Daniel Coats

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.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 271 and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

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 bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 260.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 83.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, in 1970, Congress passed provisions known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, or RICO, as part of the larger Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. The bill was designed to help law enforcement officials better address the plague of organized crime, and has been a valuable tool in this effort. During drafting of this legislation, concerns were raised by several members of this body, including my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, that the bill was written so broadly that it might be used against organized civil disobedience, including anti-war demonstrators. This was at the height of the Vietnam War, and anti-war demonstrations were taking place across the country. Senator Kennedy, along with Senator Hart of Michigan, submitted their views as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee Report on the Organized Crime Control Act of 1969. I think their words deserve our attention today. They recognized that, and I quote: ``To combat organized crime, as distinguished from other forms of criminal activity, requires procedures specifically designed for that purpose.'' They continued, ``The reach of this bill goes beyond organized criminal activity. Most of its features propose substantial changes in the general body of criminal procedures. Finally, their statement notes that, ``Amended to restrict its scope solely to organized criminal activity and to assure the protection of individual rights, the bill could contribute important and useful means of eradicating organized crime.'' Mr. President, I ask that a copy of this statement from the Judiciary Committee Report be included in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, in 1970, Congress passed provisions known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, or RICO, as part of the larger Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. The bill was designed to help law enforcement officials better address the plague of organized crime, and has been a valuable tool in this effort. During drafting of this legislation, concerns were raised by several members of this body, including my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, that the bill was written so broadly that it might be used against organized civil disobedience, including anti-war demonstrators. This was at the height of the Vietnam War, and anti-war demonstrations were taking place across the country. Senator Kennedy, along with Senator Hart of Michigan, submitted their views as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee Report on the Organized Crime Control Act of 1969. I think their words deserve our attention today. They recognized that, and I quote: ``To combat organized crime, as distinguished from other forms of criminal activity, requires procedures specifically designed for that purpose.'' They continued, ``The reach of this bill goes beyond organized criminal activity. Most of its features propose substantial changes in the general body of criminal procedures. Finally, their statement notes that, ``Amended to restrict its scope solely to organized criminal activity and to assure the protection of individual rights, the bill could contribute important and useful means of eradicating organized crime.'' Mr. President, I ask that a copy of this statement from the Judiciary Committee Report be included in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 296 submitted earlier today by Senator Kerrey.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to speak today about a matter which concerns me greatly--the process by which funds are allocated at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The National Institutes of Health is one of the finest institutions of medical research in the World. A commitment to providing the best possible health care has driven the NIH's recruitment of preeminent physicians and medical researchers across the breadth of the medical disciplines. Having created such an impressive resource, it is disheartening that Congress, through legislative earmarks and other mandates, often undertakes to second-guess the considered opinions of these experts. The practice of earmarking disease-specific funds results mainly from lobbying pressure directed to Senators or our staffs. As a result of this pressure, Senator's introduce language which sets aside sums of money--often very large sums of money--to be used exclusively for one specific disease. In September of last year, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill, which contained a provision for an in-depth study to examine the priority setting process at NIH. The amendment which incorporated this study was originally sponsored by myself and Senator Frist, and directed the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct this study with utmost priority. The intent of this research was to understand how priorities regarding specific research programs are determined, how levels of funding for these research programs are established, and how new organizational entities within the NIH are created. This study grew out of Senator Frist and my concerns that Congress was unduly influencing the process by which priorities are set at NIH through the practice of the earmarking of funds for disease-specific research. We were concerned that the priority setting process at NIH was becoming less science-based and more politically drive. It