Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today the White House is sponsoring an all- day conference on child care. I believe the President and First Lady have correctly identified this as an important issue to families, and particularly to working families in America. A number of experts have been invited to testify and to participate in panel discussions throughout the day. This is an important but yet also a very complex issue. The complexity of the issue is that there is one segment of our population that seriously needs high-quality day care in order to work--work that for many has been required through welfare reform. Others work out of economic necessity; both mother and father need to be employed. And again for others, who are single parents raising their children, they need to provide the financial wherewithal to do that. The focus on the child care conference at the White House correctly focuses on this segment of our population. The conference will focus on three questions: how to increase access for child care; how to make it more affordable; and how to guarantee the quality of child care so that children will be safe. But, what the conference did not focus on was another segment of the population, in fact a majority segment of the population, the nearly 50 percent who do not have both parents working and another 25 percent who do not work out of the home full time. One of the questions, unfortunately, that will not be discussed at the White House today is how we can ensure that we are not discouraging or sending the wrong signals to the second segment, those parents, those mothers who stay home and do not work and those parents who keep one parent at home raising the child while the other works or they take separate shifts or they have worked out arrangements to raise their own children. There is a legitimate need, I believe, to address the first question, how we provide child care for working families, for single mothers, for welfare mothers and others. But there is also a legitimate and essential question that needs to be discussed along with that, and that is what can we do to help those who have made the decision to stay at home? We have recently had some exciting developments concerning infant brain development, about the much earlier than originally thought development, the connection of synapses that occur, the billions of these connections that occur at very, very early ages and how important it is to recognize that and to make sure that children receive the correct upbringing, stimulation and so forth to foster that development. Again, unfortunately, there has been little discussion along with that about the critical nature of the emotional development of the infant, because, after all, as many experts have told us, it is the emotional development of the infant that is the fuel that drives the automobile, to use a metaphor. Unfortunately, there has been little discussion about this in the recent child care debate that focuses on those early years and the need for correct and effective childhood development. Recently, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Children and Families, I held a hearing in which we heard testimony from Dr. Diane Fisher, who is a practicing clinical psychologist. I want to quote from her: Imagine a brilliant, stimulated, optimally educated child who is lacking in self-esteem, self-control, identity or discipline. This in fact is what we are hearing about in our schools today--privileged, indulged children who are wired to the Internet but without a moral compass or a sense of connection to the adults who are supposed to be present in their lives. Our committee heard about how mothers are biologically hard wired to form a close emotional tie with their children; that this bonding experience is not a quick experience, something to be accomplished in a matter of weeks or even months, but something that is a gradual process that proceeds slowly and over time. Anybody who is a parent knows that. We don't need studies or experts to come and testify as to the kind of bonding that takes place between parents and children, particularly mother and child, in those first critical early months and years and then throughout their growing experience for the next 15 or 20 years or so. For the last 15 years I have been involved, first, as the ranking Republican on the Early Childhood, Youth and Families Committee in the House of Representatives during my service there and in the last 9 years as chairman or ranking member of the Children and Families Subcommittee here in the Senate. Over that time I have listened to and read and personally visited experts in the field--sociologists, psychologists, child development experts, and so forth--who have impressed upon me the absolutely critical element of the emotional attachment, the emotional connection, the bonding process between mother and child with infants, and mothers and fathers with their children, and how absolutely essential this correct attachment is for successful childhood development. Most of this is not accomplished through a complex formula. It is not accomplished through a lot of educational training, academic training, or how-to books. It is accomplished intuitively by a mother motivated by love and enjoyment of that child. It takes an enormous amount of love and motivation to want to pay attention to the subtle cues that an infant or a young child sends on a moment-by-moment, hour-by-hour, daily basis. Frankly, it is very rare to find a caregiver who is either able or motivated by that same degree of love and attention and motivation to pay that kind of attention to a child. Often they have a number of children to look out for, and it is just keeping some semblance of order in the child-care facility that becomes the paramount challenge for the child-care provider. We talk a lot about and they are talking today at the White House a lot about the term quality. Often that is used by the experts, or those who are discussing this, as a code word, ``quality'' meaning we need more control, we need more regulation, we need more