Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

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

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?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, during Senate consideration of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 I, along with Senator James Exon, introduced an amendment to the Act which came to be known as the Communications Decency Act or CDA. This amendment held forth a basic principle, that children should be sheltered from obscene and indecent pornography. There was spirited debate on the amendment. However, ultimately the Senate adopted the CDA by an overwhelming margin of 84 to 16. On the very day that the President signed the Telecommunications Act into law, the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Library Association, along with America On-Line and other representatives of the computer industry, filed a law suit against the CDA in District Court. In short, the case ultimately came before the Supreme Court, where it was struck down. Mr. President, however much I disagree with the ruling of the Supreme Court, it is reality and as such, I have studied the opinion of the Court and come before my colleagues today to introduce legislation that reflects the parameters laid out by the Court's opinion. Mr. President, during Congressional consideration of the CDA, opponents of the measure took what I like to call an ostrich approach. They stuck their head in the sand and their rear end in the air. With companies like America on Line and Microsoft in the forefront, there came an indignant claim from the computer industry that there was no problem with pornography on the Internet. They claimed that there was very little pornography, and that what exists is difficult to find. However incredulous, this is what they claimed. Well, Mr. President, this ostrich appears to have extricated its head from the sand. For after the Supreme Court's ruling, the computer industry, along with so-called civil liberties groups, gathered for a White House summit to address the issue of pornography on the net, and what could be done about it. There are now panels and working groups, media discussions and industry alternatives all designed to address this problem of the proliferation of pornography on the Internet and the threat it poses to our children. Mr. President, let me congratulate the computer industry, and welcome them to the real world. And what is this real world? Mr. President, I turn now to the February 10 edition of U.S. News and World Report. The cover story is entitled, ``The Business of Porn.'' The article outlines in rather disturbing clarity the issue of pornography in America. ``Last year'' it states, ``America spent more than $8 billion on hard-core videos, peep shows, live sex acts, adult cable programming, sexual devices, computer porn, and sex magazines--an amount much larger than Hollywood's domestic box office receipts and larger than all the revenues generated by rock and country music recordings. Americans now spend more money at strip clubs than at Broadway, off-broadway, regional, and nonprofit theaters; at the opera, the ballet, and jazz and classical music performances combined.'' This is truly alarming, and reflects poorly on the moral direction of the country. And, Mr. President, as the Internet continues to grow as a medium of communication and commerce in our society, its role in expanding the commerce of pornography increases exponentially. The Article goes on to say that: ``In much the same way that hard- core films on videocassette were largely responsible for the rapid introduction of the VCR, porn on and CD-ROM and on the Internet has hastened acceptance of these new technologies. Interactive adult CD- ROMS, such as Virtual Valarie and the Penthouse Photo Shoot, create interest in multimedia equipment among male computer buyers.'' It goes on: ``Porn companies have established elaborate Web sites to lure customers . . . Playboy's web site, which offers free glimpses of its Playmates, now averages about 5 million hits a day.'' The Article quotes Larry Flint, who says he ``imagines a future in which the TV and the personal computer have merged. Americans will lie in bed, cruising the Internet with their remote controls and ordering hard-core films at the punch of a button. The Internet promises to combine the video store's diversity of choices with the secrecy of purchases through the mail.'' Mr. President, there has been a virtual explosion of commerce in pornography on the Internet. Adult book stores, live peep shows, adult movies, you name it and it is there. It is available, Mr. President, not just to adults, but to children. And what does the computer industry, the ACLU, and the American Library Association tout as a solution to this problem? They tout self- ratings systems and blocking software. Opponents of the CDA, companies like America On-Line, the ACLU, the American Library Association, Larry Flint, have argued that there is no role for government in protecting children, that the Internet can regulate itself. The primary solution these people promote is system called PICs (Platform for Internet Content Selection), a type of self-ratings system. This would allow the pornographer to rate his own page, and browsers, the tool used to search the Internet, would then respond to these ratings. Aside from the ludicrous proposition of allowing the pornographer to self-rate, Mr. President, there is no incentive for compliance. I now turn to an editorial by writers in PC Week Magazine, a very prominent voice in the computer industry. The editorial is titled: ``Web Site Ratings--Shame on Most of Us.'' The column discusses the lack of voluntary compliance by content providers with the PICs system: ``We and many others in the computer industry and press have decried the Communications Decency Act and other government attempts to regulate the content of the Web. Instead, we've all argued, the government should let the Web rate and regulate its own content. Page ratings and browsers that respond to those ratings, not legislation, are the answers we've offered.'' The article goes on, ``Too bad we left the field before the game was over.'' the article says, ``We who work around the Web have done little to rate our content.'' it states that, in a search of the Web, they found ``few rated sites.'' And that rated sites were the ``exception to the rule'' In other words, PICs does not work. It does not work, because there is no incentive for pornographers to comply. And what about blocking software? Mr. President, let me begin by pointing out the amazing level of deceit that proponents of this solution are willing to go to. The American Library Association, a principal opponent of the CDA, lined up with plaintiffs in challenging the Constitutionality of the Act. It was a central argument of the Library Association and their cohorts, that blocking software presented a non-governmental solution to the problem. However, Mr. President, if one logs onto the American Library Association Web site one finds quite a surprise. Contained on the site is a resolution, adopted by the ALA Council on July 2, 1997, that resolves: ``That the American Library Association affirms that the use of filtering software by libraries to block access . . . violates the Library Bill of Rights.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this Resolution be inserted into the Record. So, here we find the true agenda of the American Library Association. They represent to the Court that everything is O.K., that all we need is blocking software. Then, they turn around and implement a policy that says no-way. And what are the implications? I quote now from a February 12, 1997 article in the Boston Herald. ``John Hunt, a parent from Dorchester, said he was furious to learn his 11-year-old daughter was able to view pornography yesterday while working on a school essay at the BPL's Copley Square branch.'' The article goes on: ``She said all the boys were around the computer and they were laughing and called the girls over to look at the pictures of naked people,'' Hunt said. ``I want to find out from these library officials what is going on.'' The article goes on to tell the story of another parent, Susan Sullivan who said she was stunned when her 10-year-old son spent the afternoon researching a book report on the computer in the BPL's Adams Street branch, but ended up looking through explicit photographs instead. Ms. Sullivan says: ``I'm very, very upset because I have no idea what he saw on the screen. He said he was using the Internet to do a book report on Indians and he was able to access dirty pictures, pictures of naked people.'' When the library spokesman was asked about parent's concerns, he dismissed them saying, ``We do have children's librarians but we do not have Internet police.'' So here is the genuine concern of the American Library Association for children and their genuine support for blocking software as a