Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. COATS. But the Senator would agree, would he not, that it does provide a preference that is not available to many providers of child care that might be perfectly acceptable providers of child care for the children of those parents?

Mr. COATS. I understand the motivation. My concern is that there will be a large number of child care providers who will not meet those standards, will be put in a position that is less preferential than those who do meet the standards, and yet the standards might not necessarily be what the parent determines to be the best care and the best nurturing for that particular child. For instance, let us say a child care provider does not read, cannot read. Would that person ever be able to qualify for the standards? Probably not, because we are talking about a developing child. Yet, if the Senator had the privilege, as I and many of us did, of attending the national prayer breakfast this year, Dr. Ben Carson, head of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University, one of the world's foremost neurosurgeons, was raised by a mother who could not read. After I saw what product came out of that child rearing, I would want my child raised by his mother. Yet, obviously, the Senator's bill would not take away that choice, but clearly that individual would not qualify, with those standards, for the preference given under the Jeffords amendment. You used the words ``nurturing'' and ``caring.'' Nurturing and caring, as we learned in our hearing on development of the brain and other hearings on child care, is the most important aspect of early child care. It is not flash cards, it is not introducing kids to computers, it is the one-on-one bonds that are formed. Yet, we are putting those people at a different level. We are saying they really don't qualify for the higher accountability standards because they have not had the training, they have not had the education, they have not met the standards of whatever group sets those standards. I am simply saying I think the parents ought to set the standards. I think the parents ought to determine what is in the best interests of the child without a bias against someone who they deem is best in favor of someone who happens to meet the standard set by a particular group. It is a dilemma. I understand what the Senators are trying to do because that is a goal I think we ought to work toward. But I think it does so by sending a message that this level of child care that meets the standards is better for your child than the determination that you might make in terms of having a relative, of having a neighbor, of having someone down the street who doesn't necessarily qualify. That is my concern.

Mr. COATS. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, in responding to the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, as also addressed by the Senator from Connecticut, let me state that I share the goal of seeking ways to provide quality child care. This is something that I have supported, have worked on with the Senators. Clearly, as we are looking particularly at welfare reform, we are going to have increasing need for child care. We all want that to be quality child care. The goal that I had when we worked on the ABC bill several years ago was to make sure that the options available to parents for child care were not limited in any particular way. I was concerned about certification requirements. I was concerned about quality standard requirements because, clearly, at that time, and it is still the case today, the choice of the majority of parents relative to child care for their children is not a child care center but taking care of that child in the home, often by a neighbor, by a friend, by a relative, placing their child in a family child care situation, whether it is a church or a home or some other entity. Several Senators on this floor have talked in the welfare debate about training welfare mothers in projects or allowing them to be child care providers as other people under welfare will be seeking work. All that makes a great deal of sense. My concern with the Jeffords amendment is that it gives preferential treatment to just one choice, and therefore places those other forms of child care at a disadvantage. It doesn't take away options, I concede that, but it does place them at a disadvantage because you are biasing the choice. Now, it is a worthy goal to attempt to encourage a better quality care. But, of course, every time we get into this debate and discussion, it is always the State that defines what the quality care is, and the concern is that what is quality care to a State agency or a State bureaucracy is not the same standards of quality care that a parent might choose for their child. In a sense we are getting back to the same argument as we had before, and that is who is in a better position to determine what is best for the child in the interest of the child. Is it the parent who is in a better position to determine what their child needs in terms of child care and what the quality of that care is, or is a Government entity in a better position, or a piece of legislation able to describe what a better quality child care would be? So in this provision we are giving a preferential treatment to only one kind of child care, and that is child care selected by less than a majority of parents who place their children in child care. The latest figures I have are that 32.9 percent of parents place their children with relatives for child care, and those parents will not qualify, necessarily qualify for a bonus. They may not have the education, meet the educational criteria. They might not meet what the State determines as the quality criteria for their child, but as a parent I can tell you I would much rather place my child with a relative than I would with a child care center.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would ask to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I am happy to yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. I will be happy to get those materials from the staff and continue to work with him on this question. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. If it is an undefined figure, or at least a loosely defined figure--going back to a question the chairman of the Budget Committee raised--is there a provision, or will there be a provision in the law that would give us the ability to monitor or audit the State response and return of excess funds if States meet their uninsured children's needs, but have money left over from the block grant; is there a basis upon which we can return that money and use it for, obviously, other important needs?

Mr. COATS. I wonder if I can ask the chairman one last question?

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. I don't want to hold up the proceedings here this evening. I am happy to yield to the chairman.

Mr. COATS. I ask the Senator, if we could not find them before under existing State-run programs, how are we going to find them now under State block grant programs?

