Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. That is acceptable to me, if the Record will indicate that I made the request. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I was unavoidably delayed by the weather coming in and just missed that last vote. I wonder if it would be all right with my colleagues if I ask unanimous consent to be recorded in favor of the tabling on the last vote.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we all want to improve quality care for child care. We spend nearly $1 billion now doing that. As chairman of the Children and Family Subcommittee I am committed to that. I commend Senator Jeffords, Senator Dodd, and others for work in that area. The reason I oppose this particular amendment is, first of all, because it is an amorphous amendment. It brings a number of things together. There is one in here we tried to work out. I think we ought to oppose it, take it back to committee, bring it through, and bring a true quality child care amendment forward. This forces grandparents, neighbors, and family day-care providers who already comply with State child care laws to meet now an additional standard, certified by a State-recognized agency or entity to submit to additional monitoring in order to have the care that they provide qualify for this additional tax credit. We should not provide a preference tax credit for those who provide care outside the State certification. There are mothers and neighbors and relatives who do that who provide what they think is quality care and, more important, what the mothers and parents of children think is quality care. I yield whatever time I have left to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. May I inquire now what the time situation is?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--

Mr. COATS. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. COATS. To be accepted en bloc.

Mr. COATS. Further reserving the right to object, I asked relative to the unanimous consent request of the Senator from Delaware. I just wanted to make sure it didn't include--maybe I misunderstood, but it didn't include a request to go immediately to those amendments.

Mr. COATS. I am only inquiring from the standpoint that I am a little lost again on procedure. How much time is left under the bill? Because I would like to respond to the arguments on the amendment of the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. COATS. Reserving the right to object--

