Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Richard G. Lugar and myself, I am pleased to offer this tribute to Captain Ritch K. Eich, United States Naval Reserve. Captain Eich retires in September after 30 years as a reservist, the last three of which he spent on active duty, representing the Navy in the Office of the Adjutant General of the Indiana National Guard. Ritch Eich has been a valued member of the Indiana team since 1989, when he started work for me as a member of my Service Academy Selection Committee, screening and recommending promising Hoosier high school students as candidates for our nation's Service Academies. Three years ago, he took on the additional responsibility of serving as the U.S. Navy's Liaison Officer for the State of Indiana, working in the office of Indiana's Adjutant General. During that time, Ritch made substantial contributions to readiness planning in Indiana. He completed Disaster Preparedness Operations Plans for Indiana Naval, Marine Corps and Coast Guard facilities, and ensured a close working relationship between the Indiana National Guard and the State Emergency Management Office. Ritch Eich's civilian job during this period was as the chief marketing, public affairs and physician relations officer for Indiana University Medical Center, where--over the course of a decade--he has helped to build a vibrant and effective health care environment for Hoosiers. According to one health care executive, Ritch had helped ``define our vision, map our strategies, deliver on our promises and guide our affiliations.'' And for Rich, ``helping Hoosiers access the best healthcare in the mid-west'' was what it was all about. In all his endeavors, Ritch Eich has demonstrated a skill and dedication that reflect great credit upon himself, the State of Indiana and the United States Navy. I feel privileged to offer this tribute to Ritch on the occasion of his retirement from the Naval Reserves. We wish him well.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, finally, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture votes with respect to the motions to proceed to the missile defense bill and the Consumer Bankruptcy Protection Act occur on Wednesday, September 9, under the provisions of rule XXII.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 10 a.m. on Friday, September 4, for a pro forma session only. I further ask that the Senate then stand in recess until 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 8. Further, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, there be a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., divided among several Members as follows: The time from 10:30 to 11:30 a.m. under the control of Senator Daschle or his designee, the time from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. equally divided between Senators Hatch and Grassley.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow the weekly party caucuses to meet.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank my colleague from Virginia for those kind words.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the remarks of the Senator from Virginia, as always, are thoughtful, articulate, and in this case somber and serious, given the gravity of the situation that he described. They are important remarks and important for each of us in this body to thoughtfully and seriously consider. The Senator's commitment, as a valued member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and ex-chairman of that committee--his commitment to traveling to where the action is taking place and meeting with representatives from all sides, analyzing the problem and bringing back the very latest of information, is invaluable to those of us who serve on that committee and everyone here in this body who needs to make decisions about what the policy of the United States should be in regard to these difficult situations that arise. The Senator has indicated he has made close to 10 separate trips to this very difficult area of the world. This is not easy travel. This is a commitment that is extraordinary but also extraordinarily important to us in terms of formulating our policy. I thank the Senator for his leadership in that effort.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, for the information of all our colleagues, the Senate will meet tomorrow at 10 a.m., but for a pro forma session only. The Senate will then reconvene on Tuesday, September 8, at 10:30 a.m. During Tuesday's session, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. and then recess until 2:15 p.m. to accommodate the weekly policy luncheons. Following those luncheons, it is the leader's intention for the Senate to begin consideration of the Interior appropriations bill. The Senate may also consider any other legislative activity or executive items cleared for action. Members are therefore reminded that rollcall votes could occur during Tuesday's session, and an announcement will be made when a voting schedule becomes available.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, there is a technical correction needed, which has been accepted on both sides. I therefore ask unanimous consent that lines 3 through 16 of the previously adopted amendment No. 3526 appear on line 24 after the word ``activities.''

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I know the pending business is the Hutchison amendment and my modification to that. I know that the managers are anxious to move forward. Just before I do that, I would like to add briefly my thoughts to those that have already been expressed for perhaps the most remarkable individual I have ever met. I too am privileged, like the rest of us, to have served in this body as an associate and colleague of Strom Thurmond. I was 5 years old when Strom Thurmond ran for President. I learned about him in studying history and government in school. I never dreamed that I would have the opportunity to know the man personally and to be a colleague of his and serve with him. Much has been said that I heartily agree with about the stature of this man, the remarkable career that he has had and is having, and his remarkable service to the people of South Carolina and to our Nation. I am one of those who share with the Senator from Delaware the pleasure and surprise of a phone call from Strom Thurmond on the day of my daughter's wedding apologizing for not being there, congratulating me and congratulating her. I, like Senator Biden, hadn't a clue as to how he found out my daughter was being married. I never mentioned it to him. But there he was. I had the pleasure of coaching young Paul Thurmond in youth league basketball on Saturday mornings as our boys, my son and Strom's son, would run up and down the floor. We won the championship, by the way, thanks to the great athletic ability and talent of Paul. As they would run up and down the floor, I only had to turn around just a little