Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to add my support to this. I have been a supporter of additional funds for Parkinson's. But in the process of all of this, and serving on the committee, I have raised, on a number of occasions, my concerns that we are making decisions about which diseases, which research centers at NIH receive the funds. We are making that decision, I think, in well-intended ways, in ways that we hope will direct funds to provide breakthroughs and better research and hopefully cures for some of these diseases, yet I have been concerned we are doing it on a piecemeal basis. I am concerned that those organizations which have the greatest lobbying clout, who have been able to contact the most Senators or Congressmen, the ones who have generated the most support at home or who are best organized have become those that are rewarded by passage of legislation like this, and that those who do not have the lobbying expertise, the lobbying clout, do not have the same kind of friends in Congress that others have and end up being shorted. As a consequence, we are making decisions on the basis of anecdotal evidence--and some scientific evidence--but on the basis of political decisions as much as scientific decisions. Medical research is a complicated field. NIH is a wonderful organization that attempts to direct funds in ways that will ensure that research dollars are going into those areas where the best results can be obtained. And yet, in my visits to NIH, and talking with a number of people out there, and my observation of the process here, it is clear that those funds are not always directed in the most expeditious manner, not always directed in ways that provide the most hope in terms of finding breakthroughs and in finding cures. Having said that, there is no question that Parkinson's research over the years has been shorted. In 1994, it had a funding rate of $26 per patient, the lowest of all the major diseases, yet it affects one million or more Americans. Its direct funding in 1994 was only $26 million, the lowest dollar number of all the major diseases. So I think it is important that we recognize that here is a debilitating disease that affects a million or more Americans, that has had a personal impact on many of us and our families, that has generated a very effective organization that supports research, increased funding for research, but at the same time I think we have to acknowledge or we should acknowledge and recognize that this is not the best way to go about allocating funds for research at NIH, that the lobby group that is the most effective or the Members who are in the best position to direct the funds because of their committee positions or whatever, that is not the way that we ought to be allocating research dollars. We ought to be doing it on a meritorious basis, one that is supported by medical science, one that receives the recommendation of independent researchers or an independent body or medical experts that certainly have more expertise in this area than we do. I say that because if you look at the list of diseases and the centers and the way we fund those, there is clearly an imbalance. We clearly are directing funds to areas where research is unnecessary or is duplicated. We clearly are not directing funds to areas where we need research. I have discussed this with NIH officials. I have been told--and will not quote any names--but I have been told by people who are in a position to know, they are duplicating and in some cases tripling the amount of funds going into the same research simply because they are directed by the Congress to fund that specific disease. And, of course, any duplication or triplication or every excess dollar that has to be spent because it is politically directed to be spent and not medically necessary or scientifically required and going to meritorious studies is a dollar that does not go into some other research, whether it is direct research or indirect research, that could offer potentially life-saving breakthroughs in other diseases. Just an example or two. All of us have heard about Parkinson's, and we are going to increase Parkinson's here. And I am going to support that increase. I will say this. This is the last specific research dollar increase that I am going to support until we have an outside organization that can give us some recommendations as to how to allocate our money. This ``disease of the month'' or who has the best lobby or who has the most influential friends in Congress is not the way that we ought to be directing research funds. But I have been a long-time supporter of Parkinson's. They have made their case. But I have told them I am not going to continue on this basis. I will support the bill this year, but I am going to be adding shortly an amendment that Senator Frist will speak to, of which I would like to add him as a cosponsor, which will initiate this study so that we would have a report so that in next year's appropriations process we have before us the information we need in order to make rational decisions, meritorious decisions rather than just simply political decisions. I don't mean just simply political decisions, but decisions that are not wholly supported by medical science. Very few people have heard of polycystic kidney disease, PKD. I had not heard of it until I was visited by a friend of mine who introduced me to the disease. PKD receives a ridiculously low appropriation, and yet PKD is a disease that affects 500,000 Americans. It affects their kidneys in a way that they do not function. And yet, as a Government, because kidney dialysis is covered under Medicaid and Medicare, we spend untold millions of dollars in paying the bills for kidney dialysis when we provide virtually nothing for research in an area where some amazing advances are possible, according to the medical researchers, that can eliminate this disease and save the taxpayer literally billions of dollars. But because PKD is something that has not generated a huge lobbying effort, does not have influential friends in Congress in key positions, PKD continues to get the short end of the stick in terms of research dollars. And yet, if there was ever an area where we ought to be directing research funds, if the medical science says we have an opportunity here to utilize these effectively and provide research, if there is ever an area that can free up funds that we can use for more research, in Parkinson's and other areas, or to help with the Medicare funding or Medicaid funding or Medicare funding, it ought to be in polycystic kidney disease, because the Government, we have agreed we are going to pay for transfusions on dialysis, we are going to pay for those out of Federal funds. And so year after year after year we pay billions of dollars to provide very costly and very difficult relief for people suffering from this disease, and yet we give them virtually nothing in terms of their research. As a consequence of all that, and through discussions we have had in committee with some NIH scientists and researchers, I think we are coming to a consensus here that we ought to initiate a process by which we can coordinate our research dollars in a way that it gives us an effective use of those dollars and gives us the best chance to provide the best research in the best ways. This amendment that I am going to offer shortly would require a comprehensive review of NIH and congressional policies and procedures for establishing priorities for research dollars. And that review has to be independent of the agency. The amendment requires that the agency contract with the Institute of Medicine, which I think is a highly respected and reputable institution, to conduct the study according to the statutory specifications, and requires a report to Congress within 6 months so that the authorizing and the appropriating committees for next year's cycle will have that information before them before they make their decisions. It raises critical questions about how we ought to direct research dollars, talks about how much funding that would be appropriate, and the statutory changes that will be needed to change NIH policies and procedures. The Institute of Medicine is particularly directed to focus on the factors and criteria used by NIH to make disease funding allocations, to focus on the process by which the funding decisions are made, the mechanisms for public input and the impact of congressional statutory directives. Again, as I said, Dr. Olonow, from NIH, who testified before our committee, thought that this was an appropriate way to proceed. The funding is drawn from NIH's general administrative funds. None of these funds will come from existing research dollars. This amendment is not opposed by NIH. I think it will give us a means of making wiser decisions about how we appropriate dollars in the future. Amendment No. 1075 (Purpose: To provide for the conduct of a comprehensive, independent study of National Institutes of Health research priority setting)

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, let me first say I very much appreciate the efforts of the Senator from New Hampshire in addressing this issue. I think it is an important issue and one which goes to a topic which deserves and needs a great deal of discussion and debate. Clearly, our public education system in this country has many cracks in the once solidly supported and, I think, respected position that it once had. We have many failing public schools, not just in our major cities, but across our land. The goal that we share, whether you are Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative, is that we want to improve education in this country and we want to address some of the shortcomings that we find in education. The Senator from North Dakota raised a point which in many instances I think I do not disagree with. We do want to find ways of assessing where we are educationally, and giving parents a better idea of where their schools are in terms of preparing their children for a successful future. The proposal to look at reading levels of achievement at the end of the third grade in reading and in eighth grade in math is not necessarily a goal that we should not attempt to reach. The concern that was raised by the Senator from New Hampshire is that if we address this in a way in which the Department of Education controls and designs the way this will be tested and then potentially uses this to establish standards, we continue a process of Federal Government knows best in terms of how to fix the education system in this country. Frankly, the positive changes that are being brought about in the education of the young people in this country are not coming from Washington. They are coming from local and State initiatives. We do not want to do anything that deters that. In fact, we want to do everything we can to encourage that. I think it is safe to say if the initiatives that have been proposed and tried and are being tested and used in a number of our local educational jurisdictions and in a number of our States had to have the approval of the Federal Government, we would have gotten nowhere. We would not have charter schools in this country if the Department of Education had to approve it. We would not have had many of the experimental programs aimed at better addressing the situation of our at-risk children who are learning