what this Congress has adopted as policy many, many times over. That is, the intermingling of taxpayer funds for the provision of abortion. I reserve the balance of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. I would like to respond to the statements that have been made, but I would tell the Senator from Washington that depending on whether or not she has more speakers on her side, I would be prepared to yield back a substantial amount of time if we could come to agreement on both yielding back time. I have been approached by some Members who have some conflicts this evening and are looking for a little bit of a window. One Senator on your side asked if it would be possible to yield back some time. So I guess I would inquire of the Senator from Washington what her intentions are in this regard.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am more than willing to do that. I will yield back my time.

Mr. COATS. If that was a problem, it is something that we might want to consider. But according to the Department of Defense, it is not a problem, never been a problem. Again, it is a solution, a mandate, that is not necessary because there has never been a problem with that. If a woman in the military is in a country that does not provide abortions by law, obviously that woman is free to travel to another country or back to the United States. In the case of--I am not even sure of what Italy allows, but if you are stationed in Italy, you usually travel to Germany to get an abortion or a neighboring country. It is just not a problem. I do not think we need to legislate something that is not a problem. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield to anyone else that seeks time. But I think we are just replowing old ground here. If the Senator from Washington wants to wrap up, we can notify our colleagues that within a very short time we expect a vote. I am going to move to table as soon as the Senator from Washington is finished.

Mr. COATS. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. COATS. I am hoping to wrap up very shortly. But I hope when Members come over here we can separate fact from fiction. I hope Members will look at the facts of the case and make a decision on that basis, rather than look at the fiction that has been provided to us today by proponents of the amendment, because this is not a question of a woman's right to choose. That is a separate question. We can debate that. We are not debating that today, at least I did not think we were debating that today. The issue here is simply whether or not a woman in the military should use a military facility for an elective abortion, paid for by her funds for the cost of the procedure, but impossible to separate from the use of taxpayer funds in constructing, operating, hiring doctors, purchasing equipment, and the other associated costs with taxpayer funds provided in military hospitals. The military has no recorded evidence of anybody being denied access, denied transportation, denied the opportunity to get the abortion that they seek. We can deal with the other issue at another time. But to characterize this policy as cruel, indecent, inhumane, the denial of women's rights, dangerous, back-alley foreign abortions simply, I think, does not characterize and should not characterize this debate because that is not what this issue is about.

Mr. COATS. I do not wish to use a whole lot of time. But I was asked a fairly provocative question, and I thought I would give the answer.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the Senator from California and I, obviously, have a difference of opinion on this. Let me see if I can refocus the debate. The question here is not over a woman's right to choose. The question is not over whether a woman has the right to an abortion. While the Senator from California and I disagree on the current legal status of that question, the Supreme Court has granted a woman the right to an abortion. That is not the issue that we are debating. That is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is focused on a fairly narrow question, and that is whether or not taxpayers' dollars ought to be used to provide abortion for women who serve in the military. There would be a problem here in denying a woman's access to abortion and perhaps impeding her constitutional rights if there were not alternatives available to that particular woman. But there are alternatives available. And the Department of Defense has made sure those alternatives are available. There is no recorded case in the Department of Defense where there was ever a complaint raised. That is why I said this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. If we had a documented series of a list of problems--

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, in answer to the question of the Senator from California, I state to the Senator from California that there is a whole list of elective procedures that is not covered in military hospitals, not covered by military medicine, depending on the size of the facility, depending on the location of the facility, and, frankly, there are a series of things that are not covered, so men are denied elective procedures in a number of instances. So it is not a question here of equal treatment under the law, that this is the only medical procedure not allowed to people who serve in the military. We are simply saying, and I think the Senator has not addressed the point, we are simply saying that in the question of the utilization--Mr. President, is the Senator interested in my answer?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, can I inquire, has the Senator from Washington been recognized to offer her amendment?