Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 219, submitted earlier today by Senators Mack and Daschle.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, that the preamble be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of House Joint Resolution 102, which is at the desk.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be considered as read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business for 5 minutes to allow the Senate to consider a few items that have been cleared by both sides. I further ask that following my closing remarks, the Senate then resume consideration of the NATO treaty to allow Senator Conrad to offer an amendment.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, there has been significant, considerable debate on this issue over the past several days, and then several days before that before the Easter recess. Many of the arguments have been made, discussions have been had, and debate has been engaged in regarding the merits and demerits of NATO expansion. I think it is important to put a little bit of historical perspective to this and then I would also like to bring a little bit of perspective as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, because, after all, NATO is a military alliance. It is designed for military purposes primarily. And it is important that we look at the military capacity and capability of the three nations that are being discussed as potential members of NATO. So I would like to bring that portion of the discussion to the debate so that Members are aware of some of the facts and considerations relative to that portion of the NATO debate. First, the historical perspective. This June will mark the 50th anniversary of the start of the Berlin Blockade. Fifty years ago, the United States had passed the Vandenberg Resolution which laid the groundwork for U.S. participation in regional and other cooperative defense alliances. This resolution served to show American support for the commitment European nations had undertaken in the Brussels treaty the previous year to defend against external threats. The resolution marked a formal recognition that the United States had to become constructively engaged in European and world affairs if it were to be successful in influencing and supporting the broader adoption of democratic principles in the world-market economy. We had, with tragic consequences, retreated from world affairs earlier in this century, only to pay considerable costs in terms of not only monetary costs but, more importantly, in terms of lives because we were drawn into those affairs as a matter of necessity. Two successive World Wars demonstrated unequivocally Europe's importance to our own national interests, and the Members of this body, in 1948, were determined that the United States not be forced to catch up to world events again. Growing concern at the time about the intentions of the Soviet Union were, of course, pivotal to the debate regarding the formation of the alliance. After World War II, Soviet troops remained in Germany and the other Central/Eastern European countries that the Soviets occupied during the war. During the course of the Berlin Blockade, in the midst of that not inconsiderable crisis, the United States engaged Canada and the Brussels treaty powers in discussions that culminated in the establishment of NATO in 1949. Interestingly enough, Mr. President, the reaction then in this body, and in other corridors that were discussing the feasibility of this reaction to both the Vandenberg Resolution and the North Atlantic talks, was decidedly vociferous. Eminent scholars and statesmen--George Kennan among them--decried the U.S. decision to pursue this alliance with Britain, Canada, France, and other nations. Kennan, who was the original advocate of containment, described the proposed alliance as provocative and potentially destabilizing. Interestingly enough, that is what much of the debate about the addition of three formerly Soviet Warsaw Pact nations, now Central European nations that have gained independence--much of the debate is centered on that very issue. Then, as now, the debate covered a broad spectrum of other issues, including policy, proposed missions, membership, political as well as military aims, and U.S. military aid to Europe. The resultant treaty signed in Washington, DC, on April 4, 1949, committed the parties to: peaceful resolution of disputes; the active promotion of stability and well-being; continuous military vigilance; joint consultation; and devotion to the common defense. During the Senate consideration of the treaty, two major issues were discussed: The meaning of the article V commitment, that is, the mutual assistance portion of the treaty; and specific military aid proposed by the administration to assist Europe. It is interesting to note that treaty mentions no specific external threat which the alliance was being formed to counter, just as this resolution mentions no specific external threat. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State, Dean Acheson affirmed that the treaty was not aimed at any country but was proposed to prevent aggression. ``If we want peace,'' he said, ``we must be prepared to wage peace, with all of our thought, energy, and courage.'' At the time, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was careful to assert that the treaty's article V commitment would not remove the constitutional power of Congress to declare war. The Senate subsequently approved the Washington treaty by a vote of 87- 8. It is interesting to note, that while some say, ``All right. That was fine for the time being, but why expand?'' there have been three membership extensions to four other nations over subsequent years--in 1952 to Greece and Turkey, in 1955 to Germany, and in 1982 to Spain. Today, after nearly 50 years of outstanding success, NATO no longer seems controversial in and of itself. It is widely viewed as the most successful military alliance in history. It was successful in its goal of deterring aggression in Europe. And through a robust commitment to military strength, NATO's existence also brought enhanced stability to Europe, enabling its members to prosper economically. Today's debate centers on the addition of three former Eastern bloc nations to NATO and whether somehow this will dilute NATO and its collective commitment to the principles outlined in the treaty. It also talks about whether or not such inclusion and addition of nations will be provocative to Russia and will be destabilizing. There are many issues that have and need to be discussed before we vote on NATO and its future. But we must keep in mind that while this debate over what type of missions NATO undertakes in the future is important, it is not, in my opinion, the central consideration of adding new members. Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary were on the forefront of Soviet hegemony during the cold war. For almost 50 years, their people lived under the totalitarianism of a Communist regime. With the fall of the Soviet Union, freedom came at last. They moved forward quickly to transform their economies to the free-market system, to hold democratic elections, and establish the rule of law. There is a compelling reason, moral reason I would submit, to extend NATO membership to these countries. But it is more than that. Because we must remember that NATO is first and foremost a military alliance. These nations are able and willing to contribute to the common defense of Europe as they desire the security link of being a part of NATO. That is essential to our consideration-- the answer to that question, Are these nations able, are they willing, to contribute to the common defense of Europe, and do they desire to be part of a 50- year established security link? The 1949 European nations themselves must answer this question. Though an expansion of the Soviet Union played a key role in NATO's origins, it was the history of warfare in Europe which spurred the North Atlantic nations to action. Again, as Dean Acheson testified in 1949, ``NATO is not to counter any particular threat but rather all aggression. The treaty itself states its purpose as safeguarding freedom, common heritage, and civilization of their people, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and rule of law. NATO is designed and said to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area, and a collective defense allowance to preserve peace and security.'' ``The treaty itself,'' he said, ``invites any other European states in a position to further the principles of this treaty and contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to the treaty.'' Let me repeat that: ``The treaty itself invites any other European states in a position to further the principles of this treaty and contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area''--invites them to become part of the alliance. These nations, which have been under the suppression and oppression of communism nearly 50 years now, are simply asking us to comply with the terms of the treaty by allowing them, since they are now capable of becoming part of this mutual security alliance and this stabilizing future. It is, in effect, an open-door policy to other nations of Europe who share the goal of defense and are willing to contribute to the security environment. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, for 50 years under the domination of the Soviet Union, have made the long journey to freedom and the beginnings of prosperity. These nations, always a part of Europe, have been artificially separated from their historic and cultural roots behind an Iron Curtain that had no place in Europe yet divided European nations for nearly 50 years. They now have an opportunity to once again become an integral part of Europe. How can we now deny them the right to belong to a European security alliance? It seems to me a fairly strong imperative that the nations that were previously divided from the rest of Europe now be invited to become a part of an organization dedicated to the survival of Europe. Why these three countries? They each have a clear case to demonstrate their commitment to the goals of NATO. In addition, their recent history shows the strength of their new democracies and the openness which generally follows free elections, civilian oversight of the military intelligence, rule of law, market economies--most important, since NATO was never intended to be a free ride. These nations are willing and able to contribute to their own self-defense. Already they have begun the restructuring required to make their militaries compatible with NATO's. Continued commitment to this goal will be needed, obviously, over the next decade or more, but for now they are moving substantially in the right direction. The principle of immediate changes--reducing the size of their armies, modernizing their forces, achieving interoperability as it relates to NATO command, control, and communications--is well under way. Poland has already presented a 15-year plan to reduce its forces overhauling the officer corps structure and introducing professional noncommissioned officers. Airfields, ports, and depots are being readied to conduct operations with NATO, and they have conducted many joint operations under the Partnership for Peace program and other programs. Poland has established a national military center for language education. It spends, interestingly enough, 2.4 percent of its gross domestic product on defense and intends to maintain this level or increase this level of support. Interestingly enough, Mr. President, that is more than half what the current NATO nations spend as a percentage of GDP. Belgium spends 1.7 percent; Britain, 3.1; Germany, 2.0; the United States, 3.1; as examples of the commitment of nations that spend either less than, equal to, or substantially more than Poland, but clearly they are in the top 50 percent. The Czech Republic has begun modernizing its forces. They plan to increase their defense spending by one-tenth of 1 percent of GDP a year for 3 years, bringing spending to $1.2 billion for defense in 2001. Hungary is committed to increase defense spending by one-tenth of 1 percent of GDP over 5 years, a substantial amount of money, bringing it from the current 1.4 to 1.8 percent. They have already succeeded in reducing the number of troops from 100,000 to 489,000 and set up a joint peacekeeping battalion in Romania. I recently was made aware of testimony given by Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Franklin Kramer before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Some of his testimony has been classified, some of it unclassified. I am going to quote from the unclassified portion of his testimony in which he concludes, ``I am fully confident that with the reforms and strategies currently being implemented in all three countries, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will both be reliable allies and net producers of security to the North Atlantic alliance.'' Net producers. In analyzing their contributions, Mr. Kramer details a whole number of categories in which these commitments have been made. He talks about the interoperability through Partnership for Peace and cites in 1997 alone Poland participated in 22 Partnership for Peace exercises in which the United States also took part. The highlight of these events was ``Brave Eagle,'' one of the most complex exercises to date, which Poland hosted. Poland also participated in hundreds of bilateral and multilateral exercises, seminars, and other activities with other partners and NATO allies, all of which have contributed to increase their interoperability. The Poles have emphasized military training and tactical exercises in their Partnership for Peace participation. I met with members of the Defense Establishment and the Intelligence Establishment recently in my office. Much of what was presented was classified. I can confidently speak to the fact that very significant activity has taken place within these three nations. Poland, in particular, has very significant contributions to make to the NATO alliance on an immediate basis, and Hungary and the Czech Republic also have significant contributions to make. Hungary has participated in 17 multilateral Partnership for Peace exercises just in the last year. The Czechs have participated in 18 of those exercises. In addition to that, all three countries have participated in the Partnership for Peace planning and review process in which NATO has established 41 specific interoperability objectives. These include C3/ SAR, ground refuelings of aircraft, commonality of airfield procedures, use of NATO communications procedures and terminology, aircraft IFF systems, logistic support, interoperability of communications equipment and of air navigation aids. Poland committed to obtain all 41 of these interoperabilities by 1999, Hungary pledged to reach 38, and the Czech Republic promised to meet 31--a very significant commitment. A number of other areas were analyzed, including military reforms and modernization. Each of these nations has ambitious plans in place to bring about reforms in command, control, communications, air defense, traffic control, logistics, infrastructure, personnel reform, reduction in forces, increase in quality of training. I could detail those, but those were provided and I think they are significant. Their core capabilities and increase operability plans for personnel, for training and NATO doctrine, and for interoperability