very little, or not at all, in many of our public schools, and particularly our public schools in urban areas across this country, because the national education unions have a lock on the public school process and a lock on the Department of Education. I have been in the Chamber proposing a number of new initiatives, most in the form of demonstration programs which merely ask that we test a new idea to gauge its effectiveness. I do this so often because the only thing we know about the current system for sure is that it is failing many of our children. So why not try something new, why not experiment with some new ideas? And if it works, then decide how we want to encourage it. And if it does not work, throw it out and try something else. But what we have is a Department of Education locked into a no-change system because the teachers unions, not merely the teachers but the teachers unions, say don't touch it--no merit pay for teachers, no changes in the rules on tenure. They just fight every change that is proposed. And so when the idea comes along of OK, let's set a testing standard so that we know where we stand, it looks good on its face--I think we all want that information; it can be useful to local jurisdictions and useful to States. But what we do not want is to get into the situation we got into with the national history standards whereby Federal bureaucrats and the organizations that currently control funding for public education basically say we will define what those standards ought to be, and we will set those standards and then we will measure the test against those standards. We don't want to get into that trap again. We went through that not a short time ago, and those standards were soundly rejected because they were taking us in absolutely the wrong direction. Now, I think that we can address the goals raised by the Senator from North Dakota, which I think Senator Gregg and I share in, of trying to find a way to provide local educational institutions and States with information about where students stand relative at least to reading and to math at fourth and eighth grade levels without falling into the problem that we would have if the administration were allowed to go forward with its original plan. What the Senator from North Dakota apparently was not aware of was that the Department of Education has already begun developing tests, and has already contracted with a consortium of testing agencies whereby the Department of Education defines how this is going to be done, without using an independent agency. Now, the President just this past Saturday in his national radio address wisely concluded that was not the direction the American people wanted to go, or that was not the way in which we ought to pursue this concept of trying to find where we stand at certain levels in regard to the subjects of reading and mathematics. And so the President announced on Saturday that he would defer to the critics' complaints that this should be done by an independent agency and should not be administered or controlled by the Department of Education. What Senator Gregg and I are trying to do is to hold the President to his word, so that it is not just something said on a radio address but it is something that is actually fulfilled by members of his own Department of Education. So the amendment that was offered was intended to prohibit the use of funds in this act, or any act, for the development or implementation of a national testing program. Now, we know that the Department has already signed a contract to begin developing this testing program, and as a consequence of that we are now trying to send a signal to the Department encouraging them to slow down. This is something that the Congress should debate, as the Senator from North Dakota said. This is something that the Congress should authorize. This is something on which the will of the people should be heard, that the input from the education institutions at the local and State levels ought to be heard before we proceed with this national effort. This truly should be a decision that is not first made in Washington and imposed on the States, but rather one that is first supported in State capitols and local jurisdictions around the country and only then decided on by Congress. Because there is a question raised about what the underlying amendment is intended to accomplish, I propose that we pause here, and agree to work together, as the Senator from North Dakota said, to achieve what many feel is a desirable goal. I think it would be helpful for local educational agencies and for States to have an assessment of where their students are. I think it would be helpful for parents to know how their schools are performing and measuring up in relation to other schools. I think that puts pressure for change on the system. I am trying to avoid the situation that we have frequently encountered after the passage of education legislation of parents getting involved because they don't like what is going on in Washington. For instance, if we don't take the time to check whether parents really want national testing, if they are unhappy, they will call up their Congressman and they will call up their Senators. They'll say, wait a minute; we are not so sure about this new Federal initiative to fix the problem of poor student performance because it looks like more Federal control. Federal control in education hasn't worked very well in the past, and we are not sure it is going to work in the future. Besides how does the Department of Education conclude it knows what is best for the education system when it has been over 15 years since a blue ribbon commission came out with a shocking report talking about the mediocrity of public education in America, and since then the only real reforms that have taken place have not been at the Federal level; reforms have been at the local and the State level, and we want to preserve the right of local jurisdictions and States to make those reforms. So I am offering a second-degree amendment to the underlying amendment which says that no Federal funds can be used for national testing until Congress has specifically authorized those tests. It does not say that we should not pursue the goal of some type of national testing. But what it does say is that the Congress ought to debate this and it ought to be authorized by the Congress before the administration, through the Department of Education, simply goes forward. My second-degree amendment says that none of the funds made available in this act, or any other act, will be used to develop, plan, implement, or administer any national testing program in reading or mathematics unless the program is specifically authorized by Federal statute. The operative phrase is that you can't go forward with this and use Federal funds unless it is specifically authorized by the Congress. That allows us to engage in the debate that the Senator from North Dakota thought we ought to engage in, and I agree that allows us to define how this testing will take place, that allows us to acknowledge the concern that the Senator from North Dakota expressed that maybe we do not want the Department of Education running this. Having been involved in the issue of student loans over the past several years and raising objections to the Department of Education taking over the student lending business, which it says it can do more effectively and more efficiently than the private sector, I find it ironic that Congress Daily reports that the Department of Education has had to suspend all direct loan consolidation efforts because it is overwhelmed by the effort. It cannot handle the work. And so students who want to consolidate their loans in terms of paying them back are now not able to do so because the Department of Education cannot handle it. A number of us, including Senator Gregg and many others, have raised concerns about the ability of the Department of Education to properly manage and administer the very complex business of making and collecting student loans. Frankly, we have never thought that they have the capacity to handle it. It is not that they are not well intended. The problem is there are no competitive pressures. They do their own thing. And it is the nature of bureaucracy--that is why it is called bureaucracy--to become bureaucratized and inefficient. I remember when the First Lady was here promoting her health plan, and in her first presentation to the Congress to two of the committees here, one of which I sit on, I said it seems to me that this massive national health plan is based on a number of faulty assumptions, one of which is that Government can accomplish an objective more efficiently and effectively than the private sector. I said that in my experience in 18 years in government and in my reading over the history of this Government, I have not been able to identify an area where the Federal Government has performed a service more effectively or efficiently than the private sector. I said, can you name me one? And the First Lady said, ``Well, Senator, I think you are correct in terms of past performance of the Federal Government, but this time we think we have it right.'' We think, in terms of the health care plan that was being proposed here by Mr. Magaziner and herself, that we can avoid that problem. As we have learned, that health care plan was rejected overwhelmingly by the American people because they had no faith that the Federal Government could take 15 percent of our economy, the entire health care system of the United States, and turn it over to Government to run with any assurance that it would be run effectively and efficiently. And, therefore, those of us who have a philosophy grounded in the free enterprise system are very skeptical about new proposals to inject the Federal Government further and further into those efforts handled by the private sector. So, at the very time the Department of Education now admits that it can't handle a small fraction of the lending business that is the consolidation of loans, and that it is going to take months and months and months for it to get its act together, if then, it now wants to enter into a new area of national testing, who knows where this is going to take us. And of course, who knows how many additional people will have to be assigned to have to administer this, to oversee the contracts and define the standards. Those are the concerns that Senator Gregg and I have, and those are the concerns we are trying to address. What we would like to do with this amendment, then, is simply follow up on the President's concession last Saturday and basically say, No. 1, this should not be done by the Federal Government, should not be done by the Department of Education, it ought to be done, if done at all, through an independent agency. And since we are dual players in this town, both the administration and the Congress, in doing the people's business, this is something the Congress ought to authorize. Therefore my second-degree amendment would prohibit funds from being used to further this national testing program until it is authorized by Federal statute. The chairman of the relevant appropriations committee, Senator Specter, will be holding hearings as early as tomorrow whereby the Secretary of Education will come forward, as well as Mr. Goodling, whom I deeply respect in terms of his experience with education. They