Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, allow me to thank my colleagues for their kind words and also for their assistance. At a time when our two parties are often divided over issues, major issues, this is truly a bipartisan effort. This is something that could not have been achieved without the cooperation, support, help and assistance of people on both sides of the aisle. I thank the chairman and Senator Kennedy for their work with us on this. I thank my counterpart on the Children and Families Subcommittee, Senator Dodd; Senator Gregg has been a supporter of this effort, and others on the committee who have worked hard and worked diligently with us to bring us to this particular point. Each of the four programs that are encompassed in this bill represent an all too rare occurrence--a forging of public and private partnership to combat the effects of poverty and unleashing the vast resources of one of our most important assets, the local community. The first component of this bill is the reauthorization of Head Start, a program that has proven to be significant in providing an opportunity for children to realize their full potential. It was more than a decade ago that Congressman George Miller and I, as chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Children, Youth and Family Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, asked the General Accounting Office to do an analysis of all of the programs that affected children, youth and families under the title and the theme of what works, what doesn't and why. It was a 2-year exhaustive study, and it came back listing eight Federal programs that provided real tangible benefits and a real return on the investment of the taxpayer's dollar and encouraged support for those programs. At the head of the list, No. 1 on the list was Head Start. It said that for the taxpayer's investment in providing low-income, disadvantaged children with opportunities to prepare to enter the educational system, he or she was saving an enormous amount of money that would have had to be spent on remedial education and would have been potentially lost because those children were not prepared to enter the educational system. Since that time, I have been an ardent supporter of Head Start, in trying to provide funds for Head Start and also to make sure the program is effective. It is a program that clearly has provided many millions of children opportunities that they would not have otherwise had. However, having said that, there have been questions about the quality of the program. We have experienced varying degrees of quality, from excellent in some cases to very poor in other cases. With the 1994 reauthorization, Congress and the administration made a commitment to enhance the focus on quality improvement. Since the last reauthorization, the Head Start bureau has offered technical assistance, resources and support to Head Start programs that are committed to pursuing excellence--again, something that is all too rare. We have also terminated, actually terminated grants to those programs that were experiencing deficiencies to the extent that they could not be remedied. Close to 100 Head Start grantees have been terminated or have relinquished their grants since 1994--the first time in history that deficient programs were actually recompeted. These are essential. Too often here we authorize a new program with glowing words and the best of direction that we can provide, only to find later that those programs did not match up to the promise, and yet they are continued, they are perpetuated, they continue to receive funding, we continue to support mediocrity or even worse. We have, through the actions in 1994 and subsequent, infused into the Head Start Program not only the technical assistance and resources and support necessary, but also the oversight and the investigation and the determination that we are either going to make some of these programs that are deficient, better, or we are going to recompete them--and, as I said, more than 100 have been recompeted. The reauthorization bill that we are dealing with today builds on that commitment by requiring that 60 percent of the Head Start funds in the first years go toward enhancing program quality. It is important that we expand Head Start. We obviously want to get as many children in the program as possible, but it does no good to expand the program, to enroll more children, if the existing programs are not providing the health and the benefit and the quality that the children need to give them that edge that they need. So the emphasis on quality early and expansion later, I think, is the proper emphasis. We also take steps to make sure Head Start students obtain the goal of school readiness by requiring the establishment of educational performance standards to ensure that the children develop a minimum level of literacy awareness and understanding coupled with very specific measures to help us assess whether or not this program is actually working. Under this scenario, poor programs, poorly administered programs, will be identified, they will be offered technical assistance, and if they fail to correct the deficiencies, they will be terminated and the grant recompeted. We have responded to the concerns of Head Start programs to be able to more fully address the emerging needs of working families for full- day, full-year services, by significantly enhancing the Collaboration Grant Program in current law by requiring active collaboration between Head Start and other early care in education programs within the State, and we have included the President's request for an expansion of early Head Start programs from the current 7.5 percent in fiscal year 1999 to 10 percent in fiscal year 2003. Finally, in response to concerns raised about the lack of reliable research on Head Start, which can be used as a basis for determining its effectiveness, we have authorized the National Impact Study of Head Start. These studies will yield very valuable information about how this program is working and whether Head Start is, in fact, making a difference. Mr. President, the whole emphasis here, as you can tell, is on sufficient oversight, sufficient involvement in the program, to determine how it is working and to establish and identify where it is not working, and to help make where it is not working better and, if not, if necessary, recompeting the whole process and turning it over to someone else. There are three other components of this particular bill before us. One is the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I will allow other Members, including the chairman, to address that. That is an issue they have been involved in more directly than I have. Another is the Community Services Block Grant, an excellent example of what can happen when Washington allows local communities to design their own responses to local problems. The ``Washington knows best,'' the ``Washington has one model formula that fits all sizes,'' is pretty much a discounted and discarded theory. We are working now, and need to work, with local communities to identify local problems and allow them to help us and work with us in fashioning a local solution. Mr. President, 90 percent of the funds provided under this act, the Community Services Block Grant, must be passed through by the State to local eligible entities, which include a variety of public and nonprofit organizations, community action agencies, and faith-based neighborhood organizations. We made some important improvements in this act, requiring each State to participate in a performance measurement system, again to determine effectiveness of programs and make sure they are meeting their program goals and priorities. We have reauthorized a number of subcomponents of this--the Community Economic Development Program, the Rural Economic Development Program, National Youth Sports, the Community Food and Nutrition Program--and created a new program called the Neighborhood Innovation Projects, so that grants to private, neighborhood-based nonprofits can test or assist in the development of new approaches and developments in dealing with these community problems. These grants may be used for a variety of purposes, including gang interventions, addressing school violence, or any other purposes identified by the community as a problem resulting from poverty and consistent with the purposes of this CSBG. Finally, let me address a program that has been near and dear to my heart, something that has been part of the Project for American Renewal that I authored some time ago. This is a 5-year demonstration program entitled ``Assets for Independence.'' It is designed to encourage low- income individuals to develop strong habits for saving money. It is an IRA for low-income people. The current IRA program really is only available to those who have assets readily available or accessible to put into this saving program. The Assets for Independence Act allows sponsoring organizations to provide participating individuals and families intensive financial counseling and assistance in developing investment plans for education, home ownership, and entrepreneurship. I am excited about this new program. As I said, it is part of the Project for American Renewal legislation I first introduced in 1995. It is estimated that our 5-year investment of $100 million in asset building through these individual accounts will generate 7,000-plus new businesses, 70,000 new jobs, $730 million in additional earnings, 12,000 new or rehabilitated homes, 6,600 families removed from welfare rolls, and 20,000 adults obtaining high school, vocational, and college degrees. Each of the programs we are authorizing today represents an effort to give people a hand up, not simply a handout. They are an acknowledgment that when one family suffers, we all suffer as Americans; when communities break down, we all pay a price, and therefore we all have a stake in helping people achieve the American dream. The legislation recognizes the limits of government and the fact that many of our worst social problems will never be solved by government alone. We are beginning to recognize that there are people and institutions, families, churches, synagogues, parishes, community volunteer organizations, faith-based charities, that are able to communicate societal ideals and restore individual hope, and we need to allow those organizations to compete to provide services, and we have done so in each of the programs I have described. Community activist Robert Woodson makes the point that every social problem, no matter how severe, is currently being defeated somewhere by some volunteer community group, faith-based organization, or others. This is now one of America's great untold stories. No alternative approach to our cultural crisis holds such promise, because these institutions have resources denied to government at every level, resources of love, spiritual vitality, and true compassion. Mr. President, I have been