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 1996, to consider the committee's budget reconciliation instructions.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 1996, to conduct a mark-up of S. 1815, the ``Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1995''.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Wednesday, June 19, 1996 session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on Salmon Recovery Research.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 1996, for purposes of conducting a Full Committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, June 19, 1996, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-215.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a mark-up on Title III of H.R. 3286, the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996. The mark-up will be held in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 1996, to hold an executive business meeting.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 18, 1996 beginning at 9:00 a.m., and Wednesday, June 19, 1996, beginning at 9:30 a.m. until business is completed, to hold a hearing on Public Access to Government Information in the 21st Century, with a focus on the GPO Depository Library Program/Title 44.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 1996 at 9:00 a.m. to hold an open hearing on Intelligence Matters and at 2:00 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on June 19, 1996, by the President of the United States. International Natural Rubber Agreement of 1995, which is Treaty Document No. 104-27.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from New Hampshire will be seeking some time to respond to the Senator from New Mexico and will be available to speak shortly. Let me just state we appear, now, to be making some progress on the bill. Relevant amendments are being debated and discussed and time limits are being sought. To the extent Members with amendments can notify us of their amendments and we can work out a time agreement, that would be preferable to keep us working late into the night.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank our chairman and my friend, the Senator from South Carolina, for his kind statements and for allowing me this time. Privilege of the Floor First of all, Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Maj. Sharon Dunbar, be allowed permission to be on the floor during the debate on the defense authorization bill.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I have a somewhat lengthy statement which I will try to abbreviate. There are essential points which I would like to make as we are debating the 1997 national defense bill. The President's proposed defense budget of $254 billion is, in my opinion, the epitome of a mindset that has been prevalent throughout the Congress and this administration that the military can do more with less. Not only does this budget figure as has been proposed to us constitute the 12th consecutive year of decline for defense spending but it flies squarely in the face of his many pledges and commitments to ensure a strong national defense, and at the same time in the face of this declining figure of 12 straight years our military is being asked to do more and more, to be prepared to do more, and actually is committed to more conflicts and more deployments around the world than it has in a long, long time. In his 1994 State of the Union Address the President said: From the day I took the oath of office, I pledged that our Nation would maintain the best equipped, best trained, and best prepared military on Earth. This year's defense budget is a disavowal of that pledge--that falls far short of meeting many of the needs of our Armed Forces. But the President's rhetoric in this instance, as in many other instances and many other issues, simply does not match the record. The President has praised our men and women in uniform for their courage and skill, and yet each budget that he sends up refuses to back up that praise and that commitment with adequate resources to allow them to do their job. Let me just give a couple of examples. In the area of procurement, in order to ensure future military readiness and superiority against threats from outside by tyrants, terrorists, rogue nations, and others, our military needs to, on a regular basis, recapitalize existing equipment and buy new systems. There is amazing change taking place today in technology and what is available to us. We saw vivid pictures of that during Desert Storm--a revolution in terms of the way warfare is fought to engage in that size conflict with that number of troops, and to come away with as few casualties as we have. It was extraordinary. Never in the history of warfare has this happened. It is due to those changes in technology which allow us to have a significant advantage over our adversaries. It is due to the extensive training of troops to utilize that new technology, to outstanding leadership, and the availability of a synergy of training, quality personnel, quality leadership, and modern technology in new weapons. Yet, in spite of warnings by senior military officials that procurement is in a crisis, in the defense budget the President seeks to fund procurement at its lowest level since the Korean war--$21 billion less than what senior military leaders have testified as required by the year 1998. We are significantly under the procurement budget that is necessary to maintain pace with recapitalization of existing equipment. The war-fighting commanders, military service chiefs, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have all testified to their deep concerns about the President's budget. These senior military leaders universally have identified readiness, quality