will both come to testify as to the pros and cons of national testing. I think we need hear those pros and cons. I think we need to debate those pros and cons, and then I think we need to go forward and make a decision as to how we proceed. Again, I say this as someone who is not unalterably opposed to national testing for reading in fourth grade and math at eighth grade. Frankly, one of the reasons I want these tests is because I think it will draw more attention to the failure of the public system to educate our children. When we look at the disparities that exist in public education in some of our schools and we look at some of our efforts, I think it will put additional pressure on the public system to open up, to try new alternatives, and parents will be demanding that we provide better education for their children and different ways of providing that education. So, from that standpoint, I think national testing can be of benefit. With that, Madam President, I send my second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, to privatize religious belief is to trivialize it. When we treat religion as purely personal--irrelevant to the way we live our lives and write our laws--this is not neutrality to religion, it is hostility to religion. The reason is simple: because faith is more than an internal belief, it is a guide to external conduct. And for religious liberty to have any meaning, government and business must accommodate that conduct, within the bounds of reason and order. Consider one case: Ms. Jones, a line worker at Bigco Enterprises approaches her supervisor with a problem: According to her religion, she may not work on Sunday. Ms. Jones will work any other day--including Saturday evenings--without extra pay. But the mandate of her religion is absolute. If given the choice of working on Sunday or losing her job, Ms. Jones will have to resign or risk being fired. The supervisor explains that Bigco has a random shift-assignment policy which requires that every employee work the assigned shift or find a replacement worker. Unable to find a replacement worker, Ms. Jones misses two Sundays, and is fired. Mr. President, presumably, title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee on the basis of her religion, would provide Ms. Jones some recourse. But that is not necessarily the case. Since 1972, title VII has required an employer to make an accommodation ``unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship.'' In a case such as the one described above, Mr. Jones' religious practice would not have to be accommodated, and Bigco would likely not be liable since attempting to find a replacement worker for Jones would cause Bigco to ``bear more than a de minimis cost''. Under current law, Ms. Jones' religious observance would constitute an undue hardship, and Bigco would have no further obligation to Ms. Jones. Over 60 percent of Americans consider themselves to be religious, yet, Ms. Jones' predicament is all too common in the United States. Employees who engage in seemingly common religious observances such as the Sabbath are often faced with the difficulty of breaking an employer's rule or violating a religious tenet. As Justice Marshall explained in his dissent in the Hardison case, under the de minimis standard which the courts have adopted in religious accommodation cases, an employer ``need not grant even the most minor special privilege to religious observers to enable them to follow their faith.'' He continues: ``As a question of social policy, this result is deeply troubling, for a society that truly values pluralism cannot compel aderents of minority religions to make the cruel choice of surrendering their religion or their job.'' Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kerry in introducing the Workplace Religious Freedom Act to addresses this issue head-on. The goal of the act is to restore the original intent of title VII by extending to religious observers the same level of protection afforded others under Federal civil rights laws. The act accomplishes this goal principally by applying the same standard for undue hardship to religious observance cases as are already applied in other Federal civil rights actions, such as those under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Thus under this legislation, the term undue hardship is defined as an action requiring ``significant difficulty or expense''. Our bill takes into account a number of factors, including: First the cost of the accommodation as determined by the costs of lost productivity and of retraining or hiring employees or transferring employees from one facility to another; second the size of the employer; third the number of employees who require the accommodation and; fourth for an employer with multiple facilities, the degree to which the geographic separateness or administrative or fiscal relationship of the facilities will make the accommodation more difficult or expensive. The bill also provides a number of safeguards for the employer. For example, an employer is not required to provide an accommodation which will result in the inability of an employee to perform the essential functions of the job nor is an employer required to pay premium wages or additional benefits to employees requesting the accommodation if the change in schedule is instituted specifically to accommodate an employee's religious observance or practice. The Workplace Religious Freedom Act is an important step toward restoring the original intent of title VII. Though we know that only a minority of employers refuse to make reasonable accommodations for employees to observe the Sabbath or other Holy days, the fact of the matter is that no worker in America should be forced to choose between a job and violating deeply held religious tenets. Religious discrimination in America must not be tolerated. It should be treated as seriously as any other form of discrimination. Mr. President, let me conclude by reminding us that the best and oldest tradition of America is religious accommodation without coercion. We have no established religion in this country, and do not want one. But we must recognize and respect the important role of religion in our society. Values that come from religious faith enrich our common life. As a society, we must continue to guarantee that religious liberty. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. COATS. First of all, I wish to associate myself strongly with the remarks of the Senator from Louisiana and Rhode Island and the Senator from New York relative to entitlement reform. I spoke at length on it yesterday, and I will not repeat all those remarks. It was with great sadness and disappointment we came what I think is as close as we have ever come in this Congress to addressing the fundamental reforms, structural reforms that need to take place in our entitlement programs, particularly Medicare, if we are going to ensure the long-term viability of that program, which I think we are all committed to do, and if we are going to prevent a crisis situation in which we will not act perhaps in a rational, reasonable manner but address it under the threat of massive underpayment or massive deficit in that program. It is interesting to me that in the Chamber just a moment ago were two Republicans and two Democrats, probably covering the ideological spectrum within our respective parties, all speaking in favor of entitlement reform. So I am hopeful that we are at least moving in the right direction. The Senator from New York said that even though we expected a firestorm of political opposition, it wasn't heard. It wasn't heard because the American people need to be given more credit for understanding the nature of the problem and the solutions to the problem than we give them credit for. There might have been a time politically when retribution would have been rendered across the spectrum for anybody who even breathed the idea that we ought to change Medicare. But today even senior citizens understand that this very important program cannot maintain its viability unless some reasonable changes are made, structural changes are made, in the current program in the way it is currently operated. Younger people understand, and if you ask them today whether or not they think there will be a viable Medicare Program for them when they retire, an alarmingly high percentage say, no, I don't; I think the payroll taxes that are being extracted from my paycheck are going into a fund and I will never see the benefits. So I share the disappointment of our Members in terms of coming so close and yet not succeeding at this important time. I made the point yesterday that during difficult economic times, when unemployment is high and deficits are running high, we say we can't make these changes now because it will result in too much economic dislocation. Here we have the best of times. We have never had a more favorable time economically and politically in which to address these questions. Our economy is humming along at a rate that none of us anticipated, pouring revenues into Washington--which we are giving some back with this tax cut--which were reducing the deficit, which is what we need to do. We are balancing the budget. We are the recipients of very good economic fortunes. And we have in place politically an administration that doesn't have to stand for reelection, a Congress that has already gone on record in support of entitlement reform. It just seems as if all the political stars and economic stars are lined up and that this is the moment. I hope these good times last. I hope these good political stars continue to line up in a way that we can accomplish this. But I think those who have experienced some years of history understand that the good times do not always last, that we will be facing different circumstances in the future, and we may not have the pieces in place to accomplish this. We do not need another commission. The Senator from Louisiana is absolutely correct. We have had commissions. We have had studies. We have more information than we know what to do with. We have educated the American people. The seniors understand. The young people understand. Everybody seems to understand. Unfortunately, we always come down to the point of not now; let's do it after the next election. Let's get past this next period of time. That is, indeed, unfortunate. Today I want to focus the remainder of my remarks, and they will be brief, on the continuing effort to bring tax equity to families. This is a process that began in the 1980's. I was pleased to be a part of that, leading the effort in the House of Representatives along with my colleague Jack Kemp in pushing for family tax relief. We were able to double the personal exemption, the first major adjustment in the amount of tax relief that families get for raising children since the inception of the dependents deduction in 1948. We continue that now with this bill. I introduced the child tax credit in the Senate in 1992 as part of my families first legislation. I was joined by then Congressman Rod Grams, now Senator Grams from Minnesota. As he was my compatriot in this in the House of Representatives, he has continued that leadership in the Senate. I am pleased to have worked with him in that effort. This is a culmination of a long effort to readdress the imbalance that exists within the Tax Code in terms of