Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Let's take the whole program.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will be brief. I just want to make a couple points. Point No. 1, the legislation that is before us, the base legislation, already contains a carefully designed analysis and feasibility study of market-based mechanisms for student loans. The Kennedy amendment goes much further than that. We have a study in place. We will get the information needed to make a determination as to whether or not we want to move to an auction market-based program. Secondly, the last thing the Department of Education needs right now is another big responsibility. It can't handle the responsibilities it currently has. It has not been able to successfully manage the Direct Loan Program and the FFEL Program. Why would we want to consider giving it something else to manage? Let me just cite a few things from the inspector general relative to the Department's administering of the Direct Loan Program. The IG has concluded that audits at 16 direct loan schools found 8 major weaknesses in 16 of those programs. They also stated that in their audit, the weaknesses they found were representative of the majority of direct loan schools. They said: They are very likely to exist at these other direct loan schools. The Department reviewed disbursement amounts recorded at one school and found a total of nearly $300,000 hadn't been entered into the direct loan system. The IG's report said that 3 of the 16 schools maintained excess cash as a result of improper cash management practices. Let me quote again from the IG's analysis of the department's ineptness in running the programs that it has now. And I quote: The Department does not currently have a process in place to match specific drawdowns with specific disbursement transactions. The IG goes on to say: 53 percent of student status reporting was inaccurate. On average 71 percent of student records in the national student loan data system were inaccurate; 58 percent of transactions were not reported by schools through the department in a timely manner. The IG says that today, if data is not reported timely, due diligence and timeliness of reconciliation of loan data may be adversely impacted. We probably all remember, or should remember, that in the 1995-1996 academic year, 1 million applications were backlogged at the Department of Education which caused families and students all over the country to be put in a position where they didn't know whether they were going to get a loan or not. Two years later, the Department sent out 2.7 million forms to fill out and had the wrong shading on it, and therefore the forms were not processed right, and they ended up with hundreds of thousands of backlog as a result of that. This goes on and on and on, the inability of the Department to handle the one-third of direct loans that it now has. So why do we want to throw in another major initiative at the Department of Education. Let them at least get the initiatives that they currently have jurisdiction for under some control. So I would urge my colleagues to join with the chairman of the committee in defeating the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. COATS. The Senator is extolling the virtues of the market system?

Mr. COATS. We may have the makings of a real deal here. From what I hear it is that the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Iowa are willing to put the whole program out for bid. And if we would take the whole program, including what is run by the public sector, maybe we could cut a deal and just turn the whole thing over to the private sector. Is that what the Senator is suggesting?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield me 1 minute on our side?

Mr. COATS. Could I ask a question, just ask the time? How much time is left on our side?

Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I don't intend to speak for more than about 5 minutes. I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for granting me this time. I also want to thank my colleague and friend, Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia, for deferring so I can maintain a schedule. I will be brief. I am enthusiastically supporting the product brought out of the Finance Committee that we will be voting on shortly to rein in what has been in many instances an out-of-control agency that has, I think, trampled upon some liberties of the American people. I commend the Finance Committee for doing this. It is much needed reform. I am glad that we are finally here on the floor debating and, hopefully, ready to pass this. Former Chief Justice John Marshall, in a landmark case many of us learned in law school, McCulloch v. Maryland, said that ``the power to tax involves the power to destroy.'' We understand that the power to tax is a power that is granted to Congress. So we have no one to point a finger at in that regard other than ourselves. But the power to destroy, I am sure, Marshall was referring to was the fact that taxation, if improperly applied, can destroy. But there is a second point to that which I think is important; and that is, if the administration of the power to tax is abused, it can also have the power to destroy. We have heard about the documented, systemic abuse of taxpayers in the oversight hearings that have been held. This bill will, hopefully-- and I believe will--effectively end the agency's disregard of taxpayers rights. We have heard the horror stories of taxpayer mistreatment by armed IRS agents raiding taxpayers' homes and Americans being subjected to years of harassment, unsubstantiated audits, audits that are