oversight of child care facilities. The quality of child care, for those children, especially children 0 to 3, is more than just having developmentally appropriate materials or an effective well-located site staffed by trained individuals that is important in child care, although it is only one form of child care, but quality is, I believe, more clearly related, and according to the experts we had testify before our committee, more clearly related to love and nurture and, as such, I believe, we have to recognize that it is a child's mother, a child's father that are in the best position to offer that love and nurture to their children. As one mother told me, and this is someone who holds an advanced degree in family therapy, an expert in the field of raising children, she said a baby, a young child, needs to be adored. There isn't a child care provider in the world that can adore my child like I can adore my child. Only a mother can truly adore a child, provide the kind of nurturing that children need when they are growing up. We know that and most American people know this. A recent Gallup poll for the Los Angeles Times said 73 percent of the American public believes too many children are being raised in day care and not nearly enough are being raised by their mother at home, and children fare best when raised by their mother at home. That figure was up from 68 percent who responded that way in 1987. If we truly believe in quality child care, then I believe we should focus much of our attention, not just on ways in which we can provide improved quality care for children in day care settings, for those mothers who have no choice, for those families that have no choice, for those welfare mothers who have no choice but to move into the workplace, but we should also provide equal attention to those initiatives that can make it easier for families to have at least one parent remain at home, those families that can juggle their work schedules so that the primary care for their child is from parent to child rather than from paid provider to child. The White House is going to be issuing a number of initiatives, according to reports, about how we as a society, both the private sector and the public sector, can provide assistance for child care facilities to improve the quality and access to child care. But shouldn't we also be discussing the positive family friendly policies that can provide assistance to those who have the ability or make the choice to stay at home with their children, like extended job protected leave? As a Republican conservative, I broke with many of my fellow colleagues on the issue of family leave. I believe it is an important provision to guarantee that mothers have the choice of taking at least 12 weeks after the child is born to be with that child, but beyond that, the initiatives of part-time work, flextime, comptime, job sharing, telecommuting, and other corporate policies which a majority of families would prefer if they had the option, because many parents are willing to work less and provide more care for their own children if it is possible for them to do so and still maintain economic viability. According to a 1991 survey sponsored by the Hilton Hotel Corp., two- thirds of Americans said they would take salary reductions in order to get more time off from work. There is another way we can focus Federal attention appropriately on making it easier for families to provide care for children at home: Tax fairness. In my time in the Congress, I haven't agreed on too many issues with former Representative Pat Schroeder, but one thing she said that I did identify with and I have always remembered is she said you can get a bigger tax break for breeding racehorses than you can for raising children, and she was right. The Tax Code over the years has penalized parents for spending time with their children by narrowly linking tax benefits to day care expenses and provisions on the other side of the equation. The dependent care tax credit, for example, is constructed in such a way that the more time a child spends in day care and the higher, therefore, the family's day care expenses, the greater the tax benefits. Mr. President, I don't want to ignore the reality that growing economic and cultural pressures make it difficult for parents to spend as much time with their children as they would like. We all face that problem. Tying tax benefits to day care expenses makes matters worse, not better. It penalizes parents for caring for their own children by redistributing income by those who make extensive use of out-of-home professional day care services. Tax benefits which favor day care over parental care should be replaced, I suggest, by increasing benefits for all families with young children. While I fully expect that the White House Conference on Child Care will emerge with new policy recommendations, such as model standards for quality care or the expansion of the military model of child care in the private sector, I would caution that we need to pay equal attention to the facts that we have learned about the critical importance, especially in early years, about the need of strong attachment between mother, father and child. We also must ask the question: Are there policies which we can support and provide leadership on that will, in fact, make that attachment a true priority? Because if we have learned anything over the past couple of decades, it is how critical that attachment between child and family, mother and child, father and child is and the uncomfortable fact that for many, quality child care, though important, can never be an effective substitute for parental attachment. I hope, Mr. President, that in this day of focus on provision of child care, we can also focus our attention on what true quality care is and look for ways in which we can initiate and implement policies in the Congress and in the workplace that can provide mothers and families with this very, very important and essential element to successful child raising. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I ask unanimous consent to rescind the call of the quorum on the condition of asking the Senator from Montana if he will allow that to happen for the purpose of speaking in morning business on something not related at all to campaign finance.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we had, I think, a very constructive debate on the school choice issue, scholarships for D.C. children. Unfortunately, while having obtained a majority vote in support of at least a test of a program to provide some educational opportunities to D.C. children, we were not able to break a procedural vote of 60 necessary to move forward with this legislation. That limited our options considerably. While Senator Lieberman and I were pleased with the fact that we received more votes than we ever have on this issue, we were still two short of the necessary number to break the promised filibuster on this, and that limits our options. Mr. President, this is an issue that is not going away. I have always said this is not something that will be legislated from the top down in Congress but will be a grassroots movement from parents and PTA's and administrators and educators and others throughout America who are demanding better education for their children. Unfortunately, in many instances, they are not finding it in some of their public schools. This is not a condemnation of the public school system. There are many fine public schools across this country. There are dedicated teachers, dedicated administrators, schools that are providing opportunities for their young people. I am a product of the public schools, as is my wife. Our children are products of public schools, and we have found schools that have provided a sound education for our children. Unfortunately, there are people in this country who don't have the options that we have had, who don't have the options that those of means have in terms of where they live, the school systems they choose to support, to be a part of and options that, should they find themselves in the situation where they are living that their public schools are not providing the education their children need or a school that has such a high incidence of violence and crime and other problems that they don't feel their children are safe there, they don't have the option that many of us have of transferring their student to a private school or another school outside the system or moving to an area where they can receive the kind of education they want their children to receive. There is a very interesting story this morning in the Washington Post: ``Popularity Grows for Alternatives to Public School. Some Districts Reacting to Threat of Competition.'' The whole point we were trying to make yesterday is that we are not trying to undo the public school system. We are trying to provide options and alternatives for parents who are trapped in those public schools. But, by the same token, we hope that the competitive pressure will shake them out of their lethargy and cause them to bring about the changes and reforms necessary to make them viable once again. In quoting from the Post, an article by Rene Sanchez, it says: In a movement flustering schools across the nation, more parents than ever are choosing alternatives to public education for their children, so much that what once seemed only a fad to many educators is instead starting to resemble a revolution. Charter schools are expanding at breakneck pace. Religious schools are overflowing with new students. Home schooling is attracting unprecedented numbers of parents who only a few years ago would never have dreamed of teaching their own children. Those migrating from public education say the roots of their disenchantment vary. Some parents are frustrated with bureaucracy, others fear student violence. Some want their children to spend more time learning values, others call the one-size-fits-all model of most large public schools an ineffective and impersonal way to learn. * * * * * But today those trends have begun to send a powerful message to public schools, even prompting some of them to acknowledge a threat of competition for the first time. Our system is built on competition. We pride ourselves in America as producing the best product at the best price because of competitive pressures that force us to do better, that force us to make better products at lower cost, that force us to respond to someone else who is attempting to accomplish the same goal and might have found a better way to do it. It is that that has made this such a dynamic economy, one that employs so many people gainfully, and one that provides such a quality of living for so many Americans. That is the American way. That system works everywhere except where there is a public monopoly, a State-run government public monopoly. That public monopoly has existed in public schools for far too long in far too many places. There are vigorous private school and parochial school options available in many parts of this country, but they are, sadly, lacking in some of the areas where they are needed the most. But more than that, the problem is not lack of alternatives. The problem has been a system which leaves the lowest income and frequently the minority students of this country living in our urban areas with only one choice. And that choice, unfortunately, has been a failed public school. They have been denied opportunities to gain skills to enter the workplace. They have been denied opportunities to receive an education that qualifies them to go on to college or university education. They, therefore, are trapped, trapped in a system, a system which says, ``We will do anything we can to maintain the status quo, and yet at the same time we will prevent you from an alternative by blocking any attempts to provide scholarships or vouchers or stipends or support to assist you in paying the tuition if you choose to move from a public school.'' We had that debate yesterday. It was a very instructive debate. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. It is bipartisan obviously, Democrat and Republican, one from Connecticut, one from Indiana, joining forces. I appreciate the support we had from a few of our Democratic colleagues across the aisle. Unfortunately, we did not get enough to move on with this. But there is a revolution going on in public education. It is a healthy one. It is a healthy one because parents are suddenly rising up and saying: We will not accept the platitudes and the promises that come from the public school system when now 15 years after the report ``A Nation At Risk'', 15 years later, essentially, we see no dramatic changes or no effective changes in many of our public schools. We will not accept any longer the promises of a system which cannot overcome its inertia and its bureaucracy, which cannot direct a majority of its funds to educating students but yet eats up a majority of those funds or a very substantial portion of those funds in administrative costs. So this issue will be back. It will be back over and over again, and it will arise not because two Senators chose to offer an amendment to the D.C. appropriations bill; it will arise because constituents of Members throughout the country will demand in town meetings and in letters and in calls to their Congressmen and Senators, will demand opportunities and alternatives. No longer will inner-city poor parents, welfare parents and others living at or near the poverty line, allow their children to be condemned to a lifetime of inability to succeed because of the failure of the public school system to provide their children with an education. They will demand that their Congressmen and their Senators provide opportunities, that their councilmen and their mayors and their school systems either provide a sound education for their children or give them the opportunity to seek that elsewhere. What parent would not do that? What parent in this Senate body would not do that? We all would because we have that choice. Minority children in many cases do not have that choice. Mr. President, I would like to say just one more thing before I yield the floor. There was another quote in the Washington Post this morning in an article covering this particular issue. That quote was a disturbing one. There are boundaries to public discourse. There are boundaries that we all try to live by, boundaries of civility and honesty and good taste. When those limits are violated, it undermines this institution and it makes democracy more difficult. I think deep disagreements are possible without bitterness. I have done my best to conduct my debates, including this school choice debate, in that spirit. But today in the Washington Post a quote was attributed to the Senator from Massachusetts. The Post has misquoted me in the past, and I sincerely hope that they have misquoted the Senator from Massachusetts. That quote reads: Kennedy reminded Republicans that ``D.C. is not a test tube for misguided Republican ideological experiments on education. . ..Republicans in Congress should stop acting like plantation masters and start treating the people of D.C. with the respect they deserve.'' Mr. President, this is not just a racially offensive, irresponsible charge; it is the total inversion of reality. It is the opponents of school choice who want to require, compel, force minority children to remain in substandard schools. It is the opponents of school choice who want to confine poor minority children within the four walls of failed institutions, and sometimes just the four walls because the roofs are in disrepair. Despite the infusion of hundreds of millions of dollars into this system, much of it is wasted irresponsibly in not providing either buildings or education to the children of the District of Columbia. If there is a plantation here, it is a paternalistic plantation of those who somehow justify restricting the choices and options of poor children as a defense of their civil rights. As Alveda King said in room 207 just off the Senate floor here a week ago: One of the greatest civil rights issues for minority people today and for African-Americans is those who deny young black children the opportunity to receive an education. That condemns them, because of their income, because of where they live geographically, to a failed public school that fails to educate their children and condemns them to a lifetime of failure. Let me suggest how we can respect the people of the District. We can respect them to make good choices in the interests of their children. We can respect them enough to give them options other than coercive assignment to failed and dangerous schools. We can respect them with resources, not with more lip service, platitudes, or promises. We can respect the right of a parent, the knowledge of a parent, the caring of a parent to make wise decisions for their children without the paternalistic attitude that only Congress or only bureaucrats, only the State, or only Government knows what is best for our children. This charge that supporters of school choice are plantation masters is deceptive and it is racist and it is hypocritical. It is time for all of us, liberals and conservatives, to search our conscience. There are Members of this body who voted against scholarships for African-American children whose families have not darkened the door of public schools for generations. There are Members of the administration and this body, hours after those scholarships were defeated, who attended back-to-school night at Sidwell Friends, a school safe from leaking roofs and commonplace violence and failed education that prevails in so much of the District's public schools. Does not anyone see the irony, does not anyone see the hypocrisy, does not anyone see the injustice in all of this? Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to take a moment here to congratulate the Senator from Massachusetts for winning a major sailing race this past weekend, and he did not hire a professional crew. He used his sister and son and family and came in first, which is no small feat. The Senator deserves our congratulations for that, and hopefully we can get off to a good debate this morning on vouchers with the Senator feeling so good about winning that race.

