Summary:
All articles in Senate section
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
(Senate - June 19, 1996)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages S6455-
S6508]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana retains the floor.
Amendment No. 4058
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. SMITH. I believe under the request I had 20 minutes. Probably
very close to that amount of time.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, may I just make a unanimous-consent
request before the Senator makes his statement? I ask unanimous consent
that Linda Taylor, a fellow in my office, be given the privilege of the
floor during the pendency of
S. 1745.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from New
Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 18 minutes
remaining.
Mr. COATS. I yield all time remaining to the Senator from New
Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, some things are very predictable around
here. One of the most predictable is that somebody every year gets up
there in the authorization debate and tries to kill the ASAT Program.
This is not a harmless amendment. This is a very serious amendment that
can do damage to the national security of the United States.
I might say very bluntly and honestly, I do not have any parochial
interest in this. I have a national interest in this. There is not
anybody working on this in my State. It is not a jobs issue in my
State. This is a national security matter, and year after year I stand
up and engage in debate on this, and in committee, as the opponents
continue to go after this program.
This amendment is designed to kill ASAT, to kill the kinetic energy
program plain and simple. That is exactly what it is designed to do.
That is what they are trying to do. We have invested $245 million in
this program. We have 2 years left, at approximately $75 million a
year, to complete this program. This technology works. It has already
been tested. It works. We are going to throw it down the tube, throw it
away.
What is ironic to me is that some of the things that Senator Bingaman
has said on this issue are reasonable. In fact, I offered to work with
the Senator in committee to address his concerns over the section
dealing with the space architect. But, we could not reach a compromise.
There was no interest in having a compromise. He wants the whole thing.
He wants to defeat it.
So here we are again, rather than simply addressing the concerns that
he has over the space architect issue, the Senator from New Mexico now
is going after the entire program--all or nothing.
The truth is, this amendment circumvents the authorization and
appropriations process totally. It allows the space architect to
singlehandedly decide if the Pentagon spends the money that has been
authorized and appropriated in both 1996 and 1997 for ASAT.
[[Page
S6456]]
That is an assault on the jurisdiction of this committee, the Armed
Services Committee, and the Appropriations Committee. There is a
process in place, a correct process, to seek reprogramming or
rescissions, and that works pretty well around here. But to say that
the space architect, whose identity I would venture to say very few of
my colleagues even know, can decide whether or not he wants to comply
with the law, this represents an enormous erosion of the Senate's
jurisdiction and particularly that of the Armed Services and
Appropriations Committees.
We voted on this issue many times, both Republicans and Democrats,
under Democrat control, under Republican control. The Senate has always
gone on record in support of this program, and yet the assaults
continue. The Armed Forces have testified that they need this
capability. The Armed Forces have said they need this capability. The
taxpayers have invested millions in its development. Now, when we are
so close to completing the program, why kill it? You should not kill it
on the money, because you have invested so much, but more important--
much more important--you should not kill it because of the technology.
Let us talk a little bit about why it makes no sense to kill it and
why it is a threat to our national security to do that.
The global spread of advanced satellite technology has made it
possible for countries to obtain this high-definition imagery for
satellites in low orbit or to buy that information. This data is
crucial because in a future conflict, the United States has to be able
to neutralize a hostile satellite. How are you going to do that? This
is how you do it, with kinetic energy ASAT. But at present, we do not
have that capability. We simply do not have the capability.
If you think back, during the gulf war, the Iraqi Air Force was
destroyed or forced out of the air in the first few days of fighting,
and Iraq had no reconnaissance capability. This lack of Iraqi overhead
surveillance made it possible for the allies to mass their forces and
sweep across the desert to bring a swift conclusion to a war that could
have cost thousands--thousands --of American casualties.
Gen. Charles Horner, Desert Storm air commander, said that the
diplomacy that we used convinced France and Russia not to sell
reconnaissance data to Iraq. Suppose they had it? We had no way to stop
them with that kind of reconnaissance. ASAT destroys those satellites,
Mr. President. Why would anyone want to stop that technology?
Satellites that can be placed up in the air, over the Earth in low
orbit with a capability to spy on the United States, spy on our forces,
collect data, transmit data, what does ASAT do? What does this
satellite do? It disables. It disables that satellite and keeps that
enemy from collecting that information.
Why would anyone want to deny the United States of America the
capability to do that? It baffles me. I cannot understand it. Every
year, year after year, we have to take the same position--for 6 years I
have done it--defending this system, while those in this Congress and
some in the administration try to kill it, try to kill the capability
of the United States to take out a satellite that could destroy
American forces.
Some say, ``Well, nobody out there has any capability for satellites.
What do we need ASAT for?'' According to the U.S. Space Command,
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the Czech Republic,
France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy,
Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey,
and Ukraine, to name 30. They do not have any capability? It is out
there, folks.
You say some of those are friendly countries. That is right, and they
sell this technology and there are a lot of people out there buying it.
``Why not just jam them?'' they say. We do not have the capability to
do that.
A U.S. antisatellite capability--and this is a very important point,
I cannot emphasize this strongly enough to my colleagues--is a
disincentive for a potential adversary to spend their resources on
military satellites. A U.S. kinetic energy ASAT could help constrain
the proliferation of such systems. Why would somebody want to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars to develop satellites to put in space
to spy on us or to use to collect data against our forces if they know
we can disable them or disarm them? The chances are they will not. Yet,
here we are, here we are, saying, ``Let's kill the program.''
Russia leads the world in space launches of military satellites.
Ukraine is building a series of radar satellites.
China is launching military recon satellites and have been doing it
for 20 years. They are selling space launches and satellite technology
all over the world.
United Arab Emirates reportedly has ordered a military reconnaissance
satellite from a consortium of Russian firms.
On and on and on, and yet we stand here on the floor today having to
defend attacks on us, those who support this system. I have had enough
of it, Mr. President, to be very blunt about it. I have had enough of
it. I am tired of it. I think it is outrageous that people come down on
this floor and put our forces at risk to try to kill the technology
that works, that protects us.
Let me repeat, had Saddam Hussein had the capability, had he had
these satellites, we would have lost thousands of Americans because we
could not have disabled them. We have the technology. It works. Why are
we not using it?
It does not make any sense, Mr. President, not to continue this
technology. This technology was designed, developed, manufactured, and
integrated under the Kinetic Energy ASAT Demonstration Validation
Program from 1990 to 1993 and ground tested, and it works. Here we are
having to defend it from these attacks.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. SMITH. The distinguished chairman, Senator Thurmond, has asked
for a little of my time, so I will just conclude by saying, if we lose
this vote and lose this technology and end this technology, ASAT, it,
in my opinion, will be a direct threat to the thousands of American men
and women all over the world who wear the uniforms of the Armed Forces
of the United States.
It is an unprecedented erosion of our constitutional prerogative.
When we take the oath to the Constitution, we take an oath to protect
and defend America. This protects and defends America. I have been
hearing a lot of this talk. I have heard some of it already, and we
will hear a lot more, about how we are going to do this stuff with
lasers, disable all these satellites with laser technology, that that
is the thing of the future. It might be, but it is not here yet. What
are we going to do here in between?
For those who might not care about the military application--or maybe
you care about space junk--kinetic energy ASAT disables satellites. It
does not break them up into hundreds of pieces and create space junk.
It disables them. It is a very important point.
I would think the Senate would want to think long and hard before
ending this technology because this amendment will do that. That is
what it is designed to do.
There will be another amendment coming to cut the funding off just in
case this one does not work. We face that every year.
I want to conclude on this point, Mr. President. I have been on the
Armed Services Committee here in the U.S. Senate under Democrat and
Republican leadership. We have fought this fight every year. And
Democrats, when they were in the majority, were some of the strongest
supporters on that committee of this program.
This is not a Republican-Democrat issue here. This is a national
security issue. It deserves to be supported. Why some in the
administration have taken the position that it ought not to be, and
some in the Senate, I do not know. But I know this is dangerous. This
is a dangerous amendment. I do not say that about very many amendments
on this floor. This is a dangerous amendment. This could cost American
lives,
[[Page
S6457]]
and not too far in the distant future either. This could be very close
in the immediate future. This could cost American lives.
We have the technology to disable satellites. We ought to use it. It
is proven. We have expended roughly two-thirds of the money. It is in
place. The military supports it. And those policymakers who do not are
ill-advised. They are wrong. They are absolutely wrong. We have an
obligation to stand up and be heard on this, when these kinds of things
happen.
So I am proud to say, Mr. President, that I support this program, not
for any parochial reasons, but for national security reasons. I am
standing here on the floor today because this system works. It is
necessary for the security of the United States of America. It protects
American lives. It ought to be funded fully. It ought not to be in any
way diminished.
