Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Idaho that, if there were outstanding issues over which we had legitimate differences and we had not been able to resolve those differences and that is one reason not to go forward, that might be understandable. But the issues have been resolved. Democrats and Republicans have agreed to the resolutions of the contentious issues. So, whether it is missile defense, or a pay raise, or readiness, or modernization, or funds to combat terrorism, all of those issues have been decided in the conference. We have done so in an expeditious fashion, and the American public has asked us to come here and do our work. I do not know of anything more important--I do not know of any mandate the Congress has in the Constitution that is more important-- than providing for the national defense. I do not know of any issue that is more important for Members of the Senate than being able to say to the people that they represent that we have provided for the national security of the United States. That is our foremost obligation. As I said, were there outstanding differences of opinion on issues that we had not been able to resolve, I can understand why we might not be able to do this before this Congress recesses for a 30-day period of time. But, since that is not the case, since there is agreement, since it is a bipartisan agreement, I believe we ought to, in the interest of national security and the interest of combating terrorism, go forward. And I for one do not understand why we can't do that.

Mr. COATS. Yes. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. COATS. Yes.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will now do that. I am sure the minority leader would like to comment on it. But I ask unanimous consent that we proceed immediately to the conference report to accompany H.R. 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the fact that the minority leader is willing to read the bill over the August recess. I just want to let him know, as a member of the committee who has helped negotiate the bill and is familiar with all aspects of the bill, that I will leave him my phone number in case he has questions. He can track me down, and I will be happy to answer those. But I would state to the minority leader that, as he well knows, we frequently bring a bill that comprises a great number of pages to the floor and pass them with less tribulation than would be accorded this particular bill. We do so because they have been subject to weeks, if not months, of negotiations between members of the committee, between leadership, between all of those involved, and all of those who have questions about the various issues. So when the bill finally arrives at the floor, when it finally comes here for final passage, we are all very familiar with it, and we know what the differences are between us. In this particular instance, probably the most knowledgeable Member of the U.S. Senate as to the national defense issues facing this country is not a Republican but a Democrat--Senator Sam Nunn, chairman of the committee for many, many years, now ranking member of the committee. It was Senator Nunn that just an hour ago stood on the floor and said we have resolved all the differences here; there is no reason why this should take very long. And that was propounded not by a Republican. That was propounded by the Democrat ranking member of the committee. The distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond, agreed. Those of us who serve on the committee, both Republicans and Democrats, indicated that we have looked at it. We have been meeting in rooms for weeks attempting to iron out the small details and the differences on this. There really are no outstanding issues. We could talk about issues, but they have already been discussed and they are already familiar to everybody here. I would also point out to the minority leader that just today the minimum wage conference report came to us, the safe drinking water conference report came to us, the health bill came to us yesterday, defense came on Wednesday. Now, of those four--minimum wage, safe drinking water, health, defense--defense is the one that got here first. Those other three were passed today without extended debate, with very limited debate. Why? Because all of the details had been worked out, because we have been debating the bill for months and various committees have been meeting and all of us had the opportunity to look and determine what is in the bill, to raise questions about any details we had concerns about, and to resolve the differences. All of that has been done. So anybody who has been watching this proceeding knows that we have just passed three major pieces of legislation that have been in negotiation for months, and yet they were brought to the floor with less time to debate than the defense bill. As important as those bills are--health, safe drinking water, and minimum wage conference reports-- I do not believe they stand higher priority than the national defense of the United States. I regret that the minority leader felt constrained to object to this bill. I regret that we have to delay moving forward to the important provisions in this legislation that affect all Americans. Mr. President, with that I yield the floor. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. I think the minority leader is about ready to tell us the reason we can't move forward tonight. Again, that just points to the bipartisan support. The administration has signaled through the Secretary of Defense, President Clinton's appointed Secretary of Defense, that they are happy with the bill. They thank us for moving forward with the bill in an expeditious fashion. They do not want to get into the situation that we got into last year any more than we want to put them in that situation. I have received similar calls. It appears to be a piece of legislation important to the United States, important to the national security, one that is supported by Democrats and Republicans, one that is supported by the administration, and, yet, we are not able to resolve to go forward in what Senator Thurmond and Senator Nunn a few hours ago said we can dispose of in 20 minutes.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to propound a unanimous-consent request that we move to the conference report to accompany H.R. 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. I note the absence of members of the other party on the floor. Obviously, they will want to be notified of this. I do not intend to pull any surprises here. I will be propounding that UC in a few moments. The reason I do this, Mr. President, is that we have worked long and hard and very diligently this year to avoid the problems that we encountered last year in not moving the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1996 as quickly as we would have liked. There were some issues that were contentious, and we had difficulty resolving some of those issues. There was a determination on the part of the chairman and members of the committee this year to avoid the problem we had last year. I commend Senator Thurmond for the extraordinary work that he led in bringing this item to closure in a timely fashion. We held hearings earlier than we ever have, we held markups earlier than we ever have-- at least since I have been on the committee--and we moved forward in an extraordinarily efficient way. We resolved the contentious issues and the differences between Members and between our parties on those issues, and we have legislation which now has passed both the House and Senate, and we have a conference report that we ought to be prepared to vote on. Now, the reason why this is so important is that within this conference report are a number of significant items that are important to the security of this Nation. Most important is funding for antiterrorist activities that goes to various committees. And there probably is not a more pressing issue before the American people right now other than this terrorist activity that has taken place in the United States and questions as to what the response of the Congress and the administration is going to be. This legislation provides for $122 million for the strengthening of domestic preparedness to deal with threatened or actual use of nuclear, chemical, biological, or radiological weapons. We are facing a new world today, a world that leaves no American safe in their home, on the streets, at the Olympic games, in New York City, in Indianapolis, IN, or anywhere else. It is vitally important that we move forward in providing for adequate counters to these threats that exist to the American people. This legislation begins the process of doing just that, and the $122 million that is authorized in this authorization bill is important to accomplish that purpose. If we cannot move forward before we break for recess, we will have delayed, for at least 30 days, and probably more, moving this legislation onto the President's desk for signature, so that we can begin the process of dealing with the terrorist situation that we face. There is $201 million in here to carry out the provisions of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, the Nunn-Lugar Act. This is a cooperative effort between the United States and the former Soviet Union. It is important to the security of the United States. We have a number of other items in here, including pay raises for military uniform personnel and civilian personnel. We have a dental insurance plan for retired service members and their families. We have money in here, or authorization, to support research into the gulf war veterans' illness. We have $466 million of authorized funds for construction of new barracks, dormitories and family housing. For those Members who are familiar with the situation that exists within the military on family housing, who have bases in their districts or in their States, they know of the vital importance of moving forward with the rehab and construction of existing housing and the construction of new housing for our military. More than 60 percent of current military housing is labeled as substandard by military standards. It is housing that you, I, or anybody on this floor would not let our families live in, if we could help it. Yet, our service families have no choice. It is an urgent priority of the Secretary of Defense, the Department of Defense, and this Congress to begin to rehab and provide adequate housing for our military. On and on it goes. There is $6 billion for increasing funding for procurement of ships, aircraft, and tactical systems; $3 billion for an increase for research and development; increased funding for development of a national missile defense system and a tactical missile defense system that protects our troops in the field and Americans here at home. I could go on, Mr. President, but we are faced with a situation that unnecessarily delays our ability to provide necessary authorization for vital national security interests that are important to the United States. I, for one, do not understand why we can't go forward with this. I believe I would at this point----

