Phil Gramm

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. I yield to the Democrat floor leader for the purpose of laying the bill down.

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, let me quickly join everyone else in congratulating our colleague from Hawaii who has always been very kind to me and to my wife and family. I appreciate it very much. We have reached an impasse here. It is clear that we need something to sort of break the logjam. It seems to me the logical thing to do is to try to demonstrate the direction in which we are not going to go, so hopefully we can change direction and find bipartisanship in passing this bill. Everybody knows we have to have a Defense appropriations bill. Often in trying to get on the right road, it is an important step to get off the wrong road. When you are going in the wrong direction, it is important to stop so that you might go in the right direction. In order to try to break this logjam, it is my purpose to make a point of order against the committee substitute. Let me make a parliamentary inquiry. Are we on the Defense appropriations bill now and that substitute?

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. That is not my question. I will be happy to yield if the Senator wants to answer my question. Does the Senator intend to change this language in conference if it is adopted, or can he assure us that if it were adopted, this language would be the language he would prefer in the conference report? There is a foul rumor afloat that this simply makes it possible to get around rule 28 and to have the Federal Government ratify this agreement in this Defense bill.

Mr. GRAMM. I know the Senator is a very senior member of the Armed Services Committee. Is there any evidence anywhere that the Air Force said it wanted these planes?

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote On Amendment No. 2336

Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield. Could I yield on the Senator's time because mine is limited?

Mr. GRAMM. What does that have to do with us?

Mr. GRAMM. So we don't get anything for 6 years.

Mr. GRAMM. Well, I just want to say to the Senator from Arizona, I am sure it pains many people to hear the Senator from Arizona go through and list all the things in all these appropriations bills that nobody requested that are being funded, but I think it gives some insight into how big the level of waste is in this process and how out of control spending is. I thank the Senator for bringing it to light. I would also say that about this Boeing proposal I do not think I have ever seen a proposal that makes less sense economically--and it is a big statement to say as Senator McCain and I have been here together for 22 years. Lease something for 10 years, and pay a higher price than you could buy it for, with no negotiation of price--I guess Boeing and whoever wrote this amendment came up with a price--and no competition. The Air Force does not want the plane, and we do not get a plane for 6 years under the procurement proposal. I am not aware there has ever been a worse proposal in the 22 years we have served together. If so, I have never seen it. I mean, that is a big statement. Some people may think that is an overstatement--and maybe we are prone toward it--but I do not think, in the 22 years I have been here, I have ever seen anything to equal this Boeing lease agreement.

Mr. GRAMM. I will in a minute. Let me finish my point. This amendment basically tries to use safety and the life and safety of people who live in Illinois, who live in Iowa, who live in Texas as a bargaining chit to play politics with the improvement of an airport plan in Chicago that has not been approved by people who are making these decisions in Illinois.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me explain why we are here and what this is all about. We have a bill before us that provides emergency money for security at O'Hare Airport, emergency money for security to try to protect people's lives and their safety. That is what is in this bill. What is being done here is that funding to preserve life and safety for people who go through the airport in Chicago is being delayed to try to force the Secretary of Transportation to ratify a deal on the Chicago airport. That basically is what this amendment is about. This is an amendment that refuses to release money for safety to protect the lives of people who pass through the Chicago airport, to try to inject the Congress into a decision that ought to be made in Illinois. Quite frankly, this amendment potentially could delay safety improvements and jeopardize lives at the Chicago airport. This amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this appropriations bill. It pirates it. It is true that we have a provision in the bill providing money for safety, but what this amendment does is pirate that provision by saying you can't spend the safety money until the Secretary injects himself into this debate going on in Illinois.

Mr. GRAMM. I object.

Mr. GRAMM. I have.

Mr. GRAMM. If I may conclude--other people want to debate--here is my point. When we sent American troops to serve in Japan and to serve in Korea, we negotiated agreements whereby they could be tried for local offenses by local authorities. But that is a world apart from when we send marines into Somalia and when we send marines and special forces into Afghanistan. That is the issue about which we are talking. We are talking about the jurisdiction of International Criminal Court set up by a treaty that we have not ratified, and we are talking about American military personnel wearing the uniform of this country. All the amendment by Senator Helms and Senator Miller does is say that American service personnel cannot be tried before this Court. No judge is an American, no procedure is set by Americans or negotiated by them. We have not ratified the treaty. It is imperative we adopt this amendment, and I have every confidence we will. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM. Yes.