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. As the Senator from West Virginia knows, we had debate on that during the proposal offered by Senator Kennedy earlier, which was defeated. But there was significant disagreement on the floor. I don't know the answer, as to the number of uninsured children, cost policies to insure those children, or the best mechanism to use. Even the charts that the Senator from Utah had designating the number of uninsured children and the charts that the sponsor of the bill, Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, had at the same time they offered the bill; the two charts were off by several million, in terms of the number of uninsured children. So even the sponsors of the bill hadn't coordinated the numbers or checked with each other relative to how many uninsured children existed. We learned that three-point-some million of the children were covered under the existing Medicaid Program and several million of these children were temporarily uninsured, not full-time uninsured, because their parents were in and out of employment. And, normally, in employment you get a family policy that covers dependents. So I was confused as to what the total number was, how many were insured, and what mechanisms we ought to put in place and, more important, how we ought to derive a number. Obviously, we all want to be responsible with the taxpayers' dollars and, at the same time, provide the important coverage. I wasn't able to get an answer where there is some unanimity regarding the number of children, who is covered, who needs to be covered, how long they need to be covered, what the cost of the policy is to cover them. And it seemed to me that we were pursuing a problem by addressing a solution designed in terms of the amount of money available, not necessarily in terms of the specifics of the problem.

Mr. COATS. I thank the chairman. Of course, he put his finger on my concern, and that is that before we have identified the scope of the problem and the resources necessary to address the scope of the problem, we have set aside a chunk of money, a very significant chunk of money, $24 billion. I just wonder where that figure came from and what it is based upon, because as the Senator from New Mexico has just said and we all know, once the money is made available, those who are beneficiaries of the money, whether it is the States or whether we put it in Medicaid or wherever we put it, they will find a way to spend it. I do not think anybody is arguing that we do not want to address the issue of uninsured children, but I think what we were arguing is we want to do it in a responsible way, a way that is responsible to the taxpayers so that we do not just arbitrarily come up with a number without knowing the scope of the problem and what dollar amount needs to be applied to that. So my question really goes to the rationale that was used in arriving at the $16 billion initially by the Budget Committee. I assume they had significant debate and research into that in arriving at that figure, but what has changed from that point forward on the Finance Committee? What new information did they learn that was not available to the Budget Committee that caused the Finance Committee to raise that figure by $8 billion? Was it simply the availability of additional tax money through an identified tax and a decision to divide it up and throw $8 billion here and $4 billion there and whatever, or was there a specific rationale or new piece of information that came forward that said, ``No, we were short when we made our Budget Committee estimate. We now need to put in an additional $8 billion to cover the problem that we have identified''? That goes to the nature of my question. That clearly is something that we need to debate in the tax bill. I do not want to hold up the proceedings here this evening.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, because we are waiting, already after a long day, but because we are waiting for some material to come back, if I could ask the chairman of the Budget Committee a question that I raised at lunch. I know that the Budget Committee deliberated at great length on the issue of providing insurance for uninsured children and that after that deliberation, on a bipartisan basis, it was determined that a $16 billion chunk of money for the 5-year budget plan be set aside to address that problem. Many of us applauded the work of the chairman and others in not only that but in putting the entire budget together. Having said that, I am aware that we will be addressing the second phase of reconciliation and a decision on the part of the Finance Committee to add an additional $8 billion for that program in a block grant to the States. I am also aware of the fact there may be an amendment offered that may add to that an additional $8 billion, raising the total to double or more of what the Budget Committee decided. I am wondering if either the chairman of the Budget Committee or the chairman of the Finance Committee can explain to me what changed? What was necessary? Why was it necessary? What new facts came to light that required the additional $8 billion, at least? I know we will be debating this issue, and I do not mean to take up time this evening to debate it. We will debate it under the tax bill. But in the interim, I wonder if we can discuss that a little bit so this Senator can better understand what it is we are attempting to do.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I was sitting in the Chair and listening to the debate and listening just now. I came to the Congress in 1980, and one of the first issues we tried to do was the pending Social Security problem. Over an 18-year period of time, we have been debating Medicare and Social Security and what changes need to be made to guarantee solvency for the future. I don't think there is any Member on this floor who doesn't understand the facts. The trustees have reported over and over, we have had commissions, we have had demographers, we have had politicians--everybody has been talking about the problem that we all know is coming very, very soon: The problem that if we don't make structural changes within the programs, we are going to face imminent collapse of the system. It just can't sustain. The numbers are clear to everybody. There are a number of ways to fix it. As the Senator from Pennsylvania said, we can raise taxes, cut spending, impose penalties on providers. I find it somewhat stunning that a proposed phase in of a fix--which doesn't fix the problem, it defers the problem for another 10 years so the Congress in 2008 can deal with it as we are dealing with it here and every Congress before that--something that phases in over a period of 24 years that basically doesn't affect anybody in the current system, raises such a level of passion as if we are destroying the program. We are going to probably lose this vote. We will have postponed for the umpteenth time any solution proposed by anybody. No matter what is suggested, it is rejected. I have seen dozens of proposals out here. Every one rejected. The language always turns to--well, I don't want to use the word demagoguery--it always turns to pitting one class against another class, and those who are trying to get a fix proposed basically are labeled as people who want to destroy the system. Actually, they want to save the system. I don't think we have the political will to do it. Probably when the system collapses or is near collapse, the people will rise up and demand their representatives do something. I hope they look back at the record of all those who tried to do something over 18 years and, basically, were shouted down in the process time after time after time. We will undoubtedly lose this one, too. We will move on. Hopefully, we will get to the brink of collapse sooner rather than later, so it will not cost as much to fix it.