family tax relief. Many people have fought for it, and I commend those who have worked so hard to achieve this. A disproportionate share of the tax burden on families has been a problem in both good economic times and bad economic times. It has increased over the decades even as the cost of raising children has increased. The Tax Code has been a symbol in the past of public indifference to the challenge to families, and this tax measure today is a symbol that our thinking and our actions are finally changing. Clearly we are beginning to understand that a dollar spent by families is far more helpful to children and compassionate than any dollar spent by the Federal Government. In 1997, Americans will work until the middle of May just to earn enough to pay their tax bill. Most families must have both parents working, one to provide for the family, one to pay taxes to the Government. In fact, families today spend more in taxes than they do on food, clothing, and shelter combined. The evidence is overwhelming. The facts are no longer contestable. The answer is to return public funds to the people and not to funnel them through the Government. The child tax credit is a tangible achievement for the people of every State. In my State of Indiana, the $500 child tax credit will give over 850,000 Hoosier families representing 1.1 million Hoosier children an average of over $80 a month extra money for family income. I am as proud, I think, as anything else that I have done in this body, to be a part of this effort to restore equity to families, to give them the ability to retain more of their hard-earned dollars to help raise their children and pay for the costs of raising those children. It is the most immediate practical form of compassion I can imagine, allowing them to spend their own money on their own needs. Mr. President, I have walked the Halls of Congress for nearly 20 years, and I have watched the high-powered lobbyists gain funds for special interests and for powerful groups. There have been those who have stood up over the years for the interests of families. But, thankfully, over time, those numbers have changed. Today they include the leadership of Congress in both parties. The largest portion of relief in this tax bill, 56.2 percent, goes to families, and that is an achievement in which we can all take pride. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce for Independence Act, bipartisan legislation designed to help poor and working-poor Americans build the productive assets they need to get out of poverty and invest in their future. Just as people can't borrow their way out of debt, they can't spend their way out of poverty. To move forward, America's struggling families need assets. For assets are ``hope in concrete form.'' While our Nation has wisely recognized this fact for our middle- and upper- income families by subsidizing, through the Tax Code, the acquisition of homes and retirement accounts, we have not extended these very sensible policies to our lower-income citizens. In fact, they are often penalized if they try to save. My legislation will change that, and set them on a path to economic independence. And, by increasing our national savings rate, it will help set America on a path to greater productivity and prosperity. I truly believe that IDA's can be to the 21st century what the Homestead Act was to the 19th and what the GI Bill was to the 20th--an investment in the common genius of the American people. The truth, Mr. President, is that we have spent billions on the poor, but we have rarely invested in them. And I say emphatically that IDA's are not a give-away--they are an investment. The Assets for Independence Act authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to establish community-based Individual Development Account [IDA] programs throughout the country. IDA's are matched savings accounts that can be used by low-income people to acquire a first home, a small business or post-secondary education or training. To help the poor save and to encourage work, their earned income would be matched by federal, non-federal, and private dollars. All payments would go directly to the third-party vendors (for example, directly to the mortgage company for people using their IDA to buy their first home) and, like IRA's, there would be harsh penalties for misuse. Community-based non-profit organizations would have to compete and raise money to be an IDA demonstration site. The legislation authorizes $25 million a year for 4 years for the demonstration. Mr. President, IDA's are not new to America. In fact, they're spreading rapidly; in part as a result of legislation I proposed, and the Congress passed, last year in connection with the welfare reform bill. Over 40 private, community-based IDA's programs are operating around the country. I am pleased to say that one of the oldest and most successful IDA programs in the country, at Eastside Community Investments, is located in Indianapolis. Fourteen States have already included IDA's in their State welfare reform plans, as permitted by the passage of last year's legislation. Twenty States have sponsored their own IDA programs, some through refundable tax credits, others through direct appropriation. For example, Pennsylvania has allocated $1.25 million for IDA's through a ``Family Savings Accounts'' program for low-income families. Over 200 community-based groups in 43 States signified their intention to develop IDA's in response to a large, privately-funded IDA demonstration, slated to begin later this summer. When I talk about IDA's, people often say to me that the poor cannot save. Well they're wrong. The poor can and do save. As of 1995, some 171,000 low-income families saved more than $250 million through community development credit unions in many of America's poorest neighborhoods. Also, I believe that the savings rate of the poor will rise tremendously once we start supporting saving, both institutionally and culturally. And finally, I doubt that all this IDA activity in the country would be going on--all the millions of dollars being committed by major foundations, corporations, and States to IDA's--if there wasn't a core belief in the ability and willingness of the poor to save for long-term, productive assets. In closing, Mr. President, I would strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. Just as the private sector and several State have invested in America's poor through IDA's, we--the Federal Government should invest too. Our commitment to IDA's could leverage millions more in private and State contributions--and thereby help move millions of hardworking low-income families from poverty to economic independence. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill as introduced be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce for Independence Act, bipartisan legislation designed to help poor and working-poor Americans build the productive assets they need to get out of poverty and invest in their future. Just as people can't borrow their way out of debt, they can't spend their way out of poverty. To move forward, America's struggling families need assets. For assets are ``hope in concrete form.'' While our Nation has wisely recognized this fact for our middle- and upper- income families by subsidizing, through the Tax Code, the acquisition of homes and retirement accounts, we have not extended these very sensible policies to our lower-income citizens. In fact, they are often penalized if they try to save. My legislation will change that, and set them on a path to economic independence. And, by increasing our national savings rate, it will help set America on a path to greater productivity and prosperity. I truly believe that IDA's can be to the 21st century what the Homestead Act was to the 19th and what the GI Bill was to the 20th--an investment in the common genius of the American people. The truth, Mr. President, is that we have spent billions on the poor, but we have rarely invested in them. And I say emphatically that IDA's are not a give-away--they are an investment. The Assets for Independence Act authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to establish community-based Individual Development Account [IDA] programs throughout the country. IDA's are matched savings accounts that can be used by low-income people to acquire a first home, a small business or post-secondary education or training. To help the poor save and to encourage work, their earned income would be matched by federal, non-federal, and private dollars. All payments would go directly to the third-party vendors (for example, directly to the mortgage company for people using their IDA to buy their first home) and, like IRA's, there would be harsh penalties for misuse. Community-based non-profit organizations would have to compete and raise money to be an IDA demonstration site. The legislation authorizes $25 million a year for 4 years for the demonstration. Mr. President, IDA's are not new to America. In fact, they're spreading rapidly; in part as a result of legislation I proposed, and the Congress passed, last year in connection with the welfare reform bill. Over 40 private, community-based IDA's programs are operating around the country. I am pleased to say that one of the oldest and most successful IDA programs in the country, at Eastside Community Investments, is located in Indianapolis. Fourteen States have already included IDA's in their State welfare reform plans, as permitted by the passage of last year's legislation. Twenty States have sponsored their own IDA programs, some through refundable tax credits, others through direct appropriation. For example, Pennsylvania has allocated $1.25 million for IDA's through a ``Family Savings Accounts'' program for low-income families. Over 200 community-based groups in 43 States signified their intention to develop IDA's in response to a large, privately-funded IDA demonstration, slated to begin later this summer. When I talk about IDA's, people often say to me that the poor cannot save. Well they're wrong. The poor can and do save. As of 1995, some 171,000 low-income families saved more than $250 million through community development credit unions in many of America's poorest neighborhoods. Also, I believe that the savings rate of the poor will rise tremendously once we start supporting saving, both institutionally and culturally. And finally, I doubt that all this IDA activity in the country would be going on--all the millions of dollars being committed by major foundations, corporations, and States to IDA's--if there wasn't a core belief in the ability and willingness of the poor to save for long-term, productive assets. In closing, Mr. President, I would strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. Just as the private sector and several State have invested in America's poor through IDA's, we--the Federal Government should invest too. Our commitment to IDA's could leverage millions more in private and State contributions--and thereby help move millions of hardworking low-income families from poverty to economic independence. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill as introduced be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I yield myself up to 15 minutes. I don't believe I will take that long. But I also ask that the Senator from Montana be allowed to take a minute to introduce legislation.