have all been significant. Mr. President, there is good reason to believe that the three countries that we are discussing, in terms of inclusion in NATO, have already made substantial progress and have committed to further substantial progress in the necessary areas of bringing together the fit that will make their inclusion in NATO significant. Mr. President, let me examine some of the issues that have been raised in opposition to adding new members to NATO. Several academicians and former diplomats have raised the specter of the United States and its NATO allies bogged down in some internal or ethnic dispute involving one or more of the new members. In doing so, they ignore the experience of 50 years in which NATO members, some of whom have experienced their own civil unrest, and some of whom have experienced conflicts with their own NATO partners, have ignored the fact these relations have improved their respective democratic institutions, and that they have grown steadily more stable and more productive. NATO, rather than fostering instability, has provided a forum for the resolution of conflicts among its members. Turkey and Greece are probably the prime example. The prospect of NATO membership has hastened the resolution of disputes between Hungary and Romania and the Czech Republic and Germany. There are numerous examples of reconciliations and resolutions of conflict that have taken place just in the anticipation of becoming part of NATO. A second objection has been directed toward the NATO directive to collectively and individually develop and maintain the capacity to resist an armed attack; that is, that the costs connected with admitting new members are uncertain and could be substantially more than NATO's estimate of $1.5 billion over 10 years as the U.S. share. Detractors using this argument tend to follow it in virtually the same breath with the statement that the principal threat has gone away. On the one hand, they say the threat has gone away, and they are saying, therefore, we don't need to be concerned about future security arrangements; and on the other hand, they say they are concerned about the potential of future conflict, and, therefore, that will drive the costs up. Well, let's accept the premise for a moment that there is no specific threat. The NATO common costs of accepting these new members is dependent upon that threat--if the threat is substantial, then the costs will likely be substantial as well. In contrast, a reduced threat will almost certainly mean a minimal expenditure. Current plans call for the latter. Prospective members are expected to obtain compatible command and control systems, maintain air defense and ground forces appropriate to their nation's security needs, and maintain one squadron of modern tactical aircraft. In addition, they are to provide sufficient facilities infrastructure to support the rapid deployment of NATO forces into their respective nations in the event of a crisis. Obviously, if a substantive threat should arise, then the number and mix of required forces could increase, and maybe substantially. But just as clear is that we would want to meet those increased requirements to counter the increased threat, and we would want to be ahead of the game by having built the communications and air defense infrastructures during a time of relative peace and stability. Having said that, the anticipation is that the threat will be decreased, that more stability will result and, therefore, lower costs. I am also troubled by those who raise the specter of the article V commitment. We have all heard this said in many different ways, most unfortunately as, ``Who wants to die for Poland?'' ``Who wants to die for Hungary or the Czech Republic?'' This is particularly offensive when you consider Hitler's and Stalin's largely unopposed subjugation of Central Europe--including Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary-- particularly Czechoslovakia--in the early days of World War II. The fact is that I have no doubt of the resolve of America and her NATO allies to take appropriate steps if any NATO member is under attack; nor do I doubt the serious and earnest intent of the three nations seeking to join us in NATO to do the same. As for the supposed difficulty in obtaining consensus, it is hard to see that this could be the case. How can U.S. leadership be sufficient to acquire consensus on vital issues when the members total 16 but not sufficient when the members total 19? From my perspective, the difficulty will vary according to the circumstance, not the absolute number of members. I think an agreement that gives one nation--who is not a member of NATO--the opportunity to bully and threaten NATO members in NATO headquarters ought to be of far greater concern. Finally, there is the consideration of others' attitudes about NATO expansion and the potential influence upon other matters of importance to the United States. As many of my colleagues are aware, many well- regarded scholars and celebrities have raised concerns over Russia's reaction to expansion. They insist that Russia's good will is imperative and should come before other considerations, particularly the expansion of NATO membership. An oft-cited example is the Russian Duma's failure to ratify START II, allegedly because of NATO expansion. Frankly, the Duma has been dragging its feet on START II for 3 years, not because of the NATO expansion question, but primarily due to the cost of implementing the treaty rather than NATO itself. The same argument, used in relation to the Chemical Weapons Convention, was put to rest when the Duma moved forward and ratified it, after individuals said, ``If we ratify this treaty, the Russians will walk away.'' That does not seem to support a clear connection between the decision on NATO expansion and START II ratification. Let's be frank, Mr. President, Russia is going to pursue activities that benefit her national interest as she perceives them, just as the United States pursues those interests that benefit our national interest as we perceive them, and this treaty is not going to change that fact. Fifty years ago a similar debate was taking place as it relates to Russia and the creation of NATO. Stalin blockaded Berlin both to express displeasure at an attempt to roll back the Marshall Plan and related initiatives, as well as to convince the United States that its role in Europe was ill-advised. The United States and its allies held to their position and signed the Washington treaty in April of 1949. One month later, the Soviet Union lifted the blockade. We must do what we think is right, independent of what the debate is in the Russian Duma. That is not to say that we are uninterested in Russia and what Russian leaders think and its citizens think. Quite the contrary. It is essential that we remain engaged with Russia--politically, economically, and in relation to security concerns. We must work to achieve our mutual interests but continue to support the transformation of this nation to a strong and healthy democratic system. Our relationship with Russia, however, does not mean ignoring the desires of Central and Eastern European nations simply because we find some Russian resistance. NATO is a defensive alliance, not an offensive alliance. We must state that. That is its history. Russia knows that. We know that. NATO knows that. This has been reaffirmed--this fundamental aspect of the treaty. Russia has nothing to fear from NATO as it currently exists, nor from NATO with its new members. We must continue to reassure them, to work with them and bring them fully into the West's orbit. It is important that both the United States and Russia realize that both can benefit from this new relationship. NATO remains in America's strategic interests