Mr. GRAMM. I will in a moment. Let me just complete my point. My point is this. This is piracy. This is piracy against safety in not allowing safety improvements to go forward until the Secretary injects himself into a decision that ought to be made in Illinois. This has nothing to do with the Defense bill. At 7 o'clock on Friday evening, when we are trying to finish an appropriations bill, we have before us a provision that has nothing to do with national defense. It is a provision that basically would have us sit as the airport board in Chicago. And it is opposed by one of the two Senators from Illinois. It also strikes me, understanding rule 28, that this is basically an effort to put in place in conference something that would be totally against the rules of the Senate and that is a totally extraneous provision. By putting this seemingly harmless limitation on spending safety money--if anybody believes limiting people's ability to improve safety at Chicago O'Hare is harmless--what we do is create a vehicle whereby, on the Defense appropriations bill, we could see an approval of an airport plan in Chicago. I don't think that is our business. I didn't run to be on the airport board in Chicago; no one else here ran; certainly no one was elected. The Senator wanted me to yield. I am happy to yield. But let me pose a question. Is it your objective in conference to change this language to approve this deal in Chicago? Is that what you are trying to do?

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, if I could regain control of my time, I thank the Senator for raising this point. Let me make the following point: These circumstances occur when first of all, we have negotiated agreements with these countries whereby service personnel stationed on a friendly basis in these countries will be subject to local law, they are defended by American defense attorneys, and they ultimately have their rights protected through these guarantees. We are not talking about people in Somalia, and we are not talking about Americans in Afghanistan.

Mr. GRAMM. Why don't you offer the bill?

Mr. GRAMM. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I will yield the floor, but let me finish my point. What we have here is an effort to pirate on airport safety and an effort to use a limit on the ability to spend money for airport safety to create a vehicle in conference to adopt a bill which has never been considered and certainly has not been adopted by the committee of jurisdiction, a bill that would not have been adopted in either House of Congress, and a bill that is not being offered on the floor of the Senate tonight. Why is the bill not being offered? The bill is not being offered because it is subject to an objection under rule 16 because it is legislation on an appropriations bill. It seems to me that not only is this pirating safety, not only is this an issue that has nothing to do with defense, not only is this not the forum for us to be considering this issue, this is basically a ruse to pass a bill which is not germane to this bill, which has never been reported by the Commerce Committee, which has never been voted on in either House of Congress, and basically do it by getting the camel's nose under the tent. We should support our colleague from Illinois who opposes this amendment. It would be one thing if the two Senators came to the floor and said: We want the Congress to help us and we want to be the airport board in Chicago. I think that would be pretty unusual, but if they were both together and wanted to do this, it would be one thing. But I think to bring this kind of legislation pirating safety to the floor of the Senate when the Senators from the same State don't agree and as a vehicle to make law something never reported by committee, never considered in either House of Congress, I think is fundamentally wrong. It ought to be objected to. I urge my colleagues to let us get on with the Defense bill. It is one thing to be debating defense issues. It is one thing to be trying to decide should we rent Boeing aircraft to turn them into tankers. That is a legitimate issue. It is one thing to offer a substitute, which I understand our two leaders of the committee want to offer. But to get into this kind of business at 7:09 on a Friday night I think is an abuse of our colleagues, and I urge that we not let this happen.

Mr. GRAMM. Let me be sure I understand. You are saying you have all these programs in here that nobody ever asked for: these planes the Air Force does not want, paying more to lease them than we could buy them and what you are proposing----

Mr. GRAMM. Well, it seems to me you could do that by striking all of these add-ons and basically asking the Defense Department to submit a list, and then give Congress the ability to say yes or no; and if we said yes, you would release the money. I think that might be an interesting way to go about it. I commend that to my colleague.

Mr. GRAMM. I am not sure. I would like to be recognized. I don't think I am going to speak very long. If you want to set a time limit on it, I would say 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Was the request that he speak and then it come back to me, or I finish and then it goes to him?