Mr. COATS. I wonder if the Senator from Delaware will yield me a couple of minutes off his time?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today is a very important day for students in the District of Columbia. Today, I join Senator Lieberman, Senator Brownback, Senator Ashcroft, and Senator Gregg in introducing the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997, also known as the DC SOS Act. The DC SOS Act provides immediate relief to thousands of the District's neediest students who are consigned to failing, violent public schools. This bill is a direct response to the needs of thousands of families in our Capital City who have, for too long, been expected to accept under-performing and often violent schools for their children. The DC SOS Act provides real educational opportunities to almost 4,000 District students. Many of you may remember that a very similar initiative was introduced by former Representative Gunderson, and included in the 1996 D.C. appropriations bill. At that time, a majority of the Senate, 56 Senators in all, were supportive of the idea to provide scholarships to poor students in the District of Columbia. Tragically, that program, which would have benefited 5,000 of our Nation's most needy students, was blocked by the threat of a filibuster. During the 1996 D.C. Appropriations debate, many of those who opposed providing scholarships for poor District students argued that the initiative was opposed by the residents of the District. That argument cannot be used this time. A recent bipartisan survey conducted in the District of Columbia found that fully 64 percent of Washingtonians would send their children to private school if they had the option and if money were not an issue; 61 percent of single parents think that creating a school choice program for the District is an excellent or good use of taxpayer dollars. And those most likely to opt out of the public system are residents of the wards 7 and 8, the areas with the most troubled public schools. Clearly, the residents of the District are ready for a change. But these surveys should not surprise us. The D.C. schools have not improved since the defeat of the D.C. scholarship program in 1996. Rather, the schools got so bad that the D.C. Control Board fired Superintendent Franklin Smith, stripped control of the school from the D.C. Board of Education, and installed a new Chief Executive and Superintendent, retired Army Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr. Perhaps General Becton can turn the D.C. school system around. But I am not willing to tell a family who fears for the safety of their child that they should wait and given General Becton 5 or 10 years to test his approaches, especially because changes have been promised by five new superintendents in the last 15 years. In February of this year, the Washington Post ran a five-part series on the D.C. school system, chronicling its complete breakdown. A school system where jobs for bureaucrats are more important than providing textbooks. A school system that employs almost nine times more central office administrators than the national average, despite a decreasing student population, and a shortage of qualified teachers and principals. Many of the district's 152 schools are in a state of terrible disrepair. Students and teachers contend with leaking roofs, bitterly cold classrooms, and thousands of fire code violations. Yet, in 1996, the D.C. Board of Education allocated $1.4 million for its own use, an amount far greater than that spent by neighboring counties, and $200,000 more than is spent by the Chicago school system, which is five times larger. Unfortunately, these problems of infrastructure are minor concerns compared to violence and basic educational failure. Violence in the schools is at an alltime high--both student on student, and student on teacher--even as the violent crime rate in the country as a whole drops. And stories of academic mediocrity have become so common that they have lost their power to shock. Why is there no public outcry that the D.C. school district, which spends the most per pupil of any district in the country, has the Nation's lowest reported scores on the NAEP exams? Where is the outrage that only 35 percent of students are reading at grade level? Students are routinely promoted regardless of whether they have progressed in their studies and graduate from the school system with little to show for their 12 years of schooling. Eighty-five percent of D.C. public school graduates who enter the University of the District of Columbia need 2 years of remedial education before beginning their course work toward degrees. And more than half of all graduates who took the U.S. Armed Forces Qualification Test in 1994 failed. This last statistic is particularly troubling, because it blocks a traditional escape route from disadvantage. We are asking poor, inner-city children and their parents to tolerate circumstances that most middle-class and affluent Americans would not tolerate for one moment. Why should these families have to suffer violence and the lack of educational opportunities for another week, let alone the years that General Becton himself admits it will be before reform has any effect? But those of us concerned about this issue face an obstacle. No one seems outraged enough about the betrayal of these children by indifferent adults to make major changes. Not suburban whites, who are often satisfied with their schools. Not politicians, some of whom are either blindly obedient to teachers unions or may simply have different political constituencies than these kids and their parents. The DC SOS Act is an attempt to end this conspiracy of complacency. In introducing this bill today, I join with a coalition of members in both House of Congress who seek to provide scholarships for low-income students in the District of Columbia to enable them to attend the public or private school of their choice or to receive tutoring assistance. This bill is the single most practical, immediate, effective way to help actual children, with flesh and blood and futures, rather than continuing to ignore this very serious situation. I find it inconceivable that anyone, in good conscience, could condemn the District's low income children to attend schools that not only fail to educate them, but cannot even assure their personal safety. Some of the public schools in this city have become wastelands of violence and despair. We cannot begin to imagine the fears of a mother who is forced, required, compelled to send her child through barbed wire and metal detectors into a combat zone, masquerading as an educational institution. The introduction, and ultimate passage of this bill, will signal a fundamental shift in priorities. It would indicate to parents in the District of Columbia and all across America that we care about their children more than we care about maintaining the status quo; that we understand the depth of the problem in our Nation's public schools and that we are finally willing to address it. Opponents of this bill should carefully consider what they would do if they had a child assigned to a school where physical attacks, robberies, and drug sales were rampant. Low-income parents, who face this circumstance every day, deserve a voice and a choice. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the D.C. Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997. With this bill we signal our intention to provide a safe and effective school for every child in the District of Columbia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this act, the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today is a very important day for students in the District of Columbia. Today, I join Senator Lieberman, Senator Brownback, Senator Ashcroft, and Senator Gregg in introducing the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997, also known as the DC SOS Act. The DC SOS Act provides immediate relief to thousands of the District's neediest students who are consigned to failing, violent public schools. This bill is a direct response to the needs of thousands of families in our Capital City who have, for too long, been expected to accept under-performing and often violent schools for their children. The DC SOS Act provides real educational opportunities to almost 4,000 District students. Many of you may remember that a very similar initiative was introduced by former Representative Gunderson, and included in the 1996 D.C. appropriations bill. At that time, a majority of the Senate, 56 Senators in all, were supportive of the idea to provide scholarships to poor students in the District of Columbia. Tragically, that program, which would have benefited 5,000 of our Nation's most needy students, was blocked by the threat of a filibuster. During the 1996 D.C. Appropriations debate, many of those who opposed providing scholarships for poor District students argued that the initiative was opposed by the residents of the District. That argument cannot be used this time. A recent bipartisan survey conducted in the District of Columbia found that fully 64 percent of Washingtonians would send their children to private school if they had the option and if money were not an issue; 61 percent of single parents think that creating a school choice program for the District is an excellent or good use of taxpayer dollars. And those most likely to opt out of the public system are residents of the wards 7 and 8, the areas with the most troubled public schools. Clearly, the residents of the District are ready for a change. But these surveys should not surprise us. The D.C. schools have not improved since the defeat of the D.C. scholarship program in 1996. Rather, the schools got so bad that the D.C. Control Board fired Superintendent Franklin Smith, stripped control of the school from the D.C. Board of Education, and installed a new Chief Executive and Superintendent, retired Army Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr. Perhaps General Becton can turn the D.C. school system around. But I am not willing to tell a family who fears for the safety of their child that they should wait and given General Becton 5 or 10 years to test his approaches, especially because changes have been promised by five new superintendents in the last 15 years. In February of this year, the Washington Post ran a five-part series on the D.C. school system, chronicling its complete breakdown. A school system where jobs for bureaucrats are more important than providing textbooks. A school system that employs almost nine times more central office administrators than the national average, despite a decreasing student population, and a shortage of qualified teachers and principals. Many of the district's 152 schools are in a state of terrible disrepair. Students and teachers contend with leaking roofs, bitterly cold classrooms, and thousands of fire code violations. Yet, in 1996, the D.C. Board of Education allocated $1.4 million for its own use, an amount far greater than that spent by neighboring counties, and $200,000 more than is spent by the Chicago school system, which is five times larger. Unfortunately, these problems of infrastructure are minor concerns compared to violence and basic educational failure. Violence in the schools is at an alltime high--both student on student, and student on teacher--even as the violent crime rate in the country as a whole drops. And stories of academic mediocrity have become so common that they have lost their power to shock. Why is there no public outcry that the D.C. school district, which spends the most per pupil of any district in the country, has the Nation's lowest reported scores on the NAEP exams? Where is the outrage that only 35 percent of students are reading at grade level? Students are routinely promoted regardless of whether they have progressed in their studies and graduate from the school system with little to show for their 12 years of schooling. Eighty-five percent of D.C. public school graduates who enter the University of the District of Columbia need 2 years of remedial education before beginning their course work toward degrees. And more than half of all graduates who took the U.S. Armed Forces Qualification Test in 1994 failed. This last statistic is particularly troubling, because it blocks a traditional escape route from disadvantage. We are asking poor, inner-city children and their parents to tolerate circumstances that most middle-class and affluent Americans would not tolerate for one moment. Why should these families have to suffer violence and the lack of educational opportunities for another week, let alone the years that General Becton himself admits it will be before reform has any effect? But those of us concerned about this issue face an obstacle. No one seems outraged enough about the betrayal of these children by indifferent adults to make major changes. Not suburban whites, who are often satisfied with their schools. Not politicians, some of whom are either blindly obedient to teachers unions or may simply have different political constituencies than these kids and their parents. The DC SOS Act is an attempt to end this conspiracy of complacency. In introducing this bill today, I join with a coalition of members in both House of Congress who seek to provide scholarships for low-income students in the District of Columbia to enable them to attend the public or private school of their choice or to receive tutoring assistance. This bill is the single most practical, immediate, effective way to help actual children, with flesh and blood and futures, rather than continuing to ignore this very serious situation. I find it inconceivable that anyone, in good conscience, could condemn the District's low income children to attend schools that not only fail to educate them, but cannot even assure their personal safety. Some of the public schools in this city have become wastelands of violence and despair. We cannot begin to imagine the fears of a mother who is forced, required, compelled to send her child through barbed wire and metal detectors into a combat zone, masquerading as an educational institution. The introduction, and ultimate passage of this bill, will signal a fundamental shift in priorities. It would indicate to parents in the District of Columbia and all across America that we care about their children more than we care about maintaining the status quo; that we understand the depth of the problem in our Nation's public schools and that we are finally willing to address it. Opponents of this bill should carefully consider what they would do if they had a child assigned to a school where physical attacks, robberies, and drug sales were rampant. Low-income parents, who face this circumstance every day, deserve a voice and a choice. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the D.C. Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997. With this bill we signal our intention to provide a safe and effective school for every child in the District of Columbia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this act, the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am more than honored to come to the floor today to pay tribute to our senior Senator, Senator Thurmond, who has achieved such an outstanding milestone. Last September 6, I had the privilege of being at Oriole stadium in Baltimore to watch Cal Ripken break the consecutive game record held by Lou Gehrig. It was one of the most moving tributes in sports events that I have ever witnessed or ever heard about. And yet, when I watched a replay of that just the other day and understood the significance of an individual who had, through sickness and injury and personal concerns, established that probably never-to-be-broken record, I could not help but think of a similar individual who I have had the privilege of serving with in the U.S. Senate who has established his own record. And I think that the sacrifice and the commitment and the perseverance and the dedication of Senator Thurmond really can only be compared with that of Cal Ripken--two extraordinary individuals who have set their mind to a task and not allowed anything to come in the way of performing that task and achieving the goal that they have achieved. Of course, serving in the House of Representatives, all you really know about Senator Thurmond is the legend. You know he is a legendary figure who has provided extraordinary service to his country and serves as a distinguished Member of the U.S. Senate. So when you come to the Senate and have the opportunity to serve with Senator Thurmond, you bring with you a sense of awe, a sense of, how does this individual do this? But you also bring the perceptions that you read about in the press, ``Oh, Senator Thurmond's remarkable service, but you know he's getting older and he perhaps doesn't have the stamina and the energy that he once had.'' Well, it does not take you long here in the U.S. Senate to realize that that perception is wrong. The first thing you do is you meet Senator Thurmond and you have to shake his hand. And after you shake his hand, you have to take some aspirin because your hand is going to be sore for the next couple days, because Senator Thurmond has maintained a grip that few in the Senate half his age have. So my advice to any new, incoming freshmen or anybody who happens to run into Senator Thurmond in the hall or meet Senator Thurmond is, have a bottle of aspirin in your pocket because, after you shake his hand, your hand is going to be sore for a couple days. The second thing you find out about Senator Thurmond is that, as Senator Dole says, you watch very carefully what he eats because you want to eat whatever Strom Thurmond is eating if you want to stay healthy. And so we jockey to sit near him at lunch to see what is the secret of this man's success, his longevity, his contribution. And then, if you are like me and you are someone that enjoys going down to our small, little workout facility down in the Russell Building, you run into Senator Thurmond down there and you ask him, ``Senator, how do you get to be the age you are and maintain such good physical health? How is it possible?'' And he looks at you and says, ``Well, I get up every morning and I do my stretching, do 20 minutes of stretching, and then I do 20 minutes on the bicycle, and then I'll do some calisthenics, and then I swim every week half a mile at a time.'' Then he looks at you and says, ``If you want to stay limber and you want to stay strong, you've got to pay the price.'' And I wonder how many of us have the will to pay the price at half his age that he pays at the age of 94. I could go on and on with these stories. I had the privilege of coaching youth basketball here in northern Virginia, and I had the privilege of having on my team young Paul Thurmond. And so here I am in my forties--my son is on the team along with Paul Thurmond--and Paul Thurmond's father is considerably older than I am, and yet there he is in the stands right behind where I am coaching, watching those games and cheering his son on, who is a remarkable athlete, now a nationally ranked tennis player, I think, at Vanderbilt. We won the championship of that league, and in no small part due to the terrific contributions of young Paul Thurmond, who is now quite a young man. But I think what is remarkable to me--it was not Paul's athletic prowess--is the fact that Paul's father, Senator Thurmond, was right there cheering him on and with the parents of the kids that won that championship. I have gotten to meet the rest of his family, and I have gotten to see how Senator Thurmond handles a very, very complex and difficult job and yet cares so deeply for his children and for his family. I know that Senator Thurmond went through probably the most difficult thing that any parent can go through, and that is the loss of a child. I know how much he grieved the loss of his daughter in that tragic accident that took place. And yet, lesser people would have been broken by that. Lesser people would not have been able to recover from that. Senator Thurmond, I think due in large part to his faith, due to his strength of will, and due to his belief that despite the tragedies in our lives, life must go on, and did go on, and did it in a spirit that is commendable to all of us, because we know how deeply that tragedy struck him. So there are so many aspects of this extraordinary man that have left such a deep imprint on the lives of all of us here in the Senate and clearly the lives of the people he represents in South Carolina and to many people throughout the world. The impressions I have, the stories I have, the admiration I have for the remarkable person that Strom Thurmond is is really difficult to put into words. Initially, I was going to sit down and write a speech, but I really wanted this to be from the heart. I really wanted to come over here and say to my colleagues and say to Senator Thurmond, in my lifetime, I do not know that I have ever met someone like you. I do not know if I ever met someone who showed the courage and showed the compassion and showed the loyalty and showed the commitment to the people that he knows and loves and to the people around him and to the people of this Nation. I bet you could go back 40 years and look up the pages that have served in the Senate, and I will bet you every one of them would say the person that went out of his way to speak to me, to make me feel welcome, was Senator Thurmond. I bet you could go back and talk to staffers from over the last 40 years, or interns, who have worked for Senator