as long as Europe remains in our interest. Likewise, the addition of new members to this treaty is also in our interest. When we expand membership to like- minded nations, we extend the security of Europe and the stabilizing influence of the alliance itself. We may not have any one single threat at this time, but the world remains an insecure and unstable place. The continuity of an expanded NATO will assure that this successful military alliance will continue to play a stabilizing role in Europe and help ensure our preparedness to take on future threats. I believe that the American people are deserving of a temperate and deliberate debate on the merits of the accession of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. This has been a worthwhile discussion, a necessary debate, one of the critical functions of the U.S. Senate. As many of you now know, I have supported these countries' accession to NATO, not out of an interest of righting wrongs but in recognition of their geopolitical importance and their progress as democratic states determined to join with other NATO members in preserving the peace that NATO has won in Europe. This debate, this vote, will affirm the importance of these nations to NATO's continued mission. Mr. President, I look forward to a successful vote and to a formal accession in Washington next spring.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 11 a.m. on Thursday, April 30. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then resume consideration of the Craig amendment numbered 2316 to the NATO enlargement treatment.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I further ask that the time following the prayer until 12 noon be equally divided for debate on the Craig amendment; further, that at 12 noon the Craig amendment be temporarily set aside and the votes on or in relation to the amendment follow the two stacked rollcall votes previously ordered to occur at approximately 3 p.m.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Conrad.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow morning at 11 a.m. the Senate will resume consideration of the Craig amendment numbered 2316 to the NATO enlargement treaty. Under the previous order, at noon Senator Moynihan will be recognized to offer an amendment under a 1-hour time agreement. Following the debate on the Moynihan amendment, Senator Warner will be recognized to offer an amendment under a 2-hour time agreement. Following the debate on the Warner amendment, at approximately 3 p.m., at the conclusion of that debate, the Senate will proceed to three stacked rollcall votes. The first vote will be on or in relation to the Moynihan amendment, followed by a vote on or in relation to the Warner amendment, followed then by a vote on or in relation to the Craig amendment. As a reminder, a unanimous consent agreement was reached which limits the amendments to the NATO treaty. It is hoped that any Senator still intending to offer an amendment under the consent agreement will do so early tomorrow to allow the Senate to complete action on this important document by early tomorrow evening. Also, if available, the Senate may consider the conference report to accompany the supplemental appropriations bill. Therefore, Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout the Thursday session of the Senate. Mr. President, that is an ambitious schedule. Senators are urged to be timely. Senators are urged, those who may have additional amendments to the NATO enlargement treaty, to make those amendments known to leadership, and hopefully reasonable time requests can be entered into. A number of Senators are making very important official business commitments for the weakend, and the more definite the plans can be about the schedule tomorrow, the more expeditiously those commitments can be undertaken.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for his invaluable support and effort in helping craft this legislation. Mr. President, I know the time allocated to us is just about up. I send to the desk three pieces of legislation, one that I am introducing, another that Senator Abraham is introducing, and a third that Senator Santorum is introducing, all of which encompass the three major components of the renewal alliance package. I would ask for its immediate referral. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent if it is possible--a qualified unanimous consent request--to have these numbered sequentially since these three pieces of legislation are part of a package. If it is possible, we would like to have them numbered consecutively.

Mr. COATS. That is propitious then. The Senator will take all 2 of those minutes. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, in summary, let me state that what we are attempting to accomplish here is a third alternative. We believe that the well- intentioned, well-motivated programs of the past, at great cost to the taxpayers, have failed to successfully address some of the most difficult social problems facing our Nation, and particularly problems facing low-income urban communities where in many situations nothing but crime and drugs are the prevalent activities of those organizations. By the same token, the argument that no Federal policy is the best policy to address these problems is something that we as a group cannot accept. We think this third alternative, providing REAL Life meaningful solutions to the areas of community renewal, economic empowerment and educational opportunities for low-income families offers real hope. It does so not through Government organizations, Government structures or even significant Government funding. It does so by encouraging those community volunteer, nonprofit, often faith- based organizations that already exist and should exist in greater numbers to take a much greater role in addressing these problems. We want to make the Federal Government not the dominant partner but a junior partner, an entity that can assist through the provision of Tax Code changes, primarily tax credits and other incentives, to encourage individuals and other organizations to contribute to these nonprofit groups to allow them to do a better job. They have demonstrated success at an efficiency rate and at a cost-effectiveness that far exceeds those current programs in place. Are we calling for a dismantling of the safety net? No, we are not. We are calling for a better use of dollars, a better commitment, stronger commitment to organizations which have demonstrated real success in providing hope to individuals, transformation and renewal of communities. Mr. President, I believe the time is probably expired, and with that I yield the floor and encourage my colleagues to take a look at the REAL Life Renewal Alliance initiative which we are happy to provide and discuss with our colleagues.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I believe that wraps up our time. I think the Senator from Iowa is in the Chamber prepared to speak within a moment or two. Let me ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes to wrap up.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for his invaluable contributions to this effort. I now turn to another key member of our Renewal Alliance, someone who has offered additional invaluable contributions, for further explanation of the package we are introducing, Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is very difficult to ask the Senator from Pennsylvania to wrap up his remarks because he, obviously, has such a deep-felt and heartfelt passion for these issues. I appreciate his work with us. We are under some time constraint. I now turn the floor over to the Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, who has also been a very key instrumental member of the development of this package.