targeted at low-income and favor high-income, audits that are targeted at those of modest education, quota goals, disregard for rules and regulations, and even laws, in order to achieve a certain product goal. Those are abuses that have been documented, have been discussed, and really form the basis for the legislation that we are addressing today. I would like to relate just one story that was relayed to me by one of my constituents in Indiana. He gave me permission to tell this story but requested that I only tell it if I did not disclose his name. ``Why?'' I asked. He said, ``Because I fear retribution.'' I said, ``You have nothing to fear.'' He said, ``No. I fear retribution. I have been through so much, I don't want to give that agency or anybody associated with that agency any cause to come after me again. I cannot go through that again. So use my story but don't use my name.'' The history is that as he was preparing for Christmas and shopping to purchase both gifts and food for his Christmas dinner for his family, he was shocked to learn that his credit was denied because he was told he had no money in his bank account. His entire savings had been wiped clean by the IRS for back taxes and penalties. He immediately called the IRS, and he was told that the reason for this was that 10 years ago, in 1987, the IRS discovered that his 1987 tax return was not on file and that he had not answered any of the registered letters that were sent to him. Of course, he never received those registered letters because he had not lived at that address since 1987. Subsequently, he had filed returns for each year, which the IRS had processed, and he had received responses back from the IRS at his new address. So all of the subsequent years, the IRS knew where he was. But in 1987, with a previous address, because they had lost his return and because the registered letters notifying him of that were sent to his old address, the two computers didn't match, or the two agents didn't check with each other. And, therefore, my constituent found that his entire savings had been wiped out just before Christmas, and he learned about it when his credit was denied as he was shopping for his family. That is just one tale. But it doesn't end there. That is horrific enough. A few months later, after some paper shuffling at the IRS, this gentleman was told--based on the information that he had to provide again to the IRS--they actually owed him a refund of $1,500 for his 1987 return. He had supplied duplicate information again to the IRS. However, they said since the statute of limitations had run, he was no longer entitled to his refund. That is the kind of thing that causes your mouth to drop open and I guess you pull your hair out. I don't think that is why I lost my hair. But had I been that taxpayer, the outrage that would have ensued I think is something that all of us can identify with. After a lot of intervention and a lot more paper shuffling, he did finally get his $1,500. Only the IRS could pull off something like this. These stories of abuse and mismanagement go on and on. I will not detail those in the interest of time. It is unfortunate and sometimes, I think, disgraceful that an agency of the greatest democracy in the world could have attributes that could best be described or identified as a paramilitary wing of a despotic regime. So it is past time, I believe, that this legislation pass the Congress, and be signed by the President, and that we urge the new Commissioner of the IRS, Mr. Rossotti, to conduct a thorough housecleaning based on what we have put in this legislation. The IRS exists to serve the American people, not the other way around. There has to be accountability for this agency. There has to be more protection for the taxpayer. Efficiency and integrity need to be the twin goals of the IRS. Therefore, passing this legislation is a very important step to achieving this end. I want to close, Mr. President, with a quote that is etched into the stone of the IRS building headquarters here in Washington. It is a quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said, ``Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.'' If that in fact is the case, if taxes are what we pay for a civilized society, then we have every right to demand that the tax collector act in a civilized manner. The IRS has not done that. The tax collector has not acted in a civilized manner. We pay our taxes. We expect a civilized processing of those taxes. Hopefully, this bill will take us toward that end or achieve that end. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Chairman. small system technical assistance and the safe drinking water act

Mr. COATS. Of the $85 million set aside for the EDI account in S. 2168--as stated in S. Rept. 105-216--only $67 million earmarked for individual projects in 40 states. It appears funding is available for additional projects within the appropriated spending provided in the bill. I believe the Midwest Proton Radiation Institute is an important effort that will be of great benefit to the city of Bloomington and to Indiana University. In addition, Senator Lugar and I believe the MPRI is a worthwhile and appropriate project for funding under community development programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I join with Senator Lugar in requesting your assistance and consideration for funding for this important project as you move to conference with the House on the FY '99 VA-HUD Appropriations bill.