Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, yesterday the senate voted to confirm Judge Richard Young to be U.S. district judge for the southern district of Indiana. I rise today to express my strong support for the senate's actions. Judge Young has distinguished himself both professionally and in community service, and it is my honor to commend him to the senate as an excellent choice for the federal bench. Judge Young has earned an outstanding reputation through his eight years as Vanderburgh circuit court judge, and as a trial attorney for 10 years before that. He has broad legal background, both in his job as judge, and in professional organizations. Currently a member of the board of directors of the Indiana judicial conference, Judge Young also is the former president of the Evansville Bar Association. In addition, it is significant to note that Judge Young has worked in the Department of Justice, and has served as a public defender in Vanderburgh county. During his time as judge, Judge Young has shown himself to be a diligent worker, handling in a recent year 79 jury trials. However, it is not only Judge Young's extensive experience and excellent work ethic that make me confident he will bring sound, solid hoosier values to the federal bench. Judge Young also has a proven record of dedication to community service. Before he took the bench, Judge Young served on the board of trustees of the museum of arts and science of the community foundation, and the community corrections advisory board. Judge young has also served in the Easter Seals Society and has had a role in supporting the Evansville rehabilitation center. Clearly, Judge Young is a dedicated practitioner of jurisprudence and dedicated servant of his community. I am confident he will be an excellent judge and a credit to the state of Indiana, and it is for this reason I offer my support of his nomination to the federal bench.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I don't anticipate consuming more than about 5 or 6 minutes. Madam President, I come before my colleagues today with a sense of duality regarding the measure we have before us. On the one hand, the line-item veto override contains two items that are very important to me and to the State of Indiana, and also important to the national defense of our country. On the other hand, embodied in this line-item veto override is a fundamental question that goes to the very root of the principle of the Line-Item Veto Act. That question is whether Congress will abandon the longstanding practice of chasing good money with bad money, of holding worthy projects hostage to unnecessary funding. So, for me, this vote represents a choice of parochialism and a choice of principle--the former rooted in the hard realities of the military construction process and the latter rooted in the Line-Item Veto Act and the critical necessity of fiscal discipline. During the markup of the fiscal year 1998 military construction appropriations bill, a preestablished criteria, jointly agreed upon by Congress and the Pentagon, was used to determine what projects would be funded. There were four criteria: First, is this project consistent with past action? Secondly, is the project requested in the future years' defense plan? Third, is the project necessary for reasons of national security? Fourth, could a contract be awarded for construction of the project during the next fiscal year, this being fiscal year 1998? However, the Congress ultimately appropriated five projects that did not meet the jointly established criteria. The President abandoned this criteria when determining which projects he would veto. Thus, both the legislative and executive branches were guilty of abandoning the fiscal discipline established under the joint criteria. Madam President, I assert that it is impossible to have a disciplined, consistent budget process if the Congress and the White House can't stick with a preestablished plan. You see, further aggravating this situation is that, following the President's veto, there came admissions from the White House that errors had been made in evaluating projects for the veto, errors beyond the obvious abandonment of the joint criteria. This is of particular frustration to this Member, as two of the projects that were incorrectly vetoed reside in my home State. However, the Congress has a veto override process designed to address such situations. That is what we wrote into the law. But in an act of regression to past fiscal habits, the override resolution before us today contains those five projects that didn't meet the criteria in the first place, totaling $50 million, that, as I said, failed to meet the criteria, the preestablished criteria. One is tempted to conclude--and maybe the only conclusion is--it's business as usual. It is just an indication of how extraordinarily difficult it is for Members of Congress, all of us, to curb our compulsion for spending taxpayer dollars. In this case, the cost of abuse is compounded because the game is being played with our national security at stake. A maintenance facility for chemical and biological warfare detection devices at Crane naval surface warfare center, and a civil engineering center a Grissom air reserve base are included in this resolution. Both projects are in my home state, and both meet the joint criteria. The Crane chemical/biological detection center, a $4 million project, relates to a mission shortfall in chemical and biological warfare detection capabilities that should be built as soon as possible. It would address the Navy's growing need to provide maintenance and support for chemical and biological warfare detection devices aboard surface ships such as those deployed in the Persian gulf today. Current facilities are inadequate and lack the required environmental controls. The Navy supports the project and local officials have already entered into a contract for the design of the facility. So it meets the criteria that we established. I want to inform my colleagues and the Members of the Indiana delegation, those who work