Mr. COATS. It was clearly a family affair, Mr. President, and congratulations to the entire Kennedy family for that.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I am pleased that over the last few days we have had the opportunity to debate what I think is a very vital and very important issue, particularly one that affects low-income children in the District of Columbia. We have had a number of debates on the Senate floor on the question of vouchers for students to have a choice to attend another school because the parents do not feel the school their child is in is providing the education they need to succeed. We have a particularly acute situation in the District of Columbia whereby a number of children find themselves trapped in schools, in particularly low-income, primarily minority neighborhoods, with virtually no way out. We know that many aspire to be pro athletes, and I join that group that aspires to do that, but unfortunately God only gives a very select few the kind of talent to do that. Education is one of the primary ways for young people to better their circumstances, particularly in situations where children of limited means or practically no means find themselves locked in a situation that gives them no choice. Then their opportunities for meaningful and gainful employment in the workplace or for continued education to give them better opportunities is forfeited. The D.C. Scholarship Program is something that Senator Lieberman and I have coauthored and have worked to pass. We are moving toward a very important vote at 11 o'clock that will allow us to continue the debate, which I think is not just a debate focused on this bill but a debate that this Senate, Congress, the President, and the entire country should be engaging in: How do we improve our education system? It has been nearly a decade and a half since the report ``A Nation at Risk.'' That report cited the mediocrity of American public education. There have been a number of reforms that have taken place in different parts of the country, but it seems that those who are left behind are those who occupy low-income homes, mostly minority students in failing schools, urban school systems. Now, our goal is not to replace the public school system in the District of Columbia or anywhere else. Clearly, given the number of students we have, the limited availability of private schools, we need to find ways to strengthen the public school system. We believe that this offers an opportunity to provide that impetus, that spur, to help move along the necessary reforms in the D.C. public school system. We also believe it offers an opportunity to 2,000 children in the District to better their situation, to utilize the voucher to provide an opportunity for a better education. So this bill would provide scholarships for 2,000 young people in grades K through 12 in the District of Columbia that are at or below 185 percent of poverty. It would also provide tutoring help for those who chose to stay within the public schools but needed some assistance in terms of reading and math. Mr. President, I yield at this particular time. I know we have a limited amount of time. Senator Lieberman and I will be dividing that time up, and I believe we have one or two other speakers on our side.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is interesting that in this debate not one person who is opposed to the scholarship program for D.C. students has come down here and addressed the fundamental issue of this debate. The fundamental issue is, will we give poverty-stricken minority children the opportunity to escape a failed educational system so that they, too, can participate in the American dream? We have talked about plumbing, air conditioning, crumbling schools, and we have heard if you can't give it for 100, you can't give it for any. What kind of argument is that? In other words, if you can't totally reform the system all at once for everyone, you condemn another whole generation in the District of Columbia--and in Chicago and other cities around this country--to failure and the inability to gain skills to become gainfully employed or to have the opportunity to go on to further education. Now, this argument about bleeding the system--if I could have the attention of the Senator from Illinois and the delegate from the District of Columbia, who is on the floor--bleeding the system. The D.C. school system gets $672 million a year, and you are saying that if you added $7 million, the system would be fixed? The General Accounting Office said that 25 percent of the maintenance budget never leaves the maintenance facilities office. It doesn't go to fix plumbing. The system is broken. We are taking $7 million, not out of the $672 million, not one penny of this is coming out of the current budget for D.C. schools. The $7 million is coming out of money set aside to reduce the general deficit. That was added on to the President's budget. Bleeding the system, fixing the ventilating, while kids can't even achieve the test score to go on to higher education, kids can't get out of a school--your own statistics show why parents want to leave. If 67 percent of the schools have crumbling roofs and 65 percent have faulty plumbing and 66 percent have inadequate heating, ventilation, and air- conditioning and more than 50 percent goes to maintenance and administration and less than 50 percent of the $672 million goes to educating students, what is wrong with that system? There is something desperately wrong with the system. This program is designed to at least give 2,000 kids a chance. We talk about the 100-percent solution. Well, it is like if you can't give 100 percent of the kids an opportunity within a failed system, then let's not give any kids an opportunity, let's condemn all of them. Now, the District of Columbia system