Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this past Thursday the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on the current television rating system. I want to commend Senator McCain for calling that hearing. It was very instructional for all of us. What was apparent from that hearing is the near universal dissatisfaction with the current Hollywood rating system, the need for immediate change, the utter failure of the industry to understand what parents want in a rating system, and the basic responsibility that goes with using publicly owned broadcast spectrum. Mr. President, we are beyond debate regarding the influence of television programming on children, particularly the most vulnerable of our children, growing up in single-parent homes or homes where the demand of work keep parents away and children unsupervised for long hours. This is, unfortunately, an increasing norm in our society. It was a combination of these facts and the increasingly violent and explicit nature of television programming that produced the ``V'' chip legislation that passed last year and the demand for ratings that empower parents with content information so that they can exercise control over the type of television programming invading their households and their children's minds that they believe is inappropriate. I call attention to the 1995 study of children age 10 to 16 conducted by the Los Angeles polling firm of Fairbank, Maslin, Maulin & Associates. In that poll, one-third of the children stated they would like to try what they see others doing on television; two-thirds stated that their peers are influenced by what they see on TV; 65 percent said programming like the Simpsons encouraged them to disrespect their parents; and an alarming 62 percent said that sex portrayed on television influences kids to have sex when they are too young. These are the results of the study of children 10 to 16. These are their responses to the questions that were asked by the poll. Upon hearing the results of this poll, entertainer Steve Allen told editorialist Cal Thomas, ``My first reaction is that we should take this information and beat (network TV executives) over the head with it.'' I think some of last week's hearing, for those who tuned in and those who were there, may have had the same effect, because there was universal, near universal, dissatisfaction with the efforts, lack of effort, made by the broadcasters, Hollywood producers and others to address some of these fundamental questions. That was a bipartisan response not confined to any one particular party. Unfortunately, the system offered by the television industry to address this is critically flawed. There are two fatal problems with the system. First is the fact that the system does not provide program- specific, content-based information. This is the critical point. The Hollywood ratings system adopted by the television industry essentially hides the true content of programs behind a generic rating that suggests to parents what may be in a program--I say what ``may be'' in a program, not what actually is in a program. Take the TV ``PG'' rating, which 61 percent of current television programs receive. In a 52-word explanation of this rating, it is stated: ``This program may contain infrequent coarse language, limited violence, some suggestive dialog and situations.'' Mr. President, I suggest that telling a parent what a program ``may'' include does not tell them very much. I ask, what would be so difficult, what is so hard about simply substituting the word ``does'' for the word ``may.'' The program ``does'' contain infrequent coarse language. The program ``does'' contain limited violence. This program ``does'' contain some suggestive dialog and situations. In addition, why not provide parents with an audible explanation of content just prior to airing the programming and stating the information clearly and prominently on the screen. The second fatal flaw in the current system proposed by Hollywood and adopted by the broadcasters is there is no standard format for how ratings are arrived at. In other words, each station or channel uses their own methods and priorities in assigning ratings. Fox uses one method, NBC another and so on. What is recommended as a standardized system to parents is, in fact, completely unique from station to station, channel to channel. In other words, it a rating in search of a meaning. The Hollywood system designed by the Motion Producers Association head Jack Valenti was created to avoid giving parents information on the content of programs. I do not think you can come to any other conclusion. It is so confusing, it is so imprecise, I think you have to conclude that it was designed not to give specific information. Why? Well, clearly, I think they were concerned about advertisers not wanting to advertise on programs that included offensive language. Ultimately, it is the parents who turn off the sets, or the sets that are turned off because of the contents of programs, that will determine where those advertising dollars flow. Now, Mr. President, I want to make sure that we all understand that we cannot and we should not be censors, but that our society depends on informed choices. We need to provide informed information and informed choices for parents. To do that requires information which the current Hollywood-Valenti rating system refuses to give. It had been my hope that the television industry would be responsive to the public outcry against their age-based rating system. Polls conducted in response to the industry proposal by the PTA/Institute for Mental Health Initiatives demonstrated that 80 percent of parents desire a content-based system and a Media Study Center poll found similar results. Ask any parent, ask any parent what they need in order to make a determination on what they think their children should watch, and they say tell us what is in it. Do not give us some rating scheme where we do not know what it relates to, that is not standardized, that changes from station to station. Just tell us what is there. Unfortunately, the industry has not simply ignored the American public; it has defied them. Mr. Valenti, the architect and the cheerleader for the current system, claims the system must be simple so that parents can understand it. Must be simple? Parents can understand it? The TV-Y rating requires a 47-word explanation; TV-Y7 requires 73 words to explain what it means; TV-14, 61 words. All of these ratings explanations are riddled with ambiguity. The only thing easy to understand about these ratings is who came up with them and why. The system is not profamily, it is pro-Hollywood. It is designed to protect the Hollywood production houses. It is designed to protect advertisers who, confronted with content-specific ratings, would shun programs that include explicit material. Now, supposedly there was some miraculous coming together of television executives and Hollywood for a commonsense rating of programs. Well, I think there has been some confusion here in the statement that they have refused to change, regardless of what the public wants. Now, thankfully, under the pressure of the congressional investigation, the congressional hearing, and the outpouring of outrage and frustration and dissatisfaction and disgust with the current system, there have been expressions that, yes, the industry is willing to take another look at this. I hope they not only take another look, but that they will do it quickly and do it effectively, because the industry doesn't own the broadcast spectrum, the public owns the broadcast spectrum. And because the public owns the spectrum, I think it is reasonable to ask that those who use the spectrum be responsive to the public's requests--again, not for censorship, but simply for information so they can make decisions about what is appropriate and not appropriate for their children to watch. Therefore, I think combining the request for granting or renewal of a license to broadcast on that spectrum is a reasonable thing to ask for in return for a content-based, program-specific rating system. In other words, if you want to use the public spectrum, if you have a responsibility--and the responsibility is to provide parents with information. I, therefore, am introducing legislation today that will ensure that the changes the American people demand as a condition for license renewal, for license granting, or for loan of spectrum for the transition of digital broadcast--in return for that, we get broadcaster consent to accurately label their programming. I don't create a Government rating system. I simply want to put some information in the hands of parents. The spectrum that is going to be loaned to broadcasters for digital transmission is extremely valuable. This resource also belongs to the American public, a public that overwhelmingly supports a program- specific, content-based rating system. The basic criteria for issuing a broadcast license is service of the public good. If a broadcaster can't comply with the basic will of the American people, by accurately labeling the product they seek to provide, on the taxpayers' spectrum, then I don't believe they deserve, nor should they receive, the precious resource of broadcast spectrum. Mr. President, we cannot use Government to force more family-friendly programming--as much as sometimes I wish we could, given what we currently see. Mr. President, we can empower parents with information that they need to guide their children's viewing habits. In doing so, we empower them to send a message to the networks, and television advertisers to stop the onslaught of the kind of programming that flows through our television sets into the minds of our children. Mr. President, in conclusion, let me just say that in this age where it's harder and harder to protect children from information and from behavior and from activities in our society that is damaging not only to their bodies, but to their minds and souls, the parents need tools; they are crying out for weapons and tools to fight back against this onslaught of a hostile culture. They want to try to protect the innocence of their children--even if just for a little while. I think they have every right to demand the tool of accurate and responsible television ratings in return for the use of the public broadcast system. My legislation would ensure this end. