Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Senator Coats pertaining to the introduction of S. 727 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, my understanding is that we are in morning business and I have 10 minutes allocated to me. I may not take that much time.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am here to essentially support the hard work of a colleague, Senator Johanns, in bringing to the floor tomorrow a vote to repeal the 1099 provisions in the current health care bill. As I campaigned throughout the State of Indiana over this past year, meeting with businesspeople and individuals running shops in a small town and large businesses on the outskirts of busy manufacturing centers, several themes were repeated over and over and over. One was that we continue to have problems in creating jobs because of the massive amount of regulations that are flowing out of Washington that, at a time of fiscal downturn in particular, are keeping our businesses from going forward and hiring people, being competitive. We spend time in the back room with paperwork, filling out what seems to be unnecessary burdens imposed upon us by regulatory agencies. Some of these regulations are necessary. We all know that for purposes of health and safety, there are regulations that are important in keeping companies' feet to the fire in terms of making sure their workplace is a safe and healthy place to work. These are important, and there are others. But clearly there is an excess. What I heard people saying all across the State of Indiana was that our government has grown too big, it spends too much money and it overregulates. In particular, when it comes to business, that overregulation and overtaxation is impeding our ability to compete on a worldwide basis to provide the kinds of jobs and services America is used to providing in such a successful way. Tomorrow, this vote will deal with an aspect of the health care bill that was passed in the last Congress. Tucked away in that health care bill is a provision requiring every company, every church, every charity to submit a separate IRS 1099 form for taxes detailing and describing the goods they purchase in order to run their church, run their hospital, run their business, run their charity. I have talked to hospitals--small and rural, big and large--across the State of Indiana, and they say: Do you realize how many separate items we purchase every year of over $600? Do you understand how many hundreds, if not thousands, of prescription drugs we purchase in order to have them available here to perform our services in this hospital, how many bandaids, how many cotton patches, how many sophisticated drugs? Hundreds of thousands of items are purchased by large companies every year, and each one of those now has to be calculated as to whether the purchase price was more than $600 for the lot they buy, and it has to be detailed and then sent to Washington. There are not enough bureaucrats in Washington to begin to process the paperwork that would flood into this city. There are not enough buildings in this city to house those bureaucrats processing those forms. There are not enough warehouses in this city to store the forms that would flow in here. All for what reason? Because supposedly this is a way to collect more taxes on companies that have not submitted forms where they have actually purchased this particular material, even though they are required under the tax laws to honestly--and I believe it is almost unanimous; maybe 99 percent of the time--do just that. So it is a solution without a problem. Clearly, what Senator Johanns has been attempting to do over the past several months and even in the last Congress is bring forward a bill that would repeal this onerous provision of the health care law. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said this about the 1099 reporting requirement: At a time when they can least afford it, entities will have to institute new complex record-keeping, data collection and reporting requirements to track every purchase by vendor and payment method. This provision will dramatically increase accounting costs and could expose businesses to costly and unjustified audits by the IRS. Even the IRS Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee has ruled against this, deeming this mandate ``burdensome'' with ``no measurable purpose.'' Forcing businesses to spend time in the back room to fill out all these forms and do all this record keeping--and particularly those small businesses that do not have the back room, where the owner and the proprietor of the business is the one who has to fill out these forms instead of being out there selling his services or running his business--they are particularly burdened by this unnecessary regulation. Clearly, if we want to promote our businesses, help them hire more people, and get more people back to work, we have to release them from the burden of unnecessary regulation and, I would also add to that, taxation. So tomorrow, when this vote comes up, let's adopt the Johanns amendment to repeal this unnecessary and costly provision and send it to the White House for the President's signature. While we are at it, let's also continue to take a look at the health care bill because if this provision somehow survived scrutiny before passage, there must be many more of these in there. Let me just mention one of them that directly impacts my State. Medical device companies are a key industry in the State of Indiana. In fact, we are one of the leading States, if not the leading State in the country, for the number of people engaged in producing medical devices. That industry was slapped with a 2.3-percent sales tax on medical devices under the new health care law simply as a means to pay for the new health care law. This is an innovative industry, an industry which is at the cutting edge of technology, one of our best exporting industries. They sell all over the world. We talk about the loss of American capacity to manufacture. We have a skilled workforce in place, with thousands of people employed throughout the State of Indiana, with several hundred companies producing medical devices. They have developed the innovation and the skill to be the best in the world. Yet, just out of the blue, because we are looking for a pay-for in the health care bill--that had nothing to do with their production of that product or their business-- they were slapped with this $20 billion impact tax, a 2.3-percent sales tax, which turns out to be about $20 billion under the health care law. I have given these statistics for just the one State of Indiana. I know Minnesota and a number of other States also are engaged in the medical device business. But singling out, though, the medical device manufacturers to help pay for the massive costs of the health care law, hinders job growth and stifles innovation. This is a resource-rich, research-rich industry in America that needs to be encouraged, not discouraged, that needs to have incentives to go forward, not disincentives, that does not need more regulation and higher taxes but needs to be viewed as producing a product that is the best in the world and what the world wants to buy. So as we look at the health care bill, I am sure there are many provisions that need to be addressed. I, of course, am on record for repealing and starting over for reasons I have stated before and will not go into now. I think it is fatally flawed. I think starting over would give us a far more cost-effective, incremental improvement in ways to address our health care needs in this country without breaking the bank. Nevertheless, if we cannot do that, we need to keep looking at situations such as what we are going to be addressing tomorrow, the 1099 repeal, and situations such as I have just described with the medical device tax. Mr. President, with that, I will close by urging my colleagues to come and vote for the repeal of the 1099 provision that has been brought forward by Senator Johanns. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, maybe this should have occurred to me before I last spoke and I should have addressed this. But since no one else is on the floor seeking to be recognized, it occurred to me that the Presiding Officer of the Senate represents the State of Connecticut, and I represent the State of Indiana. The two of us are the only ones on the floor of the Senate at this particular time. The Presiding Officer and I have an event that is very much going to draw our attention this evening; that is, the final game of the NCAA basketball tournament, Connecticut versus Butler. I can extoll the virtues of Butler for a long time. I can also take some advantage of the Presiding Officer because he is in the chair and can't reply, but I will not do that. I am just here to say we have a friendly bet on for this. I have some good Indiana-produced goodies coming the way of the Presiding Officer, should Connecticut prevail, and I think the Presiding Officer has some good Connecticut-produced goodies coming my way--by goodies I mean popcorn and a can of beans or whatever our States are famous for producing. I don't want anybody getting the wrong impression of what we possibly are exchanging. Butler has been a dream and a joy for those of us from Indiana and, hopefully, from across the country, to watch this small school of 4,400 students in Indianapolis that produced a team that comes out of a midmajor conference. These schools perhaps aren't familiar to very many people, but yet they have knocked off the giants, with one more giant, I might say, to face this evening. But this little Midwestern school plays basketball the Hoosier way. They are a credible collection of players who were not recruited by the big schools but came together and worked together as a team under the inspired leadership of their young coach. They have now found themselves as NCAA finalists 2 years in a row, I think something no one would have predicted, particularly after they lost their star player last year who left the school a year early to go to the NBA. My best wishes to the Presiding Officer for his team. As much as I give you those best wishes, I am looking forward tomorrow to receiving your part of the bargain delivered to my office, but if not, I will be standing at your front door. It is already assembled just in case. But we are rooting for a great game tonight. I think probably one of the most exciting events that happens in sports is the amateur basketball tournament that is played in by our NCAA colleges. It is a joy to watch these young men. Then, tomorrow, I might mention, the Notre Dame women's team will be playing in the finals against Texas A&M. So Indiana is certainly putting forth some of its best during these next two nights. I am looking forward to seeing those games tonight. Our hopes are that we will not be in session this evening in the Senate. I don't think we will be. So you and I will be, unfortunately, not in Houston but in front of a big screen TV cheering on our teams. With that, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for arranging the opportunity for me to speak. I intended to do this in morning business, but that time was running out, so she graciously arranged time for me to speak as we took the bill back up. Amendment No. 183 Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the McConnell amendment that would prohibit the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This is nothing more than a backdoor energy tax that should be the purview of Congress to enact or not enact and not the responsibility or the authority given to the EPA. The McConnell amendment, which is essentially the amendment language that was provided by Senator Inhofe and Senator Vitter, is patterned after the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which I have cosponsored, along with a bipartisan group of nearly 43 Senators. An identical bill was passed recently on a bipartisan basis by a House committee. There is a growing consensus in Congress and across the country that Washington bureaucrats cannot be and should not be setting our Nation's policy on climate change. The McConnell amendment would make it clear that it is the Congress and not the Environmental Protection Agency that ought to be squarely in the driver's seat with regard to energy and climate policy. It has become clear that the administration's cap-and-trade bill has had no chance of passing the Senate--again, because of bipartisan opposition. It is also clear that the White House has then determined they are going to try to circumvent the Congress and try to push this agenda through rules and regulations made by unelected bureaucrats. As a result, the EPA has created these new greenhouse gas regulations that are nothing more than a backdoor cap-and-trade regime. So while the administration talks about the need to strengthen the economy and put Americans back to work, these types of harmful rules that are being imposed by regulatory agencies--and specifically the EPA on climate control in this regard--are having just the opposite effect. The reality is that not only in my home State of Indiana, which obtains more than 90 percent of its electric power from coal resources, but in States across this country that are using fossil fuels currently to generate energy, this would have an extraordinary, detrimental effect on their economies and their ability to produce the necessary power needed to run businesses and heat and cool homes. Particularly at a time such as this, it is extraordinary that this backdoor effort by the EPA is simply throwing a major impediment in the way of the economic growth we are now starting to see after 2 years of a very serious downturn. The factories are starting to move again. Some are starting to hire. The machines are starting to turn. At a time such as this, all of a sudden, an unelected bureaucracy in this government, supported by the White House, simply says: Now is the time to attack the climate control issue. We didn't like what Congress did when they turned this down, so therefore we will take over and do it ourselves. I have nothing against looking at ways to provide additional sources of energy that can help with our climate control, whether it is solar, wind, biothermal, biomass, geothermal, or any number of other alternatives. But these alternatives need to be cost-effective and competitive, and currently they are not. I had the opportunity to serve in Germany as Ambassador for 4 years. During that time, I was able to pay very close attention to a mandate that was imposed by the German Parliament of switching to alternative sources, on a mandated basis, to 20 percent of the total energy being derived by a certain period in time. As a result of that, the government provided enormous subsidies to wind and solar in particular and other alternative forms of energy, which was to be financed by those industries using fossil fuels to provide energy. The results recently announced in Germany were that this is not obtainable, and this came at a considerable cost to consumers and to industries of that country. Two things happened. No. 1, when the government provided massive subsidies to move to wind and solar, of course a lot of attention went to production of those two types of alternative energy sources, it wasn't based on a competition. It wasn't based on what it would cost the taxpayer. There was an extraordinary subsidy that had to be paid by the fossil fuel industries--namely, coal and oil and natural gas--to subsidize those sources. The problem is, they ended up with a distorted economic picture, and ultimately the cost goes to the taxpayer and to the consumer. Basically, the fossil fuel industry producing energy had to subsidize the alternative forms of energy--namely, wind and solar--on a 5-to-1 basis, obviously raising prices to consumers and to industries using energy that was derived through fossil fuels. The second problem was that the politics--which always happens in any situation like this--rears its ugly head, so every member of every State had to get their share of the subsidy. So we see windmills all over Germany that are not turning because the wind doesn't blow in some sections of the country, and we see solar panels being installed in places where, in the North in particular, the sun doesn't shine very much. So they have an extremely cost-ineffective system put in place subsidized by the taxpayer. So as we look forward to alternative sources of energy, we have to recognize the realities of what we are dealing with here, particularly at a time when we are in economic distress and just trying to move into a better economic picture for the future. If we are going to impose massive taxes on industries that are providing energy to drive our factories, run our businesses and heat and cool our homes, it is going to add significant costs to employment and all of those who use that electric energy. So these are issues that need to be debated in this Congress and with the American people and in a transparent way, rather than addressed by a regulatory agency that has no responsibility to the taxpayer, no responsibility to the consumer, and is trying not to have any responsibility to the congressional authority that governs this. I have yet to hear of a credible alternative that can fully replace coal for electric power generation. Most of our States and particularly many of our heavy manufacturing States are nearly totally dependent on fossil fuels to run their businesses. It seems to me that while technology can help us in the future move toward a position of having some additional forms of energy to meet our energy needs, today, the reality is we need this source of energy to run our economy. If only the EPA could recognize the reality of this situation, then maybe we could reach some commonsense agreement on how to move forward on climate control and other issues. Instead, it appears this agency is determined to shut down coal plants, costing thousands of jobs, weakening the economy, and increasing electric bills for families who are already struggling to make ends meet. The EPA's actions simply are irresponsible and exceed their authority. So we come back to the essence of what the McConnell amendment does. It returns the responsibility and authority for energy and climate policy to the elected Members of the Congress. These are issues that impact every American and should not be determined by unelected Washington bureaucrats who have made up their minds to regulate regardless of the consequences. These decisions belong to the Congress and not to the EPA. We need to pass the McConnell amendment. I believe it will achieve bipartisan support because our Nation's energy policy needs to be addressed by this body and not the EPA. So I urge strong support for the McConnell amendment when it comes up for passage. With that, I yield the floor, and I again thank the Senator from Louisiana for the time that was allocated.