proud to be associated with one organization entitled Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America. I have been with them now for 26 years as a Big Brother as a local board member, board president, now as the president of the national board. This, along with organizations like Boys Clubs, Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and others, provides just one example of how local volunteer organizations can provide volunteers who can provide help to children to give them the kind of mentoring and support they need in difficult years, growing up often in one-parent families or families with poverty. There are examples of this all across the board. The Gospel Rescue Ministry's efforts across the country have reached out to drug-addicted homeless individuals and provided astounding support. Whether the problem is teen pregnancy, school dropouts, school violence, children without fathers--whatever--there are organizations that we need to tap into, support, and enhance their involvement, providing support for young people and addressing social problems in this country. Mr. President, I see my time is expiring. I did not mean to go on as long as I have. I hope I have not used up all the time. I know Senator Kennedy and others are on the floor to talk about this. These programs, I believe, the ones we are reauthorizing, represent the true measure of our compassion as a nation. I want to end by giving credit to Stephanie Johnson, who has poured her heart and soul into this reauthorization. She has given more than any one person can ask, making this a reality. This would not have happened without her involvement. Good staff makes good Senators, and she is the epitome of good staff. I thank her personally and publicly for her work in making this, and many of the things that have happened within our committee, a reality. With that, I appreciate the extra time and yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, first of all, I begin by thanking my colleague and my friend from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, for his friendship over the years as a Member of the Congress, in the last 10 years as a Member of the Senate, for his tireless work on a number of important issues facing this country, and for his willingness to take on this issue, as difficult as the negotiations have been, to persevere, to bring it to this particular point. Senator Nickles has provided effective leadership and perseverance in resolving what I think is one of the most important issues that this Senate will be dealing with in this session of Congress. There are many others and I will mention some of those names at a later point. The United States, which we are privileged and pleased to be citizens of, has long been considered a pillar of freedom around the world. Our Nation was founded by individuals fleeing persecution and discrimination throughout Europe. The founding documents of our country enshrine the value and principle of religious freedom. The very first clause of the first amendment guarantees each of us the right of free exercise of religion and prohibits our Government from dictating or establishing how we will worship and what we will believe. Freedom of religion is enshrined in our founding documents because freedom of religion is a basic human right. In our country, this freedom is acknowledged as a right endowed not by man, not by those who wrote those documents, but by our Creator. Therefore, they are unalienable and cannot be removed. Religious freedom is also recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. That declaration guarantees freedom of religion, including the freedom to choose one's own religious belief, to worship, to observe and practice one's belief individually or corporately. The freedom to practice one's religion without fear of outside intervention is the most fundamental liberty that any human being can possess. We have a history as a country of concern not only for our own religious freedom but also for religious freedom in other countries. We want to stand as a beacon for religious freedom because we believe it goes to the most basic and most essential of all human freedoms and all human rights. The cold war brought considerable national attention to the plight of Soviet Jews who faced extreme religious intolerance and persecution. United States concerns ultimately translated into national policy, including the enactment of the Jackson-Vanik law which tied trade with the Soviet Union and other Communist nations to their allowing Jews to emigrate--just one example of how this Nation has translated into policy these basic fundamental beliefs. By contrast, there has been little focus lately, unfortunately, on some of the increasing persecution of Christians and some of the horrific persecution of Christians and other peoples of faith around the world. As a nation, we have assumed a responsibility, a moral imperative, to raise the basic human rights issues, the basic examples of persecution, to use the tools available to us to motivate change toward these individuals in various countries around the world practicing various faiths. Individuals are persecuted for that belief and that practice. It is evident that many people--not just Christians, but several faiths--suffer because of their faith. The form that these attacks take can be everything from discrimination in employment, denial of participation in the political process, denial of common rights of citizenship. But these attacks can also take the form of extreme physical harm, torture, imprisonment, slavery, and even death. A fact of our time, the fact of the history of mankind, is that people have been persecuted and are being persecuted for their religious belief and for their faith. There are abuses in many places around the world of people persecuted simply because of what they believe. Paul Marshall, in his book, ``Their Blood Cries Out,'' effectively chronicles where persecution is occurring. In great detail, he presents a comprehensive view of this problem throughout the world. His exhaustive survey simply cannot be ignored. It is a powerful and persuasive analysis which ultimately begs the question: What will we do? How will we respond? Will we respond? Is there action that we can take? He talks about offenses in countries around the world--these have been documented--in Sudan, Pakistan, Vietnam, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, and others. In the Sudan, possibly the worst of the offenders, it is not just Christians who have faced persecution, but Muslims and Animists, who have opposed the repressive tactics of the Islamic military regime which took power in 1989. Many Arab Muslims from the north have been arrested, imprisoned, tortured and killed. Christians driven from their homelands to government-controlled areas of the country are forced to renounce their faith in order to receive basic food. Others, including black Africans, are forced to convert to Islam and are even enslaved. All told, 1.5 million people have been killed by this totalitarian regime and another 5 million have been displaced from their homes. In Pakistan, Paul Marshall describes the problem not as one of state- directed intolerance, but as one due to the growth of militant Islamic forces attacking Christians. Christian Pakistanis often become the victims of murder. The blasphemy law, passed in 1986, requires death sentences to any who blasphemes against the Prophet Mohammed or the Qu'ran. This law has given way to a wave of terror against Christians and other religious minorities. Buddhist and Christians in Vietnam are subject to arrest and harassment if they are not part of the officially recognized churches. As in China, government control over religion seems due to fear of loss of control over the people. Paul Marshall writes that ``priests and pastors are assaulted, harassed, fined, sentenced to re-education camps and imprisoned. Many die in prison, some of them after torture.'' In Cuba as well, the government attempts to rigidly control religion. Churches cannot run schools or use mass communications. They are prohibited from performing missionary work and the distribution of religious material is controlled. There has, however, been tremendous growth in churches in Cuba, primarily in the form of house churches. The Cuban Government has also sought to restrict religion by imposing a ban on the sale of paper, ink, typewriters, computers and other printing device to any religious organization. In Iran, those who believe in the Baha'i faith are forcibly repressed by the Iranian Government. They are denied the right to assemble and elect their religious officials, their property is confiscated and they are denied basic civil and legal rights. More than 200 Baha'is have been killed in Iran since 1989. Christians and Jews likewise face persecution in Iran, including discrimination, imprisonment, and death. One Christian human rights groups describes the treatment of Christians and Jews as ``Religious apartheid.'' In Saudi Arabia, only the practice of the Sunni form of Islam is permitted. No public expression of Christianity is allowed. Those found with Bibles or crosses can be tortured and arrested. The Saudi Government even went so far as to demand that a Christian group meeting in the American Consulate be disbanded. Unfortunately, our Consulate obliged them by closing worship service, this in an American Embassy. In China, the Christian home churches are flourishing despite the Communist government moves to strictly control churches. I trust we are familiar with the accounts of thousands of Catholic and Protestant Chinese who have been imprisoned for worshiping, preaching and distributing Bibles. This is but a handful of examples of where intolerance occurs around the world. Clearly, we cannot hold each nation and people to the same standard we have in the United States. But neither can we ignore the dramatic, reprehensible, and documented accounts of what is happening. Yet it is clear we cannot oversimplify the problem of religious intolerance in these and other countries. While persecution in some countries is the direct result of official government policy, in others, persecution is undertaken by groups and individuals, with no attempt by the governing officials to intervene. Further, while some religious persecution is simply part of an overall repressive regime eager to control the lives of the people, other persecution is specifically targeted at religious freedoms. In addition, the promotion of human rights, including religious freedom, is only one interest of the United States in conducting foreign policy. We also must promote strong relations with countries vital to our national security and pursue policies designed to promote our economic interests. Yet as a Nation, especially a Nation with our heritage, we cannot close our eyes to real abuses and persecutions taking place. We cannot stand idly by, complacent, apathetic, pretending to be ignorant. Because