at Crane, the Department of the Navy, that I intend to work with them expeditiously and as conscientiously as I can, along with the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Air Force, to accelerate this Crane project--not just support but to accelerate, as well as the Grissom Project, in an effort to ensure that our national defense capabilities are not weakened as a result of the cancellation of these projects. However, as I previously stated, there is embodied in this resolution the violation of a principle basic to the line-item veto, a principle of fiscal discipline and restraint. Senator McCain and I fought a long battle for passage of the Line- Item Veto Act. We did so in the belief that it would apply a measure of discipline to a Congress that seemed consumed by a spending habit, and particularly egregious--a practice which loaded otherwise meritorious acceptable spending with that which had not met the criteria and gained the support of a majority of Members of Congress in an up-or-down vote, or straightforward debate on that particular item, but attached to something that was popular, attached to something that was needed with the intent of having it ride through on the train of something that was important. Unfortunately, the resolution before us today embodies that same practice, that same budget chicanery that has taken place in the past. Though there are many projects of merit contained in this resolution, these meritorious projects are being used to spirit through those that are without merit. This resolution is a missed opportunity. As the Supreme Court readies itself to ponder the final fate of the Line Item Veto Act, Congress had the opportunity to send the President a resolution that embodied the principle and the practice of fiscal discipline. Instead, we have squandered this opportunity by providing legislation handicapped by fiscal indiscipline. Mr. President, though I am disappointed in this particular measure, I firmly believe that it demonstrates that the line item veto process is both practical and constitutional. Judge Hogan has now placed the final question on the Line Item Veto Act before the Supreme Court. As such, I would like to comment briefly on the constitutional strength of the measure. I believe that the Line Item Veto Act conforms to the presentment clause of the Constitution and that Congress is within its constitutional right in granting to the President the authority to rescind, or withhold from obligation, spending, as he administers the law. As Walter Dellinger, then assistant attorney general testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee: ``Unlike line item veto bills that our office previously found unconstitutional, S. 4 would not violate any aspect of the presentment clause: It would not authorize the President to veto some portions of a bill and also sign the remaining portions into law. Rather, it would permit the President to rescind discretionary spending after the enactment of an appropriations act that would remain law. Such rescission authority would not implicate the specific textual requirements of Article I, Section 7: It would apply to the administration by the executive of a duly enacted law, not to the constitutionally prescribed procedures for a bill's enactment.'' Timothy Flanigan, a former assistant attorney general during the Bush administration went further, stating that: This approach avoids the presentment clause problems . . . by doing nothing to alter how an appropriations or spending bill becomes law. It would not alter the presentment process but instead authorizes the President to rescind specific spending items, unless Congress within a certain time acts to approve that particular item. The process established by the Line Item Veto Act is not new. Rather, it is the essential restoration of a budget process that existed prior to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. On the delegation of powers question, just as Gramm-Rudman survived constitutional scrutiny, so shall the Line Item Veto Act. In that case, the courts ruled that appropriations power was not distinguishable from other powers that had been successfully delegated in the past. The court equated Congress' power to appropriate with the power to tax. Taxing power has been successfully delegated in the past. I am confident that the Line Item Veto Act is fully constitutional. Opponents of the line item veto have long argued that any such measure could face constitutional challenges in two key areas. They suggest that a line item veto may violate the presentment clause because a bill no longer would be signed or vetoed in whole, but in part. Secondly, they suggest that the line item veto represents an unconstitutional delegation of Congress' power of the purse. The district court bought into this argument, and the supreme court will now have final say on the question. The Line Item Veto Act clearly meets the presentment clause standard. It does not allow the President to individually veto sections of a bill when it is presented to him. Rather, the act grants the President authority to rescind, or withhold from obligation, spending, as he administers the law. In hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Walter Dellinger, former Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice testified about the line item veto: Unlike Line Item Veto Bills that our office previously found unconstitutional, S. 4 would not violate any aspect of the presentment clause: It would not authorize the president to veto some portions of a bill and also to sign the remaining portions into law. Rather, S. 4 would permit the president to rescind discretionary spending after the enactment of an appropriations act that would remain the law. Such rescission authority would not implicate the specific textual requirements of article I, section 7: It would apply to the administration by the executive of a duly enacted law, not to the constitutionally prescribed procedures for a bill's enactment. Our office has carefully reviewed S. 4 and concluded that it is constitutional. In