was clear that our concern was shared by the majority of the Senate, as they voted to include this amendment in the appropriations bill. In July of this year, IOM completed its work and reported its findings to Congress. The study cited the need for greater public involvement, specifically, and I quote, ``The director of NIH should establish and appropriately staff a Director's Council of Public Representatives, to facilitate interactions between NIH and the general public'' and that, ``* * * public membership of NIH policy and program advisory groups should be selected to represent a broad range of public constituencies.'' unquote. It is interesting to note that both these recommendations focus public input directly to NIH, rather than to Congress. This is very much in line with another recommendation; quote, ``The U.S. Congress should use its authority to mandate specific research programs, establish level of funding for them, and implement new organizational entities only when other approaches have proven inadequate.'' unquote. The findings of this study are clear. For the purpose of priority- setting, public input-including organized input via lobbying efforts-- are most appropriately directed to NIH, where it can be evaluated by appropriate science-based criteria. Only when there is evidence that NIH is unable or unwilling to apply this input appropriately to their priority-setting process and criteria, should Congress influence the process through legislative mandates. It is my contention that if the litmus test were applied to all earmarks, most would be stripped from legislation. The message is clear: Congress should avoid the practice of earmarking within NIH appropriations. The findings of the research conducted by the independent and impartial experts clearly indicates that the concern regarding the pricess of priority setting at NIH was warranted. As the Senate considers the future appropriations and authorization legislation for NIH, I would urge my colleagues to consider, with a critical eye, any disease-specific earmarks. I would urge my colleagues to ask themselves whether there is evidence that NIH has somehow failed to appropriately consider and apply science-based priority-setting criteria. In the absence of such evidence, I would urge my colleagues to not impose earmerks or other legislative mandates on the NIH.

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 Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 257.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator from Texas.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to--and I do not think it will take that long--15 minutes.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, let me state that it is not my intention to hold anybody here that needs to leave. It is my understanding that all normal business for the day has been finished, and that is why I asked for the permission to speak in morning business. If that is not the case, I am certainly willing to defer. Since I hear no objection, I will proceed.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I regret that this objection is being made. The bill is vital to the technology industry, and this objection makes it impossible to pass the bill this year.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3736, a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes relating to H-1B nonimmigrants.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the end of the 105th Congress marks the beginning of my transition from Senator to citizen. This ends 24 years for me of public service: Two in the U.S. Army, four as a legislative assistant and district director for then- Congressman Dan Quayle, and 18 in the Congress. While I look forward to life after politics, I know how much I will miss this place and its people, and so I want to acknowledge some debts. I want to acknowledge the privilege of serving under two remarkable Republican leaders and one Democrat majority leader, all of whom I hold a great deal of respect. Senator Mitchell was majority leader when I arrived. He gave me nothing but the utmost courtesy, fairness and respect. I have a great deal of respect for him in the way he conducted this Senate. Senator Dole became my friend and mentor. His life is a tribute to a true patriot and to someone whose commitment to public service, I think, is nearly unequal. Our current leader, Senator Lott, is someone who is a dear friend, someone who I greatly respect, and I think certainly has a great future as majority leader. There are many others that have made a deep impression on me and provided friendship and support in ways that I will never be able to adequately acknowledge: The senior Senator from Indiana, whose lifetime of public service serves as a model to many; my staff, who have faithfully and tirelessly served. I have always said good staff makes for good Senators. I don't know if I fit the quality of a good Senator, but I know I had a good staff. Any failings on my part are not due to my staff, they are due to me. They have been exceptional. I think they are the best Senate staff assembled. I say that for the very few who are left that have not secured employment. Some of you are passing up great opportunities if you don't grab them. I have had three very, very able administrative assistants, chiefs of staff: David Hoppe, who now serves as the floor's chief of staff and served with me for my first 4 years; David Gribbin, who many of you know, assistant secretary of staff for Dick Cheney for many, many years in the House; and now Sharon Soderstrom. All have been exceptional chiefs of staff. They have assembled a wonderful staff. The Senate support team: All those who man the desks and work the cloakroom and make sure we vote on time; the guards who protect us and make sure we are safe in our jobs; the staff who serve us, and the people who make this place work, they are a family. They have treated me like part of the family. I have tried to treat them as part of the family. They make it possible for us to do so many things and they certainly deserve our acknowledgment. Our Chaplain, who has meant so much to me from a spiritual perspective, and my colleagues, my friends, who I can't begin to thank; those who share my ideals and have voted with me and those who don't but who have engaged in respectful, meaningful dialog in debate, and who, at the end of the debate, we have been able to meet at the center aisle, shake hands, acknowledge, ``Well done, we will get you next time,'' or ``See you at the next debate?''