we are not ignorant. We must act wisely, but we must act. We need a comprehensive policy which draws greater attention to specific problems and works to change behavior. We must have a balance, always keeping in mind the plight of individuals and the role the United States can play in changing the behavior of other governments. Religious liberty has been our gift from the founders of this country; it is also our responsibility, and our torch to bear. The Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad issued an interim report in January 1998. That report described our policy goals in this way: The aim of U.S. foreign policy in this area should be to influence governments, with both positive and negative inducements and through public and private diplomacy, to live up to international standards of religious freedom. This legislation can, first of all, alert us to the situations as they exist around the world, and then provide us a road map in terms of how we can most effectively address them. The bill before us, introduced by Senators Nickel, Specter and Lieberman, is designed to promote and elevate religious freedom in our Nation's conduct of foreign policy. My friends on the House side, led by Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia, have been tireless in pressing for this issue. I would like to take a moment to give credit to Congressman Wolf who has, without a doubt, been the most persistent and relentless advocate of our taking action to address the problem of religious freedom, together with Chris Smith, and others in the House of Representatives. They have provided the impetus for this action and they have, through persuasion and education of Members of the House, alerted them to the problem that exists and achieved a very significant vote in favor of what was then the Wolf-Specter bill. That bill has passed the House of Representatives and now, in the waning hours of the 105th Congress, the Senate, after exhaustive negotiations, after a process that has gone on for an extraordinary amount of time, finds itself at this place. Mr. President, a great number of people deserve credit for this work, including John Hanford of Senator Lugar's staff, Steve Moffitt, and my own very able legislative assistant, Pam Sellars, and others on Senator Nickles' staff and Senator Lieberman's staff, have worked tirelessly to fashion legislation that will survive the myriad of procedural processes that we have to go through here in order to bring a bill to the floor, particularly in the waning hours. A great deal of effort and work has been put into making this a reality. I am so pleased that we stand here this evening on the verge of passage of what I think is an extraordinarily important piece of legislation. This presents a viable policy to strengthen religious freedoms abroad. The bill is balanced in its approach, it is comprehensive in its treatment, and it enables our Nation to custom-tailor our response to religious persecution in other lands. It puts in place measures which institutionalize our Nation's historic principles and religious liberty in our relations with other nations. We establish an ambassador for international religious freedom to help the State Department in assessing nations which engage or tolerate religious persecution and to help promote religious freedom. We set up a process to ensure that the State Department is adequately focusing on religious freedom issues by requiring them to report to the Congress. Each year, State will issue a country-wide assessment of religious freedom abroad with specific summaries of which countries are improving their records and in what ways our Government is actively engaging to change behavior that is not acceptable. Most important, this bill establishes an independent commission of experts, appointed by the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, to monitor religious freedom on an ongoing basis and to make recommendations to Congress on actions the U.S. can take in countries when persecution occurs. This is important because this is information that we need. We no longer will be able to simply consign religious persecution and religious freedom to some clip we might read in the paper, or to some report that might come across our desk. We will have a commission constituted of reputable individuals, knowledgeable individuals, who will be able to present to us, on an annual basis, a detailed report of exactly what we are facing around the world. That can be the basis for this Congress and that can be the basis for the State Department and the administration--whichever administration is in power--to take significant action and specific action to address these problems. I think that is the most important part of this bill and the one that will provide the impetus for our taking effective action. There are a number of other provisions, and Senator Nickles has laid some of them out--and others will discuss those--each of which is important to the success of this legislation. On May 14, 1998, the House passed Congressman Wolf's legislation--the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act--by an overwhelming margin of 375-41. Again, I commend my colleague, Frank Wolf, for his leadership on this issue. His efforts, along with a number of others, have brought recognition of the plight of people of faith throughout the world to our attention. It is now time for us to act. It is time for us to establish an effective foreign policy which can respond to religious persecution that we find around the world and which seeks to change the behavior of those responsible. I trust that the Senate will follow what the House has done and demonstrate a strong, if not unanimous, vote for this bill. Mr. President, in closing, I want to quote from the Statement of Conscience, issued by the National Evangelical Association on January 23, 1996: Religious liberty is not a privilege to be granted or denied by an all-powerful state, but a God-given human right. Indeed, religious liberty is the bedrock principle that animates our Republic and defines us as a people. We must share our love of religious liberty with other peoples, who in the eyes of God are our neighbors. Hence, it is our responsibility and that of the Government that represents us, to do everything we can to secure the blessing of religious liberty to all those suffering from religious persecution. Mr. President, we in this country cannot begin to comprehend what people of faith in other nations have had to endure. They have had to put their health, their wealth, their family, their fortunes, and their very lives on the line. Many lives have been sacrificed in the name of religious expression, religious belief. The persecution, which takes place in many countries around this world, is almost too horrible to describe. As a Nation, as a people who have been so blessed with the freedom of religious belief, the least we can do is to hold ourselves out as an example and model to many nations around the world, but, more importantly, demonstrate through our policy that this violent human rights issue is an issue that cannot be ignored, sacrificed to trade, sacrificed to diplomatic relations, or to anything. The basic human right, endowed by our Creator, for freedom of worship, freedom of belief, is something that the world desperately needs, something that we can promote. This legislation is designed to do that. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I cannot emphasize enough my deep conviction that we must act swiftly on this issue on which our country has, unfortunately, been silent on too long. We are now acting. We have come to that point. It is with great joy, I believe, in our hearts and in the hearts of people of faith throughout the world that the Senate will enact this. Our deep hope and belief is that the President of the United States will sign it and it will become the official policy of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I know our colleague, Senator Lieberman, is on his way over to speak on this bill. I want to take this opportunity to say how much his presence and his involvement on this issue was necessary to our forging a bipartisan consensus on this. I think it is important that we speak with one voice as a nation on an issue as critical as religious persecution. It was the work of Senator Lieberman, primarily on the other side of the aisle, that allowed us to address some of the concerns of some of our colleagues-- many of them legitimate concerns--and to work through the process, convince his colleagues that what we were attempting to do was done in a way that addressed their concerns. Really, without his help we could not have forged this bipartisan consensus. So while he is not here for me to praise him personally, I just want to let the Record show that the combination of Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, and everybody in between, resulted in a consensus bill that I think sends a very, very important message and, really, a beacon of hope and light. I am hoping the vote tomorrow will be unanimous, and I think it may be. A lot of that credit goes to Senator Lieberman and also, as I said earlier, a lot of that credit goes to the bill's chief sponsor here in the Senate, Senator Nickles, who patiently worked through trials and tribulations, weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, in order to pull this together and get everybody on board. That appears to be what we have, and we are looking forward to a solid vote tomorrow. Again, my compliments to all of those who played such an important role in that. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Reserving the right to object, I would like to reserve 1 minute for summation on the amendment that is being offered before the vote. Hopefully, I can do that before 12 o'clock. In case I can't, I would like that 1 minute.