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I strongly support an initiative to establish a Quadrennial Intelligence Review and an independent, nonpartisan National Intelligence Panel. This process can be modeled after the Military Force Structure Review Act of 1986 which passed the Senate by a unanimous vote of 100-0. This Act directed the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the National Defense Panel (NDP) which conducted comprehensive reviews of all aspects of defense. These reviews have produced a much needed update of our defense strategy, a revised defense program, and a vibrant debate on the course of our defense capabilities. I believe that a process of internal and external comprehensive review fashioned on this QDR and NDP model can be equally effective in the area of intelligence. I intend to work with the Committee to develop a provision establishing a Quadrennial Intelligence Review and an independent National Intelligence Panel for inclusion in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. Amendment No. 3050 (Purpose: To provide for the designation of the Headquarters Building of the Central Intelligence Agency as the George Herbert Walker Bush Center for Central Intelligence)

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am happy to respond to the Senator as a member of the committee that has addressed this problem. I am just looking back at the Senator from Arizona to see if he is prepared to propound a unanimous consent request. I think this Senator and perhaps the Senator from Arkansas are willing to proceed with the amendment and will try to conform our remarks to the conditions of a unanimous consent request, if the Senator from Arizona is prepared to propound that yet. I am not sure that he is. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think I have 10 minutes under the previous order. I yield myself those 10 minutes. I may reserve some of that.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this may sound surprising, but the committee agrees with Senator Bumpers. We have studied this and we absolutely have language in this bill that requires testing before we buy or before we fly. We have carefully worked out a compromise on this issue with the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Air Force, contractors, Members of Congress--those for the F-22 and those against the F-22--to ensure adequate testing, but also to do so in a way that doesn't add unnecessary costs--some estimated at more than billions of dollars by delayed production--by unnecessary testing. The Secretary of Defense has to certify before we can go forward. We urge people to support the committee position. We studied this and we agree with Senator Bumpers: More testing before we fly--but not as much as Senator Bumpers thinks we need.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the Armed Services Committee has discussed in great detail the very situation that the Senator from Arkansas raises. We held numerous hearings. I had numerous private meetings with members of the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, contractors and others on this question. Last year, in the authorization bill, I offered an amendment to impose cost caps and a number of accountability features on the F-22, not as an opponent of the F-22, but as a proponent of the F-22, a marvelous new advance in technology that I believe is needed, but one in which this Congress has an absolute responsibility to ensure that the engineering, manufacturing, development, flight testing and production schedules are done in such a way that provides accountability to the taxpayer, gives us the product that we are looking for, and gives it to us in a manner that we can afford. The last thing we want is for the F-22 to go the way of the B-2 where we get part way into a program, and because the costs become so excessive, we have to cancel the program or stop the program where it is, or the B-1, which was rushed into production without adequate testing, and we have encountered numerous problems with that platform ever since. In recognition of the very issue that the Senator from Arkansas raises; that is, rushing to production before we have completed adequate preproduction flight test hours, this committee, after considerable negotiation with proponents, opponents and all those in between of the F-22, has arrived at a committee consensus that we will require a specified number of flight test hours and that any money that is designated for production will be fenced and not released until that threshold is met. We arrived at that number on the basis of intense discussions with the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, the contractor and others, recognizing that given new flight testing techniques and production techniques, what will be required for the F- 22 may not necessarily be what was required for tactical airplanes developed in the past. Nevertheless, we want to be assured that we have at least reached a minimum threshold before any funds can be released. We built a little window in here for the Secretary of Defense to certify that under these new testing techniques, manufacturing techniques, and engineering techniques that a lesser number of hours is required. He can waive a certain portion of those flight test hours, but not below a certain level. We have requested that no waiver can be granted at a level below 183 flight test hours, a level which the Department of the Air Force, the Secretary of Defense, the contractor and everybody involved in this feels is adequate. We require more than that. We require that 10 percent of plan schedule for flight testing be completed before those fenced funds are obligated for production. However, we do allow for a waiver. The bottom line here is that the Committee agrees with the Senator from Arkansas that not