solution. Again, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be made part of the record. However, Mr. President, this is a side issue. As I pointed out earlier, in the case of the computer industry, deceit and denial are tactics regularly employed by opponents of real child protections. The fact is, Mr. President, that the software does not work. In fact, it is particularly dangerous because it creates a false sense of security for parents, teachers, and children. I have here a transcript from Morning Edition on National Public Radio. It is from the September 12, 1997 program. The host, Brooke Gladstone is interviewing a 12-year-old named Jack. Ms. Gladstone asks Jack what he does when he bumps up against Net Nanny, a popular blocking software program. Jack replies: ``You go to hacking sites such as the Undernet, which is a site which you pay money to go a member{sic}. And then, after that, you have full access to all these hacking, cracking and phreaking and credit card fraud and all these other tools.'' Ms. Gladstone then asks Jack if kids use these services. Jack replies: ``A lot. I mean, you have kids at school who bring in 3.5 inch disks saying hey, buddy, come here. I'll sell you this disk for $10 dollars. There's all the hacking stuff you'll ever need. Ms. Gladstone then goes on to discuss with Jack how he made money down-loading pornography and selling it to his school-mates, making $30. Jack describes the various methods by which he defeats the blocking software his parents have installed. Later in the interview, Ms. Gladstone interviews Jay Friedland, founder of Surf Watch, another well-hyped blocking software program. Mr. Friedland readily concedes that his software can be broken, even describing the ways to hack the program. In describing the security his product offers parents, he says: ``It's a little bit like suntan lotion. It allows you to stay out in the sun longer, but you can still get sunburnt.'' Mr. President, this does not sound very reassuring to me. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this article be inserted into the Record at the appropriate place. The bottom line here is money. There are millions upon millions of dollars being made on the Internet in the pornography business. There is even more money being made marketing software to terrified parents, software that does not work. Let's look at the situation. You have the computer industry working to defeat laws designed to prohibit distribution of pornography to children. The solution that they promote is blocking software, manufactured by themselves. They are making tens- of-millions of dollars off of it. However, what we find out is that the software doesn't work. And all the while, you have companies like America On- Line out there, head in the sand, telling parents, schools, Congress, and the American public that there isn't a problem with pornography on the Internet. And the Internet Access Providers are pulling in the big bucks, providing access to the red light district. ``The Erotic Allure of Home Schooling,'' that is the name of an article, published in the September 8 edition of Fortune Magazine. Mr. President, I have long been an advocate of home schooling. But, I must confess that its erotic allure has never been one of my motivations. It begins: ``Here's one of the Web's dirtiest words: Mars. Try searching for sites about the red planet lately, and you could land on a porn purveyor's on-line playground. What next?'' the article asks, ``Smut linked to the keywords`home schooling'? Don't look now--it's already happened.'' The article goes on: ``Perverse as these connections seem, they're right out of Economics 101, specifically the part about competition. Pornography sites are among the Web's few big moneymakers. There are thousands of them, from the R-rated to the boundlessly perverse. They compete furiously, and their main battleground for market share is search engines like Yahoo, Lycos, Excite, and Infoseek. Web surfers looking for porn typically tap into such search services and use keywords like ``sex'' and ``XXX.'' But so many on- line sex shops now display those words that their presence won't make a site stand out in a list resulting from a user's query. To get noticed, pornographers increasingly try to trick search engines into giving them top billing-- sometimes called `spoofing'.'' The article points out that: ``Search engine companies like Infoseek constantly develop new filters to defeat spoofing. But calls still come in from irate mothers and grade-school teachers who click on innocent- looking search results and find themselves on a page too exotic to mention.'' The article concludes: ``The Clinton Administration is encouraging efforts based on`voluntary restraint.' That's a lot to ask in the Web's open bazaar, where market share is the name of the game.'' I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this article be inserted in the record at the appropriate place. Mr. President, it is not just a lot to ask. It is foolish and futile to ask. The bottom line is that, unless commercial distributors of pornography are met with the force of law, they will not act responsibly. I am here today to introduce legislation that will provide just such force of law. As I stated in my opening comments, the legislation I introduce today is designed to accommodate the concerns of the Supreme Court. This legislation is specifically targeted at the commercial distribution of materials harmful to minors on the World Wide Web. It states simply that ``Whoever in interstate or foreign commerce in or through the World Wide Web is engaged in the business of the commercial distribution of material that is harmful to minors shall restrict access to such material by persons under 17 years of age.'' It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the defendant restricted access to such material by requiring use of a verified credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number. The bill also calls upon the FCC to prescribe alternative procedures. The FCC is expressly restricted from regulation of the Internet, or Internet Speech. Further, the FCC and the Justice Department are directed to post on their Web sites information as is necessary to inform the public of the meaning of the term ``harmful to minors.'' As I know that it will be of some concern to my colleagues that any legislation dealing with this topic takes into account the Supreme Court's ruling in the CDA, I would like to take some time now to examine the key precedents which the Court considered in its opinion on the CDA and how they relate to this bill. Central to the construction of this legislation is the Ginsberg case. This Court ruling upheld the constitutionality of a New York statute that prohibited the selling to minors under 17 years of age material that was considered obscene as to them even if not obscene as to adults. In Ginsberg, the Court rejected the defendant's argument that ``the scope of the constitutional freedom of expression secured to a citizen to read or see material concerned with sex cannot be made to depend on whether the citizen is an adult or a minor.'' In Ginsberg, the Court relied on both the state's interest in protecting the well-being of children, but also on the principle that ``the parent's claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their own children is basic in the structure of our society.'' In the Court's opinion on the CDA, they laid out four differences between the CDA and the question contained in the Ginsberg case. As you will see, the legislation I introduce today carefully addresses each of these concerns. First, the Court points out that in the New York statute examined in Ginsberg, ``the prohibition against sales to minors does not bar parents who so desire from purchasing the magazines for their children.'' The Court interpreted the CDA to prohibit such activity. Though I must confess to my colleagues that I find it a disturbing proposition that a parent should so desire to purchase pornographic material for their children's consumption, it seems that this is a right that this Court feels compelled to protect. The legislation I introduce today places no restriction on a parent's right to purchase such material, and to provide it to their children, or anyone else. In fact, it places no restriction on any potential consumer of pornography. Rather, it simply requires the commercial purveyor of pornography to cast their message in such a way as not to be readily available to children. The Court's second issue relating to the Ginsberg case is that the New York statute applied only to commercial transactions. As I have previously stated, my legislation deals only with commercial transactions. Third, the Court points out that in Ginsberg, the New York statute combined its definition of harmful to minors with the requirement that it be ``utterly without redeeming social importance for minors.'' The Court goes on to express that the CDA omits any requirement that the material covered in the statute lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This concern is addressed directly in my legislation, with a specific plank of the definition of harmful to minors requiring that the material in question ``lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.'' Mr. President, I do not believe that it is possible to address a concern more directly. Finally, the Court states that the New York statute considered in Ginsberg defined a minor as a person under the age of 17, whereas the CDA applied to children under the age of 18, citing concern that by extending protection to those under 18, the CDA reached ``those nearest the majority.'' Mr. President, here again I am confused my the rationale of the Court. For it is common practice in federal statute to recognize minors as those under the age of 18 years. However, the legislation I introduce today contains the same under 17 requirement established under Ginsberg. The second case of importance as relates to the Supreme Court ruling on the CDA is the Pacifica case. Though the specifics of this case are well- known to most by now, a summary might be helpful. In the Pacifica case, the Supreme Court upheld a declaratory order of the FCC relating to the broadcast of a recording of a monologue entitled ``Filthy Words.'' The Commission found that the use of certain words referring to excretory or sexual activities or organs ``in an afternoon broadcast when children are in the audience was patently offensive'' and thus inappropriate for broadcast. In considering the precedent established in Pacifica, and their relationship to the CDA, the Court outlined 3 concerns. First, the Court stated that, unlike in Pacifica where the content in question was regulated as to the time it was broadcast, the CDA made no such distinction. Further, the Court makes a rather curious distinction in stating that the regulation in question in the Pacifica case had been promulgated by an agency with ``decades'' of experience in regulating the medium. On the first point, the regulation of Internet content in the context of time is irrelevant, as a child may access or be inadvertently exposed to pornography any time he or she logs onto the Internet. That could be in the evening, when doing a research paper, or during class-- working on an assignment, or at the public library. The simple fact that a child runs the risk of exposure any time presents a more substantial potential for harm than the time regulation approach approved in Pacifica, and calls for a higher level of control, not lower as the Court concluded. On the question of regulation by an agency with decades of experience, given the fact that the Internet is a very new medium of communication, it is a rather ludicrous distinction to make. No agency, short of the Defense Department, could demonstrate the historical relationship to the Internet that the FCC can with broadcast radio. Surely the Supreme Court would not advocate Defense Department regulation of the Internet. Further, given the concern among supporters of the Internet regarding government regulation of the medium, it would seem preferable to have a clearly defined statute, enforced by the Justice Department, as opposed to a regulatory regime, which would be enforced by an unaccountable federal agency and subject to bureaucratic creep. During debate and negotiations on passage of the CDA, opponents raised strong concerns that the FCC not be given any regulatory authority over the Internet. It was this opposition to a regulatory solution that resulted in a very restricted agency roll. Though the FCC is expressly prohibited from regulating content under the legislation I introduce today, a specific provision is made for the FCC to prescribe a method of restricting access that would function as an affirmative defense to prosecution. As such, this legislation provides the benefit and flexibility of an evolving agency regulation, whereby as technology evolved and new and more effective means of access restriction emerge, the Commission could modify the regulation, without the creation of a regulatory regime with expansive FCC authority over the Internet and speech. The Court goes on to point out that in Pacifica, the Commission's declaratory order was not punitive, whereas there were penalties under the CDA. Here, it is important to distinguish the difference in scope between this legislation and the CDA. A principal concern of the Court with the CDA, was that the CDA dealt with both commercial and non-commercial communications. As such, the cost and technology burdens necessary to restrict access that would be imposed by the CDA on non-commercial speakers, according to the opinion of the Court, would be prohibitive. The result would be, in the Opinion of the Court, that speech would be chilled. The legislation I introduce today is strictly limited to the commercial distribution of pornography on the World Wide Web. The commercial distributors of pornography on the Web already use the very mechanisms (credit cards and PIN numbers) that are required under this bill. The difference between the status quo and this bill is that pornography distributors would be required to cease to give away the freebies that any child with a mouse could gain access to. As such, Court concerns regarding the potential chilling effect to non-commercial speech that they perceived under the CDA is moot. The scope of this legislation does not extend to the non-commercial speaker. Secondly, this legislation imposes no new technological or economic burden on the commercial operator. It simply imposes a control on the manner of distribution and provides penalties for violations. Mr. President, there is a long tradition of fines and penalties for violations of laws governing the commercial distribution of pornography. This legislation is simply a continuation of these principles. In fact, the very treatment of fines in penalties under this legislation, mirrors those under dial-a-porn, which have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Finally, under an examination of Pacifica, the Court points out the differences between the level of First Amendment protection extended to broadcast and the Internet. Mr. President, I must say that however much I differ with the opinion of the Court on this question in general, I would simply point out that the harmful to minors standard has traditionally been used, and has been constitutionally upheld, as a standard for regulating print media. Print media is extended the highest level of First Amendment protection. As such, this legislation clearly accounts for the Supreme Court's concerns in this area. The Court also examines the precedents established under Renton. The Renton case dealt with a zoning ordinance that kept adult movie theaters out of residential neighborhoods. It did so based on the ``secondary effects'' of the theaters--such as crime and deteriorating property values. It was the Court's opinion that the CDA treated the entire universe of cyberspace rather than specific areas or zones. Further, the Court seemed preoccupied that the CDA dealt with the primary, not the secondary effects of pornography. The legislation I introduce today deals with a narrow zone of the Internet, commercial activity on the World Wide Web. Though there is tremendous economic activity in pornography on the Web. The cyber- geography of this bill is very limited. Mr. President, on this question of primary and secondary effects, I must differ with the Court and would like to go into this question in some detail. The underlying principle which the Senate supported by a vote of 84 to 16 in adopting the CDA, and which is embodied in the legislation I introduce today is articulated in New York versus. Ferber: ``It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that the State's interest in `safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor' is compelling.'' There is no question that exposure to pornography harms children. A child's sexual development occurs gradually through childhood. Exposure to pornography, particularly the type of hard-core pornography available on the Internet, distorts the natural sexual development of children. Essentially, pornography shapes children's sexual perspective by providing them information on sexual activity. However, the type of information provided by pornography does not provide children with a normal sexual perspective. As pointed out in Enough is Enough's brief to Court on the CDA, pornography portrays unhealthy or antisocial kinds of sexual activity, such as sadomasochism, abuse, and humiliation of females, involvement of children, incest, group sex, voyeurism, sexual degradation, bestiality, torture, objectification, that serve to teach children the rudiments of sex without adult supervision and moral guidance. Ann Burgess, Professor of Nursing at the University of Pennsylvania, states that children generally do not have a natural sexual capacity until between 10 and 12 years old. Pornography unnaturally accelerates that development. By short-circuiting