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am here today to announce, along with several Members--in fact, a coalition of 30 Republican Members from both the House and the Senate called the Renewal Alliance, which has been in business now for a considerable amount of time--more than a year--will be jointly introducing new initiatives to help restore hard- pressed urban neighborhoods of our country to reach out to families and communities and neighbors that are dealing with some of the most difficult and intractable social problems that affect our society. This package, called REAL Life--renewal, empowerment, achievement, and learning for life--contains what we believe are essential elements to help bring improvements and restore hope to impoverished communities and to bring self-sufficiency to low-income individuals and families. REAL Life seeks to address the critical deficits facing neighborhoods and communities, families, those communities and neighborhoods who lie behind the gleaming skyscrapers, the neighborhoods where some of the most difficult problems in our society--homelessness, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, poverty, and violence--are found in some of the most complex and intractable forms in the neighborhoods, however, where groups of individuals and private community organizations and leaders are already at work defeating the poverty and dysfunction that have defied our well-intentioned and lavishly funded Federal efforts. Before I begin to make specific comments about the legislation that we will be introducing, let me take a moment to read from a letter given to me by Light of Life Ministries, a rescue mission operating in Pittsburgh, PA. I think this letter communicates in a very compelling and clear way both the problems that we face today in our low-income areas and particularly in our cities--although these are no respecters of income or persons, but it seems that the problems are particularly acute in some of our urban areas--but also addresses some of the solutions that even today are within our grasp. This letter is from a fellow named Benjamin Primis, a young man who, after a promising start in life, fell on hard times. He was a graphic artist working in the television industry, and he began using drugs and became addicted to crack cocaine. Soon he was homeless and desperate. Benjamin writes: I found myself homeless in Pittsburgh. It seemed as though the world had turned its back on me. . . . When there was nowhere else to run, the Light of Life Ministry in Pittsburgh opened their doors of unconditional love. . . . Instantly I was comforted with three hot meals a day, clean linens, drug and alcohol therapy. . . . They fed me when I was hungry. They clothed me when I had nothing else to wear. [Most importantly,] they cared for me when I didn't care for myself. Benjamin Primis's story is one of thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of stories of hope and restoration and healing that bring us together here on this floor, the Senate floor, this morning. Ben Primis was failed by both the dogmas and initiatives of Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. A booming economy did not prevent his fall into poverty. And the Government safety net proved to be an illusion. Instead, Ben was rescued by one of the thousands of neighborhood-based, privately run, often faith-based religious charities that operate in poor neighborhoods across our country. Let me give another example, Mr. President. For years, officials in the District of Columbia and Members of Congress have wrestled with the problem of violence in this city that has plagued this city. A lot of programs have been tried, and the police department has been strengthened and reorganized and redeployed on several occasions to almost no effect. It seemed that none of the often very expensive initiatives had any fruition. Last year, a group of African American men called the Alliance of Concerned Men began brokering peace treaties among the gangs that inhabit, and frequently dominate, some of the city's public housing complexes. Benning Terrace in southeast Washington, known to the D.C. police department as perhaps the most dangerous area of the city, has not had a single murder since the Alliance's peace treaty went into effect early last year. This movement is now spreading across the city. These are community healers who are saving lives where all other Government efforts have failed. I have met with these individuals. I have listened to their stories and some of the most remarkable stories of transformation of individual lives and reconciliation that anyone could ever encounter. The Light of Life Mission in Pittsburgh, the Alliance of Concerned Men in Washington, DC, Gospel Rescue Mission of Washington, these are the kinds of organizations that the Renewal Alliance REAL Life initiative wants to place at the center of our Nation's welfare and social policies. REAL Life is not a handout, it is an opportunity agenda for America's poor, and it is concentrated on those who live on America's meanest streets. It does acknowledge a role for Government programs, but it makes that role one of a junior partner--not a CEO, not a director, but a junior partner, a junior partner with those organizations that, without Government help, without Government rules and regulations, are reaching out and actually bringing hope and bringing restoration to some of the most desperate situations that our country encounters. This whole array of community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, social institutions, help restore individual lives and rebuilds neighborhoods. Finally, REAL Life is a vision that starts with a belief that real and lasting social reform begins among the families, the churches, the schools, the businesses, that are the heart and the soul of local communities. We have three central components in REAL Life. We have a community renewal component, which I will talk a little bit more in a moment, which incorporates a State-based voluntary charity tax credit, charity donations protection, liability reform. We have an economic empowerment component, which incorporates a number of empowerment initiatives that have been discussed and talked about over the years. These will be discussed by other members of the Renewal Alliance. We have educational opportunity for low-income families. This real-life initiative by the Renewal Alliance has narrowed its scope to three essential components as a means of demonstrating the effectiveness of these initiatives. Before I yield to other members of the Renewal Alliance--and I note that Senator Abraham, a key member of our Alliance, is here and ready to speak--let me briefly discuss the community renewal portion of the package we are introducing today. The REAL Life Community Renewal Act begins with the belief that social capital, the invisible elements of trust, cooperation, and mutual support that undergird communities life, have been severely damaged by 30 years of misguided Government programs. The traditional networks of community action and caring anchored in churches, schools, and volunteer programs have been displaced by Government programs. Too much money and too little wisdom have combined to wreak havoc in urban neighborhoods. We seek to repair that damage done by the Great Society by shifting authority and resources out of Government and into the private, religious, and voluntary groups that know the deepest needs of local neighborhoods. We achieve this through State-based charity tax credit. We tap a wide range of existing Federal welfare block grants as a funding source for these charity tax credits. The credit is entirely voluntary. It builds up on efforts in the States to find innovative