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I don't believe I will take all 15 minutes. I want to express, however, the reason I am voting against this budget agreement. When the budget resolution came before the floor of the Senate initially, I voted against it because it did not contain the entitlement reforms--the structural reforms that I felt were absolutely necessary if we are ever going to have a sustained, consistent effort at balancing our budget. Clearly, we all know that the entitlements-- the mandatory spending--have not been structurally reformed for a long, long time, and we are on a collision course with their ability to meet the demands on those funds in the future. Some changes were made in this bill. I want to talk about those in a minute. But they were not the structural reforms. Then when the budget reconciliation bill came before the Senate, I supported the budget reconciliation bill because the Senate had the courage to stand up to the plate and address the need for entitlement reforms. I doubt that there is a Member of this Congress, House or Senate, or anyone else who has paid attention to this issue, that doesn't recognize that this is something that we have to do. We are on a collision course with bankruptcy for Medicare. We hear all of this wonderful talk about preserving Medicare for the benefit of our elderly. Yet, the quality of Medicare services continue to decline because we continue to impose restraints and restrictions on the providers, and it squeezes the quality of care. And we fail to have the will to step up to the plate and deliver any kind of structural reform in the program--even reform that takes place well into the next century. The Senate addressed that issue. The Senate by a fairly substantial vote passed legislation which would begin that process of structural reform. So I supported the bill on that basis, hoping that it would survive conference. Due to a number of factors which I will talk about, it didn't survive. And it is back here now without those reforms. All the wonderful promises and rhetoric about addressing the Medicare problem is more of the same that we have been promising for the last several budget resolutions, most of which has not come to fruition. So I approach this conference spending bill with a sense of sadness and feeling of resignation--a sense of sadness because I know that the Senator from New Mexico and others who have been involved in this process have worked very, very hard to put together a bill which moves us toward a balanced budget. They have incorporated a number of provisions in here which I believe are important provisions, and provisions which I support; but a sense of sadness because we have dropped in the negotiations what I think were the most important parts of this budget reconciliation bill--the structural reforms and entitlements. It is entitlements that are eating up our revenues. It is the entitlements, were it not for a booming economy which is pouring revenues into our coffers for the present time--it is the entitlements which would be squeezing other aspects of the budget, whether you are for education, or roads or safe water, or environmental issues, or a whole number of other things. Those are being squeezed because we don't have the political will and courage to address the entitlements. It is resignation that I feel because lasting structural reform of Government spending seems to be beyond the ability of the Congress and the executive branch. The measure before us today is significant not for what it contains but for what it does not contain--commitment to fundamental institutional change. And that failure is most obvious, as I have said, when we look at the entitlement parts of this bill. Here, for whatever reason--probably a lack of political will--we have dropped the three measures which maybe signaled the best hope of future ability to contain entitlement growth. Instead, we have what is estimated as a $115 billion reduction in Medicare spending, but this is an evasion, not a reform, because these projected savings are achieved by the typical way we have done this: decreasing payments to providers. It has been tried over and over again, and it has failed. Costs have continued to rise under reduced payment schemes while the quality of care has decreased. The plan also shifts the home health care program, the fastest growing part of Medicare, from Medicare part A to part B. That is a shift, at taxpayer expense, by the way, that simply delays the overall failure of this program by not reforming its faults but simply making it sustainable. In addition, the measure drops the Senate provisions that would have set the stage for future reforms, measures that, as I said, were adopted as a result of the leadership of Senator Gramm, who offered the amendment, and support on a bipartisan basis--Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and others--for these reforms. The Senate bit the bullet. The Senate exercised the political will. The Senate put itself out on a limb only to see all of these reforms dropped in these negotiations. Means testing provision dropped, the increase, very gradual increase in eligibility from 65 to 67 that would not affect anybody 46 years of age and older, and the increase in copayments for home health care service dropped, all killed, and along with that any hope for meaningful reform. The President bears some of this responsibility, a lot of this responsibility, because we all know that we cannot accomplish this without Presidential leadership, and that leadership was tepid at best. There was no sustained active involvement on the part of the executive branch and the President to bring about these reforms. And support from the House, not this body, but support from the House was weak, and I regret that. It falls on the shoulders of both parties. Left unchecked, CBO projects that Medicare spending will explode to $470 billion a year by the year 2007, representing an average annual increase of 8 percent over the next 10 years. This is a growth rate of nearly double the estimated growth of the overall economy for the same period. In the period from 2010 to 2030, when 80 million baby boomers move into retirement, Medicare's expenses are expected to surge to 14 percent of our gross domestic product as compared with 2.5 today. This cannot be sustained. This is a train coming down the track headed for a wreck, and yet time after time after time, as we are faced with the prospect of that train wreck, we blink. We pass it off to the next Congress and the next Congress, and we defer and pass that debt off to future generations. The $115 billion in promised reduced payments does nothing to avert this long-term disaster. By dropping the reforms passed by the Senate, budget negotiators have brought the looming crisis one step closer to reality. And just yesterday in the Washington Post, there was an article entitled, in fact, ``Billions Wasted, Medicare Audit Says.'' The article opens by stating that nearly 40 percent of the home health care services provided to frail elderly Americans under the Medicare Program are unjustified either because the service is not necessary or the agency administering the care is not sanctioned to do so or the person is not covered--40 percent. I think the figure was $23 billion a year in fraud and waste and abuse of one part of the Medicare system. We had a provision in the bill that began to address the problem, and we passed on it. We could not even turn to seniors and say that the program which benefits you, home health care--and I used that for my father when he was home in need of that health care--the program that benefits you is so fraught with waste and abuse it is jeopardizing the entire Medicare system. And yet, the Congress refuses to even impose the most minimal of corrections to try to address that problem. So what do we offer our seniors? A so-called bipartisan commission to study the problem. Madam President, there is nothing left to study. We have studied this thing to death. The problem is not a lack of knowledge. It is a lack of political will. Confronting the Medicare crisis will take political courage and it will take sacrifice. But these values, which should come easier in a time of economic growth and prosperity, are absent in the spending plan. That is to say nothing about Social Security. That is another problem that we don't even touch here and we also need to address. All of this, as I said, is deeply disturbing, but then when you add to that a new entitlement program, a $24 billion health care entitlement, paid for with a tax hike on cigarettes and tobacco, you compound the problem--not because we do not need a health care program for children; we do, but because this one was designed with no rational basis. It was created without an assessment of the need. The level of funding was arbitrary. We were throwing figures around here--how much can we add? How much can we subtract? Pulling figures out of thin air in a mindless bidding war rather than having an adult policy debate. We are creating in this measure future entitlement problems that we cannot even imagine because we have not taken the pains to consider those problems. I am not speaking against the need for health care for children. I am saying let us determine what the need is and tailor a program that addresses the specific need without just throwing a new entitlement program in place that will probably go the way of all other entitlement programs and that will grow beyond our means to check it, and we will not be able to put reforms in that either. What is absent from this agreement is any type of fundamental, lasting structural reform in our Government and its spending. That reform is now possible because of the strength of our economy. This is when we ought to be putting these reforms in place. We always hear that we cannot make structural reforms during times of economic slowdown, because that would have too much negative impact on our economy. And now we hear the argument that we cannot make reforms during economic prosperity because it is too difficult, because a strong economy signals to us that we do not need to make reforms. We will just reap the benefits of the new revenues that are coming in. And so when the economy is down, we cannot do it because it hurts the economy, and when the economy is doing well, we say we do not need to do it; there is no sense of urgency anymore. Our entitlement crisis is lurking around the corner, just below the surface of this strong economy. The same irrational and bloated bureaucracies that choke our economy in hard times hide in the shadows of economic boom because this legislation does nothing to reform and limit the