the normal development process and supplying misinformation about their own sexuality, pornography leaves children confused, changed and damaged. As if the psychological threat of pornography does not present a sufficient compelling interest, there is a significant physical threat. As I have stated, pornography develops in children a distorted sexual perspective. It encourages irresponsible, dehumanized sexual behavior, conduct that presents a genuine physical threat to children. In the United States, about one in four sexually active teenagers acquire a sexually transmitted disease (STD) every year, resulting in 3 million STD cases. Infectious syphilis rates have more than doubled among teenagers since the mid-1980's. One million American teenage girls become pregnant each year. A report entitled ``Exposure to Pornography, Character and Sexual Deviance'' concluded that as more and more children become exposed not only to soft-core pornography, but also to explicit deviant sexual material, society's youth will learn an extremely dangerous message: sex without responsibility is acceptable. However, there is a darker and more ominous threat. For research has established a direct link between exposure and consumption of pornography and sexual assault, rape and molesting of children. As stated in Aggressive Erotica and Violence Against Women, ``Virtually all lab studies established a causal link between violent pornography and the commission of violence. This relationship is not seriously debated in the research community.'' What is more, pedophiles will often use pornographic material to desensitize children to sexual activity, effectively breaking down their resistance in order to sexually exploit them. A study by Victor Cline found that child molesters often use pornography to seduce their prey, to lower the inhibitions of the victim, and as an instruction manual. Further, a W.L. Marshal study found that: ``87 percent of female child molesters and 77 percent of male child molesters studied admitted to regular use of hard-core pornography.'' Given these facts, Mr. President, any distinction the Court makes regarding the effects of pornography on children seems to miss the very point of the state's compelling interest. For the sanctity and security of childhood is what these efforts are all about. As I have stated before in addressing this subject, childhood must be defended by parents and society as a safe harbor of innocence. It is a privileged time to develop values in an environment that is not hostile to them. But this foul material on the Internet invades that place and destroys that innocence. It takes the worst excesses of the red-light district and places it directly into a child's bedroom, on the computer their parents bought them to help them with their homework. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join my colleague Senator Lautenberg in introducing the JUMP Ahead Act of 1997. As a national board member of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, I know personally how important this legislation is, and the type of opportunity it will give to thousands of at-risk youth around the country. While intuitively we know that mentoring relationships can make a huge difference in the lives of young people, we now have scientifically reliable evidence about the positive impact that mentoring programs can have. In 1995, Public/Private Ventures, a policy research organization in Philadelphia, conducted an impact study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. The results were startling. The addition of a Big Brothers or Big Sister to a young person's life drastically reduced first time drug use, significantly lowered absenteeism, and reduced violent behavior. Furthermore, the young people studied were less likely to start using alcohol and more likely to do well in school. JUMP Ahead will link community based mentoring programs with public schools to give more children the chance to reap the benefits of a one- to-one mentoring relationship. JUMP Ahead is based on a small, innovative, federal program known as the Juvenile Mentoring Program [JUMP]. Building on the success of JUMP, the JUMP Ahead Act will create a competitive grant program which allows local, nonprofit social service and education agencies to apply cooperatively and directly for grants from the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. These grants are used to establish mentoring services utilizing responsible individuals as mentors. During the last session of Congress, I introduced the Character Development Act as part of my Project for American Renewal. The Character Development Act, like the JUMP Ahead Act, Stressed the importance of mentoring relationships in the process of cultural renewal. The need for additional adult support and guidance for our Nation's youth has never been greater than at this time. Currently 38 percent of all American children live without their fathers. It is increasingly important to support the work of organizations that are attempting to stand in the gap left by absent fathers. Since mentoring programs work through the efforts of volunteers, only modest funds are necessary to have a far-reaching impact. I am convinced that the investment that the JUMP Ahead Act calls for over the next 5 years, will produce tremendous positive results in the lives of many at-risk youth. I encourage my colleagues to take a close look at this bill and consider supporting it. One-to-one mentoring has proven its effectiveness in positively impacting the lives of at risk youth. I ask my colleagues to join me and Senator Lautenberg in this effort to encourage and expand opportunities for one-to-one mentoring relationships for at-risk youth. The JUMP Ahead Act of 1997 takes an important step forward in meeting the needs of so many of this country's hurting youth.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join my colleague Senator Lautenberg in introducing the JUMP Ahead Act of 1997. As a national board member of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, I know personally how important this legislation is, and the type of opportunity it will give to thousands of at-risk youth around the country. While intuitively we know that mentoring relationships can make a huge difference in the lives of young people, we now have scientifically reliable evidence about the positive impact that mentoring programs can have. In 1995, Public/Private Ventures, a policy research organization in Philadelphia, conducted an impact study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. The results were startling. The addition of a Big Brothers or Big Sister to a young person's life drastically reduced first time drug use, significantly lowered absenteeism, and reduced violent behavior. Furthermore, the young people studied were less likely to start using alcohol and more likely to do well in school. JUMP Ahead will link community based mentoring programs with public schools to give more children the chance to reap the benefits of a one- to-one mentoring relationship. JUMP Ahead is based on a small, innovative, federal program known as the Juvenile Mentoring Program [JUMP]. Building on the success of JUMP, the JUMP Ahead Act will create a competitive grant program which allows local, nonprofit social service and education agencies to apply cooperatively and directly for grants from the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. These grants are used to establish mentoring services utilizing responsible individuals as mentors. During the last session of Congress, I introduced the Character Development Act as part of my Project for American Renewal. The Character Development Act, like the JUMP Ahead Act, Stressed the importance of mentoring relationships in the process of cultural renewal. The need for additional adult support and guidance for our Nation's youth has never been greater than at this time. Currently 38 percent of all American children live without their fathers. It is increasingly important to support the work of organizations that are attempting to stand in the gap left by absent fathers. Since mentoring programs work through the efforts of volunteers, only modest funds are necessary to have a far-reaching impact. I am convinced that the investment that the JUMP Ahead Act calls for over the next 5 years, will produce tremendous positive results in the lives of many at-risk youth. I encourage my colleagues to take a close look at this bill and consider supporting it. One-to-one mentoring has proven its effectiveness in positively impacting the lives of at risk youth. I ask my colleagues to join me and Senator Lautenberg in this effort to encourage and expand opportunities for one-to-one mentoring relationships for at-risk youth. The JUMP Ahead Act of 1997 takes an important step forward in meeting the needs of so many of this country's hurting youth.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I would say to the Senator from Alabama that his understanding is correct.