Thurmond and hear such remarkable praise from them about the privilege they had of serving and working for him in the Senate. You could talk to any of us who have served with him and we talk about Strom almost in awe. How does this man keep doing it? How are we possibly going to have the energy and passion for the job when we become the age, or we hope to become the age, that Senator Thurmond has become--a unique person, a remarkable record, something that I do not think will ever be broken. I just want to say to him today what a great privilege it has been for me to serve with Strom Thurmond, what a great example he has provided to me and to my family, how much I admire him, and how much I want to congratulate him for his remarkable service. Now, the standing story here, and said with all seriousness, is when is Strom going to start preparing for the next election? We just had an election, but no one is about to say that Strom Thurmond is serving in his last term. This man of such a remarkable constitution continues to give fine representation to the people that he has represented for so long. Mr. President, I have another dozen stories illustrating the impact of this fine southern gentleman on this institution, but others will recount many of those. I just want him to know he has made a lasting and deep impression on me and it has been one of the highest honors and deepest privileges of my time in the Congress to be a friend and associated with and to work with the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his courtesy. I regret that I probably will not likely be in the Chamber when the final vote comes on the resolution, though the schedule has been changed so much, I do not think anybody is sure when that vote will come. If I am not, it is because of a priority of mine, the only priority I think, that would exceed voting for something as important as the budget resolution. My good wife, who has supported my efforts in Congress for 17 years now, who has missed many events, and has done a lot of waiting for me to vote and to come home, is graduating this evening with a master's degree from Johns Hopkins University. It is the result of 3 years of strenuous effort. She is a star student. It is something that I very much want to attend. I had thought and had been told that we would be finalizing the budget agreement last evening. We were not able to do that, and it looks like action on the resolution will go through the day. This is a priority I want to keep, and I think that, as important as the budget agreement is, I want to be there and honor this important date, and celebrate her achievement. As I said, she has done a lot of waiting around for me, made many sacrifices, and missed a lot of things because of our uncertain schedule here. There are times, however, when I think we have to establish priorities in life, and this is a priority. [Applause.]

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I also want to use this opportunity to explain why I would have, if I am to miss the vote, opposed the budget resolution. I have examined this very, very carefully. In fact, I have tried to come up with sufficient reasons to support the budget. I know that the leader, Senator Lott, the leadership of our Congress, of the Senate, the work of Senator Domenici has been honest, it has been an honest effort at finding a true balanced budget. They have toiled for hours. There have been compromises that have had to be made as a consequence of not controlling the executive branch and the turmoil that will result for the rest of the year if a budget agreement is not reached. This budget clearly makes some important steps in the right direction, and there is much to commend about the efforts of those who have put this together. However, I have been here since 1981, and there have been a lot of promises about balancing the budget. When I first ran for Congress, one of my top three priorities was to balance the budget. I felt that it was unconscionable, immoral to pass on to future generations a debt burden so that this present generation could enjoy benefits without having to pay for them. I have toiled now for 17 years to attempt to achieve a balanced budget in the Congress and have not been able to do so. My greatest disappointment is, probably, our failure on two occasions by one vote to pass a constitutional amendment in this body and send it to the people of the United States to let them determine whether or not they think we should be held constitutionally responsible for balancing the budget. We were not able to do that. This budget, like all the previous six budgets, promises a balanced budget in 5 years. I have gone home after the passage of these budgets, spoken to my constituents and said, ``We balanced the budget.'' And they said, ``We're skeptical of that.'' ``No, no, no, we have put in place a mechanism to balance the budget.'' Well, six times we promised that, and six times we failed. This is the seventh. Our Policy Committee, which I support, tries to put the best light on this budget. I have here a report published by the committee, it says, ``Balanced Honestly by 2002, First Time Balance Will Be Achieved Since 1969.'' I have seen that phrase written over and over again. I have uttered it myself. It has not come true. It will not come true this time. People need to understand that 5-year, 7-year agreements really only commit us to the first year, and even with that, with supplementals, failure to enact rescissions, contingencies that come up--in fact, we have already seen a proliferation of attempts to change this budget, to add money to this budget, to change the spending priorities--Congress has the right to waive this agreement any time it chooses. We actually increase the deficit in this budget in the next 2 years from the current level estimated at $67 to $90 billion in fiscal year 1998 and 1999, and like all of our budget gimmicks in the past, all of the deficit reduction comes in the outyears, in 2001 and 2002. All of the tough decisions come after the next midyear election, after the next Presidential election. I have announced my resignation, so I will not be here. I will not be here to protest that ``Here we are again. Remember back in 1997 when we promised a balanced budget?'' Here we are at 2001 putting together the next promised balanced budget which pushes us out now to 2006 or 2007. All the rosy scenarios about the assumptions of no economic decline in the next 6 years, I hope and pray it happens. I doubt very much that it will. The other thing that distresses me is that in this budget we had the opportunity for meaningful entitlement reform and we once again took a pass on it. It seemed to me that everything was lined up in order for us to do this. We had a Republican Congress that had gone on record as supporting meaningful structural changes in entitlements, changes that we know we are going to have to face for if we don't, we are going to find ourselves in severe economic distress in the future. We had a President who had just been re-elected and was not going to run again. He did not have to worry about getting reelected or pleasing certain constituencies. And we thought he would step forward