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, returning to the Senate is in many ways like having a chance to relive part of one's life; yet doing so with the benefit of experience, experience that I gained in serving in this body before and also from service in the private sector. It allows one to see things differently than before. While I can discuss with my colleagues many things that remain the same in the Senate, there is also much that has changed in our country that requires change in this institution. It is what has changed that has brought me back to the Senate. The more I witnessed what was happening to our country, the more I realized that I, like many others across the country, needed to reengage in some way or another in the task of returning our country to its basic values and time-tested principles, not the least of which is returning our Federal Government to one that ensures a healthy fiscal nation whose finances and policies promote job opportunities for its citizens. I could not get comfortable with the fact that my generation might be the first to leave a country to our children that is in worse fiscal shape and with less opportunity than the one we had the privilege of inheriting. When I first came to Congress in 1981, one of the first votes I had to deal with was to raise the national debt limit to just over the $1 trillion mark. It was a tough one. Think of that. For nearly 200 years, as our country prospered and grew financially, we spent ourselves into $1 trillion worth of debt. As a newly elected Member of the House of Representatives at that time, the last thing I wanted to do, particularly having run on a campaign of limited government and trimming the size of government and spending, was to make one of my very first votes on raising the national debt to accommodate excessive spending. But gritting my teeth and swallowing hard, I followed the request of newly elected President Ronald Reagan, who said we need to pay past bills so we can get to the job of cutting spending and cutting taxes and getting our country back on the right track economically. It is difficult for me to comprehend that I am standing here 30 years later, and we are looking at a national debt of over $14.5 trillion. So in just 30 years we have gone from $1 trillion to $14.5 trillion. I cannot comprehend that number. Very few Americans can comprehend that number. But, clearly, one thing stands out; that is, this Federal Government has grown faster and much deeper in debt than any of us could have imagined over a very short period. We will pay a steep price tag for that debt. It threatens our way of life, as well as our Nation's security. During the 1990s, the combination of economic growth and defeat of the 1993 health care plan, President Clinton's decision to move to the middle and support welfare reform--all contributed to moving us toward a more sensible and fiscally responsible balance between revenue and spending. In fact, in 1998, we actually reached a surplus of about $69 billion, the first surplus reached since the year 1969. That would have been the ideal time to lock in a balanced budget amendment to ensure we would not slip back into deficit spending and that Congress and the White House would be held accountable for future spending. There were two serious attempts during the 1990s, both of which I supported, to enact a balanced budget amendment. They failed, each one, by one vote. Think today where we would be fiscally had we gotten that one vote and passed either of those amendments and sent it to the States for ratification, which I am sure they would have done. We would not be facing the dire situation we face today. I have decided not to go into the details of our exploding deficit and debt. Much has already been said and published in that regard. Much has been said on this floor, and more will be said. Based on the last election, the American public is now much better informed of our current financial situation and the dangerous consequences of unchecked spending. We have spent beyond our means in all areas of government. We have increased unfunded liabilities, and we have committed to programs which we cannot afford or sustain. Americans have heard the warnings of many who have analyzed the situation and sounded the alarm. In 2010, they said immediate action must be taken to avoid a national fiscal crisis of unprecedented negative consequences. What are those consequences? Ultimately, those consequences include a lower standard of living, less income for families to take home to pay the mortgage, to buy that new car, to save and send their children to school. Those consequences have, unfortunately, over the past couple of years put our Nation in a serious unemployment situation. People are out of work, and they have been out of work for months if not years. Ultimately, it all turns back to jobs. Having the ability to bring home earnings that will sustain a family and provide opportunities for education, health, growth for those families, and give our children and grandchildren and all those who follow the opportunities so many of us have enjoyed--those are the consequences we face if we don't today address these problems. Many respected economists and financial experts have continued to issue dire warnings about our current fiscal condition. Let me quote a few. Erskine Bowles, former Chief of Staff to President Clinton and cochair of the President's deficit reduction committee, said: This debt is like a cancer [that] will destroy the country from within [unless Washington acts]. Pete Peterson, former U.S. Secretary of Commerce and finance executive, said about the national debt: We need to ask ourselves, not just is this sustainable, but is it moral? What does it mean to burden our kids to an unconscionable doubling of their taxes? Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: I believe our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. If we as a country do not address our fiscal imbalances in the near term, our national power will erode, and the costs to our ability to maintain and sustain influence could be great. Finally, former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations, said: What threatens the ship are large, known and growing structural deficits . . . Habitually spending more money than you make is irresponsible. But that is exactly what Washington has done, habitually spend, sinking our fiscal ship deeper and deeper each year. We saw a drastic swing in November: Hoosiers and Americans united in a common purpose to demand that our newly elected representatives and all representatives repair our fiscal health that has been destroyed by excessive tax-and-spend policies. They called for a change in course. They called for bold action today to preserve our country for tomorrow. They realized that the stakes are too high to ignore or delay addressing our fiscal challenges. Hoosier families and businesses, local communities, States, and virtually every other entity across Indiana and the country have had to make sacrifices to trim their budgets. They are now calling for the Federal Government and Congress to do the same. We cannot succeed unless we together, Republicans and Democrats, agree that addressing our current fiscal crisis requires political courage and bold action from both parties, both Chambers of Congress, and President Obama. I wish to offer what I think are some solutions I believe Congress must execute, perhaps, in a coordinated way, essential steps if we are serious about addressing the fiscal challenge before us. First, stop the fiscal bleeding and avoid economic distress by doing so. Washington has to break its spending and borrowing addiction. Like curing any bad habit, it will take discipline and commitment. As we consider spending cuts and ways we can reverse the growth of government, I believe everything must be on the table. All functions of government should be examined, including mandatory spending and defense spending. Serious discussions and proposals are currently underway in this Congress. I am participating in many of them. These proposals need to be considered carefully. They need to be debated and voted on. Secondly, it is important we recognize that spending cuts alone will not solve our fiscal challenges and preserve our future. We need to pair our cuts with a pro-growth agenda that puts Hoosiers