approaches for the delivery of welfare services. Already, Arizona and Pennsylvania and Indiana have either incorporated or are in the process of incorporating charity tax credits as a way to provide incentives for contributions to these organizations. As I said, we also contain provisions which will strengthen charities through enhanced liability protections and also to prevent IRS actions against these organizations to allow them to better do their mission. Others here this morning will speak in greater detail about the economic empowerment and educational opportunities sessions of our proposal. The bottom line is this: After 30 years of experiments with top-down Federal poverty strategies and an enormous expenditure of money, the returns are in. The Great Society approach, the Government-knows-all approach, the Government-can solve-all-your-problems approach, has failed. It has been a failure that has been widespread across this country. Many of the initiatives were well motivated, but the results are in. It is time now for us to look at a new approach, a new approach that makes local leadership, community-based institutions, and neighborhood center reform efforts the heart of our welfare strategy. I trust that my colleagues will join us in this effort to bring real life to those in greatest need in our society. I could spend the day discussing and talking about initiatives that have taken place in communities across this country where individuals, inspired by nothing more than a dream or a vision, often severely and desperately underfunded, have opened their arms and opened their hearts and opened their doors to provide real support and real help for real people in need. They have done so in a remarkable way. The Center for the Homeless in South Bend, IN, has combined the efforts of 300 churches spanning the spectrum of denominations and religions. They have utilized the services of the University of Notre Dame, the hospital community of St. Joseph County, and help from volunteers from all walks of life, and put together a model homeless shelter which has a six-part, 2-year strategy of taking homeless individuals and turning them into homeowners, restoring their lives, and, in the process, restoring neighborhoods and restoring communities. It is one of the most remarkably efficient and effective efforts that I have witnessed. But the story is repeated all across the State of Indiana in initiative after initiative. The Matthew 25 clinic in Fort Wayne, IN, a combination of doctors, dentists, and nurses, on a volunteer basis, is reaching out and established a clinic, providing medical care and help to low-income individuals who are not insured and don't have opportunities for medical treatment in the normal course of things. They have made a remarkable difference in our community. It is not a Federal program; it has nothing to do with a Federal program; there are no Federal funds. It is voluntary efforts by the community of medical personnel in our city. Whether it is a maternity home, a home for girls, a spouse abuse shelter, any of a number of programs, they are duplicated and replicated in virtually every city in America. Yet, they are struggling, struggling because, as I said, after 30 years of Federal initiatives, their efforts have been almost overwhelmed by the well-intended, well-meaning, extraordinarily expensive, and incredibly low-result efforts of the Federal Government. It is this problem that we are trying to address. This doesn't have to be a partisan issue. This is something Republicans and Democrats can come together on. I believe liberals, who have been well-motivated and well-intended, have seen the dismal results of their efforts and are looking for an alternative. And those conservatives who say, ``Let this sort itself out; after all, it is an issue of personal responsibility and there is nothing Government should be involved in,'' I think are ignoring the fact that some of these institutions that are so essential to helping in this process need support and need to be rebuilt. This is not a new, massive Federal program, this is simply some startup initiatives to point the way and, hopefully, to encourage the support and development of these non-Government institutions. My colleague from Michigan is on the floor, Senator Abraham, who has been instrumental in helping to develop the REAL Life initiative. I am pleased to yield time to him to explain another component of this particular package.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am here today to announce, along with several Members--in fact, a coalition of 30 Republican Members from both the House and the Senate called the Renewal Alliance, which has been in business now for a considerable amount of time--more than a year--will be jointly introducing new initiatives to help restore hard- pressed urban neighborhoods of our country to reach out to families and communities and neighbors that are dealing with some of the most difficult and intractable social problems that affect our society. This package, called REAL Life--renewal, empowerment, achievement, and learning for life--contains what we believe are essential elements to help bring improvements and restore hope to impoverished communities and to bring self-sufficiency to low-income individuals and families. REAL Life seeks to address the critical deficits facing neighborhoods and communities, families, those communities and neighborhoods who lie behind the gleaming skyscrapers, the neighborhoods where some of the most difficult problems in our society--homelessness, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, poverty, and violence--are found in some of the most complex and intractable forms in the neighborhoods, however, where groups of individuals and private community organizations and leaders are already at work defeating the poverty and dysfunction that have defied our well-intentioned and lavishly funded Federal efforts. Before I begin to make specific comments about the legislation that we will be introducing, let me take a moment to read from a letter given to me by Light of Life Ministries, a rescue mission operating in Pittsburgh, PA. I think this letter communicates in a very compelling and clear way both the problems that we face today in our low-income areas and particularly in our cities--although these are no respecters of income or persons, but it seems that the problems are particularly acute in some of our urban areas--but also addresses some of the solutions that even today are within our grasp. This letter is from a fellow named Benjamin Primis, a young man who, after a promising start in life, fell on hard times. He was a graphic artist working in the television industry, and he began using drugs and became addicted to crack cocaine. Soon he was homeless and desperate. Benjamin writes: I found myself homeless in Pittsburgh. It seemed as though the world had turned its back on me. . . . When there was nowhere else to run, the Light of Life Ministry in Pittsburgh opened their doors of unconditional love. . . . Instantly I was comforted with three hot meals a day, clean linens, drug and alcohol therapy. . . . They fed me when I was hungry. They clothed me when I had nothing else to wear. [Most importantly,] they cared for me when I didn't care for myself. Benjamin Primis's story is one of thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of stories of hope and restoration and healing that bring us together here on this floor, the Senate floor, this morning. Ben Primis was failed by both the dogmas and initiatives of Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. A booming economy did not prevent his fall into poverty. And the Government safety net proved to be an illusion. Instead, Ben was rescued by one of the thousands