So I ask my colleagues, please, do not fall for this faulty line,
this false information, and to support kinetic energy ASAT.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much time is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 3 minutes,
20 seconds.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, first, I want to commend the able
Senator from New Hampshire for the excellent remarks he has made on
this subject. He has made a very emphatic case for our side. I am very
proud that he has done that today.
Mr. President. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
Senator from New Mexico. A similar variation of the amendment was
offered in the committee during markup and it was not accepted.
The Congress has authorized and/or appropriated funds for the kinetic
energy antisatellite technology program since 1985. For the past 3
years the administration has not complied with the law and obligated
the funds for the program. Every year, as a result, we have to take
actions to force the Department to comply with legislation to compel
them to obligate the funds for this particular program.
Mr. President, the Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Bob Davis,
has stated on many occasions that there is a need to develop systems to
counter the space threat. The Congress has supported the kinetic energy
antisatellite technologies for that purposes, as well as other
technologies which are not ready for production or are years away from
deployment. The KE-ASAT program is the only near-term program to meet a
potential enemy satellite threat.
The U.S military relies on space for surveillance, communications,
navigation, and attack warning. It is important for the United States
to ensure its freedom to use space. If our adversaries achieve the
ability to control space and the United States does not have the
capability to turn this around, we will lose our military advantage.
Mr. President, I, again, oppose the amendment offered by the Senator
from New Mexico and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum for Robert
T. Howard, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Budget by Jay M.
Garner, Lieutenant General, USA, commanding, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department of the Army,
Space and Strategic Defense Command,
Arlington, VA, January 3, 1996.
Memorandum for MG Robert T. Howard, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Budget.
Subject: Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Technology
Funding Reduction.
1. USASSDC nonconcurs with action proposed by Program
Budget Decision 719, which rescinds $30M from the ASAT
program in support of the Bosnia Supplemental. USASSDC
believes kinetic energy technology will prove to be a vital
capability for the future. In addition, the kill vehicle
currently being tested may have applicability to other
programs.
2. The total KE ASAT technology program encompasses four
years (FY96-99) at a cost of $180M, which includes the $30M
currently being considered for rescission. The program is
structured to develop incremental technology improvements
(and possible insertion into other programs), necessary kill
vehicle and booster procurements, and testing. For example,
in FY96, weapon control system integration, software
upgrades, and kill vehicle refurbishment will be accomplished
in support of a planned hover test. This hover test, along
with kill vehicle qualification testing and hardware in the
loop simulation planned for FY97 will facilitate full up
flight tests during FY98. As in the past, we expect continued
Congressional funding and support of this program to not
affect Army's research and development account, or overall
total obligation authority (TOA). Based on this level of
funding a contingency deployment capability will be achieved
by FY99.
3. The current contract with Rockwell will terminate on
January 31, 1996. If allowed to do so, ASAT contingency
capability will be delayed by a minimum of one year depending
on when funding is made available.
4. Point of contact for this action is LTC Robert M. Shell
at (703) 607-1934.
Jay M. Garner,
Lieutenant General,
USA, Commanding.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bingaman amendment
on ASAT programs. His amendment would simply remove two very onerous
provisions from the bill and permit the Department of Defense ``Space
Architect'' to complete a study we have required, and determine which
anti-satellite technologies are most appropriate for the U.S. military.
His amendment would not kill the ASAT Program, as its opponents have
charged. In fact, his amendment would leave in place $75 million for
U.S. ASAT programs, which was added by the committee majority, for the
ASAT Program. This is funding the administration did not request, but
which was added by the majority.
I believe it would be appropriate to eliminate the funding as well as
the two provisions in the bill, because I do not believe there is a
need to fund this ASAT Program. But this amendment by Senator Bingaman
is a compromise that would leave in place all the funding added by the
Committee majority, but strip out the two provisions that were in the
bill. It would leave the Department of Defense the option of pursuing
the kinetic energy ASAT Program if it is considered appropriate
technology. But the bill mandates that the Pentagon choose the KE ASAT,
without even knowing the results of the current study being conducted
by the ``Space Architect.''
So the amendment offered by Senator Bingaman is a very reasonable
compromise that leaves open all ASAT options while keeping $75 million
that was not even requested by the Administration. Although I do not
believe that this funding is justified, I think the underlying
provisions in the bill are totally unjustified and should be rejected
by the Senate.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Bingaman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. At this time, not to interrupt the debate, I would like,
if the Senator from New Mexico is finished, to move the amendment, or
at least ask for the yeas and nays. Let me just ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I did want to conclude my debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table is not in order at this
point.
Mr. SMITH. I will withhold.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico controls 10
minutes, 52 seconds.
Amendment No. 4058, As Modified
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I am informed by the floor staff
that I need to send a modification to the desk. It is a technical
modification to make it clear as to which page and which line is being
proposed for striking in this amendment. I send that modification to
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Beginning on page 33, strike out line 3 and all that
follows through page 34, line 2, and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
[[Page
S6458]]
SEC. 212. SPACE CONTROL ARCHITECTURE STUDY.
(a) Required Consideration of Kinetic Energy Tactical
Antisatellite Program.--The Department of Defense Space
Architect shall evaluate the potential cost and effectiveness
of the inclusion of the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite
program of the Department of Defense as a specific element of
the space control architecture which the Space Architect is
developing for the Secretary of Defense.
(b) Congressional Notification of Any Determination of
Inappropriateness of Program for Architecture.--(1) If at any
point in the development of the space control architecture
the Space Architect determines that the kinetic energy
tactical antisatellite program is not appropriate for
incorporation into the space control architecture under
development, the Space Architect shall immediately notify the
congressional defense committees of such determination.
(2) Within 60 days after submitting a notification of a
determination under paragraph (1), the Space Architect shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a detailed
report setting forth the specific reasons for, and analytical
findings supporting, the determination.
(c) Report on Approved Architecture.--Not later than March
31, 1997, the Secretary, of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the space
control architecture approved by the Secretary. The report
shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the potential threats posed to
deployed United States military forces by the proliferation
of foreign military and commercial space assets.
(2) The Secretary's recommendations for development and
deployment of space control capabilities to counter such
threats.
(d) Funding.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall release to
the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program manager the
funds appropriated in fiscal year 1996 for the kinetic energy
tactical antisatellite program. The Secretary may withdraw
unobligated balances of such funds from the program manager
only if--
(A) the Space Architect makes a determination described in
subsection (b)(1); or
(B) a report submitted by the Secretary pursuant to
subsection (c) includes a recommendation not to pursue such a
program.
(2) Not later than April 1, 1997, the Secretary of Defense
shall release to the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite
program manager any funds appropriated for fiscal year 1997
for a kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program pursuant
to section 221(a) unless--
(A) the Space Architect has by such date submitted a
notification pursuant to subsection (b); or
(B) a report submitted by the Secretary pursuant to
subsection (c) includes a recommendation not to pursue such a
program.
Beginning on page 42, strike out line 15 and all that
follows through page 43, line 9
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just respond briefly. I do not
think I will take the full 10 minutes. The Senator from New Hampshire
says that this amendment that I have offered is an effort to kill the
ASAT Program. That is clearly not true. There is nothing in the
amendment that I have offered which in any way tries to delete or
reduce or diminish funding for an ASAT Program. I made it very clear
that I support that funding. The funding remains in the bill.
The Senator from New Hampshire is saying that the Pentagon is trying
to kill its own ASAT capability. I have real trouble understanding that
logic or believing that that is a credible line of argument.
The real question we are trying to pose here, Mr. President, is,
should we allow the Pentagon to come forward with their own
recommendation on what makes the most sense, what is the best option
for an ASAT capability, or should we prejudge that?
I remember a story that I heard when I was in school about how Henry
Ford used to say, ``You can have any color of Model-T Ford that you
want as long as it's black.'' What we are saying here in the existing
bill to the Pentagon is, ``You can pursue any option you want to obtain
ASAT capability as long as you take the one we want you to take.'' That
is not a smart way for us to proceed. We do not have the technical
capability here in the U.S. Senate to prejudge this study that the
Pentagon is engaged in.
My colleague from New Hampshire says that the military supports this
kinetic energy ASAT capability; they want to go ahead and fund it. If
that is true, then why do we have to mandate in the bill that they have
to fund it? Why do we have to mandate in the bill that they cannot
spend any money for these other purposes unless they fund it, unless
they choose that option?
I think clearly what the majority in the committee is trying to do in
this bill is to take away the options of the Pentagon and say the
Pentagon has to fight the way we say or else we will impose sanctions
upon them.