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind words from my colleagues--the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Arizona. I am also appreciative of their support for this effort. I don't know if any of us has a perfect answer to this. We do see the Internet, the World Wide Web, as one of the most extraordinary invasions in the history of mankind. It can provide access to information that can revolutionize our world and provide opportunities for people who heretofore have not had those opportunities for knowledge and for learning that are extraordinary. At the same time, there is a dark side to the Internet. As with most new technology, it can be used for good; it can be used for evil. Unfortunately, the Internet is no exception. None of us want to put ourselves in the position of being a censor. We decry that material. We don't think it sends the right kind of moral message. We wish we didn't have it. Yet, as a country dedicated to the freedom of speech, enshrined in its Constitution, we have to accept certain types of material that some of us consider offensive, but doesn't necessarily meet the obscenity test that the Court has laid out, which is a pretty stringent test. By the same token, surely--surely--we as a society can address the issue of how we protect the innocence of our children and whether we can use reasonable means to give parents tools to protect that innocence. That is what this amendment is about. Software is an attempt to do that. We know from documented evidence that software is only a partial solution, that it can be defeated, but I think it is helpful and we ought to utilize that and encourage it. Beyond that, however, we need a sanction, a sanction that imposes some requirements--technologically feasible requirements and economically feasible requirements--on those who seek to bypass the effort to put any kind of restrictions on the availability of this material to children. We passed legislation earlier, the Communications Decency Act. Even though the Congress and the people of America and the President supported it, the Court did not support it. It struck it down. We have carefully modified and changed this language in this bill that I offered earlier that the Senate passed to comply with those Court restrictions. We have made sure that it applies to minors; that the requirements put in place meet the Court's standard; that the language harmful to minors meets the Court-ordered test that was given to us years ago in the Ginsberg case. We believe we have something here that not only is acceptable to the American people and to the Congress of the United States and to the administration, but hopefully acceptable to the standards imposed by the Supreme Court. So I thank my colleagues for their generous words. I thank them for their support. The hour of 12 noon having approached, if there is any time left, I yield it back and hope we can go to a vote and pass this unanimously and send the kind of signal that we need to send, and that is that this country and this Congress is not going to stand for obscene material to be pushed into children's minds through the Internet without reasonable restrictions on that material. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I don't believe we will need all 20 minutes. There may be other Members who want to speak on this. But I will summarize this in the interest of time, because essentially what we are doing here is something that has already been done in the Senate. It has been passed unanimously by the Senate. But it is not attached to legislation that has as much chance of succeeding, or at least, if that legislation succeeds, we are not sure what the Senate has passed is going to survive the process. It might be dropped from that. Let me begin by summarizing this just to refresh my colleagues' memory of what we have done before. This amendment exempts from the moratorium which, if this bill passes--and I believe it will--will be applied to any kind of a taxation on the World Wide Web--my amendment simply exempts from that moratorium any commercial porn site on the World Wide Web that does not comply with the reasonable requirements that are incorporated in this amendment to restrict access by children to sexually explicit material on the site. The amendment establishes specific measures that porn site operators--commercial porn site operators--must take to restrict access. These restrictions represent standard technology already on the web, and they reflect the technology and the requirements acknowledged by the Court as both technically and economically feasible. In the Reno v. ACLU case--that is, the Court's decision that struck down the indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act--the Court said there were two problems with that act. That act, by the way, is the one that was passed by the Senate in I think a nearly unanimous vote. It was labeled the Exon-Coats amendment, offered in the last Congress by the Senator from Nebraska, the Democrat Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon, and myself. We included in that amendment--which passed both the House and the Senate and was endorsed wholeheartedly by the President and the administration but did not survive a Court challenge for two reasons: One, the Court said that the restrictions had to apply only to those engaged in the business; that is, those commercial providers. Second, it said that our standard of indecency as described in the material not suitable for children was not acceptable, violated first amendment concerns, and they proscribed then a standard as harmful to minors, or suggested that. We went back and adjusted that Communications Decency Act which was passed by the Congress, signed into law, but rejected by the Court. We revised it to comply with the Court's concerns, so that now it, we believe, will meet the constitutional standard. We have applied it strictly to commercial sites. We have adopted the requirements for establishing the types of technology that the commercial porn providers and the net can require that one will have to comply with and the other require, and we have adopted the definition of ``harmful to minors'' as outlined in the famous case on this issue, the Ginsberg, New York Ginsberg case. That defined ``harmful to minors'' in a way that means you have to be under 17, it has to be patently offensive as to what is suitable for minors, taken as a whole lacking serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value for minors and appealing to prurient interests. This is a standard that we are all familiar with. It has been the standard applied in obscenity cases now for several decades, and it is the generally accepted standard. That is the standard we have put into this bill. So to summarize, what we are doing here is attaching to this legislation, which provides a tax moratorium for users of the World Wide Web, we are saying that that moratorium does not exist, will not be available to those who use the World Wide Web for the purpose of providing sexually explicit material to minors and have not put in place in terms of their provision to all other users restrictions which are technically feasible and already used, which are economically feasible, but restrictions which allow them to certify that the person requesting the material is, in fact, an adult; that is, 17 years and older. This is exactly the language which was adopted unanimously by this Senate in this Congress. And so everyone here has already read it, understood it, voted for it, supported it. We are simply transferring it now over to this particular bill and applying it in a somewhat different way by denying the tax exemption. It is inconceivable that we would grant a massive tax perk to commercial porn sites that make their smut available to children. We are going to give a golden egg to commercial entities on the Internet, or giving them a tax shelter, at least a moratorium for a tax shelter for a period of time, but to think that we would give that same tax break to those who are providing obscene material to minors without requiring any good-faith effort on their part to make sure that minors do not have free access to this material is unthinkable. That is the bottom line. S. 442, the underlying bill that we are talking about, holds out a massive tax shelter to on-line businesses. The question is, Is the Senate going to extend this tax shelter to pornographers who are making their material available to every child in America. People say, well, look, I mean, this is a proactive thing. Why don't the parents take control and control what their child clicks into and orders up. Mr. President, I will not display this on the Senate floor because I think it is obscene, and whether or not you agree it is obscene for adults, I think it is absolutely not only obscene but totally inappropriate for minors. This is material that is available free. This is before you click in and say I want to purchase your material or send me more. These are the teasers. The teasers are almost beyond description, and it is something we don't want to talk about here. There is no excuse in saying, well, an 11-year-old, if he clicks in to find out about a school project and uses the wrong word, all it is is a verbal version; he has to take a proactive effort to obtain the material. That is not true. That youngster, that child, whether they are in the library, whether they are in their school classroom, whether they are at home, is immediately given the most graphic of images and the most graphic of language as a teaser for them to go forward and obtain the material. We are saying that there has to be a provision whereby the provider of this material puts in place reasonable restrictions to assure that the person asking for the material is someone who is 17 years old or older. We have complied with the Court requirements. This is language that has already been adopted by the Senate, and I hope my colleagues will see it in that light and support this vote that is coming up in the next few moments. Mr. President, I do not see any other Members on our side who are wishing to speak at this particular time. And I am asking how much time is remaining of the Senator's time and I would reserve that time.

Mr. COATS. That is correct. It was asked, agreed to and vitiated.

Mr. COATS. I am more than happy to accept the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut. I thank him for his tireless work on behalf of children. It has been my pleasure to serve with him on both sides, the majority and minority, of the Children and the Families Committee; under his chairmanship as ranking member, and now as chairman, with Senator Dodd as ranking member. He has been a tireless advocate of children and addressing the particular concerns that children have to deal with, the problems they have to deal with growing up, and his support for this legislation and the amendment to my amendment, which I think strengthens what we are attempting to do and is very reasonable, earlier offered by Senator McCain, to utilize the advantages of software that allows for blocking. We see this as, certainly, a useful tool. It is not a totally useful tool because there are a myriad of ways of defeating it. As we speak, there are undoubtedly computer people far more savvy than this Senator, looking for ways to bypass this and looking for ways to defeat it. But it is a helpful tool, and it should be available to parents to help them in their efforts to protect their children from material that they do not deem appropriate and that certainly is not appropriate. I will be more than happy to accept the amendment. I do not know that we need a rollcall vote on both. We can combine the two and I think we will have a very worthwhile amendment.

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

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. COATS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I also send a modification to this amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 3695 be considered as modified. I might just explain the amendment.