Mr. COATS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, I would like to take a few moments to discuss one of the concerns that has been raised relating to the compromise language on depot maintenance. In particular, I would like to ask a few questions regarding the provisions relating to core logistics capabilities and workloads. The concern has been raised that this language could require the Department to change its current depot maintenance practices and bring in-house work that is now performed by contractors. What is the view of the chairman and ranking minority member on this issue?

Mr. COATS. I thank the chairman and ranking member for this clarification.

Mr. COATS. I understand that the Senators from Texas and California believe that the requirement to ``ensure''--rather than ``promote''-- cost efficiency in the depots might be interpreted in such a way as to require the Department to withdraw depot maintenance workloads from the private sector and perform the work in public depots in order to achieve efficiency because the only way they can operate efficiently is to fully utilize the physical capacity. Could you please explain your interpretation of the language? What do you believe it requires?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding this time. I rise to urge my colleagues to support the vote coming up here on the Defense Authorization Act. I congratulate Senator Thurmond and Senator Levin for their leadership on this issue. We have continued a bipartisan effort in the Senate Armed Services Committee for addressing the key issues facing our national security policy. It has been a contentious and difficult process this year, but one, nevertheless, that has gone ahead, and we are here today just a few moments away from voting on this and sending it to the President. It is important to note that we have reached support in the Senate Armed Services Committee; all 18 members of the committee have signed the conference report and, most importantly, we have been able to address some of the most difficult issues in a way that I think, while not perfect and while not the solution to everybody's concerns, clearly moves us in the right direction. Senator Levin and others have talked about the depot provisions. I appreciate how difficult it has been and the very strong views of Senators on both sides of the aisle on these provisions. Earlier, I opposed the depot provisions which were originally recommended by the readiness panel because they explicitly precluded competition for the resolution of the Kelly and McClellan Air Logistics Centers issue. We went back to work --a number of people spent a great deal of time and effort trying to find a way in which we could develop a substantive set of provisions that would promote competition, and I said that if we could do that, I would support it. Now, if I were drafting this legislation, I would have gone much further than we have been able to go. I think, clearly, if we can't move further faster on privatization efforts, we are going to continue to face shortfalls in modernization, shortfalls in research and development, and in other vital areas for the military. This, I believe, is the best we are able to do at this particular time given the polarization on this issue between members on the Depot Caucus and those who were promoting greater competition. We have been able to move the percentages from 60-40 to 50-50. I know that 50-50 is not defined in the way all of us would like, but it is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, it will open the way for further discussion and determination of what core capacity we need to retain within the services and how we can also move toward privatizing maintenance in a way that saves the Department money. It will also, hopefully, open the door to another round of BRAC closings. There should not be any disagreement that we still have too much infrastructure given the size of our force. It is aging infrastructure. It is costly infrastructure. Unless we can find ways to close that infrastructure, and modernize and streamline the way in which we provide for our national defense, we are going to continually face a shortfall of funds, particularly given the fact that we have a fixed top line, as stated in the budget agreement. One of the provisions of the depot compromise involves an initiative that was suggested to us by the Business Executives for National Security Tail-to-Tooth Commission, the so-called BENS Commission. It's private partnerships within the public sector. This commission is made up of people from both parties, former Members of the Senate and Cabinet, leaders of industry and retired members of the Joint Chiefs. And their insights, I believe, ought to be given significant attention. Let me just quote from one of the sections of the bill which incorporated one of their suggestions. Section 359 of the depot provisions is titled, ``Requirement for Use of Competitive Procedures in Contracting for Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads Formerly Performed at Closed or Realigned Military Installations.'' And this provision states, and I quote: Any offeror, whether public or private, may offer to perform the workload at any location or locations selected by the offeror and to team with any other public or private entity to perform that workload at one or more locations. This provision enables the Department of Defense to leverage the core competencies of our public-sector depots with those of private industry in building the most effective and the most efficient team for maintaining our military's equipment, and it does so in a way that keeps competitive pressures on both the private and the public sector that will ensure that the Pentagon and the U.S. taxpayer continue to get the best value for their defense dollar. The Pentagon has indicated that this is a workable approach to resolving the highly charged issues surrounding Kelly and McClellan Air Logistics Centers. I know there is not agreement on that point, but my analysis of this is that it moves us significantly in the right direction. And given the dynamics of the political considerations that we are facing, it is the best we can do this year. We are not going to get a bill without this. I trust the administration will think long and hard before they consider a veto over this provision. I do not believe we are going to be able to go back and adjust it one way or the other in any significant measure without creating a loss of support on one side or the other, depending on which way we go. So I urge the administration to understand the process that we have been through, where we started and where we now are and take this as a significant incremental step in the necessary effort to move toward privatization. Mr. President, I would also like to briefly talk about some things that we have done in my role as chairman of the Airland Subcommittee. First, the national Defense authorization supports the Army's Force XXI initiatives which significantly enhances the situational awareness and combat effectiveness of our land forces through information technology. Yet, we need to do much more to get the spectrum of digitization efforts, which were so strongly endorsed by the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, adequately funded. But at least this is a fair start. And for the record, I wish to correct a statement reported in press this morning that the first flight of the second Comanche armed reconnaissance helicopter would be delayed because of a 2.75 percent tax levied on acquisition programs in the fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization bill, which we are voting on today. I want to emphasize that this Defense Authorization fully funds the Comanche program at the level requested in the President's Budget, and that it does not include a tax. The tax reported in this article was levied in appropriation, not authorization, legislation. We have been able to incorporate in this bill a significant enhancement in the military's tactical and operational mobility through increases in tactical trucks, the establishment of multiyear procurement for the family of medium tactical vehicles, and increases in V-22 procurement. We have also added increases for tactical air and missile defense capabilities. Specifically, however, I want to talk about the F-22. I spoke at length about my concerns with F-22 cost overruns and technology risks during our deliberations over Defense appropriations. This national Defense authorization provides the same F-22 funding levels, but goes the very important further step to put key oversight provisions in place that will help Congress and the Administration keep this program on track. First, this