bit, because two rows behind the coaching bench was Paul's father, Strom Thurmond, cheering on his son. Each of us could stand here and tell stories, I think, until deep in the night about the impact that this individual has had on each of us and the impact that he has had on this Senate. Strom is an inspiration. Bob Dole has said over and over, ``I just order whatever Strom orders. Whatever he is eating must be the right thing.'' Strom has detailed for me his physical exercise regimen, which is something that I can't keep up with. I don't know how he does it, but he does. I have been the recipient of his handshake, as Senator Wellstone has, and I walk away rubbing my hand in awe and respect for the strength of this individual. Finally, I have sat with him shoulder to shoulder on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and a deeper patriot, a more committed American, someone with a more remarkable story of a lifetime of service to the military of this Nation I don't think has ever lived. Someone who flew in a glider in the invasion of Normandy, served as a distinguished officer in the military, and then served as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, as he now does--that is a story that is not going to be repeated. That is a story that is not going to be duplicated. God only makes one of each of us. But he made Strom Thurmond a very, very, very special human being. It has been a deep honor and a deep privilege of mine to have known him, to be counted as his friend, to have served with him. It is a memory that I will cherish for as long as I live. Mr. President, unless there are others who seek to add to these statements in honor and recognition of Senator Thurmond, I will proffer my modification. However, I will yield to the Senator from Texas. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to just briefly explain to my colleagues what I have attempted to do. Yesterday, I sent to the desk an amendment which would have transferred the $35 million that is appropriated in the foreign operations appropriations bill that is before us now, and reallocated that money from the currently earmarked Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization to the antiterrorist portion of funding contained within this bill. I did so because of the disturbing news that have been reported on by the New York Times and other organizations relative to violations, apparent violations of the agreement that we entered into with North Korea to freeze their nuclear development program. The New York Times--and I will recount some of that in a moment-- pointed out that U.S. intelligence agencies have detected a huge, secret, underground complex in North Korea that they believe is the centerpiece of an effort to revive the country's frozen nuclear weapons program. Members will remember that in return for a freeze on that program, the United States entered into an agreement with North Korea to provide certain items for humanitarian assistance, food aid, oil for energy production, as well as a commitment to put together a consortium which would build two light-water nuclear reactors to supply energy, but that could not be used for the purpose of developing material which might be used for weapons of mass destruction. The Times report cites a senior administration official saying, and I quote: ``The North had not yet technically violated the Agreed Framework because there is no evidence that Pyongyang has begun pouring cement for a new reactor or a reprocessing plant . . .'' Nevertheless, an unidentified official has said it is a serious development, to say nothing of it is an incredibly stupid move, because it endangers both the nuclear accord and humanitarian aid to North Korea. The Washington Post stated that the site that was discovered is huge, that some 15,000 reported North Koreans are at work on this underground cavern, and this comes only 6 months after the President of the United States has certified that North Korea is complying with the provisions of the Agreed Framework. That certification is what is necessary in order for these funds to be released. My amendment sought to take a portion of those funds, transfer it to the antiterrorism section of this bill in recognition of the fact that this Presidential certification was no longer relevant, now that the agreement had been violated. I am willing to withdraw that amendment in light of the fact that Senator McCain has offered an amendment adding language to the certification process so that the President, in addition to other items that he has to certify, will have to certify that North Korea is not engaged in a violation of the agreement. The exact wording is ``pursuing the acquisition or development of nuclear capability other than the light-water reactors'' referred to in the agreement. I would have voted against the McCain amendment, or for the motion to table had we not been able to work out language which I could now add to the amendment of the Senator from Texas which would add further conditions to this certification. The bottom line is, I think the certification has turned into an empty process. It is a process by which the so-called host country, in this case North Korea, essentially tells us everything is OK, and then we, on the basis of that, go ahead and certify. The term ``certification'' is not defined, but yet if we look at the use of the term that is used in the agreement that we have with the People's Republic of China regarding nuclear nonproliferation, it simply says that the President certifies to the Congress that the Republic of China has provided clear and convincing evidence that they are in compliance with the agreement. And so the burden of proof is on the country which we are trying to determine whether or not they have violated the agreement, rather than on our ability to verify the fact that they have or have not complied with the agreement. President Reagan used to say trust but verify. Well, this is trust but not verify. And so what I am attempting to do with this modification, which goes to an amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, is to say that not less than 45 days prior to the President's certification as provided for in this bill, the Director of Central Intelligence will provide for review and consideration by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House International Relations Committee, House National Security Committee, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senate Appropriations Committee as well as the Senate Armed Services Committee, all relevant information bearing on North Korea's compliance with the provisions of this amendment. That gives us the opportunity in Congress to determine whether or not the certification is a legitimate certification. That gives us the information to determine whether or not North Korea is in full compliance with what they agreed to do. So I think this language is important. One last thing. I am withdrawing my amendment, partly because I believe the other body will take action on some deferral of this money and that this item can be handled in conference. It is clear that without that assurance we may get bogged down here in this process, and I don't want to hold up this appropriation. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for agreeing to this modification. I particularly thank the Senator from Texas for allowing me to make this modification to her amendment, which will then become part of the bill. I think this is a serious problem. If the New York Times report is substantiated, if it is correct, even remotely correct, it is a clear and direct violation of the promise and agreement made by North Korea to freeze its nuclear development capabilities. If that is the case, it is clear that this is a breach of promise which requires very serious reaction and response by the United States. The President of the United States and the Secretary of State have certified to us directly that there are no violations. Yet, we now receive this particular information. I have quotes here from the President of the United States and from the Secretary of State which have led us to believe that everything is in compliance. Yet, we now receive this report. So it is the credibility of the certification process that is at stake here, and I would say it is the credibility of this administration in evaluating the intelligence. Therefore, it is necessary that, at the very least, the Congress have access to all relevant intelligence regarding this particular agreement so in the future we can verify it, in addition to the trust that is placed by this administration on the word of North Korea. Mr. President, testifying before the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Committee on Appropriations on March 4, 1998, Secretary Albright stated: Our request this year includes $35 million for the Korean Energy Development Organization. The Agreed Framework has succeeded in freezing North Korea's dangerous nuclear program. On May 8, 1998, James Foley, Department of State said: We, of course, closely monitor the Agreed Framework. We are, until now, satisfied that the DPRK has indeed met its obligations to the present. On May 13, 1998, Jamie Rubin said: We are confident that North Korea has not violated the across-the-board freeze on its nuclear activities . . . and the Agreed Framework is alive and well. On July 8, 1998, Secretary Albright testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that: The People's Republic of China has consistently supported the Agreed Framework that has frozen North Korea's dangerous nuclear weapons program. . . . On July 19, 1998, Jamie Rubin, Department of State, responding to a GAO report alleging North Korea was blocking inspections at sites covered by the Agreed Framework said: We have frozen and stopped the North Korean nuclear program from moving in a direction that would have threatened the world. The freeze is still being monitored and we believe it is still in effect. Less than 1 month later on August 17, 1998, the New York Times broke the following story: U.S. Intelligence Agencies have detected a huge secret underground complex in North Korea that they believe is the centerpiece of an effort to revive the country's frozen nuclear weapons program, according to officials who have been briefed on the intelligence information. The finding also follows a string of provocations by the north, including missile sales to Pakistan and the incursion of a small North Korean submarine carrying nine commandos off the South Korean coast this year. And what was the administration's reaction? According to the same New York Times article: A senior administration official said the north had not yet technically violated . . . the Agreed Framework, because there is no evidence that Pyongy Ang has begun pouring cement for a new reactor or reprocessing plant. . . . The article continues: But spy satellites have extensively photographed a huge work site 25 miles northeast of Yongbyon, the nuclear center, where, until the 1994 accord, the north is believed to have created enough plutonium to build six or more bombs. Thousands of North Korean workers are swarming around the new site, burrowing into the mountainside, American officials said. And if that is not enough, Monday's test flight of the Taepo Dong-1 over Japan demonstrates that North Korea has mastered the technology of delivering a nuclear warhead. Yesterday's New York Times reported the following: Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin project on nuclear arms control . . . said the missile test was ``a clear sign'' of North Korea's intent to develop nuclear weapons, despite its 1994 agreement with the United States to stop in exchange for western assistance. Milhollin said a two-stage missile was too costly to construct simply for delivering conventional weapons. ``It means they plan to put a nuclear warhead on it or export it to somebody who will,'' he said. ``The missile makes no sense otherwise.'' In short, this administration has negotiated an accord in 1994 that we cannot and do not even attempt to monitor and verify. As we have just been reminded this week by the resignation of a key U.S. arms inspector in Iraq, William Ritter, ``The illusion of arms control is more dangerous than no arms control at all.'' Yet that is precisely where we are left. An illusion that the administration refuses to define as such. Certifications that are meaningless. Ronald Reagan reminded us to ``trust, but verify.'' The North Koreans insist by their reluctance to admit inspectors that we will not verify as a basic term of the agreement. So we are left simply with trust. Trust the North Korean regime which has just launched long range missiles over our allies. Trust of the administration. Trust that has been frivolously squandered and badly eroded. Again, I thank the participants in this for accepting this modification of the amendment.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I have a modification to the Hutchison amendment I would like to send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. There is apparently some question about clearing this amendment, which we believe is not objectionable to anybody. But I have just been informed it is cleared. I would like to----

Mr. COATS. Yes.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. I would like a brief amount of time in which to explain what the modification is, because it is relevant to the action that was just taken by the Senate and I think important and determinative perhaps of action that will be taken subsequent to the disposition of this bill by the Senate in the conference. I am willing to do that at whatever time is appropriate. I know the majority leader is here, and I defer to him on that or to any other business that the----

Mr. COATS. I would be more than pleased to.