Mr. COATS. Yes.

Mr. COATS. This conference report is overwhelmingly supported by Members of both parties, Democrats and Republicans. I do not have the exact numbers.

Mr. COATS. That is my understanding. The issues that divided us within this report have been resolved and accepted and signed by all but two Members.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, are we following an order of going back and forth?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, with the passage of this welfare reform legislation, I think we can confidently state that the New Deal is old news. As we all know, this legislation will end the Federal Government's entitlement to welfare, an entitlement created 6 decades ago during the New Deal. Yet, the reason that it must be overturned is found in the reasoning of Franklin Roosevelt himself who said, ``When any man or woman goes on the dole, something happens to them mentally, and the quicker they're taken off the dole the better it is for them the rest of their lives.'' He added: ``We must preserve not only the bodies of the unemployed from destitution, but also their self-respect, their self-reliance, and courage and determination.'' The welfare reforms that we will pass today are designed not just to save money and reduce waste, although those are important goals, but they are also designed to help restore certain basic values: self- respect and self-reliance. Some critics have claimed that these welfare reforms will lead to catastrophe. Mr. President, I suggest the catastrophe has already arrived. It is obvious in an exploding population of fatherless children, rising violence in our cities and streets, suburbs and rural towns, endless dependence and fractured families. No one can honestly defend the current system as compassionate. No one can be proud of the results of the last 30 years. We are tired of good intentions and dismal results. We need to take another path. This legislation that we are proposing is not experimental nor it is not untested. It is rooted in proven principles of American tradition. It transfers powers to the States where that power should have belonged all along. It emphasizes the dignity of work. It shows compassion, but it also expects individual responsibility, and it begins to encourage private and religious institutions as partners in social renewal. Mr. President, I am pleased that the personal responsibility agreements that I authored, along with Senator Harkin, are part of this final welfare package. States like Indiana and Iowa have used these agreements as effective tools, moving thousands of citizens from welfare to work. The welfare bill we are passing today gives States the options to include those personal responsibility agreements in their welfare programs, and I hope they will follow the examples of Indiana and Iowa. I have argued in the past, Mr. President, that devolution of power to the State governments is necessary but not complete. Such devolution encourages innovation, but State government is still government, prone to the same problems of ineffective bureaucracy and red tape that we see in Washington, and that is why I am glad this legislation gives States the opportunity and the option to contract with faith-based organizations without forcing those institutions to compromise their spiritual identity. This, I believe, is the beginning of an important idea. It is also important to remember that the reforms that we are passing today directly affect human lives. That is the only measure of our achievement. I am convinced on the evidence of 3 decades that people need independence, work, responsibility and hope far more than they need endless checks from the Federal Government. Our current system treats the disadvantaged as merely material, to be fed and forgotten. We need to be treating them as human beings with high hopes and high potential. When you expect nothing of an individual, you belittle them. We must stop belittling the able-bodied poor in America with low expectations. Mr. President, I argue that there is a next step to welfare reform, a step that this Congress and this President, or whoever occupies the Presidency, needs to address in the next Congress. We need to go beyond Government. We need to begin to encourage and strengthen, nurture and expand those mediating institutions of family, community, volunteer associations of charity, of church, faith-based charities--those institutions that offer real solutions and real hope. We need to begin to look at transforming our society by transforming lives one at a time inside out. For the most part, this is work that cannot be done by institutions of government. Government can feed the body and help train the mind, but it cannot nurture the soul or renew the spirit. This is the work of institutions outside of government. This shift of authority in resources can be accomplished in many ways, but we need to recognize tradition and the time-honored practice of reaching out to the poor in effective ways, giving them renewed hope, renewed spirit, a renewed place in American society. It has not been accomplished in an effective way by institutions of government but can be effective by institutions outside of government. How do we make this transition? Because it will be a transition, and