Defense Authorization includes the Senate's total cost cap provisions which limit the level of engineering and manufacturing development to approximately $18.7 billion and production to $43.3 billion. Second, the Defense authorization requires an annual review of the F- 22 program by the General Accounting Office. This report will address whether the F-22 EMD program is meeting established goals in performance, cost, and schedule; and whether the F-22 program is consistent with the cost caps we have established. The Comptroller General also must certify to Congress that he has had access to sufficient information to make informed judgments on the matters covered by the reports. This seriesof annual reviews will provide us a visibility into the F-22 program which we have not had to date. And it will also provide a means of independent assessment on the spending and technical performance of the program so that this body can effectively continue its long history of oversight on the key F-22 program. In conclusion, this national Defense authorization makes great strides in supporting the defense strategy of shape, respond, and prepare now. It provides significant increases in our readiness accounts by adding over $750 million to address shortfalls in flying hours, real property maintenance, and ammunition procurement. It also takes better care of our military servicemembers and their quality of life through a 2.8 percent pay raise and a reformed approach to quarters allowances. And it accelerates investment to address shortfalls in key mission capabilities such as adding over $700 million for theater and missile defense programs. Finally, this national Defense authorization provides a reasonable compromise to the depot issue through a fair and open competition which serves the best interests of the military and the American taxpayer. In short, this bill provides the policy and fiscal provisions representative of the prudent oversight from our Senate authorization process. It provides a framework for setting a course which ensures U.S. military dominance into the 21st Century. This National Defense Authorization has my full support, and I urge my colleagues to support us when the vote comes forward in just a few moments. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Isn't that similar to the Department's current policy?

Mr. COATS. Then nothing in this language would preclude the Department from retaining a surge capacity to be used in times of military emergency?

Mr. COATS. If I could just ask one additional question, is there anything in this language that would preclude the Department from giving appropriate consideration to the differences in cost or performance risk particular to the location of the performance of the work?

Mr. COATS. So the bottom line is that this compromise language does not require the Department to withdraw workloads from the private sector and move them to the public depots in order to ensure efficiency?

Mr. COATS. And did these comments identify the use of the word ``ensure'' rather than ``promote'' as a concern?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I inquire of the chairman of the committee how much time he can yield.

Mr. COATS. I would say to the Senator that yes, his understanding is correct. The conferees believe it is important that the Department of Defense understands that the intent of Congress was not to prohibit future procurement of basic BAT, but to eliminate 1998 production. Future congressional evaluation will determine whether the Army should enter into either full-scale production of the basic BAT submunition or limit production to the number required for testing and evaluation of the improved (P31) BAT objective system.

Mr. COATS. I thank the chairman for his kind remarks.

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, after some modifications and consultation with the minority leader we are ready to once again ask this unanimous- consent request as modified. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Friday, November 7.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I once again suggest the absence of a quorum. There seems to be some confusion here.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, on Friday, at the hour of 9:30, I further ask that, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join my good friend, Senator Lieberman, in introducing another bill which has as its primary aim the expansion of educational opportunities for children. Senator Lieberman has been a leader in promoting educational alternatives, and his efforts in the charter school movement have contributed to the tremendous growth in the number of charter schools since 1994. I commend him for his work in this area and am honored to join him in introducing the Charter School Expansion Act of 1997. This bill builds on the great success of the original charter school legislation which Senator Lieberman introduced in 1994. The Federal Charter School Grant Program provided seed money to charter school operators to help them cover the startup costs of beginning a charter school. In the last 3 years, the number of charter schools in operation around the country has tripled, with more than 700 charter schools now in 23 States. The purpose of this bill is to further encourage the growth of high- quality charter schools around the country. This bill provides incentives to encourage States to increase the number of charter schools in their State. The bill also tightens the eligibility definitions to better direct funds to those States who are committed to developing strong charter schools. To ensure that charter schools have enough funding to continue once their doors are opened, this bill provides that charter schools get their fair share of Federal programs for which they are eligible, such as title 1 and IDEA. This bill also increases the financing options available to charter schools and allows them to utilize funds from the title VI block grant program for startup costs. And finally, the Secretary of Education and each State education agency is directed to inform every school district about the charter school option so that this educational alternative will be an option for any parent who is interested. what are charter schools? Charter schools are independent public schools that have been freed from onerous bureaucratic and regulatory burdens and able to design and deliver educational programs tailored to meet the needs of their students and their communities. The individualized education available to students through charter schools makes this a very desirable educational alternative. Charter schools give families an opportunity to choose the educational setting that best meet their child's needs. For many low-income families in particular, charter schools provide their first opportunity to select educational setting which is best for their child. These innovative charter schools are having tremendous academic success serving the same population of students who are struggling in more traditional public school settings. Several recent studies have highlighted the success of charter schools around the country in serving at-risk students. A study conducted by the Hudson Institute found dramatic improvement for minority and low income students who had been failing in their previous school. These students are flourishing in the smaller, challenging environments found in charter schools. With results like these, it is no wonder that some of the strongest support for charter legislation comes from low-income families. Low-income families not only have real educational choices, but are actually needed in the charter school environment for everything from volunteering, to coaching, for fundraising, and even teaching. This direct involvement of families is helping to build small communities centered around the school. Charter schools can be started by anyone interested in providing a quality education: Parents, teachers, school administrators, community groups, businesses, and colleges can all apply for a charter. And, importantly, if these schools fail to deliver a high-quality education, they will be closed--either through a district or State's accountability measures or due to lack of customers. Accountability is literally built in to the charter school process--a school's charter must be complied with and unhappy parents and students can leave if they are not satisfied. In addition to the positive impact on the charter's students and their families, the overall charter movement is serving as a catalyst for change in the public schools. A foundational principle of the charter concept is that fair competition can stimulate improvement. And improvement in public schools has been spurred around