--all of those mean a great deal to me. I come from here with many, many memories. I want to thank my wife for her love and support and sacrifice. She is the best mother that any three children could ever have had. She has been a father many times when I haven't been there to do the job as a father. My children have been patient and had stolen moments which I will never be able to recover. I thank my colleagues, as I said, those who have shared ideals and those who we had honorable and honest disagreement. Finally, the people of Indiana who have seen fit to elect me many times to the Congress and twice to the Senate, thank you for giving me a privilege beyond my ability to earn the privilege of their trust, the honor of their votes. In times of change you become reflective, and it is nice to think about your accomplishments. It is also a time to reflect on unfinished business, business that I hope will help shape the direction of this Congress that some have indicated an interest in, and hopefully others will pick up that interest. By constitutional design, the measure of success in the Senate, I think, is different from other parts of government. We are employed to take a longer view, insulated from the rush of hours to see the needs of future years. This is the theory. In practice, the pace of politics makes this very different, very difficult. This has been the greatest source of personal frustration during my years in this institution, that we have not spent nearly enough time dealing with the larger issues that face us, things that will matter down the road, topics that will be chapters in American history, not footnotes in the Congressional Record. If you allow me the privilege, I will briefly mention three of those matters that I trust will remain central to the questions of our time. All of you know of my interest in the issue of life. I believe there is no higher call of government than to protect the most defenseless among us. There is no greater honor in this Senate than to use our voice to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. Perhaps uniquely among our deliberations, the cause of life is informed and ennobled by a simple truth: Humanity is not an achievement. It is an endowment, and that that endowment is made by a Creator who gives inalienable rights, first among them the right to life. This is a founding principle of our political tradition. It is the teaching of our moral heritage. And it is the demand of our conscience. Abraham Lincoln wrote of our Founders: This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to his creatures. . . . In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on. . . . They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children, and their children's children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the Earth in other ages. My question is, Will that beacon shine for all our children, those born and yet to be born? Or will we, in the name of personal liberty, stamp out the divine image and likeness of the most defenseless of all? I believe it is one of the central questions of our time. I know we are divided on that issue. I hope, though, that we would all put aside some of the harsh rhetoric and continue to engage in the discussion about the meaning and the value of life and what our duties and responsibilities are to protect that life, to expand the ever- widening circle of inclusion that our great democracy is known for: bringing women, the defenseless, the handicapped, African-Americans and minorities within this circle of protection in our democracy. And I believe--my personal view, and I hope one we would certainly debate and discuss--that extends to the unborn. Secondly, another great issue that I believe demands our continued attention is the long-term strength of our Nation, the resource and planning that we devote to the defense of liberty. Here we are, not weak as a nation, but I fear that we are on a trajectory toward weakness--that our power and authority are being spent and not accumulated. It has been one of the highest callings and privileges for this Senator to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee and to use that position to advance the cause of our men and women in uniform. I deeply respect and honor those who have served our Nation in war and peace as watchmen on the wall of freedom, but the test of our appreciation is measurable by the firmness of our determination that their lives will not be needlessly sacrificed because we have allowed the deterrent power of America's military to decay. The history of this country is a history of military victories, but it is also a history of how our Nation often invited future conflict and unnecessary loss of American life by too swiftly disarming after our victories and squandering the opportunities of peace. In 1939, Army Chief of Staff, Malin Craig said: What transpires on prospective battlefields is influenced vitally years before in the councils of the staff and in the legislative halls of Congress. Time is the only thing that may be