Federal Government. Sooner or later the economy is going to slow. I wish it would not, but it will. And when it does, the reckoning will be even more severe. We have squandered a unique opportunity--a President who is not running again, a Congress led by Republicans who are willing to walk out on a limb again for entitlement reform, who will support a President if he would just provide leadership on entitlement reform, a prosperous economy where people are at work, revenues coming in. Is there ever going to be a better time to bring entitlement reform to our budget process? I doubt it. And yet we are squandering this marvelous opportunity to make changes now that will be incremental and small in nature but will provide great dividends and great benefits for the future. Instead, in the interest of political expediency, we postpone those tough decisions to a future Congress, to future generations, and we look myopically at the immediate election consequences, what we perceive them to be. I do not believe they are there. I think people are looking for politicians who will exercise political will, make the tough decision, step up and do what is right, and I think they will be rewarded in the polls. Instead, we say let us pass on this one more time. We will never have a better moment. We will never have a better opportunity. We will never be in a position where we are 3 years out from a general election, more than a year out from the next off-term election, with an Executive who does not ever have to stand for election again in his life, with a Senate that has already made the decision to go out on the limb. We will never be in a better position, and yet we have squandered this moment. For that reason, for all of the hard work that the Senator from New Mexico and others have put in this agreement, for all of the benefits in this agreement and the positive things in this agreement, I cannot support this resolution, because my litmus test, as I stated when I voted against the budget resolution and for the budget reconciliation, included entitlement reforms. But now, because they have been drawn out, that litmus test was not met. That is a minimal litmus test. I was willing to accept minimal reforms, anything, anything that moved us in a path of structural reform, addressing a problem that we know is going to impact negatively on the people of this country and the economy of this country. We know it passes on debt to future generations. We know it places our elderly people in a precarious position for the future of Medicare. And yet at this golden time, which may not come again, for political expediency or whatever reason--I wasn't in the budget negotiations--we once again pass, we once again take a powder on this and say we will do it another time; let's form a commission; let's study it some more; let's have some more recommendations. How many studies, recommendations and conditions do we have to put in place to keep telling us what we already know? So, Madam President, I know I am a skunk at the party here, the celebration for the passage of this so-called balanced budget agreement, and I hope it does balance the budget, and it may, mostly, I think, not because of new spending we put in place but because the economy is roaring along and pouring money into the coffers of the Government. I wish we could get more of that money back to the people who have earned that money. Instead, we are creating new entitlements. We passed on the opportunity to reform existing entitlements, and I just regret that very much. So I may be a lonely voice in this vote, but I cannot for the reasons I have stated support this resolution. I yield back whatever time I have remaining. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I want to take just a few moments to put something in the Record that has not really been high profiled recently but which is I believe important. I picked up the Washington Post earlier this week and was reading through the Post, and in there was a small story detailing what the President's press secretary, Mike McCurry, had to say about an earlier statement made by the White House relative to the law which governs the service in the military of people with homosexual persuasion. The administration had issued the comment in response to some court rulings that they thought that the law was working as intended. And then Mr. McCurry, after admitted pressure from the gay rights lobby, issued a clarification which changed the response or at least was intended to change the response. I quote from the Washington Post article which said: After protests from gay rights groups, McCurry yesterday said that contrary to an earlier statement, the Clinton administration does have concerns about how its [so-called] ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy [``so-called'' is my emphasis] on homosexuality is being enforced in the military. First of all, let me state that this, the current policy which is described by many as a ``don't-ask, don't-tell policy,'' is not descriptive of the particular policy. Therefore, I think it is important that we understand that what we are dealing with here is a law enacted by this Congress on a bipartisan basis, signed into law by the current President of the United States, and not subject to different interpretations but subject to exactly what is printed in the statute. Mr. McCurry needs to understand and the White House needs to understand that the prohibition against homosexuals serving in the military is a statutory requirement that was passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by the President, his President. The true test of whether the Department of Defense is faithfully executing the law is whether those who have engaged in or who have a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct are being separated from military service. That is the statute. That is the intent of the statute. That is the intent of the Congress, as enacted into statutory language and signed by the President. And that standard is that those who have engaged in or have a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct find themselves at a great inconsistency with longstanding military policy and are therefore eligible and should be separated from military service. That is the law of the land. Just a little bit of history. In January 1993, just days after his inauguration, President Clinton announced his intent to reverse the military's longstanding prohibition against homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces. That decision was uniformly opposed by our military commanders, and decisively overturned by the Congress after months of careful deliberation. Just to reiterate here, the President, very shortly after taking office, reversed longstanding military policy, and even though the President serves in his constitutional capacity as Commander in Chief, the leaders of our military unanimously opposed, publicly opposed the President's position saying that it would undermine morale, undermine the cohesiveness, undermine the very essence of what the military was designed to do. The Congress' consensus--after very considerable examination, hearings and debate--the Congress' consensus on the issue was clear, it was bipartisan, and it was broad. And the President ultimately signed a statutory prohibition against homosexuals serving in the military. He signed that into law. The law clearly sustained the Department of Defense longstanding policy and was based on several key findings of fact by the Congress. Those findings of fact are also law. And I would like to repeat those so that there is no confusion in this administration about either what the intent of Congress was or what the law was that passed the Congress and was signed by the President and now is operative. Let me just state some of these key findings. (1) Section 8, article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make rules for the Government and regulation of the land and naval forces. As the committee report noted: The framers of the Constitution expressly vested the powers to raise and regulate military forces [they vested this power and authority] in the Congress. The statute goes on to say, with the findings: The President may supplement, but [he may] not supersede, the rules established by Congress for the Government and regulation of the Armed Forces. (2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the Armed Forces. The committee amplified: The primary mission of the Armed Forces is to defend our national interests by preparing for and, when necessary, waging war. . .. Responsibility for the awesome machinery of war requires a degree of training, discipline, and unit cohesion that has no parallel in civilian society. . . . The Armed Forces routinely restrict the opportunities for service on the basis of circumstances such as physical condition, age, sex, parental status, educational background, medical history, and mental attitude. . . . The fundamental precept [is] that the rights of the individual service member must be subordinated to the needs of national defense. And so in the instance, in the case where we formed our military, we do not follow the same rules, the same civil rights, the same rights that are available to Americans in other endeavors because of the unique function of the military, its unique calling and unique requirements for those individuals to serve in it. The many, many otherwise appropriate rights exercised by Americans are not rights granted to people who voluntarily agree to serve in the military or even if they are involuntarily called up, which we do not do anymore. (3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the Armed Forces. (4) The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise. (5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the Armed Forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense. (6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion. A critical element in this fact finding: (7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members. (8) Military life is fundamentally different than civilian life in that the extraordinary responsibilities of the Armed Forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a special society; and the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society. (9) The standards of conduct for members of the Armed Forces regulate a member's social life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the Armed Forces. (10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the Armed Forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty. (11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the Armed Forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment. (12) The