Mr. COATS. The modification is a technical amendment. The underlying Finance Committee substitute was previously modified changing the definition of ``Internet,'' and the modification that I am sending to the desk simply brings my definition in my amendment in line with the underlying amendment now as modified by the underlying amendment. Mr. President, I also ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his kind words. I want to return that compliment, because it has been a distinct privilege and pleasure for me to serve under the able leadership of our chairman, Senator Thurmond. Senator Thurmond is, perhaps, not one of but perhaps the most remarkable individual I have ever known, someone who has committed a lifetime and more of political service to his fellow man and to his Nation, and who has served as a Rock of Gibraltar in support of a strong national defense. Serving on the committee with his leadership has been a great privilege for me, as well as it has been with all my colleagues who serve on the Armed Services Committee. This committee of the Congress is the least partisan of all the congressional committees. We put the national defense and national security above partisanship. We work together in a team fashion. While we don't always agree across the aisle on every issue, we do find consensus. Our purpose is to protect and support our men and women in uniform, and protect the citizens of the United States by giving them the very best defense that we can purchase for their investment of tax dollars. This particular bill is to be commended in many ways. It addresses some of the quality of life and readiness and modernization issues that we have been struggling with. As chairman of the Airland Committee, I have had the privilege of overseeing a very considerable amount of spending that goes into modernizing our forces. We haven't been able to do everything that has been asked, but we certainly have taken important steps in trying to make sure that our defense forces are capable of meeting the threat and are unparalleled in terms of their superiority. As a member of the Personnel Subcommittee, as former chairman of that committee, I am pleased that we have continued to address some of the important issues of pay and housing that are necessary to maintaining the spirit and moral of the people in our force. But, we have a great deal more to do in this area. The Joint Chiefs of Staff testified just a couple of days ago about the state of readiness for today and tomorrow. Readiness is a function of quality of life, of training, and of adequate infrastructure. Two of these three areas--the infrastructure, the housing, the equipment, the facilities, the tools which we provide our service members with, and the quality of life--are strained and in many cases inadequate. The pay is too low and military benefits are in question. We are losing good people, too many good people. A great deal needs to be done in this area. A great deal also needs to be done on the whole infrastructure front, not only in providing necessary facilities, but in terminating that infrastructure which is no longer needed. Too often we have perpetuated that infrastructure that is no longer required, and done so at great expense. I have also been engaged in the whole question of defense transformation. How can we transform our national defense from a cold- war effort that has been unparalleled in the history of national defense--not only this country, but in this world. How can we transform that into a national security apparatus our defense structure to addresses the threats of the future, which will be different from the threats of the past. That is a monumental undertaking. I have suggested a number of ways in which this could be done. I have joined with my colleagues on the committee, particularly Senator Lieberman, to define a process by which we can make those decisions, utilizing both inside and outside experts. We have attempted, through this process, to ask the necessary questions and to make the necessary decisions about how we move forward. In that regard, in the future some very difficult but necessary decisions and tough choices are going to have to be made about how we spend our limited defense resources. While we all acknowledge and hopefully will provide some additional funds to address the readiness concerns addressed by the Joint Chiefs, we are a long way from successfully allocating the resources we have available to us in the very best way that will give us the national security apparatus we need to address future threats. Tough decisions have to be made because we have the tendency to continue to fund systems that we already have in the force. Decisions are often made, both in the Pentagon and in the Congress, about maintaining what I call ``legacy'' systems--systems that have had a long shelf life, that are very near and dear to our heart, produced in our district, or systems we have related to over the years. There is a great tendency to perpetuate these legacy systems and not give sufficient resources and weight to the new systems that are necessary to address the new threats of the future. My challenge to the Congress, and my challenge to the Department of Defense, is to step up and make the unpopular choices, make the very difficult choices to divest legacy systems and structures which are no longer required, or whose value will depreciate quickly in the future, so that we can free up the resources that we must to address the question of providing the right national security apparatus that embraces the potential for a revolution in military affairs and addresses the threats of the future. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman, Senator Thurmond, and the ranking member, Senator Levin, for their leadership of a truly bipartison effort which achieves an effective balance across the quality of life of our servicemembers and their families, the readiness of the force, and the modernization of our systems as we enter the 21st century. This accomplishment is of particular note because this defense bill adheres to the budget agreement of approximately $270 billion, a 1.1 percent decline in real terms over last year's defense budget, and it is approximately 35 percent below the cold war heights. This defense authorization includes numerous provisions that will enhance military quality of life. It includes a 3.6 percent pay raise for military personnel. It also provides an increase of $660 million in military construction projects, over $250 million of which will fund barracks, dining facilities, and military housing. And this bill directs three health care demonstrations for our military retirees who are Medicare eligible. This bill also adds over $800 million to the key readiness accounts of our active and reserve forces. We are all aware of the stress that current operations such as those in Bosnia or the Persian Gulf have on military readiness. The funds we have added will support infrastructure maintenance, training, and the availability of parts and supplies to sustain readiness levels. Despite the gains we have made in areas of quality of life and readiness, we are still well short of the $60 billion procurement goal stated by Secretary of Defense Cohen and his predecessor Secretary Perry which was to have been achieved in fiscal year 1998. Here we are again proposing a procurement level for fiscal year 1999 that is below $50 billion. Correspondingly, service modernization accounts remain on the margin--well short of the level required to recapitalize our joint capabilities for the 21st century. And now I would like to comment on several modernization issues from my perspective as chairman of the Airland Subcommittee. The Army is moving to consolidate the gains from the Force XXI process and to investigate smaller, faster, more lethal, and more deployable forces. But the Army's modernization strategy to pursue this transformation is lacking in areas of aviation, armored vehicles, and trucks, and we have provisions addressing these issues. And I must say that we have made progress in addressing reserve component modernization thanks to the fine work of Senator Glenn, the ranking member of the Airland Subcommittee, to structure a coherent process for the consideration of Guard procurement. First, the budget request included nearly $1.4 billion in procurement for the guard and reserves--about a 50 percent increase over last year. And this bill provides another several hundred million. Clearly, the Senate's bipartisan efforts are having a positive affect on total force integration. This bill also supports TACAIR modernization programs of the services and we have taken additional prudent steps to ensure these programs stay on track. Last year, I spoke at length about my concerns with F-22 cost overruns and demonstrated performance. And I must acknowledge that I have these concerns as a supporter of F-22 development. But based on the testimony of the Air Force and the assessment of the General Accounting Office, there are many who share a deep concern over whether we can maintain support for the F-22, whose costs are approaching $200 million per aircraft, if the program does not adequately demonstrate performance and cost control. This bill takes a very important further step to put key oversight provisions in place that fence the contract award for advance procurement of lot II F-22 until: 10 percent of testing is complete (the minimum specified by the Defense Science Board); or, the Secretary of Defense certifies that a lesser amount of flight testing is sufficient, and provides his rationale and analysis for that certification; however, the funds are fenced until the F-22 flies at least 4 percent of flight tests--the amount now planned prior to contract award--have been completed. This provision holds the Department to its own plan at a minimum and places the emphasis squarely on the demonstrated performance of the F- 22 program. No performance, no money. This bill also contains a provision on a new joint experimentation initiative that is fundamental to defense transformation. The Congress has been keenly aware of the need to transform our military capabilities to address the potentially very different operational challenges of the future. The National Defense Panel Report argues that these challenges--which include among other things, asymmetric challenges in power projection, information operations, and weapons of mass destruction--may place this Nation's security at far greater risk than we face today. This provision includes a sense of Congress on the designation of a combatant commander with the mission for developing, preparing, conducting, and assessing a process of joint warfighting experimentation. Secretary Cohen has signed a charter assigning this mission to USACOM in Norfolk. And the provision lays out a set of reporting requirements from this CINC to keep Congress informed of the status of transformation. The process of joint experimentation is designed to investigate the co-evolution of advances in technology, with changes in the organizational structure of our forces, and the development of new operational concepts. Accordingly, the purpose of joint experimentation is to find those technologies, organizations, and concepts which provide true leap-aheads in joint warfighting capabilities. And just as important, it is the purpose of joint experimentation to identify those technologies and concepts which are failures. Some will consider the cost of these failures as wasteful. But quite the contrary. The true failure would