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this effort. With that, I send to the desk the legislation designed to accomplish this very purpose.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Coats pertaining to the introduction of S. 409 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is not difficult to yield to the Senator from West Virginia because the content of what he says is always instructive, and I am always pleased to be on the floor when he is speaking because I always learn something.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator for yielding. Madam President, what message does it send to the American people when we vote ``no'' on the balanced budget amendment? First, it says that Congress prefers its own judgment over the judgment of the people. This is not a vote to enact the balanced budget amendment. This is a vote to send it to the people to see if they want a balanced budget amendment. Why should we put our judgment ahead of the people? Second, it is an exercise in political power that says that political power is more important than the desires of the people. Clearly, 80 percent of the American people have said they want fiscal responsibility and believe it can only be achieved through a balanced budget amendment. Third, it continues a system that allows us to vote public benefits to the very people who keep us in office while placing the burden of paying for those benefits on people who cannot vote for us. Therefore, it gives us the natural inclination to vote for those benefits and pass on the obligations to people in the future. Finally, we avoid the moral tradition of sacrificing for posterity. Instead, we ask posterity to sacrifice for us. That is wrong. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, over the last 15 years, the balanced budget amendment has been debated over and over again in this Chamber. Members of one or both Chambers of Congress actually have voted on this proposal six times. The arguments, by this point, are familiar. We have heard them over the last several weeks and the last several years in these debates. So there is the disturbing process by which the vested interests of this institution are protected against the clear will of our democracy. We are not, of course, debating about passage of a balanced budget amendment. We are debating whether or not to send that decision to the States and to the people of America. Often that gets confused. People think that the entire decision, the entire vote, rests with the 100 Members of this Senate body, when in fact the only thing that rests with us is whether or not we will make the decision to give the people of America, to give democracy, an opportunity to decide whether or not we ought to have a balanced budget directing our fiscal affairs here in Washington. We are debating whether to prefer our interests above their wisdom, and it appears we will once again by the narrowest of margins decide to sustain this corrupt and corrupting Federal power of unlimited debt. Once again our debate on this matter has been conducted to maximize public cynicism--not intentionally but that is certainly the result-- with twisted arms, violated promises, pressure tactics, and broken commitments. We have seen it all surround this issue time and time again. And, once again, as we are debating this, people are switching their position, people pledging to their constituents during the campaign: ``I will be there when the balanced budget call is taken; when the roll is called, I will be on the plus side.'' And, of course, now we hear the excuses as to why since the election is over that is no longer the case. Even those who have voted for the balanced budget amendment in the past now find convenient reasons not to do so in the present. So I guess we cannot really blame the American people for being cynical, for being apathetic about what takes place here in this body, in the Congress, in Washington. All of this in a desperate attempt to prevent the American citizen from having a voice and having a vote, all to prop up, if just for a few more years, the ability of Congress to cripple the success and the prosperity of the future. There are many divisive issues debated in this Chamber, but this issue is unique in one way. The defeat of a balanced budget amendment represents the raw exercise of political power against the desires of over 80 percent of the American public. In my experience in politics, no proposal with support so strong and so consistent has ever been frustrated for so long by the Congress. Make no mistake. A balanced budget amendment will eventually be sent to the States for ratification. I think that is guaranteed by the breadth of public commitment which will not go away and will only grow in strength. We can delay this process, as apparently we will do once again, but not deny it. Every year of delay increases our danger and ought to add to our shame and guilt. Rather than rehearse the detailed arguments of this debate, let me take, if I could, a long review of what I think we have learned. First, the history of the last few decades and the nature of the political process itself argues that the Congress is incapable of self-restraint. We have a system in place, a system that allows us to vote public benefits to the very people who keep us in office. We have a system that allows us to place the burden of those benefits on the future while we gain political support from the present. We have found an efficient way to betray future generations in favor of the present. And it is easy and relatively painless because our generation can vote while future generations cannot and our silence and their anger is distant. We do not feel or hear their anger at the next election because they do not have a vote at the next election. So we please those who benefit us now at the expense of those in the future. The only thing we sacrifice in this process--Mr. President, I would say it is a great sacrifice--is our integrity and our historical reputation. In a distortion of the Constitution, we promote the general welfare for ourselves at the expense of our posterity. As it stands, there is no weight on the other side of this balance. There is no reliable check on this process of intergenerational theft. It is politically prudent, even popular, and this political calculation will not change, will never permanently change without some kind of systematic institutional counterweight, without some measure to give posterity a voice in our affairs. Nothing, in my view, will permanently change until the accumulation of popular debt is a violation of our oath to the Constitution. Perverse incentives of the current system will not be altered until the system itself is altered, until our political interests are balanced by the weighty words of a constitutional amendment. The second lesson I believe we have learned in the last few decades is that despite all the talk we hear in Congress, despite all the posturing, despite all the rhetoric, we are simply ignoring the coming entitlement crisis. We are not facing up to the hard question. We have chosen cheerful oblivion over public responsibility. The train wreck is a precise, measurable distance away. Trustees predict that the Medicare part A will be bankrupt by the year 2002. Trustees of Social Security believe that the system will begin to run a deficit in 2013 and could collapse by 2029. Former Commerce Secretary Pete Peterson recently wrote that if entitlements are not reformed, the cost of Social Security and Medicare by the year 2040 will take between 35 and 55 percent of every worker's paycheck. It is a crisis propelled by demographics and propelled by Federal irresponsibility. Every year we avoid real reform we make real reform more painful. Oh, and the attitude here is, well, 2002, 2013, 2029, I will probably be out of office by then, or hopefully something will change by then, or let us not think beyond 1998. That is the next election, isn't it. Let us see what we can do to slip by one more election. But it is always one more election, one more election, one more election. When I came here in 1980, we were charged with the responsibility of dealing with deficit spending. We were charged with the responsibility of getting a handle on the entitlements and being straightforward and real with the American people, but each time it slipped one more election, one more election, one more election. Now we are looking at 1998. There does not appear to be any movement out of this administration to address entitlements in a serious structural way--some tinkering at the edges suggesting but not proffered, some concerns about the political implications of making the hard choices, making the difficult decisions, but nothing concrete before us as a body. And so we will pass again for 2 more years. Opponents of the balanced budget amendment talk a great deal about Social Security, but they do not talk about solving its most fundamental problems. Instead, their efforts are designed to move it off budget, creating the illusion that this action will somehow save the system. This is a distraction, as I think everyone in this Chamber knows. It is not a solution. It is a distraction from the fact that our current budget rules are deceptive. We are borrowing from the Social Security trust fund and replacing real money with T-bills. There is not some giant pot of money out here waiting for Social Security recipients. It is a pay-as-you-go system. Some have called it the ultimate pyramid system. We are borrowing from it and putting pieces of paper into it to pay it back someday. That payback has to come from the general revenue. Those T-bills are a promise to pay benefits in the future, yet this borrowing is not reflected in our deficit calculations each year. As a matter of budgeting integrity, we should stop the shell game. We need an accurate accounting of the yearly deficit and the Federal debt. In fiscal 1996, we reported a budget deficit of $107 