needs help desperately. Even the Washington Post, not a supporter of school vouchers, has said give it a chance. At least try it, to see if maybe it spurs the system on, the D.C. public schools system, to a little bit better performance. If it doesn't work--we have a test built in here--if it doesn't work, we will try something else. But let's do something to help these kids. Let's do a small, little piece. Now, the Senator from California talks about bureaucracy. ``Bureaucracy'' is another word for the D.C. public school system. More than 50 percent of the money, $672 million, doesn't even go to the classroom. Yet in this bill we have a cap of 7.5 percent on administration. We will match our administration with the D.C. administration any time, anywhere. Senator Kennedy said, who wants it? Nobody wants it in the District of Columbia. Here are 2,000 parents that want it that have signed this petition. I have a list of 100 ministers, D.C. ministers, almost all minority ministers, who said, we plead with you, give our kids a chance to get an education. They want it. There was a recent poll taken in the District of Columbia, and 64 percent of D.C. residents indicated if they had the funds, they would get their kids out of the public school system; 40 percent drop out-- the Senator had a chart saying 50; say it's 40 or 50 percent, whatever--they don't even graduate from the system. The constitutional argument--vouchers are good enough for day care. I think the Senator supported that. Vouchers are good enough for Head Start. I think the Senator supported that. Vouchers are good enough for the GI bill and good enough for kids to go to Loyola in your State. That is a religious school. If they are good enough for people over 17 and they are good enough for kids under 5, why aren't they good enough for kids between 5 and 17? Does the Senator want to respond?

Mr. COATS. I yield myself 6 minutes, and my understanding is that will reserve roughly 10 minutes for the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. COATS. I will be glad to respond. This Senator would be happy to support any effort to improve public schools, but I don't put plumbing ahead of education. I think the first thing we ought to do--and I don't know why the Senator doesn't support it--we first ought to help kids get educated, and at the same time maybe we can do that. If we don't fix the schools, we will not fix the education--that is upside down. One last thing. It was stated on this floor that few parents can get to the schoolhouse door. Well, there are a lot of poor kids who have no opportunities in life that can't get through the schoolhouse door because Members of Congress are standing at the schoolhouse door saying, ``Nope, you are not allowed in the school. You don't have the money, you can't get in.'' I am a product of public schools. My kids are a product of public schools. I support public schools. But I don't support public schools that don't give education. I want to do something to help that public education. I yield the remaining time existing to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. COATS. Objection.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of the Coats amendment No. 1249 to S. 1156, the D.C. appropriations bill. Under the order, there will be 1 hour of debate prior to the cloture vote on the Coats amendment regarding school choice. Following the 11 a.m. cloture vote, the Senate will continue debating amendments to the D.C. appropriations bill with the hope of finishing action on that bill during today's session. In addition, the Senate will consider the continuing resolution at some point during the session. As previously ordered, the Senate will recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. in order for the weekly policy luncheons to meet, and the Senate may also return to consideration of S. 25 regarding the financing of political campaigns or any conference reports that are cleared for Senate action. Therefore, Members can anticipate additional rollcall votes throughout the day.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. We have no intention, I tell the Senator, of using that much time. I think the Senator from Kansas has less than 10 minutes and I will defer my time until tomorrow.

Mr. COATS. Yes.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I have three unanimous-consent requests the leader has requested. And I know the Senator from Minnesota has been very patient. And if I could just get these in I would appreciate it.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote on the DOD appropriations conference report, the Senate go into Executive Session and proceed to a vote on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 165, the nomination of Katherine Hayden, to be U.S. District judge for the district of New Jersey. I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following that vote, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nomination appear at that point in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the Federal agency energy management provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 25, 1997, at 10 a.m. on S. 852--motor vehicle titling reform.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 1997, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 799, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to the personal representative of the estate of Fred Steffans of Big Horn County, WY, certain land compromising the Steffans family property; S. 814, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to John R. and Margaret J. Lowe of Big Horn County, WY, certain land so as to correct an error in the patent issued to their predecessors in interest; and H.R. 960, a bill to validate certain conveyances in the city of Tulare, Tulare County, CA, and for other purposes.