fact, Timothy Flanigan, former Assistant Attorney General during the Bush Administration, testified that of the various line item veto proposals, enhanced rescission is on the strongest footing constitutionally. A far more promising legislative proposal, S 4, the Dole- McCain-Coats legislative Line Item Veto Act of 1995, is aimed at giving the President greater control over the expenditure of funds. This approach avoids the presentment clause problems by doing nothing to alter how an appropriations or spending bill becomes law. Senator Dole's bill would not alter the presentment process but instead authorizes the President to rescind specific spending items, unless Congress within a certain time acts to approve that particular item. A statute of that type would amount to a restoration to the President of power taken by Congress during the Nixon Presidency in the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Just as the Line Item Veto Act meets the presentment clause challenge, it in no way exceeds Congress' constitutional Authority to delegate its functions to the Executive. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings survived a constitutional challenge. The courts ruled that appropriations power was not functionally distinguishable from other powers that had been successfully delegated in the past. The court noted that Congress' power to appropriate was particularly akin to its power to tax which has been successfully delegated in the past. In 1989, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a plea that Congress' power to tax may not be delegated, the court stated: Article I, section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress. First in place among these enumerated powers is the `power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports and excises . . .' We discern nothing in the placement of the taxing clause that would distinguish Congress' power to tax from its other enumerated powers . . . in terms of the scope and degree of discretionary authority that Congress may delegate to the executive. . . . (Skinner v. MidAmerica Pipeline Co., 109 S. Ct. 1726, 1732, 1733 (1989). Walter Dellenger testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Although [delegation] is a significant constitutional issue, we are confident that the Supreme Court would sustain S. 4 or similar legislation. It is well established that Congress may delegate sweeping discretionary powers to the executive, including powers that related directly to the nation's fiscal policy. For example, Congress may authorize the President to raise or lower tariffs, to set the price of agricultural commodities, or to recover excess wartime profits. Indeed, on only two occasions--both of which occurred nearly sixty years ago--has the Supreme Court struck down a statute on the grounds that it impermissibly delegated power to the President. Timothy Flannigan added, Although this type of bill has previously been attacked on the ground that it would constitute an unconstitutional delegation of congressional power, there is no foundation in the constitution for that claim. The constitution requires that no money be drawn from the treasury except ``in consequence of appropriations made by law,'' (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7), but there is no requirement that the President spend all moneys that are appropriated. Indeed, such a policy would either encourage gross fiscal irresponsibility by the President or would require Congress to micromanage all aspects of Federal procurement. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires either result. [Timonthy Flannigan, Subcommittee of the Constitution, Senate Judiciary Committee, January 17, 1995]. I am confident that the Line Item Veto Act is constitutionally sound and that it will be upheld by the Supreme Court. Let me conclude by stating that I am saddened to be confronted with a resolution that places my principles in conflict with the interest of my State. However, we are entrusted by the people who elected us to make the tough decisions that will ensure the long-term health, security, and fiscal soundness of this great Nation. As such, I cannot support a resolution that continues the fiscal chicanery of the past. Thus I must vote against it, and urge its defeat. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1601, a bill that would end the cloning of human beings. I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor this legislation. Many opponents of the bill will label its supporters as anti- technology, anti-science--seeking to return to the dark days of ages past. Such opponents have conveniently seized on a notion that to ban this emerging technological procedure is to despise all science and progress. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just 80 days ago, two of the primary sponsors of this bill--Senators Frist and Gregg--and I completed three years of intense work on the FDA Modernization Act, whose sole purpose was to advance the health of patients by supporting and promoting the extraordinary, life-saving work of high-technology biotech companies and drug firms. It is too convenient--indeed, it is dishonest--for opponents to charge supporters of this cloning bill with being anti-science, anti-patient. Indeed, we who believe human life to be one of the greatest gifts from our Creator, do not fear the development of science and technology that protects and improves that life. We know only too well of the advances in medicine and vaccines that have dramatically reduced infant deaths. We have held hearings in which extraordinary PET technology can reveal the workings of the prenatal and postnatal brain. We have constituent companies whose fetal bladder stents now save the lives of women and their children, when death used to be a certainty. But to admire, promote, and legislate on behalf of patient-friendly technology, and scientific achievement does not require that we sacrifice all principle or that we abandon caution in the face of serious questions about a particular technology. Few will disagree