billion, but we failed to report an additional $66 billion borrowed from and owed to Social Security. Where does that money come from? It comes from the American taxpayer. It comes from taxes imposed against their paychecks. It is money that is going to have to be paid back. To say we can solve this problem by conveniently taking it off budget is a shell game. It is a deception of the American people. What it really amounts to is keeping two sets of books. These kinds of budget tricks make the job of balancing the budget easier in the short term-- and of course it is the short term here that everyone is concerned about, the next election-- but they compound the problems of future generations. I urge my colleagues to put aside this phony debate over Social Security. It is impossible to disentangle Social Security revenues and expenditures from the budget. Congress should address the national debt by passing the balanced budget amendment and then turn quickly to real solutions, real reform of Social Security. It is unfortunate and it is undeniable that President Clinton's budget currently on the table understands none of these lessons, and actually deepens our problems. It is a symbol of the Federal Government's failure of will and nerve. When I came to the Congress in 1981, our total Federal debt was just under $1 trillion. In the plan the President submitted recently to this Congress, his budgets will contribute another $1 trillion to the debt before those budgets are supposed to come into balance. This is hardly an act of courage. In fact, the President's plan demands that nearly all the courage be shown by others, since it postpones real spending cuts until after he leaves office. Moreover, if the President's own optimistic estimates about future deficits do not prove accurate, he relies on triggers--automatic cuts in spending and increased taxes--to bring the budget into balance. All of this occurring, again, after he has left office, after he no longer will be held to account. Harry Truman's famous injunction, ``the buck stops here,'' apparently now reads: The buck stops at the desk of the next person to occupy this office. Now we will apparently learn from CBO later this week that even the President's budget numbers are not accurate. They are not even close. We will, in fact, be about $70 billion short of balance in 2002. This year's budgets alone will see a 20 percent increase in the deficit. This budget is the embodiment of the point I am trying to make. Deferring responsibility is easy. Shifting hard choices to the future is easy. Deficit spending is easy. Everybody plays the game unless a constitutional amendment changes the ground rules, unless fiscal discipline is imposed from above, not from within. Unless the system is changed, exposing and ending all of our tricks and excuses, that is the only way we can be honest with the American people. That is the only way we can end the cynicism toward our efforts here in the Congress, which are falling, I am afraid, ever more on deaf ears. There is a great deal at stake here. As others have argued at length, increasing debt has an economic cost in higher interest rates. For businesses, this means slowed or stalled expansion, and for families it means that buying that new house or sending that child to college becomes more difficult each year. Another cost is measured in lost opportunities to meet justified public needs. By fiscal year 1998, interest payments on the national debt will approach $250 billion--$250 billion in interest payments. That figure is 21 times more money on interest than on the entire Federal expenditure for agriculture; 17 times more than the entire Federal expenditures for international affairs; 11 times more than on natural resources and the environment combined; and 4 times more than on education, training, and employment. We stand on this floor and argue, and we work in committee, just to try to scratch a little bit more money out for job training, for education, to deal with problems of the environment and our natural resources, to deal with international affairs and pressing problems in agriculture. We try to scratch a few million dollars here, a few hundred million dollars there. Yet $250 billion simply goes to pay interest. What could we do with that $250 billion if we did not have to pay any interest? A big healthy return to the American people would be the first start, a big tax cut to give them back some more of their hard-earned money. And there may be priorities, there may be roads that need to be repaired or built, there may be education expenditures that are appropriate, there may be natural resource and environmental concerns that ought to be addressed, there may be agricultural items that ought to be funded, and a whole raft of other appropriate spending efforts. Yet those are squeezed ever more, as more and more of our budget goes to pay interest. Beyond this, there is a moral cost of continued debt, a price paid in the character of our Nation. I have quoted Thomas Jefferson in this debate before, but let me quote him once more. It is an injunction that this Congress has ignored time after time: The question of whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and be morally bound to pay for them by ourselves. Those were words of a great American a long time ago. I wonder what he would say today, looking at over $5.4 trillion of national debt and continuing budget deficits year after year after year after year. ``We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and be morally bound to pay them ourselves,'' said Thomas Jefferson, one of the most fundamental principles of government. In this debate we are accustomed to thinking in terms of dollars and cents. We should also be thinking in terms of right and wrong. It is simply wrong to accumulate power in the present by placing burdens on the future. And that is exactly what we are doing. We are accumulating power in the present, the power of spending, and the way we are doing it is placing burdens on the future. It is an important part of our moral tradition, to sacrifice for posterity. It is rank selfishness to demand that posterity sacrifice for us. And there is only one way to ensure that this strong and constant temptation is defeated, by making a balanced budget a fundamental institutional commitment of our Government. After 25 years of budget deficits, the call to voluntary restraint is hollow. Too many promises have been made and broken. Congress has spent the full measure of public trust. Meaningful budget restraint, if we find it, will come from above, not from within. This fundamental principle of government should be, and hopefully someday will be, and I predict it will be, in America's fundamental law. That day cannot come too soon. We should be ashamed if that process does not begin tomorrow. Tomorrow we will vote once again. Two years ago I sat in my seat, one row down, listening to the final debate on the balanced budget amendment, listening to the call of the roll. As every Senator sat at his or her desk, each stood to record his or her vote, and as we went through the roll we tallied the numbers and we stopped at 66. We came one vote short. One vote short, not of adopting a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, one vote short of exercising the right in a democracy of the people to determine that matter for themselves. It appears that we will stop one vote short again. I hope that is not the case. I pray that is not the case. We desperately need to arrest the power of the purse that has so corrupted our ability to represent the will of the people. I hope tomorrow we will demonstrate the courage to finally say: Power to the people. Let them decide the fiscal course for this Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I didn't have the opportunity to respond to the Senator from California when she stated her willingness to reexamine the issue of partial-birth abortion. The minority leader was on the floor waiting to speak, and had reserved time for that. However, I would like to just say that, No. 1, I am pleased that they are willing to revisit the issue. It is an issue that I think deserve revisiting. I want to correct some information that might be misconstrued, as referenced by the Senator from California--the fact that, if we could just make sure that we provided an exception for women whose lives were in danger, were the procedure not proposed. As I think the Senator remembers, that was clearly addressed in the bill that was before the Senate last Congress--that exception for life of the mother was clearly stated in that language. Now this whole addition of the well health of the mother--first of all, as the Senator from Pennsylvania [Senator Santorum] so eloquently described, there were no instances, there were no partial-birth abortions performed to protect the health of the mother. There was a lot of erroneous misinformation discussed about that. And this has always been the reason why opponents--of whatever attempts are made to address the question of abortion from the pro-life side--it is always, ``If we could just add the exception for health of the mother.'' As we have learned over the years and as has been demonstrated in numerous court holdings and other information that is presented to us, health of the mother is so broadly defined. Are we talking about psychological health of the mother, emotional health of the mother? It has really just been used as an excuse to provide abortionists, doctors who perform abortions, a basis for simply saying we will use this exception to allow the abortion to go forward. I really think what we are dealing with here is a procedure that goes beyond the pale. It really, as many have said in the debate, is not an abortion issue. It is not a pro-choice abortion issue. This is the issue of a deliberate taking of life, of a fetus, of a baby that is well beyond the age of viability, however that is defined. My own personal belief is that life begins at conception. Even if you do not agree with my personal belief on this, there is no question that at the 5th, 6th and 7th month, the times when partial- birth abortions are performed, because the head of the child is so large it cannot be extracted through the birth canal and therefore has to be collapsed by the doctor after the baby is killed, there is no question that the partial-birth abortion issue is one that is not in the purview of what we generally have been talking about on the pro- life pro-choice issues. It is clearly a situation where we have a baby who, if born at that moment, would be able to sustain life. Someone said 3 inches and 3 seconds from being declared murder. I remember the situation when the young couple in New Jersey, I think it was, was arrested for the killing of their recently born baby. How ironic it is that had they gone to an abortionist and had a partial-birth abortion 1 minute before the baby was born and then they killed the baby, it would have been a perfectly accepted procedure without any criminal penalty, without any penalty whatsoever. And so we are talking about a human life that is capable of being sustained on its own that is deliberately ended, terminated, by an abortion doctor to provide for a more convenient abortion. That is what is at stake here. That is what the debate is going to have to be about if we bring it back up. I am pleased that the minority leader and the Senator from California, who was the primary opponent of our efforts to override the President's veto, I am pleased they want to revisit the issue, but let us revisit it on the right terms and let us know what we are talking about.