Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Certainly; we did not prohibit that. You would have that right. I would like to ask our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to be very cautious about amendments we do at this time with regard to Bosnia. Our troops are there on the ground. I had the occasion, with a bipartisan delegation, to be there last week. We have some very sensitive circumstances that have evolved there just in the last 24 hours. I don't even know what the amendments are, but I hope we will use the maximum amount of discretion in what we do in this area right now. Please be very careful what you do on Bosnia on this bill. I realize there may be some merits to them. I know the Senators will be very careful, and I urge them to do so.

Mr. LOTT. Yes, I would be happy to.

Mr. LOTT. We are going to get a chance to look at the amendments. The Senator from Wisconsin, I believe, is going to talk to the managers of the bill. But without prejudicing anybody's position, I just wanted to add an admonition.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Wisconsin in the Chamber. I understood he had an amendment he might like to offer. We don't know what the disposition would be, but I ask unanimous consent that the third amendment to come up be the Feingold amendment on or in relation to Bosnia, and any vote thereon, if needed, would be at 9:45 in the stacked sequence, also.

Mr. LOTT. I will revise it to this extent. Next would be the Warner- Hutchison amendment. We won't lock in a time agreement now, but it would be the second vote in order stacked in the morning at 9:45.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Levin-McCain amendment and in support of the Dorgan-Daschle-Lott amendment. Before I speak on the substance, I want to, again, take note of the tremendous leadership we are receiving from the Armed Services Committee chairman, the Senator from South Carolina, and the cooperation we are getting from the Senator from Michigan as they try to move this legislation through. They are doing an outstanding job. I know we will start a series of votes later on this afternoon, and we continue to look forward to completing this very important legislation before the week is out. Mr. President, I have followed these base closure recommendations, so-called BRAC issues, now for many years. I was in the House when it was first proposed by a young Congressman from Texas, Dick Armey. I was a member of the Rules Committee, and he came to me and asked about how to get this procedure to be considered, to get it through the Rules Committee, to get it to the floor of the House of Representatives. I remember specifically telling him how the procedure would work, but assuring him from the beginning I would oppose it. I have always been opposed to this approach. It is one more example of Congress not being able to deal with the tough issues of what we need in terms of facilities in this country and passing the decisions off--the tough decisions off--to others, in this case the Commission. I don't think that is the way it should be done, and that is not the way it was done until recent years. In the past, the Pentagon, the Department of Defense, would make recommendations to Congress. Congress, through the appropriate committees--Armed Services and the Appropriations Committee--would consider those recommendations and, in some instances, base closures were approved, including facilities in my own State and probably most States in the Nation, and in others, it was rejected. But somehow over the years, it became more and more difficult to close these bases or to make decisions, to make changes in the bases, and so these so-called BRAC rounds gained some currency and were pushed and, in fact, passed through the Congress. We have been down this old BRAC road before, three-and-a-half or four times, if you will. I maintain it has not worked well. First of all, we found that it is a very difficult process. There is always concern about the fairness of how it is done. There are always some implications or indications that some political considerations came into play, and there always will be. But also I think it is important that we remember what it does to the communities and to the people who are involved. These are just not nameless, faceless people. These are bases in communities, communities that are disrupted by these proceedings, communities and States spending millions of dollars trying to prove the worth of their bases. So we know that it has had an impact on the communities where these bases have existed. We know it has created problems for the Defense Department among the various branches. We know that it is almost totally impossible to assess the real damages or the benefits or the savings from these closings. We have seen this in instance after instance. For instance, we have made decisions that certain bases would be closed and there would be certain savings. Yet, we have found that it has been very difficult to move toward closing those bases and getting the savings for no other reason than we have found, in many instances, that there are environmental problems in cleaning up those bases before they can be turned over to the private sector or the local communities. To this day, the recommendations of previous BRAC's have not been completed. We have bases or facilities, depots that supposedly were going to be closed. They are not closed. So without having had an opportunity to really assess the damage that has been done to our capabilities and our facilities for the military of this country, without having an opportunity to really get these bases closed and, therefore, the savings achieved, we have now the recommendation that we have not one but two more of these base closure rounds. I think that it has been a very dubious process that has caused lots of problems, and it should not go forward again with two more rounds until we fully understand the ramifications and the implications of what we have already done. So that is why I think that the Dorgan amendment is a better approach. It doesn't say that we will never have another base closure round, although I can't