of life, and modernization as desperately requiring attention and increased funding. The Senate Armed Services Committee has weighed their testimony carefully. It authorized an additional $12.9 billion over the President's budget based upon the military's own needs and requirements. Even with this addition, the 1997 committee bill will still be $5.6 billion below the inflation- adjusted spending levels of last year's defense bill. So Members and colleagues need to understand that even though we are adding this to the President's request, we are still below what is necessary to maintain a level of funding over last year's bill. So we are now entering the 12th consecutive year of defense declines. The defense bill before us does not provide our troops with what is required for the defense of our Nation, what is required to sustain military superiority in a rapidly changing global environment. Rhetoric matters little if our troops lack the resources they need to execute the mission or enjoy an acceptable quality of life during military service. The bill that we are bringing forward authorizes our Armed Forces to modernize their equipment, to replace aging trucks, ships, and aircraft, and encourages our military to develop new operational capabilities based on emerging technologies and to better prepare themselves for a military technological revolution that may well be ushered in in the next century, a revolution that may profoundly change the character of future conflicts. Finally, the bill that the Armed Services Committee is bringing forward will improve the quality of life of our military personnel by addressing compensation, work and living conditions. Addressing these issues will enable the troops to focus on their mission rather than worry about the welfare of themselves or of their families. So, Mr. President, what I am stating here is that had we followed the President's requested budget, we would not have begun to address the concerns that were laid out before us as members of the committee and members of the armed services leadership came and testified. With this $12.9 billion plus up, in addition, even though we fall short of maintaining parity with spending last year inflation adjusted, we do address some of the critical areas that need to be addressed, primarily improving our readiness, improving quality of life for our troops and their families and beginning the process of modernizing to keep pace with the technological changes that are before us. As chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, I have had the opportunity to visit our troops, listen to them testify before our committee and meet with them at many military installations around the country and the world. With a 30 percent less force structure, I found that our military is overextended in meeting many of the new demands of the post-cold-war world. By demanding more of those who remain in the military after a nearly 40 percent decrease in personnel levels and spending levels but by not training or equipping them to conduct these additional missions, we are eroding the state of military readiness and the quality of life of our military members. Let me give some examples. What is called personnel tempo, that is, the amount of time our military members spend away from their home base, has increased considerably since the end of the cold war. Today, four times as many Air Force personnel are deployed as there were in 1989. People think we are in this peace period, post-cold-war period, where most of our troops are staying home and not having commitments for deployment or heavy training. That is simply not the case. Air Force personnel are deployed at four times the rate they were in 1989. General Reimer, the Army Chief of Staff, indicated that requirements for the Army forces have risen 300 percent during that time. Today, more than 41,000 U.S. soldiers are currently deployed on nearly 170 missions in 60 countries. General Sheehan, the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command, has testified that he has forces deployed in 18 separate operations worldwide, 70 ships, 400 aircraft, and 37,000 personnel. At this pace, maintenance, morale, and readiness rapidly erode if they do not have the resources capable of meeting these demands. General Reimer has testified: Excessive time away from home is often cited by quality professionals as the reason for their decision to leave the military. It is common to find soldiers that have been away from home for 140, 160 or 190 days in the past year. The Army's future depends upon our ability to retain the best soldiers to be tomorrow's leaders. The quality of our Armed Forces, their training, their professionalism, and their commitment, is what distinguishes the American military from all the others. Today we have an excellent, dedicated force, but in order to attract and retain the quality of personnel for which our military is known, we must pay attention to their needs and concerns. Quality of life is a factor of readiness that we cannot ignore. It involves not just where our military families live but how they live. We must not forget that training programs and the quality-of-life initiatives are major investments in the future of our Armed Forces. If we fail to address these issues today, our Armed Forces will suffer the consequences tomorrow. The defense bill before us addresses the quality-of-life issues that matter the most to our military personnel and their families. Included in this legislation are provisions to provide equitable pay and benefits and to restore funding for troops, barracks, and military family housing. The committee added $122 million to the fund for family housing requirements. This need was pointed out