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President pro tempore be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join with a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort His Excellency, Eduardo Frei, President of the Republic of Chile, into the House Chamber for the joint meeting on Thursday, February 27, 1997.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 11 a.m. on Thursday, February 27. I further ask that immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and that the Senate then resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 1, the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. For the information of all Senators, by previous order, tomorrow morning the Senate will begin 90 minutes of debate on the Graham amendment. Following the vote on or in relation to the Graham amendment, the Senate will then debate several amendments to the balanced budget amendment with rollcall votes occurring on those amendments later in the afternoon. Following those stacked votes later in the afternoon, the Senate will debate Senator Bumper's amendment to Senate Joint Resolution 1. Therefore, all members can expect additional votes during Thursday's session.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I ask unanimous consent the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 305, and, further, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, if there be no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to briefly address an item that was in the news this morning titled ``New Study Faults Pentagon's Gay Policy.'' This morning the New York Times reported that with great alarm. It seemed that 850 men and women were discharged last year from the military for being homosexuals. They talk about an alarming increase in the number of people discharged under this policy that the Congress enacted just a couple of years ago. First of all, we should put this in perspective. The 850 discharged amounts to six one-hundredths of 1 percent of active duty military personnel, and I do not think anybody on that basis can claim there is some kind of vendetta or witch hunt or anything else going on. It is really important for us to stand back and review where we are today following the debate that we had on gays in the military in 1994. First, it is important to understand that the U.S. military maintains a commitment, a consistent commitment to the principle that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. This conviction has been one that was more thoroughly investigated and examined than perhaps any other policy, at least controversial policy, that this Senate body has examined in my memory and in many people's memories. We held exhaustive hearings. We held field hearings. We brought in experts from every perspective from the left, the right, and everywhere in between. Regardless of what their philosophical position was, we gave people the opportunity to express their opinion on this issue. The evidence and the findings of fact that are laid out in the law itself that this Congress passed by a very substantial margin and which was signed by the President clearly demonstrated a factual basis and a rational basis for the policy that was adopted. The conviction is justified and, I think, clearly won the support of an overwhelming majority of both the House and the Senate and reaffirmed and signed into law and now has been reaffirmed into law. Now, I know there are some who still disagree with the conclusion that the Senate arrived at and that the Congress arrived at, but they presented their argument in a national debate. That argument did not prevail and did not come close to prevailing. They lost that argument because we were able to demonstrate, on a bipartisan basis, led by Senator Nunn and was something I participated in and many others, that clear, open homosexuality undermines unit cohesion and military effectiveness. It creates an unavoidable sexual tension, often in close quarters, which compromises the central purpose of the military, and that is to be effectively prepared to be able to fight and win wars if necessary or if called on. Second, the U.S. military defines homosexuality as it has always defined homosexuality. First, making a statement that you are a homosexual is a presumption, is a clear indication, that you have adopted a homosexual lifestyle and is grounds for discharge. Second, engaging in a homosexual act is prima facie evidence of the case that you are a homosexual as defined in the law. Third, entering into a homosexual marriage. Those are the criteria. In the public debate, people have tried to call this policy many different things, but in fact it is the policy the military held even before we passed the so-called don't ask, don't tell policy in 1994, and it is the policy we enforce today. So when military commanders implement this policy, they are not violating the rules. They are simply enforcing the law as we in the Congress wrote the law, supported the law, voted for the law, on a bipartisan basis, and as that law was accepted and signed into law by the President, the current President, of the United States.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will comment on another article in the New York Times which is titled, ``An Abortion Rights Advocate Says He Lied About Procedure'' of partial-birth abortions. Many here remember the very heated and controversial and difficult and emotional debate that we had on this floor in attempting to override the President's veto of the partial-birth abortion bill passed, again on a bipartisan basis, in both the Senate and the House but vetoed by the President on the grounds that this was a rare procedure, it rarely happened, and, therefore, we should not make a policy which would deny on those few rare occasions, as the President described them, the opportunity to women to avail themselves of a partial-birth abortion. A Planned Parenthood news release of November 1, 1995, which was cited by many on this floor as the basis for the fact that this is rare, said, ``The procedure is extremely rare and done only in cases when the woman's life is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality.'' The President cited that and quoted medical experts that said that this was a rare procedure and used that as the basis for his veto of the bill, which prevented us from passing a ban against partial-birth abortions. Now, today, the New York Times comes out with an article indicating that one of the doctors that was so frequently quoted, and the fact that it was so frequently used by opponents on this floor to argue against the ban on partial-birth abortions, that doctor has stated that he lied when he said this was a rare procedure. Reading the article: A prominent member of the abortion rights movement said today that he lied in earlier statements when he said a controversial form of late-term abortion is rare and performed primarily to save the lives or fertility of women bearing severely malformed babies. He now says the procedure is performed far more often than his colleagues have acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses. Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, said he intentionally misled in previous remarks about the procedure. But he is now convinced, he said, that the issue of whether the issue remains legal, like the overall debate about abortion, must be based on the truth. Mr. Fitzsimmons recalled the night in November 1995, when he appeared on ``Nightline'' on ABC and ``lied through my teeth'' when he said the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or those fetuses were damaged. ``It made me physically ill,'' Mr. Fitzsimmons said in an interview, ``I told my wife the next day, `I can't do this again.' '' As much as he disagreed with the National Right to Life Committee and others who oppose abortion under any circumstances, he said he knew they were accurate when they said the procedure was common. As I said, last April, President Clinton vetoed a bill that would have outlawed this procedure, and in explaining that veto, as the New York Times quotes, ``Mr. Clinton echoed the argument of Mr. Fitzsimmons and his colleagues.'' And I quote from the President: ``There are a few hundred women every year who have personally agonizing situations where their children are born to or are about to be born with terrible deformities, which will cause them to die either just before, during or just after childbirth,'' the President said. ``And these women, among other things, cannot preserve the ability to have further children unless the enormity--the enormous size of the baby's head--is reduced before being extracted from their bodies.'' Meaning a tube