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the hour is late and the week has been long. We all need our rest. I want to take a few moments to speak in support of the Gramm amendment, the amendment we discussed just before the discussion of the Kerry amendment. The reason I want to speak in favor of the Gramm amendment is that, as someone who has been an original sponsor and long-time proponent of the child tax credit, we were surprised--first of all, we were delighted when, first, the President, and then the Budget Committee endorsed the concept of the $500-per-child tax credit. It is long overdue. It is only a partial step in remedying an inequity that has existed for a long, long time, in terms of giving families the ability to provide for their children. Way back in the 1940s, Congress decided that raising families and raising children was a good thing. They provided a dependents exemption for that purpose. They did not index it for inflation. And over the years, because it was not indexed for inflation and because it was not raised by an act of Congress, the value of that particular exemption decreased--that is, the dependents exemption. Now, we finally doubled that exemption, and now index it, after the 1986 tax law. But it was still a third to a fourth of what it should have been if it had maintained pace with the cost of raising children. So families were squeezed and fell further and further behind other special interests that were granted benefits in the Tax Code. We finally focused on the importance of raising children and the importance of families and the importance of providing support for the family. I am pleased that we are here discussing the $500 tax credit. I am pleased that the chairman of the Finance Committee incorporated the $500 tax credit in their mark. But I rise in support of the Gramm amendment because, in doing so, a provision was made whereby the credit would only be available up through the age of 12. At that point, the credit was available, but it was conditioned on the fact that the money be put into an education savings account. Now, it is ironic that, at the very time when the cost of raising children takes a dramatic jump, we take away the ability of parents to use that credit to pay for expenses related to those children. As this chart shows, entitled ``Annual Child Rearing Costs; Children Ages 0 to 17,'' there is roughly a $7,850 cost per child for children, ages 0 to 2. It jumps to over $8,000 for children, ages 3 to 5. It goes to nearly $8,200 for children, ages 6 to 8. And it stays about that level through the age of 11. But at the age of 12--at no surprise to any parent in this room, or any parent trying to raise young children-- there is a dramatic increase in the cost per child when you hit the ages of 12 to 14, and it continues to 15 to 17. Why is that? It is because no longer are you able to tell your children that the $5 Kmart tennis shoes are good enough to wear to school. All of a sudden, they discover the Michael Jordan tennis shoes, and it is now $140 a pair. All of a sudden, the dentist says it is time that you saw an orthodontist, because if you want your child to have straight teeth, this is the time. The baby teeth are gone, the new teeth have come in, and we all want our kids to have perfect smiles. Some might be for cosmetic reasons, and many might be for a misaligned jaw or an overbite, and so forth. And clothes begin to cost more. Kids start thinking about the opposite sex. So that involves the thought of beginning to date and, suddenly, you are buying movie tickets and, suddenly, they are going out for burgers, et cetera. It is no surprise to any parent that that is the point in time which the cost really escalates, particularly when they get into the 15 to 17 age range. Then they are starting to work after school and they need transportation. Heavens, what an embarrassment it would be to have to ride the school bus. You need a car, et cetera, et cetera. There are a lot of necessary costs at this particular time, also. At that very time when it costs more, the Finance Committee has said, ``We recognize that it costs more, but you can't use the money for anything except the purpose we deem is acceptable.'' Now, it is a worthy thing to begin to save money for college, for secondary education, but not all children go to college. In fact, apparently, a large percentage don't go to college. So the education savings account that is begun or is mandated at the age of 13--they must use the child credit for that. I think that serves a purpose that we should not support. Now, some have suggested that the reason all this was done was to make the budget numbers balance, that it was to save money because those families that would not send their children to college, or didn't have plans to send their children to college, or didn't have the funds to accumulate for college, would not take the $500 tax credit and, therefore, are a savings. I hope that is not the motivation. I don't think it was the motivation, but that may be the unintended result. So we have a situation here where, ultimately, what we come down to is that either the parents are going to decide how to use the funds on the child tax credit in the best interest of their children, or the Senate Finance Committee will decide. Once again we continue the practice of Government knows best--not father knows best, not mothers know best, not family knows best, but Government knows best. We will tell you how you should spend or save money for your child. We will determine that it can only be used for one purpose. You have to continue a secondary education--a noble goal, a worthy goal, and one that I think we want to hold out as an option. But it should not be a mandate. It should not be limited to that particular goal. There are a lot of families in this category that have expenses for their children at the ages of 13, 14, 15, and 16 that are more critical than forcing them to put the money into a savings account. Hopefully, they will be in a financial position, if we think they can put the money into a savings account. Again, I say it is a worthy goal. But it ought to be an option to those parents. It shouldn't be a mandate. We should not have a Government entity--whether it is an elected Government entity or a nonelected Government entity--making a decision as to how that money should be used. It is almost humorous to say we know better about how a mother and father ought to spend money for their child than they do, that we know their family situation better, we know their education situation of their children better, we know their future plans better than the family knows its own plans. So, as well-intended as this mark in the Finance Committee package might be, I think that the amendment of the Senator from Texas makes perfect sense because it simply says if you want to do that with a $500 tax credit, fine, you can do that. We will allow you to set up an education savings account. One of the first bills I introduced when I came to Congress a long time ago was an education savings account. I think it is a worthy goal, a worthy idea. But if you deem that there are other purposes more appropriate, then we will allow you to do that also. To suggest that at the age of 13 suddenly the 13-year old is given the money and the parents are going to say, ``I am going to take the money and go down to the casino,'' like the Concord Coalition suggested--talk about arrogance. Talk about an arrogant conclusion; that is, that parents don't care about their kids, that they are either going to spend the money on beer or they are going to spend the money at the casino almost defies belief. Who do we trust here? Do we trust the parents? Do we trust the family? I am sure there will be examples. You can pick up the paper and read about some wayward father who took the tax credit and went down to the casino. Sure, that will happen. But that doesn't begin to describe the average American family who cares about their children, who want the best for their children, and are in the best position to make the decision as to how that money ought to be spent. So I am a strong supporter of the Gramm amendment. I think that we ought to modify this. Whether this is put together to create a deal--it is a lousy deal. I won't call it a rotten deal. It is a lousy deal, and the wrong way to allocate these resources. Let's leave that decision in the hands of the parents and not in the hands of the Government.