clearly by General Krulak, Commandant of the Marine Corps, who expressed his concern about conditions of housing. General Krulak testified: We are not where we ought to be. I went with my godchild to his barracks and was appalled at what he was living in. Appalled is probably a mild word for it. We are building some barracks, we are building some homes, but it is not to the level that I as Commandant or you as a public servant would be very pleased about. It is simply a matter of available money. Mr. President, I have visited barracks and family housing units at bases across this country and in different parts of the world. I wish I could take every Member of the Senate to these bases and show them personally what we are providing for our troops in terms of living arrangements. They would be appalled to see the conditions that we are asking our service members and their families to live in. Today, over 60 percent of all military housing is deemed substandard by military standards, and those military standards are far lower than the standards we find in civilian occupations outside of the military-- soldiers with rotting shower stalls and running toilets, half of which do not work, with drywall with holes punched through, with leaky, rusted pipes and units with asbestos in the ceilings and in the walls. It is just extraordinary to see the disrepair that our troops are required to live with and raise their families in. I commend the Secretary of Defense for understanding this problem and taking initiatives to address this problem. He has established both an internal task force and an external task force to address this housing problem, but housing year after year after year has been deferred and delayed in terms of rebuilding new housing and maintaining existing housing because we have had scarce resources and have had to divert those resources into the essential needs of readiness and training and pay for our personnel, and yet we have ignored the very facilities in which they live. Members would feel it a disgrace if they visited these facilities. Members here would not think of raising their families under the conditions that our soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen are required to raise their families in. Soldiers today are pooling their own funds and going down to Home Depot to buy materials to bring back to their barracks to fix their shower stalls, to fix leaky windows, to fix rotting ceilings, to repair the facilities that they live in, with their own money on their own time. Our units are being organized by their commanders to do self-work projects in order just to obtain minimal living standards. It is a disgrace. So, for those who come to this floor and say the military has money flowing out of its pockets and is wasting taxpayers' dollars on defense needs, I would like them to join me on a short trip to a number of facilities so they can see what kind of quality of life our troops have, what conditions they are asked to live in. We take great pride in providing our troops with the best training, the best leadership, and the best weapons. Yet, when it comes to quality of life, whether it comes to the time they spend with their family or take the weekend off, they return to a substandard quality of life that this Nation ought to be ashamed of. One of the ways in which the committee is attempting to close this gap between military housing costs and housing allowances, to span that gap, is we have recommended a 4-percent increase in the basic housing allowance. We also have authorized single E-5's to receive basic allowance for quarters, one of the Navy's highest quality-of-life priorities. In addition, we provided a 3-percent pay raise for our troops, both needed and well deserved, which is, again, less than the Congressional Budget Office's 3.2 inflation estimate, but it is close. So it is hardly unreasonable to ask for a 3-percent increase in pay. Additionally, General Shelton, who is commander in chief of Special Operations Command, testified before our committee about his inability to pay Army special operation forces special duty assignment pay. He simply did not have the funds. So we authorized the funding to give them that pay that other special operations forces receive. These are just a few of the personnel initiatives that we have taken to attempt to address some serious personnel problems. With regard to modernization issues--procurement, research, development, test and evaluation, military construction, housing--the administration concedes that the budget is ``* * * contingent on the realization of savings expected to accrue from infrastructure reductions, especially base closings, and the successful implementation of acquisition reform initiatives.'' Let me just comment briefly on that. I have some very fundamental concerns about the administration's approach to funding future needs based on assumptions that may not pan out. Many of these funding modernizations are critical to the future of our forces, yet we are depending on freeing up funds based on assumptions about inflation which will defy all past records of what inflation levels will be in the future. Any miscalculation is going to impact greatly the resources necessary for updating many of our programs. Second, planning for weapons modernization is not the same as funding weapons modernization. Mortgaging of modernization to fund near-term readiness over recent years has already created massive bow waves in weapons requirements. The tactical air fleet is reaching its half-life. Army and Marine utility helicopters have already exceeded their half- life, and combat vehicles and trucks will reach their full life cycle by the end of the future year's defense plan. We have military