be continuing to invest in systems before we really know what will or will not work on the battlefields of the 21st century. And given the level of defense budgets, we cannot afford to invest in systems which fail to contribute markedly to our future warfighting capabilities. Previously in our history we have found ourselves unprepared for threats we faced at the outset of war. Our Nation rallied to eventually overcome these threats, but at a cost--not only in fiscal terms, but in lives. In the very near future, technology will enable a different range of threats we must be prepared for. The process of joint experimentation supported in this bill will be central to ensuring our Armed Forces are prepared to successfully meet the national security challenges of the 21st century. This bill makes great strides in improving the quality of life, readiness, and modernization of the force; and in laying the framework for the transformation of defense capabilities for the 21st century. Yet there is much more work that needs to be done. The Joint Chiefs testified on Tuesday that defense budgets are not adequate to sustain current readiness and to keep our defense forces on firm footing for the future. But defense budgets will likely not increase to the levels requested and this will leave the Pentagon, the administration, and the Congress with some tough decisions which must be made. And we need to know what these decisions are and when they need to be made. I proposed that another quadrennial defense review and national defense panel be established in the year 2000 to conduct another comprehensive assessment of defense strategy, policy, and programs. I trust that the defense committees will work to include those provisions in next year's bill. I would like to thank and acknowledge the distinguished service of the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond and the distinguished ranking member of the Airland Subcommittee, Senator Glenn for their tremendous stewardship of defense issues in this Defense authorization bill. We often ask ourselves: ``Where have the heroes gone?''. Well I know where two of them have been, and that is working side-by-side with many of us deliberating defense issues. I commend them for their service and wish them the best in all future endeavors. In closing, this bill has my full support, and I strongly encourage all Members to support it.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am happy to rise today to speak in support of the conference report for the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998. This higher education bill has been two years in the making and I know I join the rest of my colleagues in the Labor Committee, and in the Senate, in full support of this very important legislation. This bill represents a strong bipartisan consensus in the Congress to ensure that students maintain access to post-secondary education through vital student opportunity programs, such as TRIO; healthy, stable, and streamlined loan programs; and a simplified student aid process. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to contribute to this important bill. This conference report, like the underlying Senate bill, was developed with several fundamental principles. Our first, and most important theme, was to maintain the primary focus of the Higher Education Act since its inception in 1965--to ensure that students have access and opportunity to purse higher education. One of the most important elements of this bill aimed at ensuring student access and opportunity is the new, low interest rate for student loans. This legislation sets a student loan repayment interest rate of 7.43 percent which represents a significant reduction in the interest rate for students. The interest rate that was scheduled to take effect on July 1, 1998 would have destabilized the successful Federal Family Loan Program by causing thousands of lenders to stop making student loans, resulting in high numbers of students without student loans for this school year. The interest rate included in this conference report provides a significant reduction to students while maintaining the long-term viability of the student loan programs and ensuring that students will continue to have access to private loans at the lowest interest rate in 17 years. Depending on the size of their loan, this low interest rate will save students hundreds, even thousands, of dollars over the course of the loan. The conference report also offers students a low interest rate for consolidation loans. This conference report strengthens the major student opportunity programs in the act by focusing much needed attention and resources on these vital programs, with particular attention to the needs of low- income students. This conference report reauthorizes the Pell Grant Program at its highest level ever, with maximum grant awards at $4,500 in the 1999-2000 school year and increasing to $5,800 in the 2003-2004 academic year. This bill also makes needed reforms to the TRIO program, which helps disadvantaged children prepare for college, and increases its authorization to $700 million. The vital work-study programs are also continued and expanded in this conference report. The authorization for the College Work-Study Program is increased to $1 billion for fiscal year 1999 from the current funding level of $830 million. The need analysis formula is also revised to ensure that the growing percentage of independents students will be able to retain a greater portion of their income. Another critical principle for these amendments was the improvement and modernization of the student aid delivery system. This legislation creates a Performance-Based Organization (PBO) within the Department of Education aimed at providing quality service to students and parents. The utilization of this PBO which will incorporate the best and most successful practices in the private financial sector, coupled with other reforms aimed at streamlining the student aid regulatory requirements will result in a better managed and higher quality federal student aid system. In addition to the development of the PBO, this bill includes significant reforms to the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), and specifically to guaranty agencies. This bill restructures the guaranty agency system to ensure that these important participants in the private loan program are given the flexibility they need to help students avoid defaulting on their loans while operating in a more cost effective and efficient manner which will benefit taxpayers as well as students and their families. A third principle which guided these amendments was the need for much-needed reform of teacher preparation programs. I am very pleased that this bill includes a new initiative for teacher training and professional development aimed at addressing the shortage of qualified teachers in this country which replaces the existing teacher preparation programs with a single authorization for three separate grant programs. This initiative encourages state level reforms intended to produce well trained and highly competent teachers, local level partnerships intended to improve under-performing teacher education programs, and provides a separate grant for States and partnerships to compete for funds specifically targeted toward teacher recruitment. States will compete to receive 45 percent of these teacher training dollars and can use the grants to strengthen their teacher certification requirements, create or expand alternative certification programs to attract highly qualified people from other occupations to the teaching profession, to decrease the shortage of highly qualified teachers in high need areas, or to develop programs which reward excellent teachers and remove unqualified teachers. Partnerships will compete for 45 percent of the funds as well, while 10 percent of the funds is reserved for recruitment grants. This reauthorization was also guided by a strong desire to promote college cost-cutting measures, utilizing some of the recommendations of the Commission on the Cost of Higher Education which presented its findings earlier this year. This legislation includes initiatives to ensure that parents and students are kept apprised of college costs and provide with comparative data to keep colleges accountable and higher education affordable; burdensome federal regulations are reduced; and the national role in encouraging affordable higher education is strengthened. This bill also streamlines and consolidates the many programs and activities which are found in the Higher Education Act. This act has become increasingly complex over the years and these amendments make great strides in simplifying the act and better targeting its programs and activities. It has been a pleasure to be part of the development of this critical legislation. I have found the bipartisanship displayed throughout this process encouraging and I would like to thank the staff who have worked on this important legislation for the last two years: on Senator Jefford's staff, Susan Hattan, Jenny Smulson, Scott Giles, Cory Heyman, and Pam Moran have done excellent work on this bill. In addition, Marianna Pierce with Senator Kennedy and Suzanne Day with Senator Dodd have worked diligently to ensure that this bill represents a strong bipartisan consensus. Thank you all so much for your long hours and excellent work. Again, I am pleased to have been a part of crafting this important legislation. study of market mechanisms in federal student loan programs

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Chairman. Consumer Access to Travel Information Act

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I filed an amendment on this bill regarding the eligibility for new slots at Reagan National Airport. I have decided not to seek a vote on my amendment at this time. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague, Senator McCain, the chairman of the Committee, and his leadership on the FAA bill. I would like to ask if the Chairman would be willing to continue to review this issue and its merits as he takes this bill to conference.