Mr. COATS. Maybe that mother needs that car to get to work so she can continue to make money so she can send her children to school, but we will be effectively telling her, ``You can't fix that transmission.'' We will tell that mother, ``You can't use that money to buy a computer because maybe your child needs special tutoring.'' And, ``You can't buy a software program to give that child better math tutoring so they will be able to go to college. You can't use that money for that. You can't use that money to hire a learning center or some other organization to help your child prepare for the SAT's so that they can get into college. No. You have to do what the Finance Committee says. The Finance Committee says you have to put it in an education savings account.'' I just think it is wrong. As I said, it may be well intended and well motivated, but the consequences are such that I don't think we have thought these things through. That is why the amendment of the Senator from Texas ought to be supported. I thank my colleague from Alabama for his contributions. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I have a question for the majority leader. He listed three amendments to be debated this evening, I believe those of Senator Nickles, Senator Gramm of Texas, and Senator Kerry. Is there a time limitation on the debate of those? The reason I ask is because for those who want to stay afterward and take the 10 minutes to describe an amendment that will be offered tomorrow, it will be good to know that there is some limitation on the time for debate for those three particular amendments.

Mr. COATS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I don't understand why we are allocating time here because in the unanimous-consent request--I specifically asked the Chair and asked in the request if the three amendments agreed to under the unanimous-consent request were on any kind of a time limit. The answer was, no, they are not on any kind of a time limit. I further raised the statement saying that there are a number of Senators under the agreement that would stay beyond the three to offer and discuss their amendments this evening. They would be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes in support of their amendments. I don't believe we are under a time agreement and that there needs to be allocation of a time agreement. This Senator has not yet spoken on the Gramm amendment, which I would like to do. I don't feel there is any constraint on the amount of time I have to speak.

Mr. COATS. No. Mr. President, I am perfectly content to let the Senator take whatever time he wants. It is this Senator's understanding that the unanimous-consent agreement supersedes the reconciliation instructions regarding time under the agreement. The Senator from Massachusetts can offer any amount of time he wants to his colleagues. I am more than willing to wait for that.