Mr. COATS

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

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

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to speak on a broader subject. I want to take a few moments to discuss what has been a dramatic change in administration policy regarding the war on terrorism. According to the administration's chronology of Osama bin Laden's terrorist attacks against U.S. facilities or U.S. citizens, this individual is connected in one way or another to a series of disturbing terrorist incidents. This chronology, by the way, was offered by our National Security Advisor, Mr. Berger. I am taking this from that chronology of terrorist incidents. He has conspired to kill U.S. servicemen in Yemen in 1992. He plotted the deaths of American and other peacekeepers in Somalia in 1993. He assisted Egyptian terrorists who tried to assassinate Egyptian President Mubarak in 1995. He conducted a car bombing against the Egyptian Embassy in Pakistan in 1995. He plotted to blow up U.S. airliners in the Pacific and separately conspired to kill the Pope. He bombed a joint U.S. and Saudi military training mission in Riyadh in 1995. He issued a declaration of war against the United States in August of 1996. He stated, ``If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters.'' In February of this year, Osama bin Laden stated, he declared his intention to attack--his network--their intention to attack Americans and our allies, including citizens, civilians, anywhere in the world. And as we all know, last month he has been directly linked to the bombing of U.S. Embassies in Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi. Two weeks after this latest tragic incident, the U.S. launched a missile strike against one of bin Laden's facilities in Afghanistan, as well as against a Sudanese facility, which received initial financing from a bin Laden enterprise. I, along with most Americans, welcome this administration's change in policy as a necessary and long overdue response. However, it is not to say that there weren't legitimate questions raised concerning the timing of this attack--I was one of those who raised such questions-- and the timing of this policy change, coming as it did during the President's personal crisis. I was concerned that this sea change, this dramatic change in policy, might be misunderstood or misinterpreted by both allies and foes alike, thereby damaging and undermining the credibility of this administration's newly declared policy against terrorism. Make no mistake, Mr. President, it is appropriate to respond whenever innocent Americans are attacked in acts of political terrorism. The alternative serves only to encourage those who seek to do us harm in pursuit of their private agendas. I caution, however, that we must also be certain of our targets and political objectives, and careful to make sure that our response is to reinforce and not undermine our policies. Clearly, the U.S. strike and the administration's characterization of it as a ``war on terrorism'' is a notable departure from the policies and actions of the past several years. Rightly or wrongly, the Khobar Towers incident stands out as an example of U.S. inaction in the face of recent terrorist attacks. Certainly the Khobar Towers investigation has been delayed and complicated by the need for close cooperation with the Saudi Government. But the current White House crisis raises serious doubts for our allies and gives fuel to our adversaries whose focus is likely to be the difference in the U.S. response to the deaths of American military personnel at Khobar and those in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam. There may very well be justification for the difference in response, but it clearly signals a change in policy and, for many of us, a welcome change in policy. More worrisome is that this newfound inclination to military action against terrorist organizations bears no resemblance whatsoever to the administration's so-called foreign policy priorities concerning rogue nations, such as Iraq and North Korea. On February 17, 1998, President Clinton addressed the Nation. He said, ``. . .this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals * * * and they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, stability of his region and the safety of all the rest of us.'' Yet, Mr. President, in the last few months, this administration has made what many see as a mockery of the inspection regime in Iraq, has failed to respond to the intelligence of an active nuclear program in North Korea, and has clearly allowed the North Koreans to continue to build a delivery system which will be capable of reaching the United States in its next phase of development. The President himself said last February that ``we have no business agreeing to any resolution of [the Iraqi crisis] that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven competence in the inspection business.'' This is a critical statement, one which I think bears repeating. The President himself said last February that ``we''--meaning the United States--``have no business agreeing to any resolution of [the Iraqi crisis] that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven competence in the inspection business.'' Yet, just last week, the lead inspector of the United States resigned in disgust at the pressure the Clinton administration has brought to bear to explicitly undercut the very inspection regime which the President said we have no business in changing. In his resignation letter, Scott Ritter, that inspector--someone who does have proven integrity and proven competence in the inspection business--said this: Iraq has lied to the special commission and the world since day one concerning the true scope and nature of its proscribed programs and weapons systems. This lie has been perpetuated over the years through systematic acts of concealment. . . . the commission has uncovered indisputable proof of a systematic concealment mechanism, run by the President of Iraq, and protected by the Presidential security forces. . . . The current decision by the Security Council and the Secretary General, backed at least implicitly by the United States, to seek a diplomatic alternative to inspection-driven confrontation with Iraq, a decision which constitutes a surrender to the Iraqi leadership . . . has succeeded in thwarting the stated will of the United Nations. The illusion of arms control is more dangerous than no arms control at all. What is being propagated by the Security Council today in relation to the work of the special commission is such an illusion, one which in all good faith I cannot, and will not, be a party to. I have no other option than to resign from my position here at the commission effective immediately. That is a strong statement, Mr. President. It is a strong statement made by one who has a reputation for impeccable integrity and for total competence in the inspection business. Yet, he believed that his ability to carry out his assigned duties and his mission was undermined by the United Nations Security Council, with the implicit support of the U.S. Government, and he felt that the only course of action he had was to resign. Clearly, last month's strikes are a substantial change from the administration's largely restrained reactions to previous terrorist attacks on Americans. To be fair, circumstances and the need to cooperate with foreign governments were behind some of that earlier reticence. The President said: We must be prepared to do all that we can for as long as we can. There is no question that we will face attempts at reprisal over years and years. This is something that seems all the more certain given the reports that bin Laden has offered bounties for terrorist actions resulting in the deaths of Americans. So we, indeed, must be prepared to act for as long as we must. But we must recognize that in our endeavor to defeat terrorists, perhaps to a greater extent than ever before, our success will depend upon the ability to gather friends and allies