My colleague from New Hampshire says that anyone who would support
this amendment, the amendment I have offered, is trying to put our
forces at risk. Why is it putting our forces at risk to let the
Pentagon decide what makes the most sense, what is the most effective
for protecting our forces? I have real difficulty understanding that
kind of logic.
Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered is not an effort to
kill the ASAT Program. It is not an effort to reduce funding for the
ASAT Program. There is nothing in the amendment that does either of
those things. What it says is, let us give them the money, let us give
them the ability to come back and recommend to us the proper use of
that money to gain the greatest capability for protecting our own
forces. To me that is common sense. I have great difficulty seeing why
we even have to argue about it.
I am reminded, as I hear the debate raging around here, that when I
was practicing law, a more senior member of the bar early on in some of
the trial practice I engaged in said there is a simple rule in trying a
lawsuit. When the facts are on your side, pound away at the facts; when
the law is on your side, pound away at the law; when neither are on
your side, pound away at the table. That is what is happening here.
Neither the facts nor the law nor common sense are on the side of those
who put this provision in the bill.
We clearly should delete this provision. Let the Pentagon make its
own recommendations as to what option is best for our troops. That is
what I favor doing. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I
yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. I yield the remainder of the time to the able Senator
from New Hampshire, and I ask unanimous consent that 2 additional
minutes be allowed the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to an additional 2
minutes, but I would like 2 minutes on my side.
Mr. THURMOND. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so
ordered. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized for up to 2
minutes and 58 seconds.
Mr. SMITH. I will respond to my friend from New Mexico. We worked
very closely together on the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee. I
will not pound the table. I am not even going to raise my voice. The
truth of the matter--and the Senator knows this full well--the
administration did not request any funding in their budget for the ASAT
Program.
Unless I am missing something in the logic here--I do not believe I
am; maybe the Senator would like me to miss it and would like others to
miss it--unless I misunderstand something, if the administration does
not request it and the policy folks do not want it, if we send it back
to the space architect, who is a policy person, to study it, you can
pretty well conclude what the results will be. They will not fund it.
When I say this is a deliberate attempt to kill the Kinetic Energy
ASAT Program, I mean what I say. It is true. It will kill it. The other
thing that we need to understand here, the Army supports the Kinetic
Energy ASAT Program. They objected to the rescission list. They
objected to this being listed as a rescission item. They did not win
the debate. The policy people won.
The Senator's amendment sends this back to the space architect. He
will study it diligently over the next few weeks, months, whatever it
takes, and then announce that we do not need it, and kill it. This is
not an objective decision here. This person was not objective. This
person made up his mind already. He does not want it. If he wanted it,
he would have funded the remainder of it, which has already been--as we
said earlier, we have already expended $245 million on this program,
and we have already proven that it works, and we already have the
technology in place. All we are asking for is the completion. That is
the reason why this is a killer amendment.
We should not be cute about the process here. When somebody opposes
something, you give it back to them to make the decision, you can
pretty well
[[Page
S6459]]
guess what the decision is going to be. That is a little bit
disingenuous. They did not fund it. The administration does not want
this program. The administration is getting quite a reputation around
here for not expending moneys that we have appropriated and authorized.
They are getting pretty good at it, and they are doing it without
legislation. They are just doing it. They are just saying, ``We do not
want this, so even though you authorized it and appropriated it, we are
not going to spend it.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from New Mexico has 7 minutes 45 seconds.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, again I will not take the full 7
minutes, but let me conclude by saying that I think there is clearly a
failure to communicate here on this issue.
My colleague from New Hampshire says that the Army wants this
program. Looking at the facts: The administration asked for a fairly
healthy defense budget; the Armed Services Committee, in the bill that
is before the Senate here, added about over $12 billion to that--
something in that range. In order to come up with that additional
money, we went to each of the services and said, ``What is on your wish
list? Are there things you would like to have funded that we were not
able to fund, or that the President did not request, or that the
Pentagon did not request, the Secretary of Defense did not request?''
The Army gave us over $2 billion worth of those, more like $3 billion.
I am not sure of the exact amount.
Again, there was nothing in there for this ASAT capability. The
argument that the Army wants this, they just never want us to give them
any money for it, is a hard one for me to understand. I think, clearly,
this is not a program I am trying to kill. We are not touching the
money. The money has been added here, and we are saying, ``Fine, let's
go ahead and spend the money for whichever option the Pentagon wants to
pursue.'' But let the Pentagon make the judgment. Do not try to
prejudge the right technology in order to develop this ASAT capability.
That is all we are saying.
The end of the amendment that I have offered, I think, makes it very
clear that not later than April 1, 1997, the Secretary of Defense shall
release to the kinetic energy antisatellite program manager any funds
appropriated in 1997 for the Kinetic Energy Tactical Antisatellite
Program pursuant to section 221(a) unless the space architect has by
such date submitted a notification; or a report submitted by the
Secretary pursuant to subsection (c) includes a recommendation not to
pursue such a program.
What I am trying to do in my amendment is to protect the ability of
the Pentagon to use the money in the most effective way. We are not in
favor of mandating a result in an ongoing study where they are trying
to make a judgment as to what is the best use of this money to protect
our own forces.
I have confidence that the Pentagon will make a judgment based on
their honest and expert opinion as to what makes sense for the country
and for our own forces. I do not think we need to prejudge that.
Accordingly, I hope very much that my amendment will be agreed to.
Mr. President, I ask that Senator Bumpers be added as a cosponsor to
my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no additional debate.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent upon disposition
of the Bingaman amendment, that Senator Ashcroft and Senator Kennedy be
recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to table this amendment, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and
the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Faircloth
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Bumpers
Rockefeller
The motion to table the amendment (No. 4058), as modified, was agreed
to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Faircloth is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Heflin and Mr. Nunn
pertaining to the introduction of
S. 1890 are located in today's Record
under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor
privileges be granted to Randy O'Connor, a defense fellow in my office
for the duration of the consideration of the fiscal year 1997 Defense
authorization bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Washington would
like to be recognized. I think there has been a unanimous-consent
request. I believe the Senator from South Carolina will be asking
unanimous consent that Senator Murray be recognized for the time
agreement specified. I believe, also, the Senator needs to ask the
amendments be set aside that are now pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on
the Murray amendment related to abortions in military hospitals be
limited to 2 hours equally divided in the usual form, that no
amendments be in order, and that following the use or yielding back of
time, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the amendment.
Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like
to include in the unanimous-consent request, if I might, that I be
recognized to offer an amendment immediately upon the disposition of
the Murray amendment.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page
S6460]]
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest we begin debate on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a pending unanimous-consent request.
Is there objection?
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest we now proceed to debate.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, can I inquire, has the Senator from
Washington been recognized to offer her amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not at this point. There was an objection to
the unanimous-consent request.
Mr. COATS. But that would not prevent the Senator from going ahead
and offering her amendment; there would just not be a time constraint?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, if the Senator from South Carolina propounds
the unanimous-consent request, I believe it will be agreed to now. I
know the Senator from Arkansas first would like to make his position
clear, and perhaps if he is recognized at this point for that, he can
make his brief statement and then the Senator from South Carolina can
propound the unanimous=consent request, and I believe it will be agreed
to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member of
the Armed Services Committee for allowing me to make a statement, and I
will say to my distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
my statement will be about just one moment, and then we will allow
Senator Murray to go forward with her amendment.
Mr. President, the amendment that I am going to offer, and it may not
be after the disposition of Senator Murray's amendment but it may be
after the disposition of a subsequent amendment, is the so-called GATT
Glaxo amendment. I have been attempting all of this year, during the
entirety of 1996, to bring this amendment to the floor, to have it
debated and have it voted on. I have asked for 1 hour of debate, 30
minutes on a side, and then let us vote up or down and dispose of this
matter to see if we are willing or not willing to correct a massive
abuse that we created by mistake in the GATT treaty.
This is allowing one drug firm to prevent other generic firms from
coming in and competing fairly in the market. It is also allowing an
extra $5 million each day--each day--of profits that we hesitate and
fail to correct.
It should be a matter of honor that we correct this matter, and I am
going on the Department of Defense bill to continue attempting to find
a slot where Senator Brown, Senator Chafee, and the Senator from
Arkansas, Senator Pryor, may offer this amendment and have the U.S.
Senate go on record, once and for all, as to whether we are willing to
correct this abusive flaw created by mistake.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able Senator from
Arkansas for taking the position he has. I will now proceed to make the
request.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on the Murray
amendment, relating to abortions at military hospitals, be limited to 2
hours, equally divided in the usual form, and that no amendments be in
order; and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate
proceed to vote on, or in relation to, the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Amendment No. 4059
(Purpose: To repeal the restriction on use of Department of Defense
facilities for abortions)
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
laid aside.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Robb, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Simon, and
Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 4059.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title VII add the following:
SEC. 708. RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS POLICY REGARDING
RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MEDICAL FACILITIES.
Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out subsection (b); and
(2) in subsection (a), by striking out ``(a) Restriction on
Use of Funds.--''.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering to the
fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense authorization bill--and I am
offering it on behalf of myself, Senator Snowe, Senator Simon, Senator
Lautenberg, Senator Robb, Senator Moseley-Braun and Senator Kennedy--is
very simple. It strikes language adopted in last year's defense
authorization and appropriations bills that would prohibit privately
funded abortions from being performed at overseas military hospitals.
This ban places women stationed overseas in an unsafe and unfair
situation and blatantly restricts their constitutional right to choose.
Women in our armed services sacrifice each and every day to serve our
country. They should receive our utmost respect, honor, and gratitude.
They certainly do not deserve to be told they must check their
constitutional rights at the door when they are stationed overseas. My
amendment protects their precious rights and ensures their safe access
to quality medical services.
Mr. President, let me just say a few things about my amendment to
clear away any confusion that may exist.
First, this amendment simply restores previous DOD policy. From 1973
to 1988, a woman stationed overseas was allowed to obtain an abortion
if she paid with private, nondefense funds. Likewise, this was DOD
policy from 1993 till 1996. This is not some radical new idea. Quite
the contrary, in fact. This law was in place for almost two full terms
of the Reagan White House.
We have had many debates on the floor of this Senate over the past 2
years about abortion, about Federal funding, about Federal workers,
about Medicaid. Let me be very clear, this issue is different. My
amendment simply ensures the same rights for women in our armed
services enjoyed by every other woman in this country.
This amendment is merely an effort to return us to the policy of the
past which protected women stationed in a foreign country from having
to seek medical care from inexperienced or inadequately trained
personnel. It is dangerous and unnecessary and just plain wrong to put
these women, who are serving our country overseas, at risk.
Furthermore, my amendment does not force anyone to perform an
abortion at a military facility.
Currently, all departments of the military function under a
conscience clause which states that medical personnel do not have to
participate in an abortion procedure if they have a religious, moral,
or ethical objection.
This amendment preserves that important conscience clause. Most
importantly, Mr. President, it deals only with an individual's private
funds. The 104th Congress has spent almost 2 years trying to return
flexibility and authority to States. But under the fiscal year 1996 DOD
bill, we have a fundamental inconsistency. We have a problem telling
our States how to spend their money, but women in our own military are
not afforded that privilege.
[[Page
S6461]]
Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that a woman stationed overseas
does not always have the luxury of access to safe and quality medical
care other than at the military hospital on her base. It is dangerous
to force her to seek medical care in the local area. We are sending our
women in uniform to the foreign back alley. And that is wrong.
My amendment seeks to prevent our women in uniform from having to
make a very difficult and potentially dangerous, life-threatening
choice. My amendment seeks to restore our women in uniform, women
stationed overseas, a right they have had for most of the last 23
years. My amendment seeks to protect the constitutional rights of our
women in uniform. They sacrifice every day for every single one of us,
and we owe them that much. I urge my colleagues to vote for this
amendment. I withhold the balance of my time.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Indiana.
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
[[Page
S6462]]
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.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want the Senate to support the
amendment offered by Senator Murray to ensure that women in the armed
services serving overseas can exercise their constitutional right to
choose safe abortion services. It does not require the Department of
Defense to pay for abortions. But it repeals the current ban on
privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. Our
servicewomen should not lose their rights granted by the Constitution
when they serve the country in foreign lands.
This is an issue of fairness to the women who make significant
sacrifices to serve our nation. They go to military bases around the
world to protect our freedoms, but when they get there, they are denied
access to the kind of medical care available to all women in the United
States. Military women should be able to depend on their base hospitals
for all their medical services. This amendment gives them access to the
same range and quality of health care services that they could obtain
in the United States.
In many countries where our forces serve, that quality of care is not
available. Without adequate care, an abortion can be a life-threatening
or permanently disabling operation. In some countries, the blood supply
may pose an unacceptable health risk for military personnel.
We have a responsibility to provide safe options for U.S.
servicewomen in these situations. Those who oppose this amendment are
exposing servicewomen to substantial risks of infection, illness,
infertility, or even death. We can easily avoid such risks by making
the health facilities at overseas bases available, and it is
irresponsible not to do so.
In addition to the health risks of the current policy, there is a
significant financial penalty on servicewomen and their families.
Round-trip travel costs for a woman stationed at our Air Base in Turkey
to travel privately back to Washington for an abortion totals over
$2,500 and that figure does not include the cost of the medical
procedure. For a young enlisted woman whose pretax monthly income is
about $1,400, that cost is a significant financial hardship that women
serving in the United States do not have to bear.
If the enlisted woman does not have the financial means to travel
privately to the United States, she could face significant delays
waiting for space available military transportation. The health risks
increase with each week. If the delays are too long, the servicewoman
may well be forced to rely on questionable facilities in the country
where she is stationed. For all practical purposes, she is being denied
her right to choose.
The decision on abortion is very difficult and extremely personal. It
is unfair and unreasonable to make this decision so dangerous for women
who serve our country overseas.
Every woman in America has a constitutional right to choose to
terminate her pregnancy. It is time for Congress to stop denying this
right to military women serving overseas and to stop treating them as
second-class citizens. I urge the Senate to support the Murray
amendment.
Mr. President, I find it very difficult to follow the logic of those
individuals who oppose abortions at overseas Government-supported
medical facilities because tax payers' dollars are involved, and yet
somehow distinguish that from the Government-supported air
transportation required to fly individuals back to the United States to
obtain abortion services. Who in the world pays for the air
transportation, the aircraft, and the personnel that fly the aircraft?
The issue ought to be what is the best in terms of the health care
for that individual. We insist on that for our military personnel. They
are entitled to it--the very, very best. We are committed to make sure
they get the best.
Why should we be able to say we are going to provide quality health
care services with this one exception, with this one area, where a
woman is going to have to roll the dice and take her chances, based
upon availability of flights, based upon the particular location where
the woman is stationed? Are we going to effectively wash our hands of
any kind of responsibility? It makes no sense. It is cruel. It is
inhumane. It is failing to meet the health care needs of military
personnel. We should not be able to say we will provide the best in
health care with the exception of this one procedure.
I think the amendment is commendable. I congratulate the Senator from
Washington for offering it. I hope the amendment is carried.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Maine how much
time she desires.
Ms. SNOWE. I would like 5 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by Senator Murray to repeal the ban on abortions in overseas military
hospitals. I am very pleased to cosponsor this amendment as well.
In listening to the debate here this afternoon, I cannot help but
think ``here we go again'' on this issue, on a woman's personal right
to choose. We have this debate year in and year out. Congress revisits
this issue of reproductive freedom by seeking to restrict, limit, and
eliminate a woman's right to choose.
This ban on abortion in overseas military facilities, reinstated last
year, represented just more of the same. I point out these efforts to
turn back the clock on a woman's reproductive rights will never erase
the fact that the highest court in the land reaffirmed a woman's basic
and fundamental right to a safe and legal abortion time after time,
again and again, in decision after decision.
Last year's successful effort to reinstate that ban was another
frontal assault on the principle of reproductive freedom and the
dignity of women's lives. We all know that this ban denies the right to
choose for female military personnel and dependents. It denies those
women who have voluntarily decided to serve our country in the Armed
Forces safe and legal medical care, simply because they were assigned
to duty in other countries.
What kind of reward is that? Why does this Congress want to punish
those women who so bravely serve our country overseas by denying them
the rights that are guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution?
It did not occur to me that women's constitutional rights were
territorial. It did not occur to me that when American women in our
Armed Forces get visas and passports stamped when they go abroad, they
are supposed to leave their fundamental constitutional rights at the
proverbial door.
I think it is regrettable that in this debate we are talking about
denying women their rights because they are serving in our military in
overseas facilities. We are denying them their option to have a safe
and legal medical procedure because they happen to be working for this
country overseas. The taxpayers are not required to pay for this
procedure. This procedure is paid for by the woman's personal fund.
That is the way it was, under the law, between 1979 and 1988. And as we
know, at that time, in 1988, the policy was reversed. It was reinstated
to lift the ban in 1993.
I, frankly, cannot understand why we are suggesting that there should
be a two-tiered policy for women if they happen to serve in the
military overseas. We are saying, by virtue of that
[[Page
S6463]]
fact, you will not have the same medical care in this legal procedure
that is recognized under the law in this country, and has been
reaffirmed time and again by the highest court in the land.