envision myself voting for one in the future anymore than I have in the past, but it does set up a legitimate, logical process to assess what has already happened, what has been achieved in terms of savings as a result of those decisions, what it has done to our capabilities militarily, before we go forward with another round. The amendment that has been offered by Senator Dorgan and others allows already authorized base closures and realignments to go forward, and that is important, I emphasize again, because what has already been agreed to has, in fact, not been completed. This would include the 97 base closures and the 55 realignments that have already been agreed to. Economic and fiscal ramifications of closing and realigning bases Congress has already authorized will stretch well into the 21st century. The Pentagon estimates on the savings cannot be supported. GAO, for instance, recently concluded that the ``Department of Defense cannot provide [accurate] information on actual savings.'' The Congressional Budget Office has stated that it ``was unable to confirm or assess DOD's estimates of cost and savings because the Department is unable to report actual spending and savings for [these] actions.'' As a result of all these factors, CBO observed that additional base closures ``should follow an interval during which DOD and independent analysts examine the actual impact of the measures that have been taken * * * '' The Dorgan-Daschle-Lott amendment sets up a logical process to review what we have already done before we go forward with recommended rounds in the future. The last Base Closure Commission concurred in the assessment and stated that another round of base closures should not occur until the year 2001--not 1999, as proposed in the Levin-McCain amendment. That is an important point. The last Base Closure Commission specifically recommended that there not be another one until the year 2001, if then, so that we could get our work done, see what happened, and then make an informed judgment about whether to go forward with it again in the future. This amendment provides the Pentagon with the time to develop accounting techniques so they can fully and accurately reflect the costs and savings from previous and future rounds of base closures, and it requires the Pentagon to prepare a report on the financial ramifications of past and future base closures and to have the report reviewed by GAO and CBO. In short, Mr. President, this sets up a process to take a look at what we have already done, evaluate it, make sure we understand the cost savings or the costs that have been expended to try to achieve what has already been agreed to before we go forward, and then and only then after that review should we make an informed decision about whether or not to have another round. I am going to hand out to my colleagues when we start having votes a list that I had prepared of facilities and activities that were considered by the Base Closure Commissions in the years 1991 to 1994, but not closed. There is a long list. And I just want to ask my colleagues, whether they be from California or Connecticut or Georgia or Minnesota or my own State or any other State, take a look at what is on this list. Think of what you have already been through, and think of the impact it would have on the military if some of these facilities, which are very fine facilities that are important for our training for the Air Force, for the Navy, if they should be threatened once again with being closed. Do you want that? So I will have this list, and I invite my colleagues from all over the United States to take a look at this list. This should not be done. We should not be closing down needed facilities and needed bases in the United States while we are sending our military men and women on humanitarian missions around the world. We are looking after the needs and problems around the world. That is fine. But what about the impact and the needs in our own communities of our own constituencies and most importantly of the military itself? I vigorously oppose the Levin-McCain amendment and I will go along with the Dorgan-Daschle-Lott amendment because I think it is a better alternative and that it sets up a logical process to evaluate whether or not we should ever have another Base Closure Commission. Mr. President, with that I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Byrd and Senator Rockefeller have each received a request from a State prosecutor in West Virginia for copies of correspondence between a West Virginia resident and their offices for use in a pending criminal prosecution in that State. Senator Byrd and Senator Rockefeller believe that granting the prosecutor's request would serve the ends of justice. This resolution authorizes them to provide copies of correspondence in response to the prosecutor's request.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations just reported from the Armed Services Committee: Gen. Wesley Clark and Lt. Gen. Anthony Zinni. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to note special appreciation to the Armed Services Committee for moving these nominations. I want to thank the chairman for having extra meetings to get these two nominations cleared. I want to thank Senator Levin from Michigan. It would have been a very awkward situation tomorrow and the next day at the change of command of our NATO officials if we had not had Gen. Wesley Clark confirmed and in a position to assume command from General Joulwan. This was a very positive move. I thank the Armed Services Committee and the Senate for their cooperation in these confirmations. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today, the Senate pauses to recognize a colleague who has now presided over the Senate for 100 hours during this session of Congress. It has been a longstanding tradition in the U.S. Senate to honor those Senators who preside 100 hours in a single session. To those individuals who achieve this height, we bestow the Golden Gavel Award. While many Senators have won this prestigious honor, few have done so as swiftly as Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming. Indeed, Senator Enzi has surpassed all other records that have been set by Republican Senators in the history of the Golden Gavel Award. Today he completes his 100th presiding hour. The Senate has been in session this year for approximately 615 hours, and the freshman Senator from Wyoming, as Presiding Officer, has filled 100 of those hours with matchless enthusiasm and dedication. So, on behalf of my colleagues, I extend my congratulations to the first Golden Gavel recipient of the 105th Congress, Senator Mike Enzi, who is presiding at this time. Congratulations, Senator Enzi. Thank you for all the time that you have spent in the chair. The week before the Fourth of July recess period I had noted what an excellent job you had been doing as a Presiding Officer, having been in the chair late, I think it was, on Thursday night and back in the chair through a long, extended period of time on Friday morning. We appreciate your good work. Now that you have reached this milestone, we hope you will continue on. You are doing such a good job we will just keep this pattern going in the future.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m., the Senate resume consideration of S. 936, the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that when the Senate completes it business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:15 a.m., Wednesday, July 9. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and there then be a period of morning business until the hour of 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Mack or his designee, 60 minutes from 9:15 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.; and Senator Daschle or his designee, 30 minutes.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senate will be in a period for morning business until the hour of 11 a.m. in the morning. At 11 a.m., the Senate will resume consideration of this very important Defense authorization bill. Senators can expect a series of rollcall votes on pending amendments to the bill later in the day as we make progress on this important legislation. We do have some Senators that are attending the Madrid meeting at this time in a very important role that they are fulfilling as NATO enlargement observers. They will be returning in the afternoon, and that is why we are trying to accommodate their schedules to make sure that they make these important votes. As always, Members will be notified accordingly when votes on amendments are ordered. As a reminder to Senators, this evening a cloture motion was filed, and all first-degree amendments then must be filed by 1 p.m. on Wednesday. That is one of the benefits of the cloture motion. All first-degree amendments have to be filed on Wednesday, so we will have a real good look at what is pending out there. As previously stated, it is the intention to complete action on the bill by week's end, so Members should expect long, busy days with a number of votes occurring throughout the week.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaties transmitted to the Senate on July 8, 1997, by the President of the United States: Extradition Treaty with Luxembourg (Treaty Document No. 105-10); Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with Luxembourg (Treaty Document No. 105-11); and Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with Poland (Treaty Document No. 105-12). I further ask unanimous consent that the treaties be considered as having been read the first time; that they be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's messages be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. This cloture vote will occur sometime Thursday unless it is vitiated. I will consult with the Democratic leader for the exact time of the vote. I do ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond. Of course you always have the option of vitiating a cloture vote. My only goal is trying to get this very important legislation moved through to completion this week. I know that that is the desire on both sides of the aisle. I am concerned about the number of amendments that have been suggested, as many as 150 first-degree amendments. I know a lot of those will fall very quickly once we start moving through the process and getting to the end of the week. But I certainly will consult with the Democratic leader, with the Senator from Michigan, and Senator Thurmond, to see how we are doing. And we can take that into consideration when we get to Thursday and see what the prospects are at that time.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished manager of the bill on that side of the aisle.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senators should be on notice that the Senate will begin having rollcall votes on Mondays and Fridays in order to make substantial progress on appropriations bills prior to the August recess. I have discussed this with the Democratic leader. He understands and agrees we should be prepared to have these votes on Mondays and Fridays so that we can make substantial progress on appropriations bills. We hope to do a minimum of five appropriations bills as well as the balanced budget and the tax fairness conference reports before the Senate adjourns for the August recess. Consequently, Senators need to be aware that votes should be anticipated on Mondays and Fridays, at least up until noon on Fridays. We will need the cooperation of all Senators. We also, of course, could have some Executive Calendar nominations that would be required to either get clearance or to actually have them called up and have votes on them. We will be providing more information on that as the week goes forward. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the cloture vote scheduled for today will occur at 3 p.m. It is my hope that cloture will be invoked so that the Senate can complete action on this very important Department of Defense authorization bill this week. It is my understanding that perhaps as many as 150 first-degree amendments have been filed to the bill. Needless to say, there remains a tremendous amount of work to be done in order to complete action this week.

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