irrevocably lost, and it is the first thing lost sight of in the seductive false security of peaceful times. Mr. President, I believe we have been living in peaceful times. We have enjoyed prosperity and peace that is almost unprecedented in America these past several years. I fear that storm clouds are gathering, however, on America's horizon, that the ``seductive false security of our peaceful times'' is fast fading. We see a frightening proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We see worldwide terrorism, much of it directed at Americans and American interests. We see political instability and human suffering, social disorder resulting from ethnic hatred, power- hungry dictators, and the very real prospect of global financial distress with all of its attendant consequences. All of this, I believe, calls for eternal vigilance, a national defense second to none, a military equal to the threats of a new century. We have a unique opportunity, I believe, and a strategic pause that is fast fading to build a new military equal to the new challenges and the new threats of the future. Closer to home, it is my hope that the Senate, in every future debate on social policy, will focus on the role of families, churches and community institutions in meeting human needs and touching human souls. This is a world of heroic commitment and high standards and true compassion that must be respected and fostered and protected, not harassed or undermined by Government or Hollywood. It is a world of promise that I urge all of you to take the time to discover. I believe our Nation needs a bold, new definition of compassion. We need compassion that shows good outcomes, not just good intentions. We need to get rid of the destructive welfare culture. We have taken a great step in that direction, but we still need to fulfill our responsibilities to the less fortunate and disadvantaged, the children and the helpless. We need to abandon our illusions about Government bureaucracies, but we still need to keep our human decency. How is this possible? I am convinced there is a way--a hopeful new direction for change, because there are people and institutions in our society that can reach and change these things. Families and neighborhoods, churches, charities, and volunteer associations have the tools to transform people's lives. They can demand individual responsibility. They can practice tough love. They can offer moral values and spiritual renewal--things that Government can't do, and we should not want Government to do. I believe a bold, new definition of compassion will adopt this bold dream: to break the monopoly of Government as a provider of compassion and return its resources to individuals, churches, synagogues, charities, volunteer associations, community organizations and others. This, I believe, is the next step of the welfare debate and the next stage of reform, the next frontier of compassion in America. Before I close, let me add a personal note, and it is difficult for me to say this. I have deliberated long on whether I should say this. But I believe, since I am not going to be here next year, this is something I would want to have said. So allow me to briefly do that. I resolved when I came here, like many of you, from the moment I took the oath, that I would do my best not to do anything to bring this body into disrepute, that I would try not to tarnish it by word or action, that whatever I did in public policy, I would try my best not to contribute to public cynicism or a diminishing of the office. I think all of us feel this burden. It is one of the reasons that I believe this impeachment process, which we are contemplating, which looms large on the horizon of this Senate, has to be taken seriously. I don't presume that any of us should draw a conclusion at this point. But I believe it is a serious thing to consider. I don't believe that moral deregulation of public office is ratified by public apathy. It will be a terrible thing if the ethical expectations of public office are allowed to wither. The Nation could double its wealth, but we could have a shrunken legacy. I believe each of you who will be here have a high duty and moral responsibility to address this with the utmost seriousness and the absolute smallest amount of partisanship that is possible, and I speak to my colleagues on the Republican side, as well as the Democrat side. It is my hope that when the time comes, the Senate will give evidence to the ideals that I have seen displayed so many times in this body. I believe these things strongly, but I don't want to end on this point. I make the points because I have learned from so many here in the Senate and from so many great Americans who served before me how honorable public service can be. I am not leaving the Senate disillusioned in any way. I leave having seen how important and how sometimes noble elective office can be, after nearly two decades of service. I believe in this job and in its goals, and I am confident that the country is well served by my many friends and colleagues who will continue to serve and lead this institution. Again, I thank my great State of Indiana and the people and friends who made it possible for me to serve here. I thank my God for the privilege of service in this place, and I thank each of you for being my friends and my colleagues and leaving me with memories that I will never, ever forget. I will leave here extolling this institution as the greatest deliberative body in the greatest country in the history of the world, and I have been privileged to be a part of it. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 278, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. COATS

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

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.