and Americans back to work. One of the ways Congress can achieve this goal is by reforming the Tax Code. By lowering marginal rates, by lowering corporate rates to make us more competitive with our competitors around the world, by eliminating exclusions and special introductions and credits and simplifying the complex and convoluted Tax Code, Congress can help advance the economic recovery. This is a necessary element in the task of returning to fiscal health. I currently am working on legislation on this very topic and hope to introduce it in the coming weeks. Third, Washington needs to examine, reduce and, in many cases, eliminate harmful regulations and mandates. As I have traveled across Indiana, perhaps one story I have heard over and over from every business with which I engage is, regulations coming out of Washington, many of which do not reflect the will of the people, the will of Congress but are imposed by nonelected bureaucrats, have put us at a disadvantage with our competitors, have added additional burdens of paperwork and compliance that don't make sense from a health and safety standpoint. Oversight and proposals to address the regulatory burdens also need to be considered, debated, and voted on by this Congress. Fourth, I think we need to promote trade policies. Six thousand businesses in Indiana export overseas. One-fourth of all of our manufacturing jobs result from exports. A good first step in this process is to open our markets by approving the three pending trade agreements we have: Korea, Colombia, and Panama. This will increase job opportunities at home and put us on the path of continuing open trading that provides so many jobs to so many Americans. Having said all this, the greatest threat to our fiscal security is the growing and unsustainable mandatory spending. We cannot strengthen our country's financial health without addressing Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. These programs along with the interest on the national debt consume nearly two-thirds of the Federal budget. While we hear a lot of talk about the necessity of tackling entitlement spending, little action occurs because it is often considered too politically dangerous. However, I believe we no longer have a choice. We no longer can defer addressing these problems until after the next election. The entitlement crisis is before us and has been growing for several years. We know about the coming baby boom generation that is retiring and the impact that will put on entitlement programs. We have to commit to finding a way to restructure these programs and make them solvent. Let me repeat that. We are not here to undercut these programs; we are here to preserve them. We are here to make the necessary structural, long-term incremental changes so those benefits will be there for people when they retire. As Winston Churchill once said: One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger [at least] by half. We have not met this promptly. But I believe it is not too late to begin the process of making commonsense adjustments to the current systems. Modest incremental changes now will help us avoid much more drastic and painful changes later. In 1983, Congress was faced with a serious Social Security crisis. We were months away from having checks not sent out. Together, President Reagan, Tip O'Neill, majority and minority members of the Senate and the House, and the political leaders of the respective parties gathered together and decided to put this issue and the solution to this issue above politics, and they did so. It was a difficult debate and discussion, but we made the changes that were implemented on an incremental basis. Social Security bought 30 years of solvency on the basis of that decision. The sky did not fall. The economy did not collapse. And the people, when they learned why we were doing what we were doing--to preserve the program, not leave it in a dire situation where benefits would have to be cut or reduced dramatically--they backed what we did and supported it. I believe we are in that position now with our entitlements. So if we can propose sensible, modest changes that will save these programs, I think the public will gladly support them. Over the last decade, we have watched the storm clouds gather, and we have watched as those fiscal clouds have drawn ever closer and become ever darker. They are now bearing down upon us, and alarms are sounding louder than ever. As I have said, it is incumbent upon each of us in this Congress to acknowledge that the storm is here and to do all we can to mitigate the damage. But given the current division of authority in our Congress and executive branch, it is incumbent upon the two Chambers and the two parties to set aside the politics of 2012 for the sake of the future of our Nation. I believe the voters will respond favorably to that decision. However, no matter what we do as elected representatives, we cannot ultimately succeed without the engagement and the support and the leadership of the President of the United States. We know the President understands the gravity of the fiscal crisis. As a former Senator, as a Presidential candidate, and now as Commander in Chief, he has clearly articulated his understanding of the issue. In 2006, then-Senator Obama said: Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the ``buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Those are the words of former Senator Barack Obama, now President of the United States. As a candidate for President, in 2008, Presidential candidate Barack Obama said: We're going to have to take on entitlements and I think we've got to do it quickly. And in 2009, President Obama said: What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further. He also promised his administration would ``work with Congress to execute serious entitlement reform.'' President Obama, as both Republicans and more and more Democratic Members of Congress are committing to go forward--and as Republican and Democratic Governors of States in fiscal peril are responding--our Nation, Mr. President needs you now to assume the primary leadership role in helping us avert these financial problems and potential financial meltdown. The 2012 election must be subordinate to the urgency and the challenge before us. We cannot afford to wait until 2013 to begin the necessary work to prevent a fiscal disaster. We need Presidential leadership now. Our country's future is at stake. Given the immensity of our fiscal challenges we face today, some would say it is too late to remedy the problem. I do not hold that view. And I do not hold that view primarily because of our Nation's history in rising to the challenge that faces us. From the Founding Fathers to George Washington, from Abraham Lincoln to Roosevelt and Reagan, times of trial and crisis have always produced moments of great leadership and the response of the American people to support that leadership. That is what Americans are yearning for today: leadership--leadership to guide us out of this dangerous financial hole that threatens our Nation's security and future. So I ask our President--as other Presidents throughout our history have done in times of major threats--Mr. President, grant us your leadership. Grant us the leadership needed to restore the strength and prosperity that has been the American story and has allowed our Nation to be the defenders and protectors of democracy and freedom. Thirty years ago, Ronald Reagan delivered his first inaugural address, and expressed the urgent need to rein in spending and curb the size and growth of the Federal Government. He said doing so will require ``our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together, with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.'' For each of us serving here today, I believe it is our duty to rise to the immediate challenge and ``resolve the problems which now confront us.'' It will take all of us uniting behind a common purpose-- that above all else, we must first restore and strengthen our fiscal security. We must articulate a clear vision, set specific goals, and make the tough decisions needed to bring our Nation out of debt and preserve prosperity and opportunity for future generations. I am here today to commit to Hoosiers, to my colleagues, to my children and grandchildren, to all our Nation's children and grandchildren, that I will not turn my back on our economic dangers or seek the false safety of political denial. I am standing here today to find solutions, to make the hard decisions, and to leave behind a country that is stronger and more fiscally secure for future generations. This crisis is not insurmountable. We can overcome it by doing what great generations before us have done: mustering our will to do what is right. If we do, I know that America's greatest days are not behind us but still lie ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it was my understanding that another member of the Democratic Party was going to speak at this time, but not seeing him, I think I will just go ahead and deliver my presentation. As a candidate for the Senate