together in a common struggle against this common enemy. Trust is the essential element in this equation. So it is imperative that the President of the United States be capable of establishing and maintaining the level of trust necessary to execute a successful policy against terrorism. At the same time, we will need to increase our readiness to defend against the wide range of potential attacks on our citizens and interests as well as those of our friends and allies anywhere in the world. Our planning and strategy must be sustainable over the long run. We need to find cheaper and more effective methods to attack terrorist infrastructures and planning. It seems woefully obvious that the use of costly weapons and defensive measures will have to be restricted to correspondingly grievous affects. Osama bin Laden unquestionably presents a significant and demonstrated threat to U.S. interests. But surely nations such as Iraq and North Korea represent a substantially greater magnitude of threat to our vital national interests. Moreover, these nations have demonstrated an intent to develop, and in the case of Iraq employ, weapons of mass destruction. Worse yet, these states seem willing to transfer such technology to other nations or groups who intend to use it against the United States and our allies. Secretary Albright declared that ``the risk that leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.'' That statement does not square with the allocation of national security resources to operations in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia. It may be that these latter operations should enjoy some measure of emphasis. But, lacking a coherent foreign policy and corresponding national security strategy, it is difficult to judge and even more difficult to trust the rationale we are giving for our involvement in these operations. If leaders of these rogue states--Iraq and Korea--do pose, as Secretary Albright has said, the greatest security threat that we and our allies face, then we must ask legitimate questions about the deployment of our security resources and national security assets in places of lesser importance, unless, of course, we are willing to support both in a measure necessary to be prepared and to accomplish both objectives at the same time. Mr. President, let's take this new-found determination to combat terrorism, as declared by the President, at face value. In doing so, it is important, then, that the call to action must be more than mere rhetoric. It is important that the President articulate his policy and according strategy as well as initiate development of the capabilities that will be needed to affect that strategy. The current upside-down priorities wherein all too limited U.S. defense resources are spent on what are surely less critical operations in Bosnia and elsewhere need to be examined to reflect the serious threat to U.S. national interests that terrorism comprises, whether by rogue nations, states-sponsored groups, or actions of independents like bin Laden. Yet the question remains: What are the Nation's capabilities to execute this administration's change in foreign policy about terrorism? What has been done to enhance the interagency process to address the transnational threat of terrorism? Has the administration developed the intelligence capabilities and the military capabilities to support this policy? Some of our friends and allies rightly express the concern that the Clinton administration has not addressed some of these key issues, and that, therefore, when the United States starts to find out how hard and how expensive it is to pursue a long-term effort against terrorism, we will lose resolve and not sustain our efforts. Many of us fear that the administration will merely add the military tasks associated with counterterrorism to the Pentagon's already stretched list of missions, and will do so without providing the additional funding required. In short, we will throw yet another rock in the military's already overflowing rucksack and expect them to shoulder the burden with the same budget and the same forces. We must recognize the risk of pursuing such an approach with our military, a military that is currently ill-matched to this threat. Military budgets and force structure are down 35 percent to 40 percent since the cold war; while at the same time our peacetime commitments are up several hundred percent. And perhaps most importantly, defense procurement is down nearly 70 percent from the Reagan administration when this Nation developed the modernized, professional military that was victorious in the cold war. But we have been living off the Reagan buildup for nearly a decade, and the procurement holiday is over. The average age of our fleet of aircraft, ships, tanks, and trucks and other equipment has been increasing year by year, and our forces are having a difficult time maintaining that equipment. This is a major source of the readiness problems confronted by our military today. Yet, year after year this administration's budget falls short of its goal of procurement. And I project it will fall short again. Significantly, the report of the National Defense Panel last December highlighted that this administration needs to provide $5 billion to $10 billion a year to transform our military so that our Nation can leverage advances in technology and will be prepared to address what are envisioned to be the fundamentally different operational challenges in the 21st century. One of those, and perhaps the most important of those, is terrorism. In short, we still have a military designed to fight the conventional wars of the past, and it is poorly prepared to conduct this war on terrorism. Transformation to a national security posture necessary to address the threats of the future is necessary and cannot be successfully accomplished without a reallocation of resources and a revision of policy. I, therefore, urge the President to prepare this Nation for this prolonged conflict against terrorism, but in doing so use more than just strong words, but prepare us in a way so that we have the resources in place to successfully account for this threat and protect the American people. We face a range of threats and potential defensive strategies. Some of the latter could affect traditional American freedoms. At the very least, there should be an open and serious debate over how far we can go, or how far we should go, in altering the security environment in America and at our facilities abroad. Although an easily-defended fortress sounds like a good idea for diplomatic security, it also restricts the very access that effective diplomacy often requires. And we must recognize this. Mr. President, we face a difficult road in pursuit of a war on terrorism. Like other Americans, I am committed to the elimination of this scourge of terrorism. But I cannot help but be somewhat skeptical of the administration's determination and their commitment, and unfortunately I fear that we will find few allies willing to risk their security and reputations on the strength of the current administration's say so. The ``say so'' must be followed with the ``do so.'' Mr. President, hidden beneath the headlines of the last 2 weeks was yet another explosive revelation. North Korea has reportedly had as many as 15,000 people working to build what some suggest is a nuclear reactor or fuel reprocessing facility buried deep within a mountain. This, despite what the administration has touted as a landmark agreement stopping North Korea's nuclear weapons research and development program in exchange for food, energy, and the promise of two new light-water reactor power plants. The State Department, by stating that it sees no nefarious intent because the concrete for this facility has not yet been poured, is asking us to trust their assessment of the situation. Only 6 months ago, the President certified to Congress that ``North Korea is complying with the provisions of the Agreed Framework'' and ``has not significantly diverted assistance provided by the United States for purposes for