enough flight testing has taken place and that we shouldn't go forward. In fact, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, Mr. Gansler, has already delayed the production decision for 1 year on the basis of the fact that there have been delays in the planned schedule for flight testing and that we need more flight testing. By the same token, we are trying to balance the risk of going forward with fewer hours than what we normally would require with the risk of incurring very substantial additional costs as we slip production time schedules, as we delay moving from the engineering, manufacturing and development phase to preproduction phase or, in this case, production phase. And we are trying to balance all that. We have arrived at a pretty delicate compromise. I will say that we do agree with the Senator that we need more flight testing hours before we rush into production, but we do also have to recognize that we have put demands on the contractor and the Air Force in terms of a fixed-price contract which requires a great commitment on their part at substantial risk, and we have to find an acceptable balance. We think we have found that balance. As I say, those proponents of the F-22 on the committee, and the opponents of the F-22, and those in the middle have agreed this is an acceptable balance. The only thing I will say about the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas is that it goes a little further than the provision agreed to in the committee, and I believe we should hold to the committee position on this, because it does achieve that very delicate balance between the extra costs that will incur if we demand more testing, and the risk of not having enough flight testing. We have built a 6-percent--between a 4- and 10-percent window in there, but we require the Secretary of Defense to put his signature on the line and his Department's credibility on the line before we waive below the 10 percent level. For that reason, I urge Members to support the committee position. We will be going to conference with that and hope that they will understand that the underlying bill addresses the problem raised by the Senator from Arkansas, and we think it addresses it in a way that allows us to gain confidence that before we go to production, we have completed adequate flight testing. And yet our position also takes into consideration the fact that under a fixed-price contract and under the requirements that are imposed on the contractor and the Air Force, we are not incurring these substantial additional costs through the delay. For that reason, I hope Members will support the committee position. Any remaining time I have I reserve, and I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this is an emotional subject, a difficult subject. I am former chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee and still a member of that subcommittee. And it is an issue at which I have looked and studied and struggled with for some time. I have come to an opposite conclusion of some of my friends, and I want to tell you why I have. First of all, everyone needs to understand the Byrd amendment is not an effort to return to segregated military units. It is simply designed to say that at that initial entry point, we are dealing with a situation that involves young people, many coming out of very disruptive backgrounds, many in a very vulnerable position. And we have seen--tragically seen--some exploitation of that, which is wrong and absolutely needs to be handled in the most direct way and that sends out a very clear signal that we have zero tolerance on this. But I want to make clear, nevertheless, that the situation we are dealing with in this amendment is with young people at their initial entry point. Now, we do not need another commission. We enacted a commission because I think a lot of Members did not have any faith that the DOD- appointed commission would give an objective view. I think everyone was surprised, including the Secretary of Defense, when the commission, led by our former colleague, Senator Kassebaum, came back with the conclusion and the recommendation that we ought to have segregated training at that initial entry point, and then that a merger of those two separate units of male and female trainees at the next level of their training. The question is, Why? Why did that commission come back with that recommendation to the surprise of everyone, including, I think, the Secretary of Defense? The reason is that the Kassebaum commission went and visited those same sites that I have gone and visited. And they talked to female and male trainees, and male drill instructors and female drill instructors. And they came away with the inescapable conclusion that I think any of us would, or at least most of us would if we went and asked the females, asked the women and men, asked the people at that initial entry point what they preferred, what they thought worked, what was best? I went to Fort Jackson where the Army trains with integrated male- female training. About 30 percent of the females do not have female drill sergeants in their platoons. They have all male drill sergeants. And those females said, ``We want female drill sergeants.'' Then I went to Parris Island, and at Parris Island, the female marines said, ``This is the best thing that ever happened to me to be associated with a mentor who can provide me guidance as a young lady in how to deal with these questions, how to deal with these kinds of decisions, how to deal with these tough situations, how to deal with this pressure, how to deal with this demanding training. It prepares me.'' I cannot say it better than the letter that