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, let me first say thanks to my colleagues from Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Ohio, and others who have so persuasively and so relentlessly pursued the truth of this issue and brought us to this point where we have to have an honest, open debate and a vote about where we stand on what I believe is the most important issue facing America. We do have fundamental disagreement over the subject of abortion. Strong convictions have often led to strident rhetoric. Sometimes labels and name-calling are too easily substituted for persuasion. Education is a means of winning the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens. ``Extremism'' and ``fanaticism'' have been labels that have been used and attached to those with deeply held beliefs. Yet as civil as our discourse needs to be, sometimes there are issues that are of such weight and such gravity that strong rhetoric is necessary, when the truth--raw and exposed--merits passion and rhetoric. This is such a case. There really is only one issue at stake here. That issue is that what we are confronting is an affront to humanity. It is an affront to justice to end the life of a kicking infant as it emerges from its mother's womb. That is at issue here. The legislation that the President has vetoed is not the expression of extremism. The expression of extremism is the procedure we are debating--extreme in its violence and disregard for human life and dignity. We have heard a description of that. I was going to give that, but I will defer on the description because it has been given by my colleague from New Hampshire. The opposition has used arguments to defend this procedure that I believe are evasive and misrepresent the truth. It is said that the procedure is rare and, therefore, we ought not to be discussing it. Despite the fact that the procedure is not rare and affects thousands of individuals--children--would we be passing on the debate, the fundamental issue of life itself, if we were talking about the Holocaust because somebody was saying we are not talking about very many people? It is just a few hundred or a few thousand. Does that make the debate or issue any different? The issue is not whether it is rare; the issue is, as a matter of undeniable, unalienable human rights, it should not only be rare, this procedure should be nonexistent. It is said that the child feels nothing. We now know that the child feels pain, that a mother's anesthesia does not eliminate her child's pain. We know that a child killed in this procedure feels exactly what a preemie would feel if a doctor performed a similar procedure in the nursery. It is said that the procedure is done to save the life of the mother. We know that is not true. We also know that this procedure has significant risks for the mother. In fact, the primary purpose of this procedure is for the convenience of the abortionist. It is said that the partial-birth abortion is part of the mainstream of medicine. But we know that the AMA Council on Legislation stated that this practice is not a ``recognized medical technique,'' and that this ``procedure is basically repulsive.'' Those are not the words of this Senator. Those are not the words of those of us in the political arena. Those are the words of the AMA Council. So when we strip away all the arguments, we are left with an uncomfortable truth: This procedure is not the practice of medicine; it is an act of violence, an almost unspeakable act of violence--the taking of an innocent life, a life fully capable of being self- sustaining. Mr. President, it is hard to clearly confront the reality of this matter because clarity requires such anguish. But that reality is simple and terrible. The reality is that the death of a child should haunt us and shame us as a society. It should cause us to grieve. But more than that, it should cause us to turn our backs on this practice, as my colleague from New York has said, which borders on infanticide, and which I believe is infanticide. It is hard for me to believe that such a statement, such a debate, should be necessary. It is hard for me to understand how a moral commitment so basic could ever be debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Has our compassion grown so selective? Has our moral sense grown so dull? Have our hearts grown so hard? This is not just another skirmish in the running debate between left and right. It raises the most basic of questions asked in any democracy: Who is my neighbor? Who is my brother? Who do I define as inferior and cast beyond sympathy and protection? Who do I embrace and value, in both law and love? This is not a matter of ideology; it is a matter of humanity. This is not just a matter of our Nation's politics; it is a matter of our Nation's soul. It is a matter of how we will be judged as a nation, not only by history, but by Almighty God. We have disagreed in this body in matters of social policy. Yet, surely, we can come together and agree on this one thing--that an unborn child should not be subjected to violence and death. I believe personally that that protection should be applied and extended to all of the unborn. That is a debate that we must have, but that is not the debate today. The debate today is over this particular procedure. At the very least, regardless of our view and position of how far this ought to extend, to all of humanity and all of creation, can we not at least today reject the extinction of a child's life just seconds before it is born and fully leaves the womb? Can we not at least refuse to cross this line? Mr. President, the vote today is an opportunity for us to take a different path. It is an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, and it is an opportunity even for those who support abortion and take the pro-choice position, to override the President's veto. We can begin today to define some common ground. We can begin today by saying every child in America will be embraced by our community, that no one is expendable, no one will be turned away. We can begin today to define a basic value, a basic common ground, because if we pass this legislation over the President's objection, it will mean that we will, once again, in this great experiment in democracy, extend the circle of protection and expand it one more time. This is the test of a just civilization, and this is the standard by which we, individually and as a nation, will be tested as well. If we defeat this measure, we will say something about this great American experiment and the limits that we place on its promise. Our founders raised the standard for the ages that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. It is true that the laws they lived by, even the Constitution they wrote, stood in tension with that transcendent ideal. But the standard remained and has sustained the hopes of the weak throughout the history of this country. The history of our Nation is a story of how the hopes of the weak have been advanced, our progress toward the ideals of the declaration has been bought with blood, demanded with eloquence, and written into our law in some historic debates in this Chamber and elsewhere. Mr. President, one by one, the powerless have been embraced and the American family has been extended--to African Americans, women, the disabled. Each have redeemed a promissory note, given at our founding. Each victory of compassion and justice has been a landmark of liberty. Over time, justice has prevailed. 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, and the countless myriads who would inhabit the Earth in other ages. Does that beacon still shine throughout the world? Does the light of that path of nations, where freedom is new, shine? And what is the example that we set? It is my deepest concern, my nightmare fear that we will extinguish that light, that we will halt the progress of America's promise, and we will cast one class of the powerless into the darkness beyond our protection. Lincoln talked of America as a nation dedicated to a proposition embodied in the declaration, but can the weakest member of the human family find a humble share in the promise of our founding? Will we say, after centuries of struggle, that the gate of mercy is now slammed shut, locked and the key thrown away? These are the questions that put the American experiment to the test. Let us affirm the words of the Great Emancipator that nothing, nothing stamped with a divine image and likeness is denied the right to participate in this noble experiment called democracy. Let us not fail in this test that is now put before us. Mr. President, it appears my time has expired. I thank, again, the Senator from Pennsylvania for his outstanding leadership on this issue.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support to the Government of the Republic of Macedonia which on September 8th celebrated seven years of independence. Many of us are encouraged with the activities the Government has enacted with respect to democracy, human rights and international peace. Although a small nation of approximately two million people and the size of Vermont, the Republic of Macedonia, located in the very unstable region of the Balkans, has established itself as an example of peaceful, constructive, good neighborly country and our reliable ally. The Republic of Macedonia is the only country that, following the dissolution of former Yugoslavia in 1991, gained independence in a peaceful and legitimate manner, by a way of a referendum and a new Constitution, refusing to take part in the war that was waged in the other parts of former Yugoslavia, thus showing that at the threshold of the 21st century, it is possible to become independent without bloodshed. Not only did the Republic of Macedonia opt against policies of territorial aspirations, forceful changing of borders and ethnic cleansing, but also made it very clear that such policies are the cause for conflicts and wars in the ethnically intermixed Balkans. Over the seven years of its independence, the Government of the Republic of Macedonia has instituted a series of economic reforms to control inflation, reduce debt, increase exports and foster growth. Recently, many American investors have started to see South-Eastern Europe as an economic area of large potential with more than 60 million people, and the Republic of Macedonia as the most strategically located in the center of this large market. The United States must continue its support for the Republic of Macedonia, especially having in mind the recent developments in neighboring Yugoslavia.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Ashcroft's amendment. I have thought long and hard about this issue. We have debated it a number of times in committee and on the floor. I have come to the conclusion that the Senator's amendment is a correct amendment. It is correct because in so many ways this agency, the National Endowment for the Arts, has shown itself as not responsive to the Congress and not responsive to the American people. This is, in many ways, a difficult position for me to take because I have long been a supporter of the central mission of the NEA. A number of beneficial grants have been given to institutions in Indiana, and projects have been promoted that I do believe serve a public interest. I don't dispute the fact that knowledge and beauty are among some of the highest calls of any culture. But sadly, that has not been the debate of the last few years. We are not discussing the role of the arts in our society. There will always be a prominent role for art and culture in our society. What we are discussing here is the role of public subsidy of that art, and the question of whether or not we should appropriate tax dollars from our constituents to fund these types of projects, particularly when it seems that year after year that funding raises questions and controversy. Whenever we seem to revisit this matter, we return to one central question: Do we in Congress have the right to take money from citizens and allow it to be used in ways that, for many, go against some of their most deeply held religious and moral beliefs? Over the last several years, several Members have been trying to ensure that Federal dollars are not used in ways that offend a majority of Americans. The Senator from North Carolina has tried to stop support for the most offensive projects by restricting the ability of the National Endowment for the Arts to fund projects which defile or offend people's religious beliefs, and projects which depict the body in degrading and offensive ways. This effort to limit objectionable projects by holding all grants to a decency standard was a fiscally and, I believe, morally responsible position, one that was supported, happily, by a majority of the Senate. I was pleased to see that the decency standard was upheld by the Supreme Court this past June by a very substantial vote of 8-1. Mr. President, the Senate should not have a role as art critic, and certainly not a role as censor. But it does have, as its primary and defining purpose, the role of determining if public funds are spent in the public interest. I started out these comments by expressing my support for the central mission of the promotion of the arts and my appreciation for the grants that have been made to different projects in Indiana--worthy grants. However, in spite of this, I remain convinced that, during the last three decades in particular, the National Endowment for the Arts has failed in its mission to enhance cultural life in the United States. It has brought controversy to the whole area. Despite numerous attempts to reform it, the NEA attempts to support what I think are often politically correct but patently offensive projects. I don't think we can ignore this. I think the central question is whether or not this is the best use of the taxpayers' dollars. There are alternatives. I have supported and voted for efforts to privatize this whole function. I have supported and voted for efforts to block grant these funds to State councils, which I think are much more responsive and responsible in terms of how they are distributed. I have looked for alternative ways of providing incentives to support some of these very valuable contributions that are made through various projects that exist in our States. But I have been discouraged time after time in terms of our ability here to rein in what I think is often an inappropriate use of these taxpayers' dollars. For that reason, I support the amendment being offered by the Senator from Missouri and urge my colleagues to do the same. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Enzi amendment. It is quite simple, but I would like to briefly restate the effect of the amendment in order to frame my remarks. The amendment would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating new regulations empowering the Secretary to approve class III gambling activities without State approval. Mr. President, as a result of the Supreme Court ruling in the Seminole of Florida versus the State of Florida, and subsequent activities by the Secretary of the Interior, we are confronted with a situation where an unelected federal official, using the rulemaking process, is seeking to empower himself with the ability to supersede the authority of the popularly elected State government, and to impose Indian gambling activity on an unwilling State. Mr. President, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act attempted to construct a delicate balance, the intent of which was to provide a definitive role for the States in determining whether to allow the introduction of new gambling activities. The Court's ruling has upset this balance. During debate over the fiscal year 1998 funding measure, a similar measure to the one we are debating today was adopted. It was adopted with the understanding that congressional action was needed in order to address this concern, as well as others, with IGRA. However, no action has yet been taken. And thus, we have the need to extend this moratorium. Now, what does all of this mean to the individual States? The distinguished Senator from Wyoming has already placed into the Record the various letters of support from the nation's governors, and states attorneys general. I will let that support speak for itself. I would like to relate the experience of the State of Indiana. I have here an article from the Indianapolis Star. The article documents the latest development in a struggle that has been on-going in Northern Indiana for several years now. The article begins: ``Potawatomi tribe buys land near Indiana town; A reservation would be OK, resident says, but many fear a casino would eventually follow.'' The article goes on to describe that; ``The Pokagon Band of the Potawatomi Indians acquired land in Indiana, the first step toward establishing a reservation and casino in the State.'' A spokesperson for the tribe points out in this article that they intend to do many important things with the land they have purchased; provide housing, schools, and a health clinic. However, she goes on to point out that a land-based casino in Indiana is among the tribe's eventual goals. The Pokagons have been attempting for several years now to purchase land in the area. However, they have met with significant resistance from local landowners and community leaders for fear that casinos would follow any land sale. In fact, over the past 2 years, the town counsel of North Liberty, the town adjacent to the land purchase, has unanimously passed two resolutions in opposition to casino gambling. Further, the Governor of Indiana has announced his opposition to Indian gambling amid public outcries against the proposition. Yet, Mr. President, under the rules proposed by the Secretary, the will of the people of North Liberty, of the elected representatives of the State of Indiana, would be laid to waste by an unelected federal official. By any interpretation of IGRA, this was not the intention of Congress in passing the law. The gambling industry is booming. In 1988, only two states (Nevada and New Jersey) permitted casino gambling. By 1994, 23 states had legalized gambling. During this time, casino gambling revenue nearly doubled. In 1993, $400 billion was spent on all forms of legal gambling in America Between 1992 and 1994, the gambling industry enjoyed an incredible 15 percent annual growth in revenues. Many of my colleagues would look at this performance and say ``good for them.'' Many would cite the gambling industry as an American success story. I am not so enthusiastic. There are many unanswered questions regarding the hidden costs of rolling out the welcome mat for the gambling industry. Many of the promises made by the gambling industry--of jobs, economic growth, and increased tax revenues--are dubious at best. The statistics on the devastating impact on our families are beginning to roll in. Concern about teenage gambling addiction is growing as more and more teens are lured by the promise of easy money. Crime and suicide numbers are sky-rocketing in communities where gambling has taken root. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission is currently studying this issue. By passing this resolution, we will create the necessary time to modify IGRA to ensure the law is clear in protecting the rights of the individual states. It will allow the states to determine how and when gambling operations will begin or expand within their borders, and to look to the report to the Gambling Commission for help in making those decisions. I commend the efforts of the Senators from Wyoming and Alabama in bringing this issue before the Senate, and urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Indianapolis Star be printed in the Record.

Mr. COATS. How much time remains of the Senator from Washington?

Mr. COATS. Of the proponents' side of the issue, how much time remains?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to speak in support of S. 1645, The Child Custody Protection Act. The purpose of this act is to prohibit the transportation of minors across state lines with intent to avoid application of a state law requiring parental involvement in a minor obtaining an elective abortion. As I imagine the fear, confusion, and perceived isolation of a minor child who learns that she is pregnant, I can think of few situations where the support and security of family is more desperately needed. Many states have enacted laws to assure that parents are involved. This bill would assure that these state laws are not easily circumvented by crossing state lines. There is an even more sobering aspect to this issue. A significant reason behind evasion of the State's parental involvement law can be an effort to cover up statutory rape violations. In a study of 46,000 pregnancies by school-age girls in California, researchers found that seventy-one percent, or over 33,000, were fathered by adult post-high-school men. Another study reports that 58 percent of the time it is the girl's boyfriend who accompanies a girl for an abortion when her parents have not been informed of the pregnancy. Obviously, many of these men are vulnerable to statutory rape charges. This vulnerability provides these men with a strong incentive to pressure the much younger girl to agree to an abortion without revealing the pregnancy to the parents. Currently, a man seeking to do so can evade the law and hide his crime by driving his victim across State lines. Opponents of this legislation argue that in some families, ideal relationship may not exist with the parents--that in families where abuse is present, for example, parental involvement would be detrimental. This concern is addressed in that judicial bypass provisions exist in every state with a parental notification requirement. These judicial bypass procedures are not onerous. A recent study of Massachusetts bypass procedure published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that only 1 out of 477 girls was refused a judicial authorization. Furthermore, the average hearing lasted less than 13 minutes. Passing this bill will not force parental disclosure in instances where abuse exists within a family. Conversely, failure to pass this legislation could compromise parental support from the majority of families where good counsel and loving support would be provided. Americans support the concept of parental involvement. In a 1996 Gallup poll seventy-six percent of those polled favored laws requiring the girls under the age of 18 get either parental consent or at least inform their parents before obtaining an abortion. This conviction is reflected at a legislative level by the 22 states that have enacted laws requiring parental notification. This is not a broad piece of legislation, it has in fact been described by the media as ``narrowly tailored to address a specific problem.'' The act does not establish a national requirement of parental consent or notification prior to the performance of an abortion on a minor under 18. Nor does it attempt to regulate any purely intrastate activities related to the procurement of abortion services. S. 1645 simply helps effectuate the policies of States that have decided to provide a layer of protection of their own residents against these dangers to children's health and safety by requiring parental involvement in the abortion decision. Minors must not be left alone to make these crucial decisions. Abortion is a major medical procedure, highly invasive and often emotionally traumatic. There are hundreds of accounts of women who as adults, decide to undergo an elective abortion and are then plagued by profound regret, health complications and emotional trauma for having made that decision. How much greater is the potential for a hasty and regrettable decision when the mother is herself a child who may not fully understand her options and the consequences of her choices? I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture to proceed to this bill and to support this important legislation, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I know Members are anxious to get to this cloture vote. I strongly support the efforts of the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Pennsylvania and others to deal with this important item. I commend them for their perseverance in pursuing this. I think it is important that we move forward with this and support it. It is designed in a way to protect the rights of children, the rights of parents, and the rights of States. I urge my colleagues to support it.