worldwide deployment of the United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the Armed Forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy. (13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service. (14) The Armed Forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the Armed Forces would create an unacceptable risk to the Armed Forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. (15) The presence in the Armed Forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. These are the facts as determined by the Senate Armed Forces Committee, by the Congress, both the House and the Senate, certified by us, written into law, signed into law by the President of the United States. These findings are as operative today as they were when they were passed. They are not subject to interpretation by the President. They are not subject to modification by the administration. The law of the land is clear: Homosexuals may not serve in the military. That is the law of the land. That is not the opinion of this Senator from Indiana. That is not subject to the opinion of the President's press secretary or people in the administration. It is the law of the land. The military has always defined, and continues to define, a homosexual as one who is engaged in or has a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct. Unfortunately, while the law speaks clearly, its popular title, ``don't ask, don't tell,'' is often confusing to the press and the public. It seems to imply that a homosexual may serve in the military as long as he or she is discrete. This is simply not the case and it misinterprets the law. The Senate Armed Services Committee report language is clear about the intent of the law, and again I quote: It would be irrational to develop military personnel policies on the basis that all gays and lesbians will remain celibate or that they will not be sexually attracted to others. Jamie Gorelick, then general counsel to the Department of Defense, testified: The military is not required to take the risk that you will not engage in the act. At a later hearing, she stated further: When someone makes a statement, it is reasonable to conclude that they will act, and the military is not required to take the risk that someone will not restrain a propensity. I want to remind the White House that its constitutional obligation is to enforce the law of the land. After a prolonged national debate on the question of homosexuals serving in the military, the President's position failed. Recognizing that defeat, he signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 1994 into law. In that act is the language now codified into law that clearly states the law of the land relative to homosexuals serving in the military. It is the obligation of the Department of Defense to separate those who engaged in, or have a propensity to engage in, homosexual conduct in the Armed Forces. Now, if the President wishes to reopen this debate, which I don't believe he does, he can look at modifying this law. But until that time, the administration has a constitutional duty to uphold that law, regardless of what pressure is politically applied upon the administration by any one group or number of groups or any one individual or group of individuals. So I wanted to put this in the Record so there was no misunderstanding about what the Congress had done, what the President had signed into law, and what the current law of the land is. This was the result of extensive--perhaps some of the most extensive--hearings the Senate Armed Services Committee has ever held. There were hundreds of witnesses, thousands of pages of testimony, site visits, testimony from people on all sides of the issue, representing every perspective. This was a carefully fashioned conclusion that was presented, approved by the committee, presented to the Congress and overwhelmingly approved by the Congress on a bipartisan basis, sent to the White House and signed into law by the President. I think it would behoove the President and the people speaking for him to understand clearly what this law is and to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities to uphold the law and not make vague clarifications of statements and policies simply because one or more particular group protested their particular position on the issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of a true Hoosier hero, Mr. Darrell Colson of Indianapolis. On July 15, 1997, Mr. Colson performed a heroic act. While getting ready to leave his apartment complex pool, he noticed that his neighbor, Orian Williams, who moments earlier was swimming laps, was now drowning at the bottom of the pool. After an attempt by Kim Williams, his fiance, to rescue the young woman, Mr. Colson dove into the water and pulled Ms. Williams to safety. Once he was able to remove her from the water, Darrell Colson and Kim Williams performed CPR until the rescue team arrived. Orian Williams, who by then was in a coma, was rushed to a nearby community hospital where she regained consciousness after receiving medical treatment. This is a remarkable act, by a remarkable individual. However, what makes Ms. Williams' rescue truly amazing is that Mr. Colson is a paraplegic. Four years ago, Mr. Colson suffered a tragic accident when he fell 40 feet from a tree; he is now confined to a wheelchair. To save Ms. Williams, Darrell Colson maneuvered his wheelchair to the pool, dove in, held onto her with one arm and used the other to swim her to the surface. Despite his condition, Mr. Colson found the courage to risk his own life for a fellow human being. Mr. Colson may not think of himself as special, but he is a hero to both Orian Williams and to all of us who look to his selfless example for inspiration. I initiated the Hoosier Hero program in 1991 to recognize individuals who have made significant contributions to Indiana life, while at the same time serving as an inspirational example to the entire Nation. I cannot think of a more inspirational display of courage than saving the life of another individual. Last week, Mr. President, I was pleased to officially recognize Mr. Colson as a true Hoosier hero and awarded him a Hoosier Hero plaque. Mr. Colson never expected to save a life that day while he was relaxing at the pool. Yet, he demonstrated how we all need to be prepared if we are called upon to help others. Today I ask that my colleagues join me in commending Darrell Colson, whose actions not only saved a life but demonstrated extraordinary bravery and courage. I challenge others to follow the example of Darrell Colson and other heroes in our communities. They ask for no recognition, and no reward. For Darrell Colson, he just wanted to see Orian Williams awaken from her coma and walk out of the hospital. Fortunately, he got his wish, but also the recognition of a grateful community.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise to highlight my particular support for one provision in the committee report for this bill and express my concern with proposed Food and Drug Administration rulemaking that would adversely effect asthma patients. First, I'd like to note my own personal interest in the issue. My own children suffer from asthma and I appreciate only too well the impact of this condition on children and their families. As a result, I strongly support efforts to ensure that asthmatics have access to the safest and most effective treatment. The agency's recent actions, however, suggest that remote, even hypothetical environmental concerns might take precedence over the direct concerns for the lives and health of America's substantial asthmatic population. In March of this year, the agency issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth the criteria by which it would ban certain CFC-propelled metered-dose inhalers [MDI's] from sale in this country. The proposal was apparently developed in response to concerns about ozone depletion. But this ozone depletion is already subject to international treaty provisions of the Montreal protocol that ensure the timely removal of products using CFC's. These medical devices are covered by those provisions, even though they only contribute a fraction of 1 percent of the overall atmospheric chlorine that threatens the ozone. Now the agency proposes to speed up the ban on those products in pursuit of some environmental gain--but at the risk of patients with asthma. There is currently only one MDI, of approximately 70, that is not propelled by CFC's. Removing any or all of these products too early may threaten the health of some patients, particularly the increasing number of American children with asthma. How will the agency address a situation where a CFC-free product with an active ingredient is not labeled for children when the proposed rule would remove from the market a CFC-propelled product with the same ingredient that is labeled for children? How is the health of those children promoted through such a policy? Why is the agency considering removing otherwise legal products from the market, products proven to be beneficial for children, at a time when it laments the lack of adequately labeled products for children? And further, how are children, health care costs, and the Federal budget benefited by this bureaucratically created monopoly? If the agency believes that hypothetical environmental concerns can justify speeding up an international treaty that attempts to accommodate the health of these 5 million children with asthma, then I urge them to justify that position before the relevant committees of Congress. In the meantime, I urge the FDA to carefully consider the merits of the rulemaking they are proposing and whether alternative approaches might better serve the health of America's asthmatic children. Amendment Nos. 973 Through 976, En Bloc

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, for the information of all Members, this morning the Senate will be in a period for morning business until the hour of 11 a.m. By consent, at 11 a.m., the Senate will begin consideration of S. 1033, the Agriculture appropriations bill. The majority leader has indicated that it is his hope that the Senate will be able to complete action on the Agriculture appropriations bill during today's session of the Senate. Therefore, Members can anticipate rollcall votes throughout today's session of the Senate. However, as was announced last evening, no votes will occur prior to the hour of 4 p.m. today. Also, as previously announced, the Senate may begin consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill upon disposition of the Agriculture appropriations bill. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object.