was forwarded by a female corporal in the Armed Forces. And it reads: `Sir: . . . This is very distressing news to me and my fellow women marines. There is no way I would ever have made it through basic training with men present. I experienced mixed boot camp for just a few days while in basic training. It was the worst training days we had. I am all for equality, but this is madness. With no disrespect to the Army, the problems they have had [ought to] be proof [of this madness]. I can honestly say that if I had it to do over again and basic training was mixed gender, there is no way I would do it. I would not make it, not with the level of dedication and concentration it took when there were only females. I can't imagine having to deal with the underlying sexual tension, the jealousy, and unconscious way I would feel every day.' I am convinced that any of us who would take the time to go and visit the women marines in their initial training at Parris Island would feel as proud as any American would ever feel about the abilities of women coming out of sometimes very, very difficult situations, gaining the self-esteem and bonding together with their female drill instructors and each other, and being prepared to move on to that next stage in their training. And if you listened and asked them, literally to a person, they told me--this entire company of women marines told me-- ``This is the way it ought to be initially. Then we're prepared to move on in our advanced training and integrate with the men. But we wouldn't give up this experience for anything in the world. This is the way we ought to be trained.'' The Marine Corps model is a model that works. It has demonstrated its effectiveness. The other services are struggling to make it work, without the requisite number of female instructors, and with a very uncomfortable situation. So why not take a model that works and why not follow the recommendations of the commission that has already been in place, appointed by the Secretary of Defense, headed up by our former colleague, Senator Kassebaum, which I do not think anybody thought had a bias in favor of separated training going in, but came away, after their exhaustive experience in examining all of the training camps for all of the services, and came away with the inescapable conclusion that we ought to have gender segregation at the initial entry training level. That is what the Byrd amendment is about. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. COATS. I just ask the Senator, if he would, instead of having the Senator from Indiana speak on the Byrd amendment following the Senator from Maine, if I could be incorporated into that order that was listed there to speak immediately prior to Senator Byrd's closing on the Byrd amendment.

Mr. COATS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. The Senator from Indiana had requested time to speak on the Byrd amendment. I thought it was going to be incorporated into the unanimous consent request. I think it was inadvertently omitted. The Senator from Indiana would like to have 5 minutes along with the others.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to speak in opposition to the Murray-Snowe amendment and give a little bit of history. It is not the first time we have visited this amendment. In fact, we have been debating it each year, I believe, since I have been in the Senate. So we are not plowing any new ground here. We are replowing old ground. Nevertheless, it is an important issue. On the amendment that has been offered, I think it is important that Members understand the current state of play and understand what it is we are voting on. Some history can perhaps help. Mr. President, let me inquire as to how much time is remaining on this side.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to be notified when 10 minutes have been used. I don't believe I will use more than that. Mr. President, since 1979 the Department of Defense has prohibited the use of Federal funds to perform abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. The bill before us today, the Department of Defense bill, continues that prohibition. When we debated this issue last year, it was abundantly clear that the current restriction was not onerous. It did not put any women at risk. It is a policy which is fair. It was fair and sound last year and was supported by the Congress, and it remains fair and sound today. What we are trying to do is maintain a consistency in Federal policy relative to abortion. That policy, described as ``the Hyde amendment,'' states that taxpayer money should not be used against the wishes of taxpayers for elective abortions except in some very limited circumstances--exceptions are allowed in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. But beyond that, the Congress has consistently supported prohibitions against the use of taxpayer dollars to perform abortions. That is something that has been upheld by the Court. It is constitutional. The case of Harris v. McRae upheld the Hyde amendment. It did not find a constitutional right to require the taxpayers to fund abortions. So I don't believe the Constitution is an issue here. Time and again we have disallowed the use of Federal funds for abortions, except in cases where, as I said, rape, incest or life of the mother is at issue. We are trying to maintain that policy. That was a policy that was maintained without problem until 1993 when President Clinton issued an Executive order to reverse the policy. Rather than go through the Congress and have the people exercise their will through their elected Representatives, the President just simply issued an Executive order, saying, ``I