the country due to the rapid growth of charter schools. Recently, several studies have been released highlighting some of the success of charter schools around the country. In May, the Department of Education released its first formal report on its study of charter schools. Key first-year findings include: The two most common reasons for starting public charter schools are flexibility from bureaucratic laws and regulations and the chance to realize an educational vision. In most States, charter schools have a racial composition similar to statewide averages or have a higher proportion of minority students. Charter schools enroll roughly the same proportion of low income students, on average, as other public schools. Over the last 2 years, the Hudson Institute has undertaken its own study of charter schools, entitled ``Charter Schools in Action.'' Their research team traveled to 14 States, visited 60 schools, and surveyed thousands of parents, teachers, and students. Some of this study's key findings include: Three-fifths of charter school students report that their charter school teachers are better than their previous school's teacher. Over two-thirds of parents say their charter school is better than their child's previous schools with respect to class size, school size, and individual attention. Over 90 percent of teachers are satisfied with their charter school's educational philosophy, size, fellow teachers, and students. Among students who said they were failing at their previous school, more than half are now doing excellent or good work. These gains were dramatic for minority and low-income youngsters, and were confirmed by their parents. The example of these schools point to important ways to improve and reinvent public education as a whole. The implications from the success of charter schools indicate that successful public schools should be consumer-oriented, diverse, results-oriented, and professional places that also function as mediating institutions in their communities. The tremendous success of charter schools in the last 6 years gives me great hope for the success of overall education reform. The more than 700 charter schools in this country that have sprung up in such a short period of time provide solid evidence that parents are interested in improving their children's educational opportunities and they will do whatever it takes. With the introduction of this bill, the Charter School Expansion Act, Senator Lieberman and I hope to send a signal to parents all across this country that they are not alone in their struggle to improve education for their children. We hope to ease their struggle by enabling new charter schools to be developed. More charter schools will result in greater accountability, broader flexibility for classroom innovation, and ultimately more choice in public education. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to increase educational opportunities for all children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join my good friend, Senator Lieberman, in introducing another bill which has as its primary aim the expansion of educational opportunities for children. Senator Lieberman has been a leader in promoting educational alternatives, and his efforts in the charter school movement have contributed to the tremendous growth in the number of charter schools since 1994. I commend him for his work in this area and am honored to join him in introducing the Charter School Expansion Act of 1997. This bill builds on the great success of the original charter school legislation which Senator Lieberman introduced in 1994. The Federal Charter School Grant Program provided seed money to charter school operators to help them cover the startup costs of beginning a charter school. In the last 3 years, the number of charter schools in operation around the country has tripled, with more than 700 charter schools now in 23 States. The purpose of this bill is to further encourage the growth of high- quality charter schools around the country. This bill provides incentives to encourage States to increase the number of charter schools in their State. The bill also tightens the eligibility definitions to better direct funds to those States who are committed to developing strong charter schools. To ensure that charter schools have enough funding to continue once their doors are opened, this bill provides that charter schools get their fair share of Federal programs for which they are eligible, such as title 1 and IDEA. This bill also increases the financing options available to charter schools and allows them to utilize funds from the title VI block grant program for startup costs. And finally, the Secretary of Education and each State education agency is directed to inform every school district about the charter school option so that this educational alternative will be an option for any parent who is interested. what are charter schools? Charter schools are independent public schools that have been freed from onerous bureaucratic and regulatory burdens and able to design and deliver educational programs tailored to meet the needs of their students and their communities. The individualized education available to students through charter schools makes this a very desirable educational alternative. Charter schools give families an opportunity to choose the educational setting that best meet their child's needs. For many low-income families in particular, charter schools provide their first opportunity to select educational setting which is best for their child. These innovative charter schools are having tremendous academic success serving the same population of students who are struggling in more traditional public school settings. Several recent studies have highlighted the success of charter schools around the country in serving at-risk students. A study conducted by the Hudson Institute found dramatic improvement for minority and low income students who had been failing in their previous school. These students are flourishing in the smaller, challenging environments found in charter schools. With results like these, it is no wonder that some of the strongest support for charter legislation comes from low-income families. Low-income families not only have real educational choices, but are actually needed in the charter school environment for everything from volunteering, to coaching, for fundraising, and even teaching. This direct involvement of families is helping to build small communities centered around the school. Charter schools can be started by anyone interested in providing a quality education: Parents, teachers, school administrators, community groups, businesses, and colleges can all apply for a charter. And, importantly, if these schools fail to deliver a high-quality education, they will be closed--either through a district or State's accountability measures or due to lack of customers. Accountability is literally built in to the charter school process--a school's charter must be complied with and unhappy parents and students can leave if they are not satisfied. In addition to the positive impact on the charter's students and their families, the overall charter movement is serving as a catalyst for change in the public schools. A foundational principle of the charter concept is that fair competition can stimulate improvement. And improvement in public schools has been spurred around the country due to the rapid growth of charter schools. Recently, several studies have been released highlighting some of the success of charter schools around the country. In May, the Department of Education released its first formal report on its study of charter schools. Key first-year findings include: The two most common reasons for starting public charter schools are flexibility from bureaucratic laws and regulations and the chance to realize an educational vision. In most States, charter schools have a racial composition similar to statewide averages or have a higher proportion of minority students. Charter schools enroll roughly the same proportion of low income students, on average, as other public schools. Over the last 2 years, the Hudson Institute has undertaken its own study of charter schools, entitled ``Charter Schools in Action.'' Their research team traveled to 14 States, visited 60 schools, and surveyed thousands of parents, teachers, and students. Some of this study's key findings include: Three-fifths of charter school students report that their charter school teachers are better than their previous school's teacher. Over two-thirds of parents say their charter school is better than their child's previous schools with respect to class size, school size, and individual attention. Over 90 percent of teachers