during this past year, I met with many Hoosier families and small business owners, as well as health care providers, patients, doctors, and all those involved with concerns about where this health care process was going to go. Everywhere I went, from Lake County to Fort Wayne to Indianapolis, Muncie, and down to Evansville--all across the State I heard a resounding plea to overturn the costly and intrusive health care law that was passed by this last Congress and signed into law by the President. The issue for these people was not whether we needed to address issues of health care, whether it was quality, cost-effectiveness, or access; the issues for them were two things: One, they resented the process where a massive bill, which many did not fully understand or grasp the implications of, was forced through these Chambers and passed hours before Christmas. The rules were bent to try to move the bill through the process, and it became a policy which was not supported on a bipartisan basis but yet a policy that affected virtually every American. If experience tells us anything, it is that massive changes in policy need bipartisan support to be acceptable if they are going to be effective. The majority of people I spoke to about the health care plan that is now in place believe it is fatally flawed and needs to be repealed so we can start over with a much more cost-effective, efficient, affordable health care plan. Those who have listened to the people express their views on this particular issue have come to the conclusion that their voices were not heard, as they expressed throughout the deliberation of this; that Congress wasn't hearing what they were saying. The results of November--I think with this issue being central to the election-- ratified that. So I urge my colleagues in the Senate to listen to the American people and repeal the law that is before us, a health care law that raises taxes, penalizes businesses, straps States with costly mandates, and increases premiums for American families. Recent polls show a significant majority of Americans want the President's health care law to be repealed, and they want Congress to start over and put together a plan which does not cost the taxpayers a lot of money and will not provide the access and the care and the quality Americans are looking for. We know more than half the States, including my State of Indiana, have joined in lawsuits challenging provisions of the constitutionality of the law that will be settled by the Supreme Court in due time. But I believe we must take this opportunity now to overturn the law and start over. Let me address some of the consequences to my State of Indiana and to Hoosiers if we do not repeal the current health care law. Hoosier families will clearly face higher premiums. Nonpartisan budget experts from the Congressional Budget Office reported that individual health insurance premiums will increase by $2,100 per family as a result of this new law. If we do not repeal the health care law, 50,000 low- income Hoosiers will be dropped from the Healthy Indiana Plan. This was the plan implemented by our Governor and our State representatives and senators, an innovative plan that addressed the real problem of low- income Hoosiers not qualifying for other support. This plan put in place a proposal for health savings accounts. The program has been so popular that it now includes more than 50,000 participants. Unfortunately, as a result of the health care law, the State may need to terminate the Healthy Indiana Plan and place its participants into Medicaid. This is just one example of a provision of law enacted at a Federal level that denies units of government--States, localities, and others--from innovating and bringing about sensible, market-based solutions to problems they face. The one-size-fits-all Federal health care law basically says to those States and those innovators: No, we know better. We will tell you what to do regardless of what the cost is or regardless of how effective your program is. Our Governor had negotiated savings for prescription drugs for low-income recipients, but this law prevents that type of innovation and progress made on the state level. If we do not repeal the health care law, Hoosier taxpayers will bear a heavy burden. The law will force Indiana to expand Medicaid, enrolling approximately one of every four citizens in the program. According to an actuarial analysis by the Indianapolis-based Milliman, Inc., Indiana will have to absorb an estimated $3.6 billion in new costs over the next decade if the 1.5 million eligible Hoosiers enroll in Medicaid, which they may under this plan. That burden is passed on to Hoosier taxpayers, and our State, frankly, cannot afford to do that. The report also predicts that Indiana would have to spend more than $300 million on new administrative costs alone. So with States already facing budget cuts, there is no doubt these costs will either be passed on to taxpayers or the State will opt out of the plan and turn people over to the exchanges and to the control of the Federal Government. If we don't repeal the health care law, Hoosiers will see a decrease in the quality of service of care. I met with physicians, health care providers, and hospital administrators at sites all across the State. I heard a very common concern: The new law will jeopardize the quality of care for patients. The health care plan cuts reimbursement dollars for hospitals and providers at a time when they can least afford it. These cuts simply exacerbate the dire shortage of doctors and nurses and will result in less advanced care for people in need, less personal attention from providers, and fewer choices for patients. If we do not repeal the health care law, Hoosier businesses will suffer. The President's health care overhaul hits our job creators with harmful mandates and regulations, mountains of paperwork, and countless taxes. The new law requires businesses with 50 or more people on staff to pay a $2,000 tax per worker if the employer does not offer an acceptable health insurance plan for its employees. If I heard one thing more than any other thing from business owners, it was that this law will drive them to make employment decisions that are adverse to the benefit of those seeking employment. Companies that were in the 45-to-50 range of employees, or even less, have basically said if the choice comes down to whether to hire new employees or whether to outsource or whether to use technology to replace those employees, they will do so to prevent going over 50 employees and being forced to offer insurance or pay a penalty. An arbitrary line drawn at 50 basically puts the job creators of this country--the small- and medium-sized businesses--in the position of having to decide whether to take on the mandated tax burden of the Federal Government or simply not go forward and hire over that particular limit, forcing them to find other ways to produce their product without added employment. At a time when we are facing 9-plus--nearly 10 percent in many areas--unemployment, putting a law into place on a nationwide basis that discourages businesses from hiring is simply the wrong thing to do. Other businesses may find it more cost effective--and many have told me they would drop workers from their health insurance plan and pay the fine instead. Turtle Top, a shuttle bus maker located in New Paris, IN, found that dropping health care coverage for employees and paying the Federal penalty would generate a savings in the six-figure range for the company. That is a story repeated over and over. The law dictates that it financially benefits some companies to drop their insurance plans and shift coverage for employees over to the Federal taxpayer. In fact, the administration's own estimates revealed that more than 6,000 pages of regulations mandated by the law could force half of all employers--as many as 80 percent of small businesses--to give up their current health care coverage within the next 2 years. One burdensome regulation is the 1099 provision. I believe we are going to vote on that amendment, and I hope it passes. This is one of the many egregious, unexpected consequences of pushing a law through without fully understanding the law or the implications of the law. Rather than beginning a piecemeal approach to de-construct this approximately 2,100-page bill, I believe it is expeditious for us to repeal and start over. The medical device tax particularly impacts my State. It adds a 2.3- percent sales tax on medical devices. This is an industry in the State of Indiana that probably is one of our top manufacturers, is making a profit, and is hiring people. Yet it will be arbitrarily taxed as a way of helping to pay for the cost of the health care bill. Cook Medical, a medical device company in Bloomington, IN, expects that the new health care law will cost the company $15 million to $20 million per year. This is a company, along with Biomet, Zimmer, and other medical device companies, that had the deep pockets because they were producing products that the world wanted to buy. They were one of our export leaders, and