and provide real leadership on this. And he took a pass. Congress took a pass because somehow we materialized some additional revenue because of the economy, not because of anything we have done to hold down spending, but because of the good economy that we have in this country. And revenues were flowing in. And at the last minute we came up with $250 billion and said we can take a pass again. So when we say we have averted the crisis of Medicare's imminent bankruptcy until 2007, yeah, we have done that. We have done that with a gimmick of shifting home health care from part A to part B and applying more revenues to cover the deficit that is coming instead of implementing reform and giving the windfall in revenues back to the American people to whom it belongs. We have had to narrow our tax cut because we have not exercised the discipline on spending. I can go on and on. But I am going to abbreviate my remarks here so we can keep moving on this. It is worth pointing out that, rather than taking the $255 billion in unanticipated revenues and using it for deficit reduction or tax reduction, we have used it to increase spending. Rather than capitalize on the momentum that we had for meaningful entitlement reform, we used budget gimmicks and price controls to delay the crisis and postpone the tough decisions once again. Rather than reduce the size of the Government, baseline budget tactics are used, tactics which Republicans used to criticize--assuming automatic increases in the baseline and then making reductions in that baseline and calling it a cut when it is not a cut, it is an increase. This deceptive practice is continued in this resolution, and now Republicans have bought into that practice. In the end, this resolution simply postpones deficit reduction into the next millennium and lets everybody off the hook on tough decisions that ought to be made now. As stated in an article in the May 10 issue of the National Journal called ``The Easy Way Out'': Historic the deal may be, but not so much because of what it includes as because of what fell out: just about anything unpleasant for incumbents of either party. From a political point of view, it may indeed be a triumph; certainly, at a minimum, it is clever. From a reformer's point of view, however, it is a washout. We need reformer practices. We have said that; many have, since I have been here. I am now in my 17th year. We have not used reformer practices. Once again, we have used tricks and unexpected revenues to postpone the tough decisions. I have said from the beginning, and will continue to say it, we will not make the tough decisions until we are constitutionally forced to do so. We will not achieve meaningful reform in our budget until we are constitutionally required, by raising our hand and pledging to support that Constitution, that we will honestly balance the budget and not create deficits and not pass on debt to future generations. I am ashamed of the fact that during my watch, while I was here, the national debt has grown from less than $1 trillion to approaching $6 trillion. That is a national disgrace. And it has happened on my watch. I tried everything I could to keep that from happening. I think my voting record indicates that. Nevertheless, it happened on my watch. So for me, someone who will not be here to protest in future years, I cannot in good conscience support this budget. Is it an improvement? Yes. Is it probably everything that the Budget chairman could have achieved under the circumstances? With divided Government and an administration bent on spending more and making a mockery of their statement that the era of big Government is over, I think the Budget chairman did everything he could under the circumstances. I commend him for his work and commend the leadership for their work. But let us not pretend. Let us not pretend. And let us not pass on to the American people that we are giving them an honest balanced budget by the year 2002. I do not believe that is going to happen any more than the previous six promises on balanced budgets in the last 15 years have proven to be true to the American people. I regret that I have to vote against this, but I, in all honesty, cannot support this budget resolution. The most glaring problem with this budget resolution is that the deficit actually increases dramatically next year, from an estimated $67 billion for fiscal year 1997 to over $90 billion in fiscal year 1998, and does not begin to come down until 2001. The deficit then drops precipitously by nearly $84 billion between 2001 and the end of 2002. This rosy scenario is hard to believe. In fact, the only years that really count in this budget agreement are the next 2, when Members and the President can be held accountable to abide by their commitment. The heavy work of deficit reduction is postponed, and becomes someone else's problem. Even then, 97 percent of deficit reduction included in this package is based upon economic assumptions that seem implausible at best. They are based on sustaining the current state of the economy for another 6 years. This resolution fails to address the looming crisis in entitlements. Rather, it delays dealing with the issue through budget gimmickry. The resolution purports to secure $115 billion in Medicare savings. However, the overwhelming majority of this savings is secured through price control gimmicks that have failed in the past. Even then, the preponderant majority of this savings comes after the year 2000, when there is no guarantee of enforcement. The plan calls for further reducing payments to health care providers. We have tried this many times before with no success. In fact, costs have continued to rise while the quality of health care for our seniors has continued to be diminished. In addition, the current proposal shifts the Home Health Care Program, the fastest growing Medicare program, from the Medicare part A fund, to part B. This trick postpones the collapse of the Medicare trust fund from 2001 to around 2008, and serves to delay having to confront the long-term Medicare crisis. Failure to implement meaningful reform in Medicare represents the greatest single missed opportunity in a budget proposal rife with deferment and missed opportunity. In fact, the resolution creates a $16 billion health care entitlement for low-income children. It is important to note that this entitlement goes beyond covering poor children already covered under Medicaid. The key to busting the logjam in negotiations on this budget agreement was a midnight-hour $255 billion windfall from the Congressional Budget Office. This money came from larger than anticipated revenues from a robust economy. However, rather than using this money to both reduce the deficit and reduce the tax burden on the American people, negotiators went on a spending binge. The result of this is that the budget resolution actually increases, not decreases the size of the Government. For fiscal year 1998, spending is increased over fiscal year 1997 projected spending levels by an estimated 4.32 percent, or $70 billion above the freeze. This is the largest increase of the Clinton Presidency, $5 billion more than the President requested in his original budget