that cloning presents this country with one of the most disturbing and tantalizing scientific developments in recent time. At once, it presents us with the opportunity to duplicate, triplicate, infinitely replicate the best that the world has to offer; and it presents the threat of too much of a good thing--the loss of individuality and the end of the security and utility inherent in diversity. Indeed, the child is now created in our own image and not God's. It becomes a product of the will and not the receipt of gift. Who can predict the emotional, the psychological, or the spiritual consequences of such a technolgy? Cloning technology, so new to the human experience, indeed considered just ten or fifteen years ago to be practically and scientifically unachievable, has received only scant attention from the most distinguished, thoughtful, and expert-laden institutions in our society. Even today, cloning of humans is still considered only a remote possibility by means as yet untested and only barely imaginable. Because it differs so dramatically from in vitro fertilization and other methods of reproduction, we can scarcely begin to set forth some of the practical consequences: a reduction in genetic diversity, long considered essential to the species; an increase in deformities in the child. The possibilities are numerous and unexplored. Proponents of cloning argue that in the face of these possibilities, caution is required. But while cloning proponents call for caution that protects experimentation, the better course is caution that protects the developing human embryos that are inevitably created by such technology. How in good conscience can we wait for the practical and ethical complications of cloning to develop--to wait for Dr. Richard Seed to use methods that unavoidably involve the destruction of living human embryos? Perhaps in the meantime research on animal cloning will result in the cloning technology that can be used to develop human cell lines or tissue that is not derived from a developing human embryo or does not result first in the creation of such an embryo. Again, until that day, caution is required--caution in defense of life. S. 1601 ensures that the least among us receive our full recognition and protection as members of human society. I urge passage of S. 1601.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, over the past 3 weeks or so, Independent Counsel Ken Starr has been the subject of a sustained attack by individuals speaking on behalf of the President. Judging by some of these statements, it seems there is little that the President's surrogates are unwilling to say about Judge Starr. The objective of these comments seems clear--to undermine public confidence in the very legal processes designed to assure public integrity in the White House. In an extraordinary televised interview, the First Lady accused the independent counsel of being ``politically motivated'' by an investigation of the Monica Lewinsky matter and part of a ``vast right- wing conspiracy'' to bring down the President. Other Presidential advisors have also taken to the airwaves, attacking Kenneth Starr as a ``scumbag,'' and ``merchant of sleaze.'' One of these advisors went so far as to declare war on Judge Starr and the Office of the Independent Counsel. Now these tactics bring to mind the old adage known to every trial lawyer in the country: When you have the facts, argue the facts; when you have the law, argue the law; and when you have neither the facts nor the law, go after the prosecutor, go after the witnesses, go after the accuser, attack their credibility. Yesterday in the Wall Street Journal in an editorial entitled ``Spinning Starr,'' the editors state: Events of recent days suggest that an analysis by Mr. Clinton's legal team has concluded that their strongest strategy is not to meet on the battlefield of facts and law, but to conduct a political offensive against the independent counsel and his staff. No matter what opposition they've encountered--Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey, Fred Thompson, Judge Royce Lamberth--the Clinton side has always chosen the same strategy of stonewalling, smash-mouth lawyering. Madam President, for those of us who know Ken Starr and have watched and appreciated his distinguished career, the picture painted of this man by the President's people is virtually unrecognizable. The President's people have asked us to forget Kenneth Starr's exemplary personal character, his service as the Nation's Solicitor General, and his tenure in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The President's people have asked us to forget the reputation he has gained for fairness and balance and good judgment that he earned through working with the Justice Department. The President's people have asked us to forget the unpopular chances he took in defending freedom of the press and freedom of religion during his tenure as a Federal judge. And most of all, the President's people have asked us to forget that Kenneth Starr has brought to the independent counsel's office the cautious, deliberative mind of a judge and not the zeal of a prosecutor. The President's attack machine has left us not with a caricature of Ken Starr but with a smudge: Kenneth Starr, right-wing conspirator, partisan prosecutor, Republican hack. Madam President, there is too much hanging in the balance of this investigation to permit these attacks on Judge Starr's character and reputation to go unchallenged. The fact is that even some of Kenneth Starr's most committed ideological opponents have in earlier times painted a very different picture of the man who is now at the receiving end of so much of the Clinton fury. Some of you may have heard of Walter Dellinger. He is a professor of law at Duke University, a liberal democrat and the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel under Attorney General Janet Reno. When Kenneth Starr was chosen as independent counsel, Professor Dellinger said, ``I have known Ken Starr since he was one of my students at Duke Law School and I have always