Milita
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
(Senate - June 19, 1996)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages S6455-
S6508]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana retains the floor.
Amendment No. 4058
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. SMITH. I believe under the request I had 20 minutes. Probably
very close to that amount of time.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, may I just make a unanimous-consent
request before the Senator makes his statement? I ask unanimous consent
that Linda Taylor, a fellow in my office, be given the privilege of the
floor during the pendency of
S. 1745.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from New
Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 18 minutes
remaining.
Mr. COATS. I yield all time remaining to the Senator from New
Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, some things are very predictable around
here. One of the most predictable is that somebody every year gets up
there in the authorization debate and tries to kill the ASAT Program.
This is not a harmless amendment. This is a very serious amendment that
can do damage to the national security of the United States.
I might say very bluntly and honestly, I do not have any parochial
interest in this. I have a national interest in this. There is not
anybody working on this in my State. It is not a jobs issue in my
State. This is a national security matter, and year after year I stand
up and engage in debate on this, and in committee, as the opponents
continue to go after this program.
This amendment is designed to kill ASAT, to kill the kinetic energy
program plain and simple. That is exactly what it is designed to do.
That is what they are trying to do. We have invested $245 million in
this program. We have 2 years left, at approximately $75 million a
year, to complete this program. This technology works. It has already
been tested. It works. We are going to throw it down the tube, throw it
away.
What is ironic to me is that some of the things that Senator Bingaman
has said on this issue are reasonable. In fact, I offered to work with
the Senator in committee to address his concerns over the section
dealing with the space architect. But, we could not reach a compromise.
There was no interest in having a compromise. He wants the whole thing.
He wants to defeat it.
So here we are again, rather than simply addressing the concerns that
he has over the space architect issue, the Senator from New Mexico now
is going after the entire program--all or nothing.
The truth is, this amendment circumvents the authorization and
appropriations process totally. It allows the space architect to
singlehandedly decide if the Pentagon spends the money that has been
authorized and appropriated in both 1996 and 1997 for ASAT.
[[Page
S6456]]
That is an assault on the jurisdiction of this committee, the Armed
Services Committee, and the Appropriations Committee. There is a
process in place, a correct process, to seek reprogramming or
rescissions, and that works pretty well around here. But to say that
the space architect, whose identity I would venture to say very few of
my colleagues even know, can decide whether or not he wants to comply
with the law, this represents an enormous erosion of the Senate's
jurisdiction and particularly that of the Armed Services and
Appropriations Committees.
We voted on this issue many times, both Republicans and Democrats,
under Democrat control, under Republican control. The Senate has always
gone on record in support of this program, and yet the assaults
continue. The Armed Forces have testified that they need this
capability. The Armed Forces have said they need this capability. The
taxpayers have invested millions in its development. Now, when we are
so close to completing the program, why kill it? You should not kill it
on the money, because you have invested so much, but more important--
much more important--you should not kill it because of the technology.
Let us talk a little bit about why it makes no sense to kill it and
why it is a threat to our national security to do that.
The global spread of advanced satellite technology has made it
possible for countries to obtain this high-definition imagery for
satellites in low orbit or to buy that information. This data is
crucial because in a future conflict, the United States has to be able
to neutralize a hostile satellite. How are you going to do that? This
is how you do it, with kinetic energy ASAT. But at present, we do not
have that capability. We simply do not have the capability.
If you think back, during the gulf war, the Iraqi Air Force was
destroyed or forced out of the air in the first few days of fighting,
and Iraq had no reconnaissance capability. This lack of Iraqi overhead
surveillance made it possible for the allies to mass their forces and
sweep across the desert to bring a swift conclusion to a war that could
have cost thousands--thousands --of American casualties.
Gen. Charles Horner, Desert Storm air commander, said that the
diplomacy that we used convinced France and Russia not to sell
reconnaissance data to Iraq. Suppose they had it? We had no way to stop
them with that kind of reconnaissance. ASAT destroys those satellites,
Mr. President. Why would anyone want to stop that technology?
Satellites that can be placed up in the air, over the Earth in low
orbit with a capability to spy on the United States, spy on our forces,
collect data, transmit data, what does ASAT do? What does this
satellite do? It disables. It disables that satellite and keeps that
enemy from collecting that information.
Why would anyone want to deny the United States of America the
capability to do that? It baffles me. I cannot understand it. Every
year, year after year, we have to take the same position--for 6 years I
have done it--defending this system, while those in this Congress and
some in the administration try to kill it, try to kill the capability
of the United States to take out a satellite that could destroy
American forces.
Some say, ``Well, nobody out there has any capability for satellites.
What do we need ASAT for?'' According to the U.S. Space Command,
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the Czech Republic,
France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy,
Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey,
and Ukraine, to name 30. They do not have any capability? It is out
there, folks.
You say some of those are friendly countries. That is right, and they
sell this technology and there are a lot of people out there buying it.
``Why not just jam them?'' they say. We do not have the capability to
do that.
A U.S. antisatellite capability--and this is a very important point,
I cannot emphasize this strongly enough to my colleagues--is a
disincentive for a potential adversary to spend their resources on
military satellites. A U.S. kinetic energy ASAT could help constrain
the proliferation of such systems. Why would somebody want to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars to develop satellites to put in space
to spy on us or to use to collect data against our forces if they know
we can disable them or disarm them? The chances are they will not. Yet,
here we are, here we are, saying, ``Let's kill the program.''
Russia leads the world in space launches of military satellites.
Ukraine is building a series of radar satellites.
China is launching military recon satellites and have been doing it
for 20 years. They are selling space launches and satellite technology
all over the world.
United Arab Emirates reportedly has ordered a military reconnaissance
satellite from a consortium of Russian firms.
On and on and on, and yet we stand here on the floor today having to
defend attacks on us, those who support this system. I have had enough
of it, Mr. President, to be very blunt about it. I have had enough of
it. I am tired of it. I think it is outrageous that people come down on
this floor and put our forces at risk to try to kill the technology
that works, that protects us.
Let me repeat, had Saddam Hussein had the capability, had he had
these satellites, we would have lost thousands of Americans because we
could not have disabled them. We have the technology. It works. Why are
we not using it?
It does not make any sense, Mr. President, not to continue this
technology. This technology was designed, developed, manufactured, and
integrated under the Kinetic Energy ASAT Demonstration Validation
Program from 1990 to 1993 and ground tested, and it works. Here we are
having to defend it from these attacks.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. SMITH. The distinguished chairman, Senator Thurmond, has asked
for a little of my time, so I will just conclude by saying, if we lose
this vote and lose this technology and end this technology, ASAT, it,
in my opinion, will be a direct threat to the thousands of American men
and women all over the world who wear the uniforms of the Armed Forces
of the United States.
It is an unprecedented erosion of our constitutional prerogative.
When we take the oath to the Constitution, we take an oath to protect
and defend America. This protects and defends America. I have been
hearing a lot of this talk. I have heard some of it already, and we
will hear a lot more, about how we are going to do this stuff with
lasers, disable all these satellites with laser technology, that that
is the thing of the future. It might be, but it is not here yet. What
are we going to do here in between?
For those who might not care about the military application--or maybe
you care about space junk--kinetic energy ASAT disables satellites. It
does not break them up into hundreds of pieces and create space junk.
It disables them. It is a very important point.
I would think the Senate would want to think long and hard before
ending this technology because this amendment will do that. That is
what it is designed to do.
There will be another amendment coming to cut the funding off just in
case this one does not work. We face that every year.
I want to conclude on this point, Mr. President. I have been on the
Armed Services Committee here in the U.S. Senate under Democrat and
Republican leadership. We have fought this fight every year. And
Democrats, when they were in the majority, were some of the strongest
supporters on that committee of this program.
This is not a Republican-Democrat issue here. This is a national
security issue. It deserves to be supported. Why some in the
administration have taken the position that it ought not to be, and
some in the Senate, I do not know. But I know this is dangerous. This
is a dangerous amendment. I do not say that about very many amendments
on this floor. This is a dangerous amendment. This could cost American
lives,
[[Page
S6457]]
and not too far in the distant future either. This could be very close
in the immediate future. This could cost American lives.
We have the technology to disable satellites. We ought to use it. It
is proven. We have expended roughly two-thirds of the money. It is in
place. The military supports it. And those policymakers who do not are
ill-advised. They are wrong. They are absolutely wrong. We have an
obligation to stand up and be heard on this, when these kinds of things
happen.
So I am proud to say, Mr. President, that I support this program, not
for any parochial reasons, but for national security reasons. I am
standing here on the floor today because this system works. It is
necessary for the security of the United States of America. It protects
American lives. It ought to be funded fully. It ought not to be in any
way diminished.