of neighborhood-based, privately run, often faith-based religious charities that operate in poor neighborhoods across our country. Let me give another example, Mr. President. For years, officials in the District of Columbia and Members of Congress have wrestled with the problem of violence in this city that has plagued this city. A lot of programs have been tried, and the police department has been strengthened and reorganized and redeployed on several occasions to almost no effect. It seemed that none of the often very expensive initiatives had any fruition. Last year, a group of African American men called the Alliance of Concerned Men began brokering peace treaties among the gangs that inhabit, and frequently dominate, some of the city's public housing complexes. Benning Terrace in southeast Washington, known to the D.C. police department as perhaps the most dangerous area of the city, has not had a single murder since the Alliance's peace treaty went into effect early last year. This movement is now spreading across the city. These are community healers who are saving lives where all other Government efforts have failed. I have met with these individuals. I have listened to their stories and some of the most remarkable stories of transformation of individual lives and reconciliation that anyone could ever encounter. The Light of Life Mission in Pittsburgh, the Alliance of Concerned Men in Washington, DC, Gospel Rescue Mission of Washington, these are the kinds of organizations that the Renewal Alliance REAL Life initiative wants to place at the center of our Nation's welfare and social policies. REAL Life is not a handout, it is an opportunity agenda for America's poor, and it is concentrated on those who live on America's meanest streets. It does acknowledge a role for Government programs, but it makes that role one of a junior partner--not a CEO, not a director, but a junior partner, a junior partner with those organizations that, without Government help, without Government rules and regulations, are reaching out and actually bringing hope and bringing restoration to some of the most desperate situations that our country encounters. This whole array of community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, social institutions, help restore individual lives and rebuilds neighborhoods. Finally, REAL Life is a vision that starts with a belief that real and lasting social reform begins among the families, the churches, the schools, the businesses, that are the heart and the soul of local communities. We have three central components in REAL Life. We have a community renewal component, which I will talk a little bit more in a moment, which incorporates a State-based voluntary charity tax credit, charity donations protection, liability reform. We have an economic empowerment component, which incorporates a number of empowerment initiatives that have been discussed and talked about over the years. These will be discussed by other members of the Renewal Alliance. We have educational opportunity for low-income families. This real-life initiative by the Renewal Alliance has narrowed its scope to three essential components as a means of demonstrating the effectiveness of these initiatives. Before I yield to other members of the Renewal Alliance--and I note that Senator Abraham, a key member of our Alliance, is here and ready to speak--let me briefly discuss the community renewal portion of the package we are introducing today. The REAL Life Community Renewal Act begins with the belief that social capital, the invisible elements of trust, cooperation, and mutual support that undergird communities life, have been severely damaged by 30 years of misguided Government programs. The traditional networks of community action and caring anchored in churches, schools, and volunteer programs have been displaced by Government programs. Too much money and too little wisdom have combined to wreak havoc in urban neighborhoods. We seek to repair that damage done by the Great Society by shifting authority and resources out of Government and into the private, religious, and voluntary groups that know the deepest needs of local neighborhoods. We achieve this through State-based charity tax credit. We tap a wide range of existing Federal welfare block grants as a funding source for these charity tax credits. The credit is entirely voluntary. It builds up on efforts in the States to find innovative approaches for the delivery of welfare services. Already, Arizona and Pennsylvania and Indiana have either incorporated or are in the process of incorporating charity tax credits as a way to provide incentives for contributions to these organizations. As I said, we also contain provisions which will strengthen charities through enhanced liability protections and also to prevent IRS actions against these organizations to allow them to better do their mission. Others here this morning will speak in greater detail about the economic empowerment and educational opportunities sessions of our proposal. The bottom line is this: After 30 years of experiments with top-down Federal poverty strategies and an enormous expenditure of money, the returns are in. The Great Society approach, the Government-knows-all approach, the Government-can solve-all-your-problems approach, has failed. It has been a failure that has been widespread across this country. Many of the initiatives were well motivated, but the results are in. It is time now for us to look at a new approach, a new approach that makes local leadership, community-based institutions, and neighborhood center reform efforts the heart of our welfare strategy. I trust that my colleagues will join us in this effort to bring real life to those in greatest need in our society. I could spend the day discussing and talking about initiatives that have taken place in communities across this country where individuals, inspired by nothing more than a dream or a vision, often severely and desperately underfunded, have opened their arms and opened their hearts and opened their doors to provide real support and real help for real people in need. They have done so in a remarkable way. The Center for the Homeless in South Bend, IN, has combined the efforts of 300 churches spanning the spectrum of denominations and religions. They have utilized the services of the University of Notre Dame, the hospital community of St. Joseph County, and help from volunteers from all walks of life, and put together a model homeless shelter which has a six-part, 2-year strategy of taking homeless individuals and turning them into homeowners, restoring their lives, and, in the process, restoring neighborhoods and restoring communities. It is one of the most remarkably efficient and effective efforts that I have witnessed. But the story is repeated all across the State of Indiana in initiative after initiative. The Matthew 25 clinic in Fort Wayne, IN, a combination of doctors, dentists, and nurses, on a volunteer basis, is reaching out and established a clinic, providing medical care and help to low-income individuals who are not insured and don't have opportunities for medical treatment in the normal course of things. They have made a remarkable difference in our community. It is not a Federal program; it has nothing to do with a Federal program; there are no Federal funds. It is voluntary efforts by the community of medical personnel in our city. Whether it is a maternity home, a home for girls, a spouse abuse shelter, any of a number of programs, they are duplicated and replicated in virtually every city in America. Yet, they are struggling, struggling because, as I said, after 30 years of Federal initiatives, their efforts have been almost overwhelmed by the well-intended, well-meaning, extraordinarily expensive, and incredibly low-result efforts of the Federal Government. It is this problem that we are trying to address. This doesn't have to be a partisan issue. This is something Republicans and Democrats can come together on. I believe liberals, who have been well-motivated and well-intended, have seen the dismal results of their efforts and are looking for an alternative. And those conservatives who say, ``Let this sort itself out; after all, it is an issue of personal responsibility and there is nothing Government should be involved in,'' I think are ignoring the fact that some of these institutions that are so essential to helping in this process need support and need to be rebuilt. This is not a new, massive Federal program, this is simply some startup initiatives to point the way and, hopefully, to encourage the support and development of these non-Government institutions. My colleague from Michigan is on the floor, Senator Abraham, who has been instrumental in helping to develop the REAL Life initiative. I am pleased to yield time to him to explain another component of this particular package.