Mr. COATS. I do not want to be oversolicitous here, but I think anybody watching understands the difficulty of the majority leader in trying to schedule issues for the Senate to debate. But I just want to say that the majority leader has gone out of his way to give us a family-friendly schedule and some certainty in our schedule by the way he has scheduled issues, by the way he has scheduled votes with a certainty of votes and provided Members an opportunity to go home and have dinner with their families, albeit a somewhat late dinner, but we are used to late dinners. I just think this is an example of the difficulty of doing what he is doing. But he is doing a terrific job of it. I appreciate that. I might have considered staying in the Senate if I had known it was going to be this family-friendly.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, the Senator from Wisconsin has raised legitimate questions about the cost of future tactical air purchases. The Senate Armed Services Committee has raised these questions repeatedly with the Department of Defense, holding hearings, and received a great deal of testimony. The Secretary of Defense, former Senator Bill Cohen, has recommended a balanced approach by dramatically reducing the number of planes purchased for each of the three categories--F-18E/F, joint strike fighter, and the F-22. No final decision has been made. The committee has put severe cost constraints on engineering, manufacturing and development for the F-22. We are working on this problem. We have a national defense panel that will report to us in December. To make a precipitous decision, or even a precipitous recommendation, of canceling one of those programs puts one, either the joint strike fighter, F-22, or F-18E/F, in jeopardy. It leaves the services in jeopardy. If you cancel one, you either leave the Navy, Marines, or Air Force naked without tactical air capability they need for the future. I don't think now is the time to take this approach. I think we will be making these decisions over the next several months, but we need to rely on the Secretary and others and the bipartisan recommendation of the Armed Services Committee before moving on this. So I recommend a vote against the Feingold amendment.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, let me try to wrap up quickly in 2 minutes here for those Senators who are listening. The Senator from Wisconsin says that essentially makes the argument that a decision has to be made now regarding the future of tactical air purchases that will provide air defense security for the United States for 15 to 20 years in the future. He said we need a recommendation. He said we need a recommendation now as to what that decision ought to be. He says we are trying to have it all. Those arguments are based on the situation as it existed before the Quadrennial Defense Review. The QDR was reported and the Secretary of Defense, former Senator Cohen, certified that changes needed to be made along the lines of what the Senator was stating, except instead of saying ``cancel one,'' the Secretary said we need to dramatically reduce the amount. The threat isn't such that we need the same amount as we formerly had. That is going to save a very significant amount of money. But a balanced approach allows us to address the needs of Marine tactical air, Navy tactical air and Air Force tactical air. If you go forward and cancel one of those, one of those services is going to be left naked, without adequate tactical air. So the balanced approach that dramatically reduces the number of F-18's, the number of F-22's, and the joint strike fighter number, is the approach they want to take. Second, the final decision hasn't been made. The QDR report is 4 years. The panel will look out into the future and give us more information on that decision. Secretary Cohen has only been there 6 months; give him time to work the process. We are aware of this problem. As chairman of the Air-Land Committee, we have held hearings. We deny that we have put severe cost caps on the F-22. So we have already taken that action. So I urge our Members to support the efforts of the committee in recognizing the problem and going forward and addressing it, but not in the draconian way the Senator from Wisconsin advocated. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, my understanding is that we have 2 minutes left.

Mr. COATS. I ask the Senator from Wisconsin if he has any additional speakers. If so, we can let them go ahead and we can both wrap up.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, let me yield myself 4 minutes, and then advise me when that 4 minutes is up. First of all, I want to tell the Senator from Wisconsin that those of us on the Armed Services Committee understand and, in fact, have raised many of the same questions that he has raised. These are legitimate questions to raise in terms of where we are going with our tactical air for the future, what the cost is going to be, what the need is, assessment and so forth. In fact, as chairman of the Airland Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, we held two hearings wherein we brought experts from the Department of Defense and outside the Department of Defense to come in and answer some of the very questions--in fact, all of the very questions--that the Senator from Wisconsin proposes here this morning. Because we share that concern, we know that unless we can intelligently decide on how we budget for the future, if we concentrate too much effort in the tactical air modernization category, we will be shorting other categories, because it looks like we are going to, for some time in the future, have a pretty fixed cost in terms of what we are spending for defense. Many of the questions that were asked by the Senator from Wisconsin were posited to those who came before our committee, and we have had personal discussions with the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Air Force, Secretary of the Navy, and others on this very question. As the Senator stated, the Department has just concluded a major study called the Quadrennial Defense Review, and as a result of that, the Secretary of Defense, former Senator Cohen, now Secretary Cohen, recommended very significant changes to the tactical air. He called for a significant reduction in the amount of F-22 buys, from 448 planes to 339. Even more, for the F-18E/F, from 1,000 to 548--about a 50 percent reduction, and then a significant reduction and decrease of the joint strike fighter. Now, in addition to that, the Secretary acknowledged that a process that was initiated by Senator Lieberman and myself, with the support of Senator McCain and then-Senator Cohen and others, acknowledged that we are waiting for the review of the National Defense Panel, which is an outside group of experts which will give us a separate assessment from the Department of Defense in terms of this question and a number of other questions. It is a look into the future in terms of what we need, all throughout our defense posture and structure, but particularly in relationship to our tactical air needs. This report for the National Defense Panel will be forthcoming around December 15, and the committee awaits that with great anticipation. We are working hand in hand with the Secretary of Defense, with the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, with the National Defense Panel, through the committee efforts, to try to address the very questions that the Senator from Wisconsin raised. The reason why we object to this particular amendment at this particular time is that if we do a short-term study on the termination, recommending the termination of one of three programs, we place any one of those three in jeopardy. It may be that the National Defense Panel, the Secretary of Defense, the future analysis will conclude a different kind of a mix or moving forward with a different balance in order to achieve the cost savings. If we go forward and precipitously cancel one of those programs, we put one of our services in great jeopardy. If we cancel F-22 on a short-term analysis, we leave the Air Force naked in terms of providing for tactical air defenses for the future. If we cancel F/A-18E/F, we leave the Navy--who made a decision not to go forward immediately--we leave them, as we are retiring F-14's, without carrier capability with the F/A-18E/F. If we cancel joint strike fighters, we leave the Marine Corps totally without resources for the future because they are betting their whole future on JSF's. It would be an egregious mistake at this time to, within a 60-day period of time, require the Secretary to do something that they have spent months and months and months of analysis on, then requiring additional months of analysis to come up with that conclusion. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I wonder if I could inquire of the Senator from Wisconsin if he has any additional speakers?

Mr. COATS. How much time remains?