So I ask my colleagues, please, do not fall for this faulty line,
this false information, and to support kinetic energy ASAT.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much time is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 3 minutes,
20 seconds.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, first, I want to commend the able
Senator from New Hampshire for the excellent remarks he has made on
this subject. He has made a very emphatic case for our side. I am very
proud that he has done that today.
Mr. President. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
Senator from New Mexico. A similar variation of the amendment was
offered in the committee during markup and it was not accepted.
The Congress has authorized and/or appropriated funds for the kinetic
energy antisatellite technology program since 1985. For the past 3
years the administration has not complied with the law and obligated
the funds for the program. Every year, as a result, we have to take
actions to force the Department to comply with legislation to compel
them to obligate the funds for this particular program.
Mr. President, the Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Bob Davis,
has stated on many occasions that there is a need to develop systems to
counter the space threat. The Congress has supported the kinetic energy
antisatellite technologies for that purposes, as well as other
technologies which are not ready for production or are years away from
deployment. The KE-ASAT program is the only near-term program to meet a
potential enemy satellite threat.
The U.S military relies on space for surveillance, communications,
navigation, and attack warning. It is important for the United States
to ensure its freedom to use space. If our adversaries achieve the
ability to control space and the United States does not have the
capability to turn this around, we will lose our military advantage.
Mr. President, I, again, oppose the amendment offered by the Senator
from New Mexico and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum for Robert
T. Howard, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Budget by Jay M.
Garner, Lieutenant General, USA, commanding, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department of the Army,
Space and Strategic Defense Command,
Arlington, VA, January 3, 1996.
Memorandum for MG Robert T. Howard, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Budget.
Subject: Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Technology
Funding Reduction.
1. USASSDC nonconcurs with action proposed by Program
Budget Decision 719, which rescinds $30M from the ASAT
program in support of the Bosnia Supplemental. USASSDC
believes kinetic energy technology will prove to be a vital
capability for the future. In addition, the kill vehicle
currently being tested may have applicability to other
programs.
2. The total KE ASAT technology program encompasses four
years (FY96-99) at a cost of $180M, which includes the $30M
currently being considered for rescission. The program is
structured to develop incremental technology improvements
(and possible insertion into other programs), necessary kill
vehicle and booster procurements, and testing. For example,
in FY96, weapon control system integration, software
upgrades, and kill vehicle refurbishment will be accomplished
in support of a planned hover test. This hover test, along
with kill vehicle qualification testing and hardware in the
loop simulation planned for FY97 will facilitate full up
flight tests during FY98. As in the past, we expect continued
Congressional funding and support of this program to not
affect Army's research and development account, or overall
total obligation authority (TOA). Based on this level of
funding a contingency deployment capability will be achieved
by FY99.
3. The current contract with Rockwell will terminate on
January 31, 1996. If allowed to do so, ASAT contingency
capability will be delayed by a minimum of one year depending
on when funding is made available.
4. Point of contact for this action is LTC Robert M. Shell
at (703) 607-1934.
Jay M. Garner,
Lieutenant General,
USA, Commanding.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bingaman amendment
on ASAT programs. His amendment would simply remove two very onerous
provisions from the bill and permit the Department of Defense ``Space
Architect'' to complete a study we have required, and determine which
anti-satellite technologies are most appropriate for the U.S. military.
His amendment would not kill the ASAT Program, as its opponents have
charged. In fact, his amendment would leave in place $75 million for
U.S. ASAT programs, which was added by the committee majority, for the
ASAT Program. This is funding the administration did not request, but
which was added by the majority.
I believe it would be appropriate to eliminate the funding as well as
the two provisions in the bill, because I do not believe there is a
need to fund this ASAT Program. But this amendment by Senator Bingaman
is a compromise that would leave in place all the funding added by the
Committee majority, but strip out the two provisions that were in the
bill. It would leave the Department of Defense the option of pursuing
the kinetic energy ASAT Program if it is considered appropriate
technology. But the bill mandates that the Pentagon choose the KE ASAT,
without even knowing the results of the current study being conducted
by the ``Space Architect.''
So the amendment offered by Senator Bingaman is a very reasonable
compromise that leaves open all ASAT options while keeping $75 million
that was not even requested by the Administration. Although I do not
believe that this funding is justified, I think the underlying
provisions in the bill are totally unjustified and should be rejected
by the Senate.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Bingaman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. At this time, not to interrupt the debate, I would like,
if the Senator from New Mexico is finished, to move the amendment, or
at least ask for the yeas and nays. Let me just ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I did want to conclude my debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table is not in order at this
point.
Mr. SMITH. I will withhold.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico controls 10
minutes, 52 seconds.
Amendment No. 4058, As Modified
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I am informed by the floor staff
that I need to send a modification to the desk. It is a technical
modification to make it clear as to which page and which line is being
proposed for striking in this amendment. I send that modification to
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Beginning on page 33, strike out line 3 and all that
follows through page 34, line 2, and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
[[Page
S6458]]
SEC. 212. SPACE CONTROL ARCHITECTURE STUDY.
(a) Required Consideration of Kinetic Energy Tactical
Antisatellite Program.--The Department of Defense Space
Architect shall evaluate the potential cost and effectiveness
of the inclusion of the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite
program of the Department of Defense as a specific element of
the space control architecture which the Space Architect is
developing for the Secretary of Defense.
(b) Congressional Notification of Any Determination of
Inappropriateness of Program for Architecture.--(1) If at any
point in the development of the space control architecture
the Space Architect determines that the kinetic energy
tactical antisatellite program is not appropriate for
incorporation into the space control architecture under
development, the Space Architect shall immediately notify the
congressional defense committees of such determination.
(2) Within 60 days after submitting a notification of a
determination under paragraph (1), the Space Architect shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a detailed
report setting forth the specific reasons for, and analytical
findings supporting, the determination.
(c) Report on Approved Architecture.--Not later than March
31, 1997, the Secretary, of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the space
control architecture approved by the Secretary. The report
shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the potential threats posed to
deployed United States military forces by the proliferation
of foreign military and commercial space assets.
(2) The Secretary's recommendations for development and
deployment of space control capabilities to counter such
threats.
(d) Funding.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall release to
the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program manager the
funds appropriated in fiscal year 1996 for the kinetic energy
tactical antisatellite program. The Secretary may withdraw
unobligated balances of such funds from the program manager
only if--
(A) the Space Architect makes a determination described in
subsection (b)(1); or
(B) a report submitted by the Secretary pursuant to
subsection (c) includes a recommendation not to pursue such a
program.
(2) Not later than April 1, 1997, the Secretary of Defense
shall release to the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite
program manager any funds appropriated for fiscal year 1997
for a kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program pursuant
to section 221(a) unless--
(A) the Space Architect has by such date submitted a
notification pursuant to subsection (b); or
(B) a report submitted by the Secretary pursuant to
subsection (c) includes a recommendation not to pursue such a
program.
Beginning on page 42, strike out line 15 and all that
follows through page 43, line 9
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just respond briefly. I do not
think I will take the full 10 minutes. The Senator from New Hampshire
says that this amendment that I have offered is an effort to kill the
ASAT Program. That is clearly not true. There is nothing in the
amendment that I have offered which in any way tries to delete or
reduce or diminish funding for an ASAT Program. I made it very clear
that I support that funding. The funding remains in the bill.
The Senator from New Hampshire is saying that the Pentagon is trying
to kill its own ASAT capability. I have real trouble understanding that
logic or believing that that is a credible line of argument.
The real question we are trying to pose here, Mr. President, is,
should we allow the Pentagon to come forward with their own
recommendation on what makes the most sense, what is the best option
for an ASAT capability, or should we prejudge that?
I remember a story that I heard when I was in school about how Henry
Ford used to say, ``You can have any color of Model-T Ford that you
want as long as it's black.'' What we are saying here in the existing
bill to the Pentagon is, ``You can pursue any option you want to obtain
ASAT capability as long as you take the one we want you to take.'' That
is not a smart way for us to proceed. We do not have the technical
capability here in the U.S. Senate to prejudge this study that the
Pentagon is engaged in.
My colleague from New Hampshire says that the military supports this
kinetic energy ASAT capability; they want to go ahead and fund it. If
that is true, then why do we have to mandate in the bill that they have
to fund it? Why do we have to mandate in the bill that they cannot
spend any money for these other purposes unless they fund it, unless
they choose that option?
I think clearly what the majority in the committee is trying to do in
this bill is to take away the options of the Pentagon and say the
Pentagon has to fight the way we say or else we will impose sanctions
upon them.