because they were making profits at a time when the Federal Government was looking for money to pay for other aspects of the health care plan, they simply added a 2.3-percent sales tax on the devices, to a total of about $20 billion. The health care law devastates Indiana businesses. At a time when nearly 1 out of every 10 individuals today in Indiana is looking for a job, Congress should be focused on a way to encourage private sector growth and job creation, not stifle it. Our health care system in America has problems, but restructuring it with a one-size-fits-all, government-run plan that increases taxes, raises premiums, and hits businesses with penalties is not the right thing to do. Congress needs to repeal the current law and start over with a step- by-step approach that reduces the skyrocketing costs of care. Listening to Hoosiers over this past year, I created a list of 10 priorities that Congress, I believe, should focus on when we start over on health care: One, allow competition to cross State lines. We need to improve access and the quality of care by increasing competition and allowing consumers to purchase health insurance across State lines. Encourage innovation. I talked about the innovation taken away from our State through this law. Eliminate frivolous lawsuits and include liability reform. Passing a health care bill without liability reform part of it--when all of us know defensive medicine is forced upon doctors and providers at hospitals through frivolous lawsuits and without a sensible process of providing for those who clearly are victims of malpractice--undermined the credibility of what Congress was trying to do and what the American people and the health care providers were looking for. Improving Medicaid and the SCHIP program. Allowing for the immediate creation of association health plans for small businesses. Incentivizing and rewarding healthy lifestyles. Expanding health savings accounts, not reducing them. Advancing the use of electronic medical records, while retaining privacy. Increasing cost transparency. Retaining our promises to our military personnel veterans and their eligible family members. Those are all components of the more detailed plan I outlined this past year in Indiana. Most important, I believe the underlying principles to ensure that our health care system is one that preserves personal freedoms and puts individuals in control of their own health care decisions is critical to addressing the next bill we take up. Let's take this opportunity now and listen to the patients, listen to the health care providers, the physicians and listen to the job creators and small business owners and then let's listen to the American people who sent us here to represent them. Let's repeal this law and let's start over. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am happy to speak today in recognition of the passage by unanimous consent of the Charter Schools Expansion Act, the bi-partisan bill. Senator Lieberman and I introduced this bill last November to help further expand the charter school movement which is so successfully providing new educational opportunities for children all around the country. This bill passed unanimously out of the Labor Committee and was unanimously approved by the Senate. This important bill builds upon the great success of the original charter school legislation which Senator Lieberman and former Senator Durenberger introduced in 1994. It was Senator Durenberger's timeless promotion of charter schools that educated all of us to the promise and the benefit of this important public educational reform initiative. The Federal Charter School Grant Program provides seed money to charter school operators to help them pay for the planning, design and initial implementation of a charter school. Since the program's inception, the number of charter schools has tripled, with over 1100 charter schools now operating in 33 States and the District of Columbia. Charter schools are independent public schools that have been freed from onerous bureaucratic and regulatory burdens in order to pursue clear objectives and goals aimed at increasing student achievement. To increase student achievement, charter schools are able to design and deliver educational programs tailored to meet the needs of their students and their communities. It is the individualized education available to students through charter schools that makes this a desirable educational alternative for many families. Charter schools give families an opportunity to choose the educational setting that best meet their child's needs. For many low-income families in particular, charter schools provide their first opportunity to select an educational setting which is best suited for their child. Parents and educators have, in turn, given these programs overwhelmingly high marks. Broad-based studies conducted by the Department of Education and the Hudson Institute show that charters are effectively serving diverse populations, particularly disadvantaged and at-risk children, that traditional public schools have struggled to educate. With results like these, it is no wonder that some of the strongest support for charter legislation comes from low-income families. Not only do these parents now have real educational choices, but they are actually needed in the charter school environment for everything from volunteering to coaching, fundraising, and even teaching. This direct involvement of families is helping to build small communities centered around the school. Charter schools can be started by anyone interested in providing a quality education: parents, teachers, school administrators, community groups, businesses and colleges can all apply for a charter. And, importantly, if these schools fail to deliver a high-quality education, they will be closed--either through a district or State's accountability measures or from lack of students. Accountability is literally built into the charter school process--the school must comply with the provision in its charter, and unhappy parents and students can leave if they are not satisfied. Additionally, a survey conducted last fall by the National School Boards Association (NSBA) found that the charter movement is already having a positive ripple effect that is being felt in many local public school districts. The NSBA report cites evidence that traditional public schools are working harder to please local families so they won't abandon them to competing charter schools, and that central administrators often see charters as ``a powerful tool'' to develop new ideas and programs without fearing regulatory roadblocks. Several other studies have recently been released highlighting the success of charter schools around the country. Among other things, these studies have shown that charter schools have successfully met and surpassed the standards outlined in their charters, attracted significant proportions of minority and low-income students, and have higher parental approval rates than public schools. The results of these studies point to important ways to improve and reinvent public education as a whole. The implications from the success of charter schools indicate that public schools should be consumer- oriented, diverse, results-oriented, and professional places that also function as mediating institutions in their communities. The purpose of this bill is to further encourage the growth of high- quality charter schools around the country. This bill provides incentives to encourage States to increase the number of high quality charter schools in their State. To qualify for funding under this bill, States must satisfy two criteria. First, they must provide for review and evaluation of their charter schools by the public chartering agency at least once every five years to ensure that the charter school is meeting the terms of its charter and meeting its academic performance requirements. And second, States meet at least one of three priority criteria: The State has demonstrated progress in increasing the number of high quality charter schools that meet clear and measurable objectives for the educational progress of their students; * * * * * To help ensure that the amount of the federal grants are proportional to the level of charter school activity in the State, this bill directs the Secretary to take into consideration the number of charter schools in operation, or that have been approved to open. During drafting of this bill, the single greatest concern I heard from charter school operators related to their ability to access their fair share of federal education funding. And so, to ensure that charter schools have enough funding to continue once their doors are opened, this bill provides that charter schools get their fair share of federal programs for which they are eligible, such as Title 1 and IDEA. The bill also directs States to inform their charter schools of any Federal funds to which they are entitled. This bill also increases the financing options available to charter schools and allows them to utilize funds from the Title VI block grant program for start-up costs. Because