is stuck into the baby's head, the skull, the brains are sucked out, and the skull is collapsed. That is the procedure we are talking about here. He is reduced before being extracted from their bodies. A spokeswoman for Mr. Clinton, said tonight that the White House knew nothing of Mr. Fitzsimmons' announcement and would not comment further. I bring this to light, Mr. President, and I am putting it in the Record because I hope that the President would have the opportunity to now gain this information that was erroneous. Mr. Fitzsimmons has admitted now on record that he ``lied through his teeth,'' was deliberately deceptive. That was the justification on which the President formed his opinion and decision. I hope we can now use this opportunity to clarify the record, and that the President can revisit his decision, on the basis of this new information that this is a common procedure and not a rare procedure. The President could--and hopefully the Congress will be addressing this at some point--when presented again with an opportunity to provide a ban against a procedure that is inhuman, and many believe is infanticide, a grisly procedure that is even difficult to describe anywhere in public, and particularly on the floor of the Senate. I hope the President, now armed with this new information, will be able to reexamine his position on the issue, and when and if a bill is presented to him that bans partial-birth abortion, would, on the basis of this new information, and the justification he used to veto the previous bill, reverse his position and support our efforts to bring some level of decency and humanity into this abortion procedure. We are not discussing here the issues that have so consumed us on the abortion question in the past. We are talking about a situation that most find abhorrent, and which is something I don't believe this Nation can have a policy advocating. So with this new information, we are providing an opportunity for people to revisit their decisions and their conclusions because, clearly, that was the justification and basis for the opposition to the ban on partial-birth abortion, and clearly now we have evidence refuting that opposition and, hopefully, that will provide the basis for us to go forward and correct what I believe was a serious mistake we made in the last Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I come before my colleagues today to discuss an issue which is not pleasant. It is tragically controversial, and it is an unsavory topic. The issue is computer pornography. I have a copy of the February 10, 1997 U.S. News & World Report magazine. The cover story indicates, America is by far the world's leading producer of porn, churning out hard core videos at the astonishing rate of about 150 new titles per week. The magazine provides an inside look at the industry. Within this U.S. News & World Report edition is a lengthy article discussing the porn industry in the United States, shamefully pronouncing the United States as the world's leading producer of pornography. There is much in this article to shock, to disappoint, and to be ashamed of. But I am going to limit my remarks specifically to the issue of computer pornography. As a backdrop, let me quote from the article just to give us an idea of the scope of the problem. ``Last year,'' the article states, ``Americans spent more than $8 billion on hard-core videos, peep shows, live sex acts, adult cable programming, sexual devices, computer porn, and sex magazines--an amount larger than Hollywood's domestic box office receipts and larger than all of the revenues generated by rock and country music recordings. Americans now spend more money at strip clubs than at Broadway, off-Broadway, regional, and nonprofit theaters; at the opera, the ballet, and jazz and classical music performances . . . combined.'' That is the scope of the problem. It is a staggering statistic, one that ought to shock us all. The article also discusses the role of the Internet and the role of computer pornography in driving the technology that we have all become so aware of in just the last year or so. Let me again quote from the magazine: In much the same way that hard-core films on videocassette were largely responsible for the rapid introduction of the VCR, porn CD-ROM and on the Internet has hastened the acceptance of these new technologies. Interactive adult CD- ROMs, such as Virtual Valerie and the Penthouse Photo Shoot, create interest in multimedia equipment among male computer buyers. According to the article. It goes on to say, and I quote: The availability of sexually explicit material through computer bulletin board systems has drawn many users to the Internet. Porn companies have established elaborate web sites to lure customers. For instance, ``Playboy's web site, which offers free glimpses of its Playmates, now averages about 5 million hits a day.'' Five million times someone is logging into the Playboy web site every day. The article then goes on to quote a seeming cult figure of the anything goes set in America, Larry Flynt: Larry Flynt imagines a future in which the TV and the personal computer have merged. Americans will lie in bed, cruising the Internet with their remote controls and ordering hard-core films at the punch of a button. The Internet promises to combine the video store's diversity of choices with the secrecy of purchases through the mail. Why do I bring this up, Mr. President? Because in the last Congress, the 104th Congress, this Senate adopted the Exon-Coats amendment, known as the Communications Decency Act, as part of the telecommunications reform legislation. I bring this up not to point out what Americans should or should not do in the privacy of their bedroom. I bring this up to ask the question as to whether or not we have a responsibility to protect our children from the negative impact of pornography. The Communications Decency Act simply extends the same protections that are currently in place, for children from pornography, that exists in every other means of communication but has not caught up with computer communication. The Internet has exploded on the scene and, yet, the same restrictions and protections for children, regarding the distribution of pornography that we have built into telephone technology, television technology, VCR technology, and others, has not been extended to computer technology, until the Communications Decency Act. As U.S. News reports, ``The Nation's obscenity laws and the Communications Decency Act are the greatest impediments to Flynt's brave new world of porn.'' The article said that, ``Even he [Larry Flynt] is shocked by some of the material he has obtained through the Internet.'' Let me quote him. ``Some of the stuff on there, I mean, I wouldn't even publish it.'' Anybody familiar with Mr. Flynt's record in terms of extending the boundaries of publication of pornographic material have to be stunned by this statement. Basically what he is saying is that some of the material that is available on the Internet without any protections for children, is so shocking even he wouldn't publish it in his magazines, which are only sold to adults, or are only supposed to be sold to adults. Opponents of the Communications Decency Act, companies like America On-Line, the ACLU, the American Library Association, have argued that there should be no role for government in protecting children, that the Internet can regulate itself. The primary solution that they have offered is a system called PICs, Platform for Internet Content Selection. It is a type of self-rating system. This would allow the publisher of the material, the pornographer, to rate his own home page on the Web, and browsers, the tools that are used to search the Internet, would then respond to these ratings. Mr. President, I suggest that it is a ludicrous proposition to allow the pornographer to rate their own material. There is no incentive for compliance. PC Week magazine, a prominent voice in the computer industry recently published an editorial entitled ``Web Site Ratings--Shame on Most of Us.'' The column discusses the lack of voluntary compliance by content providers. The article states, We and many others in the computer industry and press have decried the Communications Decency Act and other government attempts to regulate the content of the Web. Instead, we've all argued, the government should let the Web rate and regulate its own content. Page ratings and browsers that respond to those ratings, not legislation, are the answers we've offered. But then the article goes on to say: The argument has been effective. With the CDA still wrapped up in the Courts, the general feeling seems to be that we, the good guys, carried the day on this one. ``Too bad we left the field before the game was over,'' the article says. ``We who work around the Web have done little to rate our content.'' The article goes on to say that, in search of the Web, they found ``few rated sites.'' And even those rated sites were an ``exception to the rule.'' In other words, the PICs don't work. Of course they don't work. They don't work because you are asking the producer who is trying to sell the material to rate the material in a way that it will not be accessed as many people as it otherwise would. There is no incentive for pornographers to comply. So what are the ramifications to our children? A member of my staff went on Lexis/Nexis and searched for articles containing the words: Computer and pornography and Internet and looked for articles dated after the first of the year. And we came up with 139 separate stories. ``Internet pornography at library concerns parents'', ``Parents want BPL (Boston Public Library) to block porn on Internet'', articles entitled, ``Kids see porn via the Internet.'' ``Mother sues America On- Line over cyber porn,'' and on and on. At a time when the President and the Vice President are calling for every classroom in America to be wired to the Internet, when Larry Flynt is shocked by some of the material he finds there, the ACLU and congressional opponents of the Communications Decency Act claim that the Government has no right to protect our children from this pornographic material. Fortunately, the Senate spoke on a vote of 84 to 16, and the Congress as a whole spoke overwhelmingly in favor of the CDA. Mr. President, the Supreme Court will soon hear arguments on the constitutionality of the CDA. I have a copy of the amicus brief, filed on behalf of Members of Congress, which reaffirms the voice of Congress on this important issue. I thank my colleagues who took a stand with me in this brief and ask unanimous consent that the content of the cover of the brief be printed and referenced in the Record.