personnel today who are flying aircraft and driving trucks that are older than they are. So linking future modernization funding to illusory savings from acquisition reform, base cloture and inflation is unacceptable. Even if these savings materialize, modernization at best will be funded at $60 billion 4 years later than what is required. If these savings do not materialize, and I suspect they will not, modernization of our Armed Forces will be pushed further into the 21st century. Finally, let me just state that the assumptions behind the administration's defense budget are based upon its Bottom-Up Review strategy calling on our military to fight and win two nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies. It is not realistic to expect our military to fight two major regional conflicts with a $10 billion nominal decline in the defense budget. Until the Department of Defense conducts another strategic review, our military must continue to organize, train, and equip to execute this strategy. Many of us share concerns that the outdated Bottom-Up Review may be detracting from prudent defense investments. Misinvestments will adversely impact our war fighters, but it will also affect taxpayers. Because of these concerns, I am supporting, along with Senator Lieberman, an amendment calling for the Defense Department to undertake a comprehensive innovative study of alternative force structures in 1997, and urge Members to participate in this debate and listen to the reasons why we need to do this. Last year, during the debate on the defense authorization bill, we heard from a number of Members who were offering amendments to cut funding for the Defense Department who were questioning the increases that we were seeking in the funding for the defense of our Nation. We heard them say over and over and over, ``Well, the Pentagon did not ask for this money, the Pentagon did not seek these funds. So, therefore, everything that is being requested on this floor that exceeds what the Pentagon sent over in its budget request has to be pork-barrel spending, it has to be unnecessary spending, wasteful spending, spending that is not needed.'' I want to make sure my colleagues know that when this excuse is brought up this year in the context of discussion about this bill, or spending priorities, that this statement that ``the Pentagon did not ask for it, and therefore it is not needed,'' is an excuse that just simply will not wash. It does not square with the testimony received by the Senate Armed Services Committee. It only squares with what the President's budget department decided they would spend for defense. It does not come anywhere close to what the military has testified on the record that they need in order to accomplish the tasks and the missions that have been required of them by this administration. So that excuse, that this is above the Defense Department's own request, is a phony excuse. It does not reflect in any way the testimony we received from senior military leaders. It reflects what those senior leaders were told to say and the constraints that were placed on them by the administration. So let us make sure we understand what the difference is between defense needs and their stated needs, and what the administration has told them their needs are and their top-line spending is. In a December 1994 Rose Garden speech, President Clinton affirmed that ``We ask much of our military and owe much to them in return.'' What is a fair return to our troops for dedicating themselves to service for our Nation--for risking their lives to defend America's interests around the world? Our troops do not ask for much. In fact, their requests are actually quite reasonable--modernized weapon systems to defend America's interests, to give them a superior edge over those they fight against, training programs to improve their warfighting capabilities, a decent standard of living, and decent quarters in which to live. Attending to these basic needs is indeed a small investment for the services our Armed Forces provide to the Nation each day. Attending to these needs is a small return on the price we may ultimately ask our Armed Forces to pay in defense of our Nation. We must not squander the opportunity to plan our military's future during a time of peace. Nor should we be lulled into a false sense of security that in the 21st century--indeed in the years preceding it-- our Armed Forces will not again be called upon to defend America. I respect the argument that our Nation must grapple with many, often conflicting, priorities. Clearly, the Government has an obligation to get its financial house in order and balance the budget. However, we must avoid the temptation to act as if cutting defense spending has no consequences. History is replete with examples of the consequences of ignoring military preparedness. In speaking of our Nation's failure to address these very same issues after World War II, Gen. Creighton Abrams said: We paid dearly for unpreparedness during those early days in Korea with our most precious currency--the lives of our young men. The monuments we raise to their heroism and sacrifices are really surrogates for the monuments we owe ourselves for our blindness to reality, for our indifference to real threats to our security, and our determination to deal in intentions and perceptions, for our unsubstantiated wishful thinking about how war would not come. In his annual report to the President and Congress, Defense Secretary Perry wrote: The world has changed dramatically over the past few years, but one thing remains constant: a strong military force, made up of the finest American men and women, is the Nation's best insurance policy. I urge my colleagues to ponder the