proposal, and outpaces inflation by nearly 1.5 percent. This dramatic increase in domestic spending is based upon the concept that spending on these programs has been limited in recent years. In fact, according to economist Stephen Moore, over the past 10 years, 1988-97, Federal domestic spending has soared from $622 billion to $1.116 trillion. After adjustments for inflation, this is an increase of 40 percent. And now, under this agreement, we will be increasing this spending by a rate of 1.5 percent above inflation. There are no spending reductions in the budget. The savings are actually reductions in projected baseline spending. This type of baseline gimmickry is something that conservatives have long rejected. However now, for political expediency, this plan is based entirely upon it. James Glassman writes in his column entitled ``Bad for Everyone'': ``The reason that the Federal deficit is projected at zero under the new budget is not that Government will be smaller, but that revenues from taxpayers will be larger--much larger.'' Mr. Glassman goes on to point out: ``According to the President's February budget, the Treasury was expected to collect $1.5 trillion from citizens and businesses in 1997. According to the new bipartisan budget, that figure will rise to $1.9 trillion in 2002. Meanwhile, spending will rise from $1.6 trillion to $1.9 trillion. And there you have it: A balanced budget.'' Is this what reform is all about? Rather than use windfall tax revenues as an opportunity to decrease spending and accelerate the path to a balanced budget, this resolution gobbles up taxpayer money with substantial spending increases and postpones the tough decisions for another day. If there is anything hopeful in this budget resolution, it is some progress toward tax reduction. There is roughly $135 billion set aside for tax cuts. However, $50 billion of that number is offset by tax increases elsewhere in the budget, leaving a beginning net tax cut of $85 billion. This represents just 1 percent of the $8.5 trillion in estimated tax revenues over the next 5 years. Even then, the President's tax priorities for education, totaling $35 billion, is locked in, leaving Congress to spread the remaining benefit between a $500 child tax credit, capital gains reduction, expanded IRAs, and estate tax relief. The $85 billion net tax cut comprises about one-third of the money needed to offset all of these tax cuts fully. In fact, the Heritage Foundation estimates that the full cost of the $500 dollar-per-child tax credit alone is $105 billion over 5 years. However, the game doesn't stop there. A key aspect of the agreement is the assumption that the Bureau of Labor Statistics will adjust the CPI downward by approximately .3 percent. The result would be a hike in income taxes by approximately $6 billion dollars. Thus, the real total net tax cut under the agreement is $79 billion or less. Again, according to Heritage Foundation estimates, Americans will receive a grand total of 67 cents in tax relief for every new dollar of spending on Government programs contained in the agreement, or less than one cent on every tax dollar sent to the Federal Government. In fact, the entire net tax cut contained in the Resolution is less than one-fifth of this $255 billion dollar windfall discovered by CBO, and used to blow the ceiling on spending. The result is that much needed tax relief will have to be phased in, with the bulk of it falling, once again, in the out years. The child tax credit, touted as middle class tax relief, will likely have to be limited to low income families. Already, discussions regarding a capital gains tax cut have gone from an early 50 percent reduction proposal, to a cut of 10 percent, and is now moving toward a limited maximum rate of 21 percent. This is hardly the type of capital gains tax cut needed to free the hundreds of billions of dollars in encumbered capital in our economy. I do not believe that this is what the American people have in mind. And I have no confidence that future Congresses, faced with the skyrocketing spending and rosy economic assumptions contained in this agreement, will follow through on fully implementing tax relief. This budget is full of missed opportunities. Rather than taking the $255 billion in unanticipated revenues and using it for direct deficit and tax reductions, it has been used to increase spending. Rather than capitalize on momentum for meaningful entitlement reform, budget gimmicks and price controls are used to delay the crisis and postpone the tough decisions. Rather than reduce the size of Government, baseline budget tactics are used to simulate smaller Government. In the end, this resolution simply postpones any deficit reduction into the next millennium and lets everyone off the hook on the tough decisions. As stated in the May 10 National Journal article entitled, ``The Easy Way Out'': Historic the deal may be, but not so much because of what it includes as because of what fell out: just about anything unpleasant for incumbents of either party. From a political point of view, it may indeed be a triumph; certainly, at a minimum, it is clever. From a reformer's point of view, however, it is a washout. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for allowing me this opportunity to speak. I regret that I might not be here this evening. But I think I identified the right priority in my life. And I am looking forward to being, for once, not the person in the limelight in our family but the person applauding the one that is in the limelight, which is my wife who will be receiving the degree which she worked so hard for. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 336

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, education is, for many of us, a top priority. S. 1, the first bill introduced in the 105th Congress evidenced that fact. The rhetoric from our President would seem to indicate that education was also his top priority, yet at this very moment he is supporting a budget which will result in a decrease of $1.8 billion to student aid programs. I rise today to support the Jeffords motion which ensures access to educational opportunities for all Americans. Since the early 1980's, the price of going to college has increased at more than twice the rate of inflation; growing even more rapidly than the cost of health care. This is the chief reason that a college education is unaffordable for American families. Initiatives, such as those included in S. 1, provide tax relief for families, encourage planning for the future through the use of college savings accounts, and build on already successful programs, such as Federal student loans and work study. These initiatives deserve our support. Unfortunately, the budget that we are considering today will make it virtually impossible to adequately provide these critically important programs to students and their families. I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Jeffords and I in this firm resolve to protect higher education programs, thereby ensuring that all students have access to post-secondary educational opportunities. Access to higher education is critical and should not be compromised in this budget resolution.