which it was not intended.'' We are now told by administration officials that this new facility should not be considered a ``deal-breaker'' because its completion ``will take half a decade or more.'' To add insult to injury, we have learned that North Korea has test fired a 1,200-mile-ranged ballistic missile into the Pacific Ocean, overflying Japan. And they did so just days after the Joint Chiefs issued their commentary on the Rumsfeld report in which they reasserted the administration's claims that there currently is no imminently discernible ballistic missile threat warranting a national missile defense. They state, moreover, their confidence that our intelligence community would provide ample warning to permit meeting such a threat in the context of the President's 3+3 strategy. North Korea's test launch of this ballistic missile has demonstrated the truth of that old adage that actions speak louder than words. Doesn't the testing of a two-stage ballistic missile suggest that there is something for us to be worried about? How much harder can it be to launch a three-stage system capable of reaching the United States? I am not nearly as cynical about our intelligence capabilities as some, and so it is not idle curiosity when I wonder out loud whether the State Department officials knew, as the Pentagon did, that North Korea was planning a missile test. And if so, did the State Department raise this issue with the North Koreans during last week's meetings on various subjects including that of the underground nuclear-related facility? I can tell you that whatever the answer, it does not reflect well on the administration or the Secretary of State. Secretary Albright's comments yesterday that the test is ``something that we will be raising with the North Koreans in the talks that are currently going on,'' are less than inspiring and they fail to address the essential issue of what the U.S. did or might have tried to do to forestall this test. Mr. President, I have sent an amendment to the desk. I have asked for it to be set aside. It addresses the question of the funding that is in this appropriation for North Korea related to development of nonthreatening nuclear facilities. Given the evidence and the information that we now have, these funds would be much better used on counterterrorism efforts, and this amendment seeks to transfer the funds for that purpose. I will be debating this amendment at a later time. And I understand two amendments currently have been offered and are awaiting a vote at some time in the future. But I want to alert my colleagues that I think this situation in North Korea is critical. I think the continuation of the current administration policy in this regard, in transferring U.S. tax dollars in accord with an agreement that was designed to terminate North Korean involvement in development of any nuclear facilities that could be used for purposes other than providing power to their nation is a serious matter. I don't think continuation of funds for that purpose is appropriate. I think that money is much better used to help prepare us to implement the administration's new policy on the war on terrorism, and we will be discussing that amendment at some point in the future. Mr. President, with that I yield the floor. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will soon send an amendment to the desk and then have it set aside. It doesn't have anything to do with landmines, but I would be happy to have the clerk read it. Amendment No. 3523 (Purpose: To reallocate funds provided to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization to be available only for antiterrorism assistance)

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is with reluctance I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my colleague, the Senator from Texas, because we share much the same goal. We had the same concerns about the deployment of our troops to Bosnia initially. We had the same concerns about the Dayton accord, which, as presented to us, was transparent on its face. It was disingenuous on its face that we could accomplish the task incorporated in Dayton with a 1-year period of time of deployment of our troops on the ground, a timetable unachievable by any measure. The continued existence of our involvement in Bosnia is something that I don't support. But I believe that the amendment has a fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw is that it makes Congress the determiner of how many troops and what time period those troops will be deployed once that decision has been made by the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. I find it difficult to stand up here and defend the powers of the President of the United States, particularly at a time like this. But there are constitutional prerogatives and constitutional powers that I think need defending regardless of what your personal assessment is of any particular President. Second, I believe it is unwise policy for those of us to make decisions about the force levels of our troops or decisions that micromanage how those troops conduct themselves and how they accomplish their mission once the decision has been made. Clearly, our responsibility, if we disagree with the presence of those troops and the deployment of those troops, is to address that by eliminating the funding for those troops, but not to determine the force level of those troops, the kind of equipment they ought to have, and what their timetable ought to be. I quote from a letter from the Secretary of Defense dated May 21, 1998, when he says, ``Our military commanders in the field have determined the level and type of force required to carry out the mission within acceptable risks. The mission force and guidance of the force currently planned for have been fully agreed to by military authorities. Military commanders''--under the amendment offered here-- ``Military commanders would be forced to restructure their force and mission tasks based on an arbitrarily mandated schedule rather than on mission accomplishment, operational consideration, and the fluid tactical situations they face. In addition, legislating withdrawal would incite heightened intransigence and extremism.'' Mr. President, we sadly learned in Somalia, to cite one example, the disastrous and tragic consequences of political decisions overriding military requests. We lost some brave Americans unnecessarily because the political decision was made to not provide those forces with the necessary equipment and not base a sufficient force there until our mission was accomplished. I don't want to see us doing that again. We in Congress do not have the expertise to make that decision. Even if we did, we shouldn't make that decision. That is a decision that ought to be made by those who command the troops and make the decisions about their presence and what they need to be there. So I strongly, strongly urge my colleagues to vote to table this amendment, not because they necessarily agree or disagree with whether or not this is a proper deployment, not because this impacts our readiness, which it does, not because it is costing a lot of money, which it is, not because it was a bad decision to start with, and an unachievable mission and objective to start with, because it is, but because it tells our troops that we in Congress know more about what they need, what the troop levels should be, what the date of withdrawal should be, how we accomplish the mission of our military commanders. Those men and women in uniform who we put in harm's way have to have every advantage we can give them in terms of protecting their security, in terms of accomplishing their mission, and it is a decision that has to be made by people with military expertise and not Members of Congress. For that reason, I strongly urge that we table this well- intended but, I think, misguided amendment.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, but I will not object, could I just inquire, did I understand the Senator to say that the second degree will be in order if the amendment is not tabled?