Mr. COATS. Further parliamentary inquiry. That is not my understanding of what the unanimous consent request was. The reason I am stating this is that I specifically asked the majority leader if my interpretation was correct, and he specifically said yes and included it in the unanimous-consent agreement. The Parliamentarian may not have heard that. I don't believe there is a ruling of that. In any event, I don't want to split hairs. I think everybody will have an opportunity to speak. He doesn't have to limit the Senator from Connecticut to 2 minutes. He can talk for 20, as I understand the unanimous-consent agreement.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I hate to be a fly in the ointment here. I have been waiting to speak on one of the three designated amendments in the unanimous consent agreement, the Gramm amendment. I have not yet had that opportunity. My understanding is that further amendments come after these three. I think if we just get going, we can get this done and get to the other amendments.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to take just a few moments and I will be brief.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding, and I also commend the Senator for some extraordinary work in putting together a real tax cut package for the American people. There are items in this tax package that we have been attempting to incorporate, to give relief to American taxpayers, for many, many years. The Senator has been a leader and a champion of these. I am pleased to see we have arrived at a point where we can make substantial progress towards achieving these goals. The $500 tax credit for children is something that parents desperately need. It is something that has been far too long in coming. Parents have been put at tremendous disadvantage over the years under our Tax Code, if they are raising children, trying to pay for their expenses. This $500 tax credit is a big step in the right direction, in terms of redressing that. I have some concerns about the designation, the mandate that designates the credit is only received for children 13 and older if it is put into an education savings account. I will be speaking to that later, when the Senator from Texas introduces his amendment to make that optional. But I do support the other items in this package. It is far superior to the package that is being offered by Senator Daschle and some Democrats. I say ``some Democrats,'' because this is a bipartisan package. There will be a number of Democrats supporting us in this because they know families need tax relief, because they know that capital gains spurs investments, creates jobs, and more important, goes to seniors and to people, small business owners and others who are not rich but who have saved and accumulated over a lifetime, assets that are taxed away by the Government because of appreciation of those assets or, more important, because of inflation. One-third of the capital gains available today under this tax package goes to seniors. So the Daschle bill is an antisenior bill. A clear understanding of capital gains will demonstrate that. The changes in inheritance tax don't go to the rich, they go to the farmer who has been working on his land for his entire lifetime and would like to leave it to his children. They go to the small business owner who maybe started in his basement or garage and built up his business to a certain degree of asset level only for his family to see it taxed away and sold when that taxpayer dies, instead of passing on to his children. It goes to a large percentage of people who have every right to claim those assets. To suggest that we need an income redistribution, above what we already have, I think is a disservice. So I am in strong support of the Senator's position in opposition to Senator Daschle's proposal.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the Supreme Court decision against the Communications Decency Act marks a departure from precedent on indecency, and weakens the protection of children by our laws. The Court, even in this decision, recognizes that Congress has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well- being of children. In the past, they took that standard to include indecency restrictions on every communications medium of our society-- telephones, radio, television, bookstores, video shops. But with today's decision, the Supreme Court has refused to apply that standard to protect a child on a computer in his or her own home. It argues, instead, that unrestricted access to indecency by adults on the Internet overrides any community interest in the protection of children. In the Communications Decency Act, we gave a definition of indecency that was upheld by the Courts in case after case. Now the Supreme Court has apparently decided that this definition cannot be applied to the Internet. In other words, though an image displayed on a television screen would be indecent, an image displayed on a computer screen would not. It is difficult to understand how a child would understand the difference. It is the content, not the technology, that should concern us. The Supreme Court did leave some room for Congress to redraft the CDA along less restrictive lines, but, in the process, creates a privileged place for computer indecency, safe from the laws we apply everywhere else in our society. So, under the Supreme Court's guidelines, it is permissible for an adult to send indecent material directly to a child by e-mail, but not to speak the same indecency over the telephone. What an adult may not send a child through the U.S. mail, he may send a child via e-mail. This is inconsistent and incomprehensible. It is also now the official position of the U.S. Supreme Court. What this Court is saying is that it recognizes indecency when it hears it on the radio, sees it on television, views it on a magazine rack, or overhears it on the telephone, but it does not recognize it on-line. Computer technology may be confusing to many of us, but it is not that confusing. The confusion lies with a Court that protects children from indecency everywhere but the one place most children want to be. I expect that Congress will revisit this issue, within the restrictions provided by the Court. But parents must understand that the Internet has been declared an exception to every other American law on the provision of indecency to children. It is a place where the predators against your children's innocence have legal rights, announced by distinguished judges. Whatever its virtues, the Internet is not a safe place, without a parent's constant supervision. The Supreme Court has actually suggested that the very industry which profits from the provision of this material be the guardians of your children's minds--that it regulate itself. It is nice to have the Supreme Court's extra-constitutional advice on these policy matters-- though I don't know why it should be more binding than the will of the Congress. I expect that we will have to live with this advice. But I hope that parents will understand that the Supreme Court has not taken your side, or the side of your children, or the side of decency. There are consequences of giving children free access to an adult culture with coarsened standards--consequences for their minds and souls and futures. Both the Congress and the President took those consequences seriously. The Supreme Court has not. This Court, which chose yesterday to undermine religious liberty and influence, has now chosen to defend immediate, unrestricted access of children to indecency. This is part of a disturbing pattern. The Supreme Court is actively disarming the Congress in the most important conflicts of our time--in defense of religious liberty and the character of children.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, just in response, I would say I think it sends a signal. It sends a signal if you have a State stamp of approval or certified group stamp of approval that your child is going to get better quality care there than if you do not have that. Yet, we know parents' preferences are, for a majority of parents, to place their children in situations where they don't have any State or certifying agency stamp of approval, but they are going to be looked at potentially as secondary care when it is not secondary care. It is in many cases superior care. Because they trust a relative, they trust a neighbor, they trust a family home care, even though it doesn't necessarily qualify for the certification standards. That is my concern with the amendment.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute so the Senator can finish his point and I can.

Mr. COATS. We can all quote studies. I could also pull out the study that shows that children are at a much higher risk of infection and illness and even accidents in child care centers than they are in the arms of a next-door neighbor.