it is so important that charter schools are held accountable in return for the flexibility they are given from Federal, state and local laws and regulations, this amendment includes several significant provisions which strengthen accountability. First, under the priority criteria, States must review and evaluate their charter schools at least once every five years to ensure that they are meeting the terms of their charter and their academic performance requirements. They are rewarded for increasing the number of high quality charter schools that are ``held accountable in their charter for meeting clear and measurable objectives for the educational progress of their students.'' The definitions section of the bill also stresses accountability by requiring a written performance contract with the authorized chartering agency in the State. These written performance contracts include clearly defined objectives for the charter school to meet in return for the autonomy they are given. The performance objectives in the contract are to be measured by State assessments and other assessments the charter wishes to use. I am confident that this amendment will build on and contribute to the success of the charter school movement. This bill stresses the need for high quality, accountable schools which are given the autonomy they need to provide the best educational opportunity for their students. With the passage of this bill, a strong signal will be sent to parents and teachers all across this country that they are not alone in their struggle to improve education. We hope to ease their struggle by enabling new charter schools to be developed. More charter schools will result in greater accountability, broader flexibility for classroom innovation, and ultimately more choice in public education. I urge my colleagues to increase educational opportunities for all children by supporting this bill. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment and thank Senator Lieberman for his tremendous leadership in the area of educational reform. He and I have worked closely on a number of issues over the last several years, and I want to commend him, in particular, for his strong support and leadership on issues concerning increasing educational opportunities for low-income children. He understands so clearly the fundamental importance of providing a high quality education in a safe environmental of our neediest children. In addition to this charter schools bill, which will help to increase educational opportunities for low-income children, Senator Lieberman and I have worked closely for the last 4 years to gain support for publicly-funded scholarships for low-income children. I want to thank him for his unwavering commitment to this issue and his vitally important leadership. His efforts have done much to win bipartisan support for both charter schools and low-income scholarships and I thank him for his strong commitment to our country's neediest children. With the passage of this charter schools bill, Senator Lieberman and I have the pleasure of seeing the first of our joint educational reform initiatives move closer to becoming law.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a group of people that have been of tremendous service to me during my tenure as a United States Senator. That group is my Indiana staff. As I have so often said, whatever success I have achieved during my service as a Senator is greatly attributable to the tireless work of my staff. Their hours are long, and they toil in relative obscurity. However, they do so for the same reason that we as Senator make the sacrifice. They work so hard because they believe in this great nation we serve, and the ideals that are woven into the very fiber of our existence as Americans. So much of our work here in the Senate focuses on legislative activity. For that is the stuff of headlines and news stories. However, it is hardly a reflection of one of the most fundamental responsibilities of a United States Senator, and that is providing caring and responsive service to the citizens of our state, the people who's trust we are charged with protecting and serving. And, Mr. President, it is those people serving in my State and regional offices that work so hard to insure that the needs and requests of my Indiana constituents are met with friendly and effective service. They are the front line, they are my eyes and ears in Indiana, and without their hard work, it would be impossible for me to serve effectively. As the distinguished senior Senator from Indiana pointed out yesterday, we have a rather unique operation back in Indiana. The senior Senator and I share a combined staff. They have served the state well. I would like to take a moment now to acknowledge my Indiana staff. Kathy Blane, Susan Brouillette, Sarah Dorste, Mark Doude, James Garrett, Amy Gaston, Michelle Mayer, Kevin Paicely, Lane Ralph, Karen Seacat, Libby Sims, Cory Shaffer, Angela Weston, Mike Duckworth, Barbara Keerl, David Graham, Pat McClain, Phil Shaull, Amy Hany, Tim Sanders, and Barb Franz. I believe I have included everyone. If I have not, let them know my appreciation. As I have said, the distinguished senior Senator and I have shared staff, and so many will continue to work for the citizens of Indiana. Though some will go on to other endeavors, that same sense of responsibility and public service that has motivated them to date, I am sure will drive them to continue to play a positive role in the lives of Hoosiers for years to come. I thank them and salute them.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1274, and further, that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives from the House the House joint resolution that will continue Government funding until midnight Monday, October 12, 1998, with no amendments, it be considered agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 277, submitted by Senator Inouye, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4337 received from the House.

Mr. COATS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am pleased with the passage by UC of the bipartisan substitute amendment to HR 2616, the Charter School Expansion Act. Senator Lieberman and I introduced this bill last November to help further expand the charter school movement which is so successfully providing new educational opportunities for children all around this country. This bill passed unanimously out of the Labor Committee and was unanimously approved by the Senate last night. This important bill builds upon the great success of the original charter school legislation which Senator Lieberman and former Senator Durenberger introduced in 1994. The Federal Charter School Grant Program provides seed money to charter school operators to help them pay for the planning, design and initial implementation of a charter school. Since this program's inception, the number of charter schools has tripled, with over 1100 charter schools now operating in 33 States and the District of Columbia. Charter schools are independent public schools that have been freed from onerous bureaucratic and regulatory burdens in order to pursue clear objectives and goals aimed at increasing student achievement. To increase student achievement, charter schools are able to design and deliver educational programs tailored to meet the needs of their students and their communities. It is the individualized education available to students through charter schools that makes this a desirable educational alternative for many families. Charter schools give families an opportunity to choose the educational setting that best meet their child's needs. For many low-income families in particular, charter schools provide their first opportunity to select an educational setting which is best suited for their child. Parents and educators have, in turn, given these programs overwhelmingly high marks. Broad-based studies conducted by the Department of Education and the Hudson Institute show that charters are effectively serving diverse populations, particularly disadvantaged and at-risk children, that traditional public schools have struggled to educate. With results like these, it is no wonder that some of the strongest support for charter legislation comes from low-income families. Not only do these parents now have real educational choices, but they are actually needed in the charter school environment for everything from volunteering to coaching, fundraising, and even teaching. This direct involvement of families is helping to build small communities centered around the school. Charter schools can be started by anyone interested in providing a quality education: Parents, teachers, school administrators, community groups, businesses and colleges can all apply for a charter. And, importantly, if these schools fail to deliver a high-quality education, they will be closed--either through a district or State's accountability measures or from lack of students. Accountability is literally built into the charter school process--the school must comply with the provisions in its charter, and unhappy parents and students can leave