haunting words of General Abrams, and the deliberate words of Secretary Perry. As tempting as it may be in an era of scarce resources and competing priorities, we must not allow indifference to serve as the basis for today's defense spending. A strong, well-prepared military has been, and will continue to be, our Nation's only insurance. A strong national defense does not come cheaply. We should not delude ourselves into thinking otherwise. Mr. President, I will say to those who think defense needs to do more of its share in helping to reduce our spending, had every other item of Government done half the share that defense has provided of reduced spending over the past 12 years, we would more than have a balanced budget. If other agencies of Government had taken the same steps, or half the steps, taken by the Department of Defense, we would not be arguing over the need for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget or how we get to a balanced budget. The truth of the matter is that over the past 12 years, defense spending has declined nearly 40 percent, and it continues to go down, now the 12th consecutive year. Name me one other program of Government that has begun to match the record of reduced spending as the Department of Defense--40 percent less troops, 40 percent less spending for equipment, troops deployed all over the world, stretched to the limit, in many cases, in terms of their operations tempo and their personnel tempo, troops living in substandard housing. What Member of this Congress can take any sense of satisfaction in knowing that 60 percent or more of the men and women and families who have committed to defend this Nation live in absolutely substandard housing arrangements? It is a disgrace, and it is simply something that we absolutely have to correct. So, as we go forward in the debate on the defense bill, I hope my colleagues will remember defense has contributed more than its share in reducing our spending and trying to get in line with a balanced budget. No other agencies of Government can begin to compare with that. And in the end, one of the most essential, if not the most essential, functions for Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and the national security of this country. I can think of no higher spending priority. We need to understand that. We need to understand that this administration is not committed to that priority, despite their rhetoric. Let's hope that the debate will lead us to a satisfactory result, so we can at least tell our troops that we have done the best we can--we have not provided them everything they need, but we have at least taken steps in the right direction to recognize that they provide security and defense for more than 250 million people of this country and deserve adequate support in doing that. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today Senator Dole becomes citizen Dole. He has every right to be proud of that hard, courageous decision. We in the Senate have every reason to be sorry for it. Senator Dole leaves a legacy of lasting influence. He led this body to historic accomplishments, including the rescue of Social Security and the first balanced budget in a generation. He led his party, 2 years ago, to historic victory. And now he has accepted one more opportunity to serve--one more chance to lead. This is the common thread that runs through an uncommon life-- leadership. He has provided a definition of the term. Senator Dole has mastered the art of consensus. He knows when a breakthrough depends on one well-placed word. He knows how to cool tempers and emphasize agreement. He knows how to turn the chaos of this process into tangible achievements. These are rare and important qualities. But this is only half of the story. I have seen another side of Senator Dole's leadership. He once put it this way: I believe there is a place for honest negotiation in politics. It is an essential part of Democracy. Every political movement, and every public official, however, must locate a place where compromise ends--a core of conviction where we keep our conscience. There comes a time when even practical leaders must refuse to bend or yield. For Senator Dole that core of conviction is basic and clear, permanent and solid: safe streets, strong families, military strength, fiscal responsibility, a decent public culture. These commitments are nothing new and everything important. They are rooted deeply in the soil of the midwest in the lessons of a small town in his experiences of suffering and service. Bob Dole understands the secret strength of America, because he embodies it. Senator Dole understands that Americans value freedom and responsibility, but must still care for one another in times of crisis and need. He understands the fears at the edge of poverty, because he felt them in his youth. He understands the price of liberty, because he paid it himself. He fights strongly, because he believes deeply. We have come to depend on this core of conviction, based on the lessons of a life. In his legislative career, Senator Dole has displayed both elements of true leadership: consensus and conscience, flexibility and firmness. He is an example to all of us who work with him--who follow him--who respect him. Leaving the security of the Senate is just another example of the moral courage we have come to know the essence of leadership at the moment of testing. T.S. Eliot wrote, ``in my end is my beginning.'' This is the end of a distinguished legislative career. It is the beginning of a new mission. That mission takes Senator Dole beyond this body, and we regret it. But I am convinced it will take him to the White House. Senator Dole-- citizen Dole--has only begun his service to this Nation.