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I know my time is up, I intend to take additional time later to talk about the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act, and to restate the case for why I believe it will pass constitutional muster. Mr. President, this is something that we have to be vigilant on because clearly we have an interest, and a responsibility to protect our children from this kind of material. Mr. President, I thank you for the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, Senator Lugar and I are introducing today legislation which will more effectively direct Federal funding to those States which have the greatest needs with highway-rail grade crossings. We first introduced this bill in the 104th Congress after recognizing a critical deficiency at rail grade crossings which has contributed senseless, tragic deaths over the years. This year as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] is reauthorized, it is my hope that the committee will seriously consider the needs of rail-intensive States, such as Indiana. While the final structure of ISTEA is still unknown, I will work to ensure that the objectives of this legislation are incorporated in the final highway bill. Rail transportation is important in Indiana, playing a key role in the State's agriculture and manufacturing economy. Much of the rail activity goes through northwest Indiana which accounts for 75 percent of the State's rail crossing accidents. In 1994, Indiana ranked third in the Nation with 263 rail crossing accidents, resulting in the deaths of 27 people. Six percent of all rail crossing accidents in America took place in Indiana and 5.9 percent of the fatalities occurred there. Several years ago, I became aware that Indiana and a number of other States had a critical problem with rail accidents. Senator Lugar and I asked the General Accounting Office [GAO] to examine the safety conditions in States with a high concentration of rail crossings. The GAO report, completed in August 1995, revealed that while Indiana had a large number of rail crossings--6,700, the sixth largest number of all States--the State received only 3.4 percent of the Federal funding available specifically targeted to prevent such tragedies. The Section 130 Program was established in 1973 to help States reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities at public railroad crossings. In the first 10 years of the program, accidents declined by 61 percent and deaths were reduced by 34 percent. Since 1985, little progress was made toward further reducing these numbers. The problem becomes apparent when you realize that many of the States with the highest concentration of crossings, number of accidents, and fatalities receive less money than States that do not have as great a need. Thus, the GAO included that the Federal Government should examine funding formulas and consider using risk factors in determining how to distribute section 130 highway dollars to States for rail safety purposes. The current formula funding--based on 10 percent of a State's surface transportation program [STP] funding--does not take into account such essential criteria as a State's total number of crossing, amount of train traffic, nor the number of accidents and fatalities. I believe it is critical that these risk factors be considered in determining how much money a State should receive for rail safety under the current funding structure. The formula enhancement bill would correct this flaw in the current formula. Based on the GAO report and work with the Federal Highway Administration, we crafted this legislation to ensure that States with the greatest risk receive more money. This bill does not increase Federal spending. Rather it ensures that money is targeted to those States with the most serious safety concerns. Using this more equitable way of disbursing funds, Indiana--which received $4.9 million in fiscal year 1997--could receive $7.3 million in fiscal year 1998. Overall, 21 States would benefit substantially from increased funding to help reduce rail crossing accidents. Clearly, this bill addresses one aspect of law, providing a fairer distribution of resources. But money alone will not solve all the problems related to rail crossing accidents. A comprehensive plan to educate people about the dangers at rail crossings must be developed. I support the efforts of programs like Operation Lifesaver which works effectively to get information to citizens. Continued cooperation among all levels of government: local, State, and Federal is essential to stop these sort of tragedies. There are many issues facing the Congress this year as we decide funding levels, formulas, and determine the role of the Federal Government in the context of the highway authorization. I supported Senator Warner's legislation last year to provide for a streamlined, flexible, and equitable highway program. I continue to believe this approach is best for the States to address their fundamental needs and priorities. The STEP-21 proposal would ensure that States receive a fairer return on highway funding and the flexibility to spend the resources according to State and local priorities. My purpose in introducing this rail legislation at this time is to draw attention to this serious problem facing Indiana and other States and to show my determination to make rail crossing safety a priority as we make the key decisions on ISTEA. We cannot afford to neglect the safety of our citizens at rail grade crossings. We must find ways to address these critical problems. Overall, the safety of our highways and rail is essential as we examine and make decisions on the future of our transportation system. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that our focus is indeed comprehensive in addressing our transportation needs.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, Senator Lugar and I are introducing today legislation which will more effectively direct Federal funding to those States which have the greatest needs with highway-rail grade crossings. We first introduced this bill in the 104th Congress after recognizing a critical deficiency at rail grade crossings which has contributed senseless, tragic deaths over the years. This year as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] is reauthorized, it is my hope that the committee will seriously consider the needs of rail-intensive States, such as Indiana. While the final structure of ISTEA is still unknown, I will work to ensure that the objectives of this legislation are incorporated in the final highway bill. Rail transportation is important in Indiana, playing a key role in the State's agriculture and manufacturing economy. Much of the rail activity goes through northwest Indiana which accounts for 75 percent of the State's rail crossing accidents. In 1994, Indiana ranked third in the Nation with 263 rail crossing accidents, resulting in the deaths of 27 people. Six percent of all rail crossing accidents in America took place in Indiana and 5.9 percent of the fatalities occurred there. Several years ago, I became aware that Indiana and a number of other States had a critical problem with rail accidents. Senator Lugar and I asked the General Accounting Office [GAO] to examine the safety conditions in States with a high concentration of rail crossings. The GAO report, completed in August 1995, revealed that while Indiana had a large number of rail crossings--6,700, the sixth largest number of all States--the State received only 3.4 percent of the Federal funding available specifically targeted to prevent such tragedies. The Section 130 Program was established in 1973 to help States reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities at public railroad crossings. In the first 10 years of the program, accidents declined by 61 percent and deaths were reduced by 34 percent. Since 1985, little progress was made toward further reducing these numbers. The problem becomes apparent when you realize that many of the States with the highest concentration of crossings, number of accidents, and fatalities receive less money than States that do not have as great a need. Thus, the GAO included that the Federal Government should examine funding formulas and consider using risk factors in determining how to distribute section 130 highway dollars to States for rail safety purposes. The current formula funding--based on 10 percent of a State's surface transportation program [STP] funding--does not take into account such essential criteria as a State's total number of crossing, amount of train traffic, nor the number of accidents and fatalities. I believe it is critical that these risk factors be considered in determining how much money a State should receive for rail safety under the current funding structure. The formula enhancement bill would correct this flaw in the current formula. Based on the GAO report and work with the Federal Highway Administration, we crafted this legislation to ensure that States with the greatest risk receive more money. This bill does not increase Federal spending. Rather it ensures that money is targeted to those States with the most serious safety concerns. Using this more equitable way of disbursing funds, Indiana--which received $4.9 million in fiscal year 1997--could receive $7.3 million in fiscal year 1998. Overall, 21 States would benefit substantially from increased funding to help reduce rail crossing accidents. Clearly, this bill addresses one aspect of law, providing a fairer distribution of resources. But money alone will not solve all the problems related to rail crossing accidents. A comprehensive plan to educate people about the dangers at rail crossings must be developed. I support the efforts of programs like Operation Lifesaver which works effectively to get information to citizens. Continued cooperation among all levels of government: local, State, and Federal is essential to stop these sort of tragedies. There are many issues facing the Congress this year as we decide funding levels, formulas, and determine the role of the Federal Government in the context of the highway authorization. I supported Senator Warner's legislation last year to provide for a streamlined, flexible, and equitable highway program. I continue to believe this approach is best for the States to address their fundamental needs and priorities. The STEP-21 proposal would ensure that States receive a fairer return on highway funding and the flexibility to spend the resources according to State and local priorities. My purpose in introducing this rail legislation at this time is to draw attention to this serious problem facing Indiana and other States and to show my determination to make rail crossing safety a priority as we make the key decisions on ISTEA. We cannot afford to neglect the safety of our citizens at rail grade crossings. We must find ways to address these critical problems. Overall, the safety of our highways and rail is essential as we examine and make decisions on the future of our transportation system. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that our focus is indeed comprehensive in addressing our transportation needs.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I note the presence of a colleague and friend on the floor, the former Senator from Illinois. We are pleased to have him come back and visit us. I just want to take this opportunity to tell him how much we appreciated his service and how much I enjoyed serving with him on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I hope he is doing well.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I inquire what the current order of business is?

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader I announce the schedule for today's session. This morning, the Senate will be proceeding to executive session to begin 30 minutes of debate on the nomination of Andrew Cuomo to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. All Senators should expect the rollcall vote to begin on that nomination at approximately 10 a.m. this morning. Following that vote, the Senate will begin a period of morning business to allow Senators to introduce legislation and make statements. The majority leader has also announced that it is possible today the Senate will begin debate on the nomination of William Daley to be Secretary of Commerce. However, the rollcall vote on that nomination is not expected to occur until tomorrow and all Members will be notified accordingly.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I, too, join in sending my congratulations to our new Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen, someone with whom I have had the privilege of serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee now for the past 8 years. Bill has been a most articulate and most thoughtful member of that committee--obviously, someone whom we have all come to respect, someone of great intellect and experience, arriving at the House in 1973 and spending a significant part of his lifetime serving the people of Maine and serving the people of this country. He is known as a writer. I think he has published eight books, and so it was always interesting to listen to his statements in the Chamber. They were always well-reasoned. They were always well-researched. They were always thoughtful. They were challenging and provocative. Bill had an independent streak which was a great asset. It allowed him to escape the orthodoxy of the political mantra we sometimes find ourselves repeating without a great deal of forethought. Yet Bill's challenge, I think, raised issues that we needed to discuss and needed to consider. While I did not always come to the same conclusion he did, I always respected his thoughtfulness and respect for the conclusions he reached. He now assumes a very difficult assignment. These are not easy times at the Department of Defense, not because we find ourselves engaged in any major conflict but because, for a period of more than a decade, we have been undertaking a very significant reorganization following the demise of the cold war and following our success in the gulf. This is not without consequence, and we are now approaching, I believe, our 12th or 13th consecutive year of reductions in defense spending. That has taken its toll. It has placed us in a very difficult position. Secretary-designate Cohen this morning in testimony before the Armed Services Committee talked about the world as it is today, the challenges that exist in that world, the threats that we still face, albeit in a different form, and the need to be militarily prepared and to have a strong national security. We are undertaking a quadrennial review process which is going to force us, as Secretary Cohen said, to make and face some very difficult choices. The declining budget has not allowed us to maintain the kind of capability that many of us feel is necessary if we are going to pursue a two-regional-response strategy. We face some serious questions regarding modernization, balancing that with the need for readiness and the need for adequate compensation for our personnel and adequate benefits for our personnel, as well as the research and development needed to take us into the next century. All of these difficult choices will now fall to our new Secretary of Defense. He is clearly someone with whom both Republicans and Democrats can work. In fact, we have worked together probably in a more bipartisan way on the Armed Services Committee than any other committee in the Senate. And so we stand ready to work with him in attempting to address some of these fundamental questions that are going to determine the course of our defense in future years. I asked Bill Cohen this morning what experiences in his life and particularly during his tenure in Congress helped shape his views in terms of the role of the military and the role of defense. He shared with us a response which I had hoped he would give and was pleased that he did give in outlining some of the experiences he has had in traveling to and visiting with and being with our troops as they serve around the world. We are often criticized here for some of the travel that we take. I note the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn], is in the Chamber. I will never forget--and it has been a basis of some of the critical decisions I have had to make regarding defense expenditures and defense policy--the trip we took to Kuwait right after the war and watching Senator Glenn interact with marines and naval personnel and military personnel and they react with him. Senator McCain was with us. There is no substitute for leaving the charts and leaving the Vu-Graphs and leaving the cold facts on a piece of paper and getting out in the field and talking to soldiers, whether it is generals or captains or privates or sergeants. There is no substitute for learning some of the difficulties that take place, in terms of putting together an adequate defense, some of the challenges that face our country and face those personnel. There is no substitute for dealing with that on a personal basis. Senator Cohen shared that view and shared the view that, when you do that, when you personalize our decisions, when you realize that someone's son or daughter is going to be put at risk in defense of this country, it gives you a different perspective in terms of the kind of equipment, the kind of quality of life, the kind of support for their family, the kind of training and, frankly, the kind of decisions we make in terms of their deployment. I think it is important for every Member to have that perspective. I have taken advantage of the opportunity as a member of the Armed Services Committee to travel as much as the schedule will allow and spend as much time with our troops in the field as time allows. It has been just an invaluable experience. I know Senator Cohen will place those experiences at the forefront of his thinking, in terms of the decisions he has to make in the Department of Defense. I also congratulate Secretary Perry for just an outstanding tenure as Secretary of Defense. I was one of the people who raised the question early on as to whether Secretary Perry, while I acknowledged his masterful technological skills and management skills, whether he could be an effective Secretary of Defense in a political world, trying to deal with all of us and the give and take that takes place, because he is a mild, soft-spoken man. But he is a man of steel. It does not take shouting and it does not take fist pounding to be effective. Secretary Perry proved that. I watched him in negotiations with the Soviets and with the Russians. I watched him in serious policy debates with some of our allies. I watched him interact with us on very important questions relative to defense, in testimony before our committee. He was a model of civility, a model of decency, a great intellect, a thoughtful, articulate spokesman for the Department of Defense. He served this country well and deserves our accolades. Finally, let me say when Bill Cohen and I were in the House of Representatives we would participate in the annual Democrat and Republican baseball game. Bill Cohen was known for the best fastball on the team. He struck some fear in the hearts and minds of some of our Democrat opponents. It made me glad I was a Republican. I used to warm up Bill Cohen and that ball was not always down the middle of the plate. I never saw anybody really dig in against him. There probably are Members of the House today who owe their health to the fact that every time Bill and I would try to run over from the Senate to play in that game, which Bill was then senior Senator, Senator Mitchell would not adjourn the Senate for us so we could participate. We had to carry our beepers. Inevitably, Senator