Mr. COATS. If not tabled, the second degree--

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate, on behalf of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, S. 2206, the Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998. This legislation is truly the result of a significant bi-partisan effort. We have worked closely with members of the committee to make important changes in program focus and in our expectations for measurable outcomes. Few federal programs engender the kind of positive feelings as do the programs we are discussing today: Head Start, the Community Services Block Grant, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program, and a new program--close to my heart, the Assets for Independence Act. These programs all have one important thing in common--they represent the federal government at its best, forging public and private partnerships to combat the effects of poverty, and unleashing the vast resources of one of our most important assets--the local community. Whether in a Head Start classroom, a food bank, or a community action agency, the programs we are about to reauthorize provide a valuable link between families and the services and opportunities they need. I have had the privilege of visiting a number of Head Start programs in my own state, and have found at each one a common thread--the commitment of staff and of parents to be there for their children. In Head Start centers across America, parents serve as volunteers, as teachers, as aides, in whatever capacity they are needed. Many have told me that thanks to Head Start, they have gone on to higher education. Thanks to Head Start, their children have hope for a future. I say that it is thanks to their commitment as parents that their children's hopes have been realized. S. 2206 continues this legacy--and does so in a way that supports the family as a unit. Head Start is a program serving children in families. CSBG is a program serving families in communities. And Assets for Independence makes it possible for families to become fully self sufficient. Before I briefly discuss the specifics issues addressed in the legislation I want to thank members of the Committee (Senator Dodd, Kennedy, Jeffords, DeWine and McConnell in particular) and of course their staffs for their commitment to this process being open and bi- partisan. I think the fruit of all of our efforts is in the bill we will vote on today. I also would also like Karen Spar from the Congressional Research Service who has been tireless in her efforts to provide support to my staff and Liz Aldridge-King from the Office of Legislative Counsel who worked virtually around the clock to get this bill out on time. Thank you to all who contributed to this effort. Head Start is a program that has been identified as one with enormous potential in giving children an opportunity to realize their full potential; however, it has been a program which has experienced varying degrees of quality. With the 1994 reauthization, Congress and the Administration formed an important partnership to devise ways to make program quality a primary focus. 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--and terminated the grants of those programs that were experiencing significant program deficiencies. Close to 100 Head Start grantees have been terminated or have relinquished their grants since 1994. S. 2206 takes further steps to ensure quality and to make sure that Head Start students attain the goal of school readiness by expanding the use of quality improvement funds to provide staff training related to the promotion of language skills and literacy growth of children and the acquisition of English for children from non-English-speaking backgrounds and by requiring the establishment of education performance standards to ensure school readiness and that children develop a minimum level of literacy awareness and understanding. Further, the Secretary is directed to develop outcome-based performance measures and to apply those measures to local grantees when evaluating program effectiveness. Under this scenario, consistent poor performers would be identified, offered technical assistance, and if they failed to correct the deficiency--terminated and their grant re-competed. We have responded to concerns that Head Start programs be able to more fully respond to 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, the State liaison appointed by the Governor, and other early care and education programs within the State. We have attempted to eliminate barriers to effective collaboration and have instructed the Secretary to design an administrative structure whereby additional barriers that are identified can be addressed. Taken together, these provisions should make it much easier for States to include Head Start in unified planning regarding early care and education services at the state and local level. To respond to the recent research on the importance of early brain development, we have included the President's request for an expansion of the Early Head Start program from 7.5 percent in FY 1999 to 10 percent in FY 2003. We have required the Secretary to set aside a portion of these funds to provide technical assistance to ensure the maintenance of program quality and given the Secretary the authority to reduce the set aside amounts, if necessary to avoid a reduction in regular Head Start services or quality. To respond to the issue of improved teacher competence, we have added a new section to the section in the law pertaining to staff qualifications to ensure that each head start classroom has a teacher with demonstrated competency to perform certain functions. This was done in lieu of mandating additional degrees such as 2 or 4 year college degree which is not the norm for preschools in America, and which in fact, are not a good measure for teacher competence. Rather, we focus on specific demonstrated competencies which must first be achieved in order to qualify as a teacher. During the last reauthorization in 1994 we required every Head Start classroom to have a teacher with at least Child Development Associate credential. With near accomplishment of that goal we wanted to make sure that waivers to this requirement would only be given in the most limited circumstance. Therefore we allow a 180-day waiver which will only be available where a Head Start agency could document that it had unsuccessfully attempted to recruit an individual with the required credential, certificate or degree. Such a waiver would be for an individual who is enrolled in a program that grants the appropriate credential, and who will receive the appropriate credential within 180 days of beginning employment as a Head Start teacher. In response to concerns raised by the General Accounting Office and others about the lack of reliable research on Head Start which can be used to determine its effectiveness, we have authorized a national impact study of Head Start and also included, at the request of Senator DeWine, several smaller comparative studies of children participating in head start with eligible children who did not participate in Head Start or other preschool programs. These studies should yield very valuable information about how this program is working, and whether Head Start is, as we all hope and believe it is, making a difference. Title II of S. 2206 authorizes the Community Services Block Grant. This program had not been updated since 1981 when CSBG came into existence as a