are satisfied with their charter school's educational philosophy, size, fellow teachers, and students. Among students who said they were failing at their previous school, more than half are now doing excellent or good work. These gains were dramatic for minority and low-income youngsters, and were confirmed by their parents. The example of these schools point to important ways to improve and reinvent public education as a whole. The implications from the success of charter schools indicate that successful public schools should be consumer-oriented, diverse, results-oriented, and professional places that also function as mediating institutions in their communities. The tremendous success of charter schools in the last 6 years gives me great hope for the success of overall education reform. The more than 700 charter schools in this country that have sprung up in such a short period of time provide solid evidence that parents are interested in improving their children's educational opportunities and they will do whatever it takes. With the introduction of this bill, the Charter School Expansion Act, Senator Lieberman and I hope to send a signal to parents all across this country that they are not alone in their struggle to improve education for their children. We hope to ease their struggle by enabling new charter schools to be developed. More charter schools will result in greater accountability, broader flexibility for classroom innovation, and ultimately more choice in public education. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to increase educational opportunities for all children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I support the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998. I congratulate the chairman, Senator Thurmond, and the ranking member, Senator Levin, for their leadership in the bipartisan effort which attained this substantive and far reaching conference agreement. And they reached this agreement with the unanimous support of the Senate Armed Services Committee, all 18 committee members signed the conference report. Most importantly, this agreement was able to produce significant compromise in policy on key issues related to Bosnia, the B-2 bomber, and depot provisions. depot provisions I would like to take a few moments to elaborate on the great accomplishment of this depot compromise. This is a compromise that was very difficult to achieve and I appreciate the very strong views of Senators on both sides of this issue. Earlier in this authorization conference process, I opposed the depot provisions which were originally recommended by the readiness panel because they explicitly precluded competition for the resolution of workloads at Kelly and McClellan Air Logistics Center. So we went back to work and through the significant efforts of many members with key interests in this depot issue, we were able to develop a substantive set of provisions that promote competition, and I support them. This compromise protects the integrity of the BRAC process and will serve the best interests of the Department of Defense and the U.S. taxpayer. First, this bill provides for an open and fair competition for the workloads at Kelly and McClellan Air Force Base by ensuring that consistent practices are used to value the bids of private and public sector entities. Furthermore, we have been able to incorporate a major initiative in public-private partnerships. This provision enables the Department of Defense to leverage the core competencies of our public sector depots with those of private industry in building the most effective and the most efficient team for maintaining our military's equipment. And it does so in a way that keeps competitive pressures on both the private and the public sector that will ensure that the Pentagon and the U.S. taxpayer continue to get the best value for their defense dollar. The Pentagon has indicated that this is a workable approach to resolving the highly charged issue surrounding Kelly and McClellan Air Logistics Centers. Second, the depot package amends the 60-40 public-private workload split to 50-50. This provision, in addition to codifying the definition of depot maintenance in a way that protects procurement of upgrades and major modifications for private industry while retaining a core public sector capability, gives the Department of Defense much more flexibility in undertaking maintenance functions. In short, it allows them a significant increase in headroom to prudently shift depot workloads across the private and the public sectors to achieve efficiencies. Most importantly, this depot provision gives us a window of opportunity to get defense infrastructure reform on track. From my perspective as chairman of the Airland Subcommittee, I see the impact of the Pentagon's procurement shortfall which measures approximately $10 to $15 billion per year. This shortfall is due to this administration's spending too much on defense infrastructure and operations, and too little on vital modernization. I see it in terms of dozens and dozens of broken programs which are not funded at sustainable rates. Consequently, contractors are required to start and stop development and production of major assemblies, if not final products such as in digital communications, ballistic missile defense, tactical vehicles, and the list goes on and on. I also see it in areas where key Pentagon requirements simply are not being addressed because funding is unavailable such as in the Comanche armed reconnaissance helicopter or the Marine Corps advanced amphibious armored vehicle. In conclusion, I am encouraged that this depot compromise sets the stage for gaining efficiencies in our infrastructure so that we can retain the readiness levels required in the near term, while at the same time providing the means to boost our procurement programs to help ensure the preparedness of our future forces to dominate the uncertain threats of the 21st Century. airland And now I would like to provide a few comments on the Airland aspects of this bill. First, this National Defense Authorization supports the Army's commendable Force XXI effort which significantly enhances the situational awareness and combat effectiveness of our land forces through information technology. Yet, we need to do much more to get the spectrum of digitization efforts which were strongly endorsed by the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review adequately funded. But at least this is a fair start. We also were able to provide significant enhancements in the military's tactical and operational mobility through increases in tactical trucks, the establishment of multi-year procurement for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles [FMTV], and increases in V-22 procurement. We also added increases for tactical air and missile defense capabilities such as with the Sentinel Radar, the Avenger Slew-to-Cue modifications, and enhancements to Stinger missile modifications and the Patriot anticruise missile program. I spoke at length about my concerns with F-22 cost overruns and technology risks during our deliberations over Defense Appropriations. This National Defense Authorization provides the same F-22 funding levels, but goes the very important further step to put key oversight provisions in place that will help Congress and the administration keep this program on track. First, this bill includes the Senate's total cost cap provisions which limits the level of engineering and manufacturing development to approximately $18.7 billion, and production to $43.4B. Second, it require the General Accounting Office to conduct an annual F-22 review that addresses whether the program is meeting established goals in performance, cost, and schedule. conclusion This National Defense Authorization makes great strides in supporting the defense strategy of Shape, Respond, and Prepare Now. It provides significant increases in our readiness accounts. It also takes better care of our military servicmembers and their quality of life through a 2.8 percent payraise and a reformed approach to quarters allowances. And it accelerates procurement to address shortfalls in key mission capabilities. Finally, this National Defense Authorization provides a reasonable compromise to the depot issue through a fair and open competition which serves the best interests of the military and the American taxpayer. In short, this bill provides the policy and fiscal provisions representative of the prudent oversight from our Senate authorization process. It provides the framework for setting a course which ensures U.S. military dominance into the 21st Century. This National Defense Authorization has my full support, and I strongly encourage all members to vote for it.