don't like the current policy that Congress has established, and I am going to override it with an Executive order.'' Under that policy, the President's change in policy, defense facilities were used for the first time in 14 years, not to defend life, as our military hospitals are charged to do, but to take life, and to do it with taxpayer funds. In 1995, the House and the Senate voted to override the President's Executive order, reversing that policy and making permanent the ban on the use of Department of Defense medical facilities to perform abortions with the exceptions of rape, incest, and endangerment of the mother's life. So again we are today debating that issue. The amendment before us would strike that ban and reinstate the policy instituted by the President through his Executive order that the Senate overturned 3 years ago. Proponents of the amendment argue that abortions under the Clinton order did not involve use of taxpayer funds since servicewomen are required to pay for their own abortions. But, Mr. President, that statement evidences a misunderstanding of the nature of military medical facilities. Military clinics, unlike the private hospitals, receive 100 percent of their funds from Federal taxpayers. Physicians are not private physicians who happen to be contracting with the hospital, but they are physicians that are government employees paid entirely with tax revenues. All of the operational and administrative expenses of military medicine are paid for by taxpayers. All of the equipment used to perform abortions is purchased at taxpayers' expense, and, therefore, it is impossible to separate out that which is Federal funds utilized for abortion from that which is private funds. The only way to protect the integrity of these taxpayers' funds and the integrity of the policy is to keep the military out of business of performing abortions. Taxpayer money should not be used if it goes against what I believe and I think the Congress has supported, the moral and religious beliefs of the taxpayer, and in this case the taxpayer, through their Representatives, elected to Congress have expressed time and again that they don't feel their tax dollars are appropriately used to perform abortions. The question is raised: If abortions are disallowed, does that not put those servicewomen who are seeking to have an abortion at risk? It does not. As we have repeatedly demonstrated and said, along with certification from the Department of Defense, nothing in this policy dictates the decision of the woman, whether or not she wants to have an abortion or has an abortion. It simply says you can't use taxpayer funds for an abortion. Because of the commingling of funds and the impossibility of separating funds, we don't want to use military hospitals for that abortion. But nothing prevents that woman from going outside of the military hospital facility to utilize another hospital in countries where there are those hospitals. Because the law of the country--say Italy--does not allow abortions or support abortions; the military has provided transport for that individual who seeks the abortion. There has never been a complaint filed about inability to go and have that abortion. So I think Members confuse the issue sometimes when they come to the floor without having heard the debate and say, ``This is a vote on a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.'' I have strong and deeply held feelings about that. We have debated that issue on this floor time and time again, and we will debate it more--the nature and the meaning of life, the right of the unborn versus the right of a woman, and the decision in terms of whether one right has a preeminence over another right. But that is not what is at issue here today, and it shouldn't be confused in this debate. The issue is not over whether a woman has the right to an abortion. That is a debate for another day. The issue is whether that abortion should be partially paid for by taxpayer funds, or performed at military hospitals. We have a policy in place that allows women who seek to have an abortion while they serve in the military, or their dependents, to have that abortion. Nothing prohibits them from doing that. But we simply have to have a policy that says that cannot be performed in a place where taxpayer funds are being used to accomplish that, or at least to accomplish part of that. We have not received any evidence that indicates that this is a prohibition on women, on their ability to have an abortion, to make a choice to have an abortion. It simply retains a policy that has been consistently upheld by this Congress and by the Court that says that the taxpayer has a right to put limitations on whether or not their taxpayer funds are used to provide abortions. The Congress has consistently voted to uphold that policy. They make what I think are legitimate and reasonable exceptions in cases of rape, cases of incest, and cases of where the life of the mother is in danger. So I hope that Members would see this issue for what it is--not a women's right to choose; we can discuss that at another time--but whether or not taxpayer funds should be used to perform abortions. Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time. In fact, I see the Senator from Idaho is on the floor. I would be happy to have the chairman yield him whatever time he desires.

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield our remaining time to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 10 seconds to Senator Warner.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask before I yield to the Senator how much time is remaining on the earlier allocated time?