block grant. Therefore, we have done a complete redraft of this program to bring it current and to make some very important changes to program structure and goals. First, we have established some very specific program goals which include strengthening community capabilities for planning, coordinating and supporting innovative responses to community needs and conditions. CSBG is an excellent example of what can happen when Washington gets out of the way and allows local communities to design effective responses to local problems. Ninety percent of the funds provided under this act must be passed through by the State to local eligible entities which include a variety of public and non-profit organizations, community action agencies, and faith-based neighborhood organizations. Second, we have established a mechanism for state monitoring of eligible entities to determine whether such entities meet performance goals, administrative standards, financial management requirements, and other requirements of the state. Each State will be required to participate in a performance measurement system, although they will be able to choose from a menu of priorities to reflect the current program they are instituting at the local level. Third, we have grand fathered in all existing public CAPS but are requiring that any new public CAPS may come into existence only if there is no private, nonprofit organization identified or qualified to serve as the CSBG recipient. Like private nonprofit agencies, public CAPS would have to agree to administer their program through a local tripartite board and ensure adequate low income representation on it. Fourth, with respect to the discretionary programs under CSBG, we have reauthorized the Community Economic Development program, the Rural Community Development program, National Youth Sports, and Community Food and Nutrition. We have created a new program called Neighborhood Innovation Projects for grants to neighborhood based, private non- profits to test or assist in the development of new approaches or methods of dealing with community problems. These grants may be used for a variety of purposes including gang interventions, addressing school violence, or any other purposes that are identified by the community as a problem resulting from poverty and consistent with the purposes of this CSBG. Title III are reauthorizes the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program at the current level of $2 billion for each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2004. The amount available for leveraging is reduced from $50,000,000 to $30,000,000 except in any year in which appropriations fall below $1.4 billion at which time the leveraging pot goes back to $50,000,000. The most significant change in this program is the addition of a new section which clarifies the criteria by which LIHEAP funds can be released in an emergency or natural disaster. Currently, there is an arbitrary standard for determining an emergency or natural disaster, this language will rectify this problem by listing standards under which funds may be released which may include: significant home energy supply shortage or disruption; a significant increase in the cost of home energy, as determined by the secretary; a significant increase in home energy disconnections reported by a utility, a state regulatory agency, or another agency with necessary data; significant increase in participation in a public benefit program such as the food stamp program; a significant increase in unemployment or layoffs; or any other event meeting criteria as the secretary may determine to be appropriate. This is an important addition, and I would like to thank Senators Jeffords and Kennedy for their leadership in this matter. Finally, Title IV establishes a five year demonstration program to determine the social, civic, psychological and economic effects that Individual Development Account (IDA) savings accounts can have on low income individuals and their families. In some respects, IDAs are like IRAs for the working poor. They are dedicated savings accounts that can be used for purchasing a first home, post-secondary education, or capitalizing a business. These investments are associated with extremely high rates of return that have the potential to bring a new level of economic and personal security to families and communities. The individual or family deposits whatever they can save (typically $5-$20 a month) in the account. The sponsoring organization ``matches'' that deposit with funds provided by local churches and service organizations, corporations, foundations, and state or local governments. The intent of this demonstration program is to encourage participants to develop and reaffirm strong habits for saving money. To assist this, sponsor organizations will provide participating individuals and families intensive financial counseling and counseling to develop investment plans for education, home ownership, and entrepreneurship. In addition, participating welfare and low-income families build assets whose high return on investment propels them into independence and stability. The community will also benefit from the significant return on an investment in IDAs: we can expect welfare rolls to be reduced; tax receipts to increase; employment to increase; and local enterprises and builders can expect increased business activity. Neighborhoods will be rejuvenated as new microenterprises and increased home renovation and building drive increased employment and community development. In fact, it is estimated that an investment of $100 million in asset building through these individual accounts would generate :7,050 new businesses; 68,799 new jobs; $730 million in additional earnings; 12,000 new or rehabilitated homes; $287 million in savings and matching contributions and earnings on those accounts; 188 million in increased assets for low-income families 6,600 families removed from welfare rolls 12,000 youth graduates from vocational education and college programs; 20,000 adults obtaining high school, vocational, and college degrees. IDAs are planned or now available on a small scale across the country, including Indiana, Illinois, Virginia, Oregon, and Iowa. The Assets for Independence Act has been developed after a review of numerous, similar, successful programs, and most notably one run by the Eastside Community Investments community development corporation in Indianapolis, Indiana. This provision incorporates a number of protections developed with their assistance and based on their experience. Mr. President, taken together, I think we have an excellent package of programs designed to reauthorize programs which have been vital to many low-income individuals and communities. These programs are for the most part locally designed and controlled and offer unique opportunities for self-sufficiency and enhanced community involvement.

Mr. COATS. That is correct. We were attempting to do a significant cleanup of a statute that has not been modified in any real way since 1981. We were informed that these programs were obsolete and had not received funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for some time. We therefore, as part of a package of technical corrects identified to bring the statute into conformity, repealed these two programs. Senator McConnell was very helpful in bringing this error to our attention and we have given him our assurance that it will be corrected in Conference with the House.