Mitchell or someone else would call a vote and, before Bill made it to the mound to strike fear in the Democrats, the beeper would go off. I always suspected Senator Mitchell had some kind of communication system with his Democrat colleagues in the House and they would say, ``Cohen is warming up in the bullpen, call a vote and get him out of here. Our very lives are at risk.'' The ability to throw those high hard ones and sometimes keep his adversaries a little bit looser at the plate than maybe they would otherwise be, will serve him well as Secretary of Defense in the tough negotiations that he has coming before him. I wish him nothing but success and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the occasion of Ambassador Albright's imminent confirmation as Secretary of State raises some deep concerns regarding this administration's foreign policy. While I believe there is much to be admired about Ambassador Albright--she has a reputation as a frank and forthright speaker, who is able to articulate forcibly her views--I have deep reservations about what I believe is her flawed philosophy of the role of U.S. forces in the conduct foreign policy. As our U.N. Ambassador over the last 4 years, Mrs. Albright has consistently articulated an alarming vision of post-cold-war foreign policy. It is one which designates the United Nations as the world's guarantor of peace and in so doing seeks to subjugate United States' interests to this world body. In June 1993, she articulated the concept of assertive multilateralism as a way of responding to internal political and economic turmoil, defiant regimes, and failed societies in countries around the globe. The United States would act primarily as a part of the United Nations to respond to crises throughout the world. Fundamental to this premise is the belief that every conflict, every disaster will eventually impact the United States and is therefore in our interests to intervene, militarily, to intervene. The United Nations as the instrument of this collective security calls the shots and the United States responds by sending troops. The United States participating with other nations would be able to right the wrongs in the world. This is faulty in concept and dangerous in execution. Consider some of the statements she has made: Our goal is to foster the development of a community capable of easing, if not terminating, the abominable injustices and conditions that still plague civilization, because only in such a community can America flourish. We are also facing increased ethnic and subnational violence. Wherever we turn, someone is fighting or threatening someone else. These disputes may be far removed from our borders but in today's global environment, chaos is an infectious disease. The role of the United States is then to ``reform or isolate the rogue states that act to undermine the stability and prosperity of the larger community and * * * to contain the chaos and ease the suffering in regions of greatest humanitarian concern.'' There is an obvious and immediate danger to this type of thinking. The reality is there are many problems in the world which we simply cannot resolve. In exerting great effort to accomplish impossible goals we endanger the lives of our troops, damage U.S. leadership and prestige, squander valuable resources, and destroy the will of the American people to intervene when our own interests are indeed threatened. The first year of the Clinton administration was dominated by behind the scenes effort to develop a document which would serve as the Clinton policy initiative on multilateral action. The consistent theme of this Presidential Review Directive [PRD-13] was to upgrade the U.N.'s military capabilities and to increase--even institutionalize-- the U.S. involvement with U.N. peacekeeping operations. Ambassador Albright's comments reveal the lines that PRD-13 would follow. We favor substantial enlargement and reorganization of the peacekeeping headquarters staff and the creation of a permanent foundation for rapid 24-hour communication, intelligence, lift, recruitment, training, and the full spectrum of in-theater logistical support. Clinton's foreign policy team sought to expand the United Nations to a sort of global police force and equip it to carry out effectively this unrealistic job. The draft document included a rapid expansion of U.N. military capability as well as the idea of putting U.S. forces under U.N. command. This elevated peacekeeping philosophy is illustrated by events in Somalia. During President Clinton's first year, he turned over the Bush limited food-delivery mission in Somalia to the United Nations. Over the next few months, United States troops were used to hunt down Somali warlord Aideed and participate in what became known as ``nation- building'' activities in order to--in Madeleine Albright's words-- ``promote democracy in that strife-torn nation.'' Ultimately 18 U.S. Rangers were killed by Aideed's men. The last American soldiers left Somalia in March 1994--100,000 troops were sent to Somalia; 30 died and 175 were wounded and at a cost of $1.5 billion. Since our departure, fighting erupted and today Somalia is no more better off for our misguided nation-building experience. The tragedy of losing United States troops in Somalia forced the administration to back away from some of the aims of PRD-13. PRD-13, when finally signed as PDD-25, had undergone a number of changes. Madeleine Albright now couched the document in terms of fixing U.N. peacekeeping not expanding it. But the underlying premise of the policy still had not changed: greater emphasis on the United Nations for resolving conflict. In justifying use of force there was a shift in definition of national security interest. In 1993, Ambassador Albright said: We have a national security interest in containing and, wherever possible, resolving regional conflicts * * * the cost of runaway regional conflicts sooner or later comes home to America. [June 1993.] Her viewpoint--not unique to this administration--fundamentally shifts what previous Presidencies defined as a national security interest and consequently where the President would use American force. This significant alteration of U.S. interests has the profound impact of justifying greater and more diverse missions for our troops. Under the rubric of peace operations, U.S. forces have found themselves in almost every conceivable type mission: delivering food and medicine; building bridges; training police; hunting down warlords. Colin Powell's comments in his autobiography further illustrate Madeleine Albright's thinking. He describes a meeting at the White House when she asked him ``What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?'' The practical effects of this doctrine have led to our military involvement in Haiti, Bosnia, Central Africa, and other areas only peripherally in our interests. What I fear Ambassador Albright has yet to understand is that there are serious costs to using force when our vital interests are not at issue. None of these interventions carried out or contemplated by the Clinton administration were in our security interests. And yet, great numbers of troops have risked their lives and we have spent billions of dollars. In Somalia, our forces left, humiliated and at great cost, with the turmoil on the ground basically unchanged. In Haiti, we intervened to restore democracy but prospects for its survival are very much in question, despite our military contribution of $1.2 billion. After 2 years of gradual escalation of United States intervention in Bosnia, the President committed 20,000 of our forces to serve a year to enforce a separation between the warring factions. U.S. troops now extended for 18 months have the task of ensuring that civilian reconstruction proceeds. No one knows what will happen in Bosnia once our troops are removed. The military has borne great expense because of these missions. And in an era of declining military budgets, there is a growing anxiety about our capability to deal with future national security threats. Last year military testimony before the Armed Services Committee revealed serious strains in our military planning and budgeting. The President's proposed budget for defense was $10 billion lower than what was appropriated the previous year. And yet testimony after testimony by the CINC's and Service Chiefs indicated strong concerns with levels of spending. Readiness, modernization, quality of life were all areas needing focus and funding. The services altogether indicated their desire for more than $15 billion in increases. While the administration has failed to provide adequately for our defense needs, it continues to deploy our troops in more and more missions around the world. In recent years our forces have been seriously overextended. We are asking our forces to do more but have drastically cut force structure by 30 percent. General Reimer, the Army Chief of Staff, testified that requirements on the Army have risen 300 percent. Today, more than 41,000 U.S. soldiers are deployed on nearly 1,700 missions in 60 countries. And while the President failed to provide adequately for the military--to meet their current and future warfighting needs--he requested a separate budget for contingency operations--a clear indication that the trend toward greater peacekeeping missions will continue. I am deeply concerned that the growing use of our forces in areas of peripheral interest will have a long lasting and detrimental impact on our military--and ultimately on the ability of the United States to protect our vital interests. The views of Ambassador Albright confirm her belief in using troops in this way. While the Armed Services Committee can take steps to provide our forces with the funding they need, there is little we can do to reign in how our troops are being used. these essential foreign policy decisions are made by the President, who is both Chief Executive and Commander in Chief. It is my fervent hope that extraordinary caution and wise deliberation will be exercised during the next 4 years in determining how to use American forces to further the foreign policy goals of this administration.