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for his invaluable contributions to this effort. I now turn to another key member of our Renewal Alliance, someone who has offered additional invaluable contributions, for further explanation of the package we are introducing, Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is very difficult to ask the Senator from Pennsylvania to wrap up his remarks because he, obviously, has such a deep-felt and heartfelt passion for these issues. I appreciate his work with us. We are under some time constraint. I now turn the floor over to the Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, who has also been a very key instrumental member of the development of this package.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for his invaluable support and effort in helping craft this legislation. Mr. President, I know the time allocated to us is just about up. I send to the desk three pieces of legislation, one that I am introducing, another that Senator Abraham is introducing, and a third that Senator Santorum is introducing, all of which encompass the three major components of the renewal alliance package. I would ask for its immediate referral. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent if it is possible--a qualified unanimous consent request--to have these numbered sequentially since these three pieces of legislation are part of a package. If it is possible, we would like to have them numbered consecutively.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I believe that wraps up our time. I think the Senator from Iowa is in the Chamber prepared to speak within a moment or two. Let me ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes to wrap up.

Mr. COATS. That is propitious then. The Senator will take all 2 of those minutes. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, in summary, let me state that what we are attempting to accomplish here is a third alternative. We believe that the well- intentioned, well-motivated programs of the past, at great cost to the taxpayers, have failed to successfully address some of the most difficult social problems facing our Nation, and particularly problems facing low-income urban communities where in many situations nothing but crime and drugs are the prevalent activities of those organizations. By the same token, the argument that no Federal policy is the best policy to address these problems is something that we as a group cannot accept. We think this third alternative, providing REAL Life meaningful solutions to the areas of community renewal, economic empowerment and educational opportunities for low-income families offers real hope. It does so not through Government organizations, Government structures or even significant Government funding. It does so by encouraging those community volunteer, nonprofit, often faith- based organizations that already exist and should exist in greater numbers to take a much greater role in addressing these problems. We want to make the Federal Government not the dominant partner but a junior partner, an entity that can assist through the provision of Tax Code changes, primarily tax credits and other incentives, to encourage individuals and other organizations to contribute to these nonprofit groups to allow them to do a better job. They have demonstrated success at an efficiency rate and at a cost-effectiveness that far exceeds those current programs in place. Are we calling for a dismantling of the safety net? No, we are not. We are calling for a better use of dollars, a better commitment, stronger commitment to organizations which have demonstrated real success in providing hope to individuals, transformation and renewal of communities. Mr. President, I believe the time is probably expired, and with that I yield the floor and encourage my colleagues to take a look at the REAL Life Renewal Alliance initiative which we are happy to provide and discuss with our colleagues.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. coats, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Brownback pertaining to the introduction of S. 1994 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this amendment Members will be voting on shortly simply adds an incentive to the current deduction that is allowed for individuals making contributions to tax-exempt organizations that provide scholarships for low-income children. Currently it is 100 percent deductible. We are adding an additional 10 percent incentive so that these organizations, of which currently more than 30 exist around the country, can receive additional funds through this incentive so that they can offer additional scholarships to children trapped in an educational system which allows them no escape. There are currently programs operating in virtually every major city in the country. They are giving children a chance. Those who say, ``If you can't give everybody a chance, you can't give anybody a chance'', are like those standing on the Titanic saying, ``If we don't have enough lifeboats for all on this sinking ship, nobody gets to use the existing lifeboats.'' These kids are condemned to failure with no way out of the plight they are in. Let us allow these organizations that are reaching out through private contributions a chance to give these kids a chance. This is paid for. It is revenue neutral. Earlier the offset was an elimination of the gambling loss deduction. That has been replaced. There was controversy. We wanted the focus to be on this amendment. That has been replaced by two provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, changes that are approved by the Finance Committee. There should be no controversy on that. I urge my colleagues to give children, low-income children in minority situations mostly in urban schools--let us give them a chance.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. No. The Senator is correct. There seems, however, to be some considerable degree of confusion in the Congress about how that test is going to be structured and what the process is and an expression on the part of many Members that Congress ought to be involved in the process. So let's just temporarily put that on hold so that the Congress can engage in terms of a better understanding and defining how that ought to be put together. I have agreed that perhaps that is the best way to go, because unless we really have some better understanding and assessment of that, I am not exactly sure we are going to accomplish what we want. I think the basic principle that I tried to propose earlier, which the Senator supports, I still retain that. I am going to work toward that end.