My colleague from New Hampshire says that anyone who would support
this amendment, the amendment I have offered, is trying to put our
forces at risk. Why is it putting our forces at risk to let the
Pentagon decide what makes the most sense, what is the most effective
for protecting our forces? I have real difficulty understanding that
kind of logic.
Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered is not an effort to
kill the ASAT Program. It is not an effort to reduce funding for the
ASAT Program. There is nothing in the amendment that does either of
those things. What it says is, let us give them the money, let us give
them the ability to come back and recommend to us the proper use of
that money to gain the greatest capability for protecting our own
forces. To me that is common sense. I have great difficulty seeing why
we even have to argue about it.
I am reminded, as I hear the debate raging around here, that when I
was practicing law, a more senior member of the bar early on in some of
the trial practice I engaged in said there is a simple rule in trying a
lawsuit. When the facts are on your side, pound away at the facts; when
the law is on your side, pound away at the law; when neither are on
your side, pound away at the table. That is what is happening here.
Neither the facts nor the law nor common sense are on the side of those
who put this provision in the bill.
We clearly should delete this provision. Let the Pentagon make its
own recommendations as to what option is best for our troops. That is
what I favor doing. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I
yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. I yield the remainder of the time to the able Senator
from New Hampshire, and I ask unanimous consent that 2 additional
minutes be allowed the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to an additional 2
minutes, but I would like 2 minutes on my side.
Mr. THURMOND. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so
ordered. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized for up to 2
minutes and 58 seconds.
Mr. SMITH. I will respond to my friend from New Mexico. We worked
very closely together on the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee. I
will not pound the table. I am not even going to raise my voice. The
truth of the matter--and the Senator knows this full well--the
administration did not request any funding in their budget for the ASAT
Program.
Unless I am missing something in the logic here--I do not believe I
am; maybe the Senator would like me to miss it and would like others to
miss it--unless I misunderstand something, if the administration does
not request it and the policy folks do not want it, if we send it back
to the space architect, who is a policy person, to study it, you can
pretty well conclude what the results will be. They will not fund it.
When I say this is a deliberate attempt to kill the Kinetic Energy
ASAT Program, I mean what I say. It is true. It will kill it. The other
thing that we need to understand here, the Army supports the Kinetic
Energy ASAT Program. They objected to the rescission list. They
objected to this being listed as a rescission item. They did not win
the debate. The policy people won.
The Senator's amendment sends this back to the space architect. He
will study it diligently over the next few weeks, months, whatever it
takes, and then announce that we do not need it, and kill it. This is
not an objective decision here. This person was not objective. This
person made up his mind already. He does not want it. If he wanted it,
he would have funded the remainder of it, which has already been--as we
said earlier, we have already expended $245 million on this program,
and we have already proven that it works, and we already have the
technology in place. All we are asking for is the completion. That is
the reason why this is a killer amendment.
We should not be cute about the process here. When somebody opposes
something, you give it back to them to make the decision, you can
pretty well
[[Page
S6459]]
guess what the decision is going to be. That is a little bit
disingenuous. They did not fund it. The administration does not want
this program. The administration is getting quite a reputation around
here for not expending moneys that we have appropriated and authorized.
They are getting pretty good at it, and they are doing it without
legislation. They are just doing it. They are just saying, ``We do not
want this, so even though you authorized it and appropriated it, we are
not going to spend it.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from New Mexico has 7 minutes 45 seconds.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, again I will not take the full 7
minutes, but let me conclude by saying that I think there is clearly a
failure to communicate here on this issue.
My colleague from New Hampshire says that the Army wants this
program. Looking at the facts: The administration asked for a fairly
healthy defense budget; the Armed Services Committee, in the bill that
is before the Senate here, added about over $12 billion to that--
something in that range. In order to come up with that additional
money, we went to each of the services and said, ``What is on your wish
list? Are there things you would like to have funded that we were not
able to fund, or that the President did not request, or that the
Pentagon did not request, the Secretary of Defense did not request?''
The Army gave us over $2 billion worth of those, more like $3 billion.
I am not sure of the exact amount.
Again, there was nothing in there for this ASAT capability. The
argument that the Army wants this, they just never want us to give them
any money for it, is a hard one for me to understand. I think, clearly,
this is not a program I am trying to kill. We are not touching the
money. The money has been added here, and we are saying, ``Fine, let's
go ahead and spend the money for whichever option the Pentagon wants to
pursue.'' But let the Pentagon make the judgment. Do not try to
prejudge the right technology in order to develop this ASAT capability.
That is all we are saying.
The end of the amendment that I have offered, I think, makes it very
clear that not later than April 1, 1997, the Secretary of Defense shall
release to the kinetic energy antisatellite program manager any funds
appropriated in 1997 for the Kinetic Energy Tactical Antisatellite
Program pursuant to section 221(a) unless the space architect has by
such date submitted a notification; or a report submitted by the
Secretary pursuant to subsection (c) includes a recommendation not to
pursue such a program.
What I am trying to do in my amendment is to protect the ability of
the Pentagon to use the money in the most effective way. We are not in
favor of mandating a result in an ongoing study where they are trying
to make a judgment as to what is the best use of this money to protect
our own forces.
I have confidence that the Pentagon will make a judgment based on
their honest and expert opinion as to what makes sense for the country
and for our own forces. I do not think we need to prejudge that.
Accordingly, I hope very much that my amendment will be agreed to.
Mr. President, I ask that Senator Bumpers be added as a cosponsor to
my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no additional debate.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent upon disposition
of the Bingaman amendment, that Senator Ashcroft and Senator Kennedy be
recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to table this amendment, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and
the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Faircloth
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Bumpers
Rockefeller
The motion to table the amendment (No. 4058), as modified, was agreed
to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Faircloth is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Heflin and Mr. Nunn
pertaining to the introduction of
S. 1890 are located in today's Record
under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor
privileges be granted to Randy O'Connor, a defense fellow in my office
for the duration of the consideration of the fiscal year 1997 Defense
authorization bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Washington would
like to be recognized. I think there has been a unanimous-consent
request. I believe the Senator from South Carolina will be asking
unanimous consent that Senator Murray be recognized for the time
agreement specified. I believe, also, the Senator needs to ask the
amendments be set aside that are now pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on
the Murray amendment related to abortions in military hospitals be
limited to 2 hours equally divided in the usual form, that no
amendments be in order, and that following the use or yielding back of
time, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the amendment.
Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like
to include in the unanimous-consent request, if I might, that I be
recognized to offer an amendment immediately upon the disposition of
the Murray amendment.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page
S6460]]
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest we begin debate on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a pending unanimous-consent request.
Is there objection?
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest we now proceed to debate.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, can I inquire, has the Senator from
Washington been recognized to offer her amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not at this point. There was an objection to
the unanimous-consent request.
Mr. COATS. But that would not prevent the Senator from going ahead
and offering her amendment; there would just not be a time constraint?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, if the Senator from South Carolina propounds
the unanimous-consent request, I believe it will be agreed to now. I
know the Senator from Arkansas first would like to make his position
clear, and perhaps if he is recognized at this point for that, he can
make his brief statement and then the Senator from South Carolina can
propound the unanimous=consent request, and I believe it will be agreed
to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member of
the Armed Services Committee for allowing me to make a statement, and I
will say to my distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
my statement will be about just one moment, and then we will allow
Senator Murray to go forward with her amendment.
Mr. President, the amendment that I am going to offer, and it may not
be after the disposition of Senator Murray's amendment but it may be
after the disposition of a subsequent amendment, is the so-called GATT
Glaxo amendment. I have been attempting all of this year, during the
entirety of 1996, to bring this amendment to the floor, to have it
debated and have it voted on. I have asked for 1 hour of debate, 30
minutes on a side, and then let us vote up or down and dispose of this
matter to see if we are willing or not willing to correct a massive
abuse that we created by mistake in the GATT treaty.
This is allowing one drug firm to prevent other generic firms from
coming in and competing fairly in the market. It is also allowing an
extra $5 million each day--each day--of profits that we hesitate and
fail to correct.
It should be a matter of honor that we correct this matter, and I am
going on the Department of Defense bill to continue attempting to find
a slot where Senator Brown, Senator Chafee, and the Senator from
Arkansas, Senator Pryor, may offer this amendment and have the U.S.
Senate go on record, once and for all, as to whether we are willing to
correct this abusive flaw created by mistake.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able Senator from
Arkansas for taking the position he has. I will now proceed to make the
request.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on the Murray
amendment, relating to abortions at military hospitals, be limited to 2
hours, equally divided in the usual form, and that no amendments be in
order; and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate
proceed to vote on, or in relation to, the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Amendment No. 4059
(Purpose: To repeal the restriction on use of Department of Defense
facilities for abortions)
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
laid aside.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Robb, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Simon, and
Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 4059.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title VII add the following:
SEC. 708. RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS POLICY REGARDING
RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MEDICAL FACILITIES.
Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out subsection (b); and
(2) in subsection (a), by striking out ``(a) Restriction on
Use of Funds.--''.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering to the
fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense authorization bill--and I am
offering it on behalf of myself, Senator Snowe, Senator Simon, Senator
Lautenberg, Senator Robb, Senator Moseley-Braun and Senator Kennedy--is
very simple. It strikes language adopted in last year's defense
authorization and appropriations bills that would prohibit privately
funded abortions from being performed at overseas military hospitals.
This ban places women stationed overseas in an unsafe and unfair
situation and blatantly restricts their constitutional right to choose.
Women in our armed services sacrifice each and every day to serve our
country. They should receive our utmost respect, honor, and gratitude.
They certainly do not deserve to be told they must check their
constitutional rights at the door when they are stationed overseas. My
amendment protects their precious rights and ensures their safe access
to quality medical services.
Mr. President, let me just say a few things about my amendment to
clear away any confusion that may exist.
First, this amendment simply restores previous DOD policy. From 1973
to 1988, a woman stationed overseas was allowed to obtain an abortion
if she paid with private, nondefense funds. Likewise, this was DOD
policy from 1993 till 1996. This is not some radical new idea. Quite
the contrary, in fact. This law was in place for almost two full terms
of the Reagan White House.
We have had many debates on the floor of this Senate over the past 2
years about abortion, about Federal funding, about Federal workers,
about Medicaid. Let me be very clear, this issue is different. My
amendment simply ensures the same rights for women in our armed
services enjoyed by every other woman in this country.
This amendment is merely an effort to return us to the policy of the
past which protected women stationed in a foreign country from having
to seek medical care from inexperienced or inadequately trained
personnel. It is dangerous and unnecessary and just plain wrong to put
these women, who are serving our country overseas, at risk.
Furthermore, my amendment does not force anyone to perform an
abortion at a military facility.
Currently, all departments of the military function under a
conscience clause which states that medical personnel do not have to
participate in an abortion procedure if they have a religious, moral,
or ethical objection.
This amendment preserves that important conscience clause. Most
importantly, Mr. President, it deals only with an individual's private
funds. The 104th Congress has spent almost 2 years trying to return
flexibility and authority to States. But under the fiscal year 1996 DOD
bill, we have a fundamental inconsistency. We have a problem telling
our States how to spend their money, but women in our own military are
not afforded that privilege.
[[Page
S6461]]
Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that a woman stationed overseas
does not always have the luxury of access to safe and quality medical
care other than at the military hospital on her base. It is dangerous
to force her to seek medical care in the local area. We are sending our
women in uniform to the foreign back alley. And that is wrong.
My amendment seeks to prevent our women in uniform from having to
make a very difficult and potentially dangerous, life-threatening
choice. My amendment seeks to restore our women in uniform, women
stationed overseas, a right they have had for most of the last 23
years. My amendment seeks to protect the constitutional rights of our
women in uniform. They sacrifice every day for every single one of us,
and we owe them that much. I urge my colleagues to vote for this
amendment. I withhold the balance of my time.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Indiana.
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
[[Page
S6462]]
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.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want the Senate to support the
amendment offered by Senator Murray to ensure that women in the armed
services serving overseas can exercise their constitutional right to
choose safe abortion services. It does not require the Department of
Defense to pay for abortions. But it repeals the current ban on
privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. Our
servicewomen should not lose their rights granted by the Constitution
when they serve the country in foreign lands.
This is an issue of fairness to the women who make significant
sacrifices to serve our nation. They go to military bases around the
world to protect our freedoms, but when they get there, they are denied
access to the kind of medical care available to all women in the United
States. Military women should be able to depend on their base hospitals
for all their medical services. This amendment gives them access to the
same range and quality of health care services that they could obtain
in the United States.
In many countries where our forces serve, that quality of care is not
available. Without adequate care, an abortion can be a life-threatening
or permanently disabling operation. In some countries, the blood supply
may pose an unacceptable health risk for military personnel.
We have a responsibility to provide safe options for U.S.
servicewomen in these situations. Those who oppose this amendment are
exposing servicewomen to substantial risks of infection, illness,
infertility, or even death. We can easily avoid such risks by making
the health facilities at overseas bases available, and it is
irresponsible not to do so.
In addition to the health risks of the current policy, there is a
significant financial penalty on servicewomen and their families.
Round-trip travel costs for a woman stationed at our Air Base in Turkey
to travel privately back to Washington for an abortion totals over
$2,500 and that figure does not include the cost of the medical
procedure. For a young enlisted woman whose pretax monthly income is
about $1,400, that cost is a significant financial hardship that women
serving in the United States do not have to bear.
If the enlisted woman does not have the financial means to travel
privately to the United States, she could face significant delays
waiting for space available military transportation. The health risks
increase with each week. If the delays are too long, the servicewoman
may well be forced to rely on questionable facilities in the country
where she is stationed. For all practical purposes, she is being denied
her right to choose.
The decision on abortion is very difficult and extremely personal. It
is unfair and unreasonable to make this decision so dangerous for women
who serve our country overseas.
Every woman in America has a constitutional right to choose to
terminate her pregnancy. It is time for Congress to stop denying this
right to military women serving overseas and to stop treating them as
second-class citizens. I urge the Senate to support the Murray
amendment.
Mr. President, I find it very difficult to follow the logic of those
individuals who oppose abortions at overseas Government-supported
medical facilities because tax payers' dollars are involved, and yet
somehow distinguish that from the Government-supported air
transportation required to fly individuals back to the United States to
obtain abortion services. Who in the world pays for the air
transportation, the aircraft, and the personnel that fly the aircraft?
The issue ought to be what is the best in terms of the health care
for that individual. We insist on that for our military personnel. They
are entitled to it--the very, very best. We are committed to make sure
they get the best.
Why should we be able to say we are going to provide quality health
care services with this one exception, with this one area, where a
woman is going to have to roll the dice and take her chances, based
upon availability of flights, based upon the particular location where
the woman is stationed? Are we going to effectively wash our hands of
any kind of responsibility? It makes no sense. It is cruel. It is
inhumane. It is failing to meet the health care needs of military
personnel. We should not be able to say we will provide the best in
health care with the exception of this one procedure.
I think the amendment is commendable. I congratulate the Senator from
Washington for offering it. I hope the amendment is carried.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Maine how much
time she desires.
Ms. SNOWE. I would like 5 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by Senator Murray to repeal the ban on abortions in overseas military
hospitals. I am very pleased to cosponsor this amendment as well.
In listening to the debate here this afternoon, I cannot help but
think ``here we go again'' on this issue, on a woman's personal right
to choose. We have this debate year in and year out. Congress revisits
this issue of reproductive freedom by seeking to restrict, limit, and
eliminate a woman's right to choose.
This ban on abortion in overseas military facilities, reinstated last
year, represented just more of the same. I point out these efforts to
turn back the clock on a woman's reproductive rights will never erase
the fact that the highest court in the land reaffirmed a woman's basic
and fundamental right to a safe and legal abortion time after time,
again and again, in decision after decision.
Last year's successful effort to reinstate that ban was another
frontal assault on the principle of reproductive freedom and the
dignity of women's lives. We all know that this ban denies the right to
choose for female military personnel and dependents. It denies those
women who have voluntarily decided to serve our country in the Armed
Forces safe and legal medical care, simply because they were assigned
to duty in other countries.
What kind of reward is that? Why does this Congress want to punish
those women who so bravely serve our country overseas by denying them
the rights that are guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution?
It did not occur to me that women's constitutional rights were
territorial. It did not occur to me that when American women in our
Armed Forces get visas and passports stamped when they go abroad, they
are supposed to leave their fundamental constitutional rights at the
proverbial door.
I think it is regrettable that in this debate we are talking about
denying women their rights because they are serving in our military in
overseas facilities. We are denying them their option to have a safe
and legal medical procedure because they happen to be working for this
country overseas. The taxpayers are not required to pay for this
procedure. This procedure is paid for by the woman's personal fund.
That is the way it was, under the law, between 1979 and 1988. And as we
know, at that time, in 1988, the policy was reversed. It was reinstated
to lift the ban in 1993.
I, frankly, cannot understand why we are suggesting that there should
be a two-tiered policy for women if they happen to serve in the
military overseas. We are saying, by virtue of that
[[Page
S6463]]
fact, you will not have the same medical care in this legal procedure
that is recognized under the law in this country, and has been
reaffirmed time and again by the highest court in the land.
Military personnel stationed overseas