if they are not satisfied. Additionally, a survey conducted last fall by the National School Boards Association (NSBA) found that the charter movement is already having a positive ripple effect that is being felt in many local public school districts. The NSBA report cites evidence that traditional public schools are working harder to please local families so they won't abandon them to competing charter schools, and that central administrators often see charters as ``a powerful tool'' to develop new ideas and programs without fearing regulatory roadblocks. Several other studies have recently been released highlighting the success of charter schools around the country. Among other things, these studies have shown that charter schools have successfully met and surpassed the standards outlined in their charters, attracted significant proportions of minority and low-income students, and have higher parental approval rates than public schools. The results of these studies point to important ways to improve and reinvent public education as a whole. The implications from the success of charter schools indicate that public schools should be consumer- oriented, diverse, results-oriented, and professional places that also function as mediating institutions in their communities. The purpose of this bill is to further encourage the growth of high- quality charter schools around the country. This bill provides incentives to encourage States to increase the number of high quality charter schools in their State. To qualify for funding under this bill, States must satisfy two criteria. First, they must provide for review and evaluation of their charter schools by the public chartering agency at least once every five years to ensure that the charter school is meeting the terms of its charter and meeting its academic performance requirements. And second, States meet at least one of three priority criteria: The State has demonstrated progress in increasing the number of high quality charter schools that meet clear and measurable objectives for the educational progress of their students; The State provides an alternative to the local educational agency as the public chartering agency through either another authorized public chartering agency or an appeals process; or The State ensure that each charter school has a high degree of automony over the charter school's budgets and expenditures. These priority criteria were included to encourage States to develop charter school laws that promote diversified educational opportunities balanced with high expectations, clear objectives, and strong accountability measures. This bill continues the primary focus of charter school grants for the planning, design and implementation costs of new charter schools. This bill adds another purpose for which grants can be used by States-- States may now reserve up to 10 percent of their grant funds to support the dissemination activities of successful charter schools. These dissemination grants can go to charter school operators to help encourage education reform by spreading the lessons learned by successful charter schools and assist in the creation of new charters and the reform and reinvigoration of other public schools. To help ensure that the amount of the federal grants are proportional to the level of charter school activity in the State, this bill directs the Secretary to take into consideration the number of charter schools in operation, or that have been approved to open. During drafting of this bill, the single greatest concern I heard from charter school operators related to their ability to access their fair share of federal education funding. And so, to ensure that charter schools have enough funding to continue once their doors are opened, this bill provides that charter schools get their fair share of federal programs for which they are eligible, such as Title 1 and IDEA. The bill also directs States to inform their charter schools of any Federal funds to which they are entitled. This bill also increases the financing options available to charter schools and allows them to utilize funds from the Title VI block grant program for start-up costs. Because it is so important that charter schools are held accountable in return for the flexibility they are given from Federal, state and local laws and regulations, this amendment includes several significant provisions which strengthen accountability. First, under the priority criteria, States must review and evaluate their charter schools at least once every five years to ensure that they are meeting the terms of their charter and their academic performance requirements. They are rewarded for increasing the number of high quality charter schools that are ``held accountable in their charter for meeting clear and measurable objectives for the educational progress of their students.'' The definitions section of the bill also stresses accountability by requiring a written performance contract with the authorized chartering agency in the State. These written performance contracts include clearly defined objectives for the charter school to meet in return for the autonomy they are given. The performance objectives in the contract are to be measured by State assessments and other assessments the charter wishes to use. I am confident that this amendment will build on and contribute to the success of the charter school movement. This bill stresses the need for high quality, accountable schools which are given autonomy they need to provide the best educational opportunity for their students. With the passage of this bill, a strong signal will be sent to parents and teachers all across this country that they are not alone in their struggle to improve education. We hope to ease their struggle by enabling new charter schools to be developed. More charter schools will result in greater accountability, broader flexibility for classroom innovation, and ultimately more choice in public education. I urge my colleagues to increase educational opportunities for all children by supporting this bill. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Lieberman for his tremendous leadership in the area of educational reform. He and I have worked closely on a number of issues over the last several years, and I want to commend him, in particular, for his strong support and leadership on issues concerning increasing educational opportunities for low-income children. He understands so clearly the fundamental importance of providing a high quality education in a safe environment to our neediest children. In addition to this charter schools bill, which will help to increase educational opportunities for low-income children, Senator Lieberman and I have worked closely for the last 4 years to gain support for publicly-funded scholarships for low-income children. I want to thank him for his unwavering commitment to this issue and his vitally important leadership. His efforts have done much to win bipartisan support for both charter schools and low-income scholarships and I thank him for his strong commitment to our country's neediest children. With the passage of this charter schools bill, Senator Lieberman and I have the pleasure of seeing the first of our joint educational reform initiatives move closer to becoming law. Mr. President, I ask that a summary of the study results to which I referred be printed in the Record. The summary follows: Findings From Key Studies on Charter Schools The Department of Education released its first formal report on its study of charter schools in May 1998. Key first-year findings include: The two most common reasons for starting public charter schools are flexibility from bureaucratic laws and regulations, and the chance to realize an educational vision. In most states, charter schools have a racial composition similar to statewide averages or have a higher proportion of minority students. Charter schools enroll roughly the same proportion of low- income students, on average, as other public schools. The Hudson Institute has also undertaken its own two-year study of charter schools, entitled ``Charter Schools in Action.'' Their research team traveled to 14 states, visited 60 schools, and surveyed thousands of parents, teachers, and students. Some of this study's key findings include: Three-fifths of charter school students report that their charter school teachers are better than their previous school's teacher. Over two-thirds of parents say their charter school is better than their child's previous schools with respect to class size, school size, and individual attention. Over 90 percent of teachers are satisfied with their charter school's educational philosophy, size, fellow teachers, and students. Among students who said they were failing at their previous school, more than half are now doing ``excellent'' or ``good'' work. These gains were dramatic for minority and low-income youngsters and were confirmed by their parents. Most of the top charter schools are not only meeting the high standards they have set for themselves, but surpassing them.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.