known him to be a fair-minded person.'' An official with the American Civil Liberties Union said of Starr's appointment, ``I'd rather have him investigate me than almost anyone I could think of.'' Alan Morrison, the cofounder of Public Citizen Litigation Group told Time magazine last week that the idea of Kenneth Starr as a right-wing avenger is ``not the Ken Starr I know.'' When Democrats criticized Judge Starr's appointment as politically inspired, five former presidents of the American Bar Association refused to call for his resignation, citing their ``Utmost confidence in his integrity and his objectivity.'' Just last week, Robert Bork, one of the sternest critics of the independent counsel law, wrote that the Office of the Independent Counsel ``requires but does not always get an independent counsel of moral strength and judicial temperament. Kenneth Starr is just such a prosecutor * * * He has conducted himself professionally and without a credible hint of partisanship.'' The worlds of Kenneth Starr and the Clinton White House are completely different. The independent counsel has a reputation for integrity and fairness. He is temperate by nature and has been criticized by his own staff as being deliberative to a fault. Kenneth Starr regards justice not as a matter of winning or losing but as a search for the truth. Madam President, if there is ever a time when we need an impartial independent search for the truth, this is that time. A great deal does hang in the balance. We have important decisions to make relative to foreign policy of this Nation and the domestic policy of this Nation. It is important that we be able to rest credibility and trust in the Office of the Presidency. It is important that we elicit the facts and the truth relative to the allegations swirling around the President and the White House at this particular time. I can think of no fairer minded nor nonpartisan, capable individual than the current independent prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, and I think it would be appropriate if all of us let him do his job. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank you for trading places with me so that I could come down and make remarks regarding the nomination. First of all, I want to commend the Senator for conducting what I think is an informative and factual and civil debate on this very important nomination. We have over the past several years had some very controversial Surgeon General discussions and debates on this floor. The previous Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, was controversial, to say the least, and resigned after one of her more controversial actions. Then, subsequent to that, one of the nominees for that position failed to achieve majority support in the U.S. Senate and withdrew his name. So that is the position that has been open for some time. Earlier, Mr. President, a speaker on the floor said that those who oppose this nomination never mentioned the experience and the qualifications and the life experiences of Dr. Satcher--his help for children, women, and the poor and disadvantaged. That is not true, at least in my experience, having been in the Chair for the last hour and a half. I think each speaker I have heard has acknowledged Dr. Satcher's fairly remarkable life experience in terms of providing help to people; in terms of dedicating his life to advancing the cause of medicine. He is an engaging person. He is a fine person with a history of achievements at the institutions for which he has worked. My personal meetings with him in my office have been cordial and informative, and his presentation before the Labor and Human Resources Committee on which I sit was also one of cordiality and civility. But, Mr. President, those are not just the qualifications for someone to occupy the position of Surgeon General. Cordiality and life experiences in the ability to be, as someone said and I have said on previous occasions, the Nation's doctor are important qualifications but there are other criteria by which I believe it is important Members make the determination. I cannot speak for other Members. They can and will speak for themselves. However, I can state to the Senate and to the people I represent why I intend to cast my vote tomorrow in opposition to the nomination of Dr. Satcher. It is based on the committee hearings we have had. It is based on the answers to questions that I personally proposed to Dr. Satcher. My opposition is based on his answers to some of the questions I have raised during meetings which I have conducted in my office. Other Members have spoken on issues that have been of concern to me--his involvement and his role in the AIDS trials in Africa, his support for needle exchange programs, his inability to state clearly the relative importance of abstinence by children and avoiding drug use by teens. I will leave further details of those issues to others. The Senator from Missouri has already touched on some of those, as have others. Each of those matters could be potentially disqualifying. The accumulation of those matters could be disqualifying. But for me ultimately my opposition to the nominee is based on his support for a practice that I consider indefensible, partial-birth abortion, a practice which we now know is brutal killing of a living child who has been partially delivered from the mother. Some have claimed that the nominee has not in fact stated that he opposes legislation to ban this practice, and he made that statement to me. But I need to read from the following exchange of the nominee with my office as was printed in the hearing record and available on the committee's web site. Mr. COATS. Please indicate, Dr. Satcher, whether you support the President's recent veto of legislation regulating partial-birth abortion. Dr. Satcher's brief but critical reply: I support the President's position. Mr. President, I cannot support someone who supports that position. Some have claimed that they expect the nominee won't do anything to further advance the President's position on this question. But it is precisely on a matter so crucial to defining who we are as a nation and who we are as a people that I expect, and the qualifying criteria for me, is that our Nation's doctor show some independence and integrity on this question. I can understand why a nominee feels compelled to ``support the President's position.'' But this is a matter of such fundamental importance, of such defining importance that I believe each has to speak their own moral conscience on the matter and come to their own conclusion regardless of the political consequences or any other implications. Whether or not you will be an advocate or not an advocate for a position is not the criteria. The question is, what is your position on this, the most critical of all and the most defining of all issues, the issue of life itself. By supporting a procedure that I personally consider infanticide, this nominee has in fact joined forces with those who would create questions about whether or not that is the case, who supports without qualification a radical procedure that is not justifiable in any case except to save the life of the mother, and we have heard testimony from witness after witness, medical provider after medical provider, expert after expert, that it has never been the case that it is necessary to utilize the procedure of partial-birth abortion to save the life of the mother. It is a grotesque practice. It has been described in this Chamber. It is not justifiable for any medical reasons, and yet that is the reason why it is defined here. Mr. President, we need a Nation's doctor who unequivocally stands for, speaks for, advocates life itself, the sacredness of life itself and who will not hedge that qualification with an answer that simply says, I support the position of the President. Whether that person privately supports that position or not is irrelevant. That person is a public figure. The Surgeon General is the doctor to whom the Nation looks for advice and counsel on medical matters. He speaks, he advocates for those issues, and that someone says on this issue, I simply support the President's position, is unacceptable to this Senator because the President's position is unacceptable to this Senator. So for that reason, Mr. President, I oppose this nomination and intend to do so when we vote tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we were privileged to be led in our opening prayer today by Reverend Dr. Neal Jones, a fancy title for some of us who know him as ``Pastor Jones.'' I think ``pastor'' is probably the most affectionate and endearing term that anyone can come up with in terms of someone that they feel close to and have had a relationship with. People know the Reverend Dr. Neal Jones as Pastor Jones because of his dedicated service as pastor of Columbia Baptist Church in Falls Church, Virginia, for many, many years. He has been pastor to me and my family, the majority leader and his family, the President pro tempore and his family, and others of our colleagues in both the Senate and the House. ``Pastor'' is the appropriate word because of his love and his affection and his endearment that he has displayed toward us and our families. And we feel exactly the same way about him. Dr. Jones is a graduate of Texas Christian University, and Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary. He has been pastor of churches in Texas, but the primary focus of his ministry has been with Columbia Baptist Church in Falls Church, Virginia going back as far as March of 1969. He is currently retired. It is a loss to the people who have attended faithfully over the years Columbia Baptist Church. But, again, to his dear wife, Betty, and his family and his grandchildren, and the many organizations that he has been associated with and continues to be associated with--I will just name two of those: He is a member of the University Board of Regents at Baylor University in Texas, and has been on the Executive Board of Prison Fellowship from its very inception. Reverend Jones has a gift of prayer, and, as we heard this morning, an eloquence in prayer. I hope someday, if he has not already, that he will publish those prayers because they are exceptional. And he also has the gift of remembering those with whom he has come in contact with. Every once in a while I will receive a note with a prayer attached to it personalized to me and to our family, ``Just thinking of you, wanted to share this thought, your friend, Neal.'' I think that speaks as much about Neal Jones as anything else that I can say. I think the Senate is privileged and the Nation is privileged this morning to have had him lead us in our opening prayer. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Arizona in introducing legislation directing the Congressional Research Service to make available, on-line, CRS Reports, Issue Briefs, and more comprehensive CRS reports on federal authorizations and appropriations. CRS is funded with over $64 million in taxpayer money every year and produces perhaps the most prolific and quality research available on policy and legislative issues. In making available information and materials that are used every day by Members and their staffs in developing policy initiatives and legislation, we will be opening a more informed relationship between the American people and the Congress that serves them. Beyond the tremendous value of informing the American people on the issues before their Congress, this legislation will help to shine some light on the federal government, allowing the American people to see the documents which influence the decision-making process. Mr. President, FDR once said that, ``The only bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interest of the people, and people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government.'' At a time when public cynicism about government is at an all-time high, when government has encroached upon virtually every aspect of our daily lives, this statement is particularly poignant. As I have stated, CRS information briefs play a critical role in assisting Members of Congress in policy development and the legislative process. By making these products readily available to the American people, who pay for them, we hold out the promise of demystifying a legislative process that has become so complex and arcane that many Americans have simply tuned out. Mr. President, more than ever, information is power. It is my hope that the effect of this legislation will be to give a better informed public more power over their government. My intention today is to keep my remarks short. As this legislation moves through the process, I will ask my colleagues to indulge me with more time to discuss the bill in detail. I would like to commend Senator McCain for his leadership on this issue, and to ask my colleagues for their support in this effort to make the Congress more accessible to the people. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Arizona in introducing legislation directing the Congressional Research Service to make available, on-line, CRS Reports, Issue Briefs, and more comprehensive CRS reports on federal authorizations and appropriations. CRS is funded with over $64 million in taxpayer money every year and produces perhaps the most prolific and quality research available on policy and legislative issues. In making available information and materials that are used every day by Members and their staffs in developing policy initiatives and legislation, we will be opening a more informed relationship between the American people and the Congress that serves them. Beyond the tremendous value of informing the American people on the issues before their Congress, this legislation will help to shine some light on the federal government, allowing the American people to see the documents which influence the decision-making process. Mr. President, FDR once said that, ``The only bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interest of the people, and people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government.'' At a time when public cynicism about government is at an all-time high, when government has encroached upon virtually every aspect of our daily lives, this statement is particularly poignant. As I have stated, CRS information briefs play a critical role in assisting Members of Congress in policy development and the legislative process. By making these products readily available to the American people, who pay for them, we hold out the promise of demystifying a legislative process that has become so complex and arcane that many Americans have simply tuned out. Mr. President, more than ever, information is power. It is my hope that the effect of this legislation will be to give a better informed public more power over their government. My intention today is to keep my remarks short. As this legislation moves through the process, I will ask my colleagues to indulge me with more time to discuss the bill in detail. I would like to commend Senator McCain for his leadership on this issue, and to ask my colleagues for their support in this effort to make the Congress more accessible to the people. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask that I may speak in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. COATS. I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 3 p.m. under the same terms as previously ordered.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, on Tuesday of this week, our Nation celebrated Veterans Day. I had the pleasure of returning to Indiana and talking to some of our veterans and speaking to an important group about the meaning of Veterans Day and the contributions veterans have made to our country and their sacrifices. We honor Americans on that day, both men and women, who served in both peace and war, as watchmen and women on the wall of freedom. We honor them by remembering their heroism, passing stories of their character and courage from generation to generation. It is disappointing and extremely unfortunate that in this very same week the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Ms. Sara Lister, made some remarks to a group to whom she was speaking at Harvard, referring to members of the U.S. Marine Corps as ``extremists.'' I quote her. She says the Marines are ``extremists. Wherever you have extremists, you've got some risks of total disconnection with society. And that's a little dangerous.'' Now, subsequently, Ms. Lister has penned a letter of apology to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Krulak, in which she says it's unfortunate that my remarks were taken out of context. It's unfortunate that they were misinterpreted. Now, all of us in the business of politics have had occasion to pick up the paper in the morning and seen our remarks taken out of context and be misinterpreted. So I appreciate that this sort of thing often takes place. I truly hope that in this case these remarks were taken out of context and that they were misinterpreted. I am concerned that they were not. I have asked for a tape or transcript of the presentation by Ms. Lister at the Harvard group so that I can understand the context. It is not really understandable or discernible at this particular point. I am disturbed that one of our top civilian appointees at the Pentagon could make such a statement. It is hard for me to construct any context in which the use of the word ``extremism,'' and the phrase a ``total disconnection between our society'' and the U.S. Marine Corps is appropriate. I don't understand in what context that could be presented that would explain the use of those remarks and the statement that this is a ``dangerous'' situation. And so I rise today to raise serious questions about the continued leadership of Ms. Lister as Assistant Secretary of the Army. By her remarks, she has offended not only the 174,000 active duty members of the Marine Corps but the 2.1 million Marine Corps veterans and, frankly, all Americans. The Marine Corps teaches truths and convictions which are becoming more rare in today's society, and it is the continuity of these values in the Marine Corps which has produced men and women of character and honor who are ready and willing to sacrifice their lives in defense of their country. I would commend to Ms. Lister a piece which appeared in the Sunday Parade magazine, probably in most Sunday papers across our country. It featured a very insightful story of recruits in the Marine Corps and what we can learn from the Marine Corps. The article correctly shows that the Marine Corps teaches and trains young people important values. If these values are extremism, then I suggest that is what we need more of in this country. Let me just quote a few things from the article. In a society that seems to have trouble transmitting healthy values, the Marines stand out as a successful institution that unabashedly teaches those values . . . For the first time in their lives, many encountered absolute standards; tell the truth. Don't give up. Don't whine. Look out for the group before you look out for yourself. Always do your best . . . Judge others by their actions, not their words or their race. . . Don't pursue happiness; pursue excellence. Make a habit of that, and you can have a fulfilling life. The recruits learned that money isn't the measure of a man; that a person's real wealth is in his character. The recruits generally seemed to find race relations less of an issue at boot camp than in the neighborhoods they'd left behind. The author of the article goes on to say: If America were more like the Marines, argued a recruit from New Jersey, there would be less crime, less racial tension among people, because Marine Corps discipline is all about brotherhood. With their emphasis on honor, courage and commitment, they offer a powerful alternative to the loneliness and distrust that seem so widespread, especially among our youth. Well, Mr. President, if those values are a disconnect from American society, then it is not the Marine Corps that is in deep trouble. It is American society that is in deep trouble. These are the values to which we should be aspiring. I think under the leadership of General Krulak-- and the tradition and the history of the Marines--the Marine Corps has demonstrated a continuing commitment to values to which we should all aspire. General Krulak responded to Ms. Lister's remarks--I will just briefly quote that--by saying that ``honor, courage and commitment are not extreme.'' Mr. President, as I said, I hope that these comments were taken out of context. I hope that they were misinterpreted. Again, I cannot conceive of a context in which they would be considered as appropriate. The use of the term ``extremists'', the statement that the Marine Corps is disconnected from American society reflects, unfortunately, an attitude and a belief about the Marine Corps and perhaps about others in uniform that is inappropriate for an Assistant Secretary of Defense. I note that Ms. Lister earlier had announced that at some point she was going to retire from her position. Perhaps it wouldn't be too early for her to think about accelerating that retirement so that the position could be turned over to someone who is able to present his thoughts in a better context, in a way that will not be misinterpreted. Perhaps then we will not have this difficult explanation of why one of our most honorable branches of military service has been labeled in such a way. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 12, 1997, at 10 a.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on the Copyright Office report on compulsory licensing of broadcast signals. subcommittee on readiness

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, November 12, 1997, in open session, to receive testimony on military training and readiness impact of the protocols to the framework convention on climate change.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 12, 1997, at 2 p.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on judicial nominations. committee on the judiciary

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Thursday, November 13. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, immediately following the opening prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, for the benefit of our colleagues, tomorrow the Senate will be in a period of morning business from 10 a.m. until 11 a.m. It is hoped that during tomorrow's session of the Senate, the Senate will be able to complete its business for the first session of the 105th Congress. As Members are aware, the Senate is awaiting House completion of the appropriations process. As previously announced, Members will be notified as to if or when rollcall votes will be necessary during Thursday's session. If votes are necessary, they will be scheduled within a 4-hour time span. In addition, Members are reminded that there are a number of legislative and executive items that may be cleared prior to Senate adjournment, therefore, Members' cooperation is greatly appreciated in conjunction with that process.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order. Thereupon, the Senate, at 2:36 p.m., adjourned until Thursday, November 13, 1997, at 10 a.m. 

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. We have had some interesting exchanges of ideas.

Mr. COATS. Reserving the right to object, I don't intend to object, but I know there is an effort underway to try and bring the omnibus appropriations bill forward and I know a lot of Members are waiting around so they can take that vote. In fact, I was discussing that. This isn't my call, but I ask the Senator if he could withhold until we can get some understanding of when that vote might be. It might be that it won't come before the Senator's 20 minutes, but if we add time here, 20 minutes there, and an additional 20 minutes, it could delay past the time when they now have commitments. I want to make sure we check that out.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank Senator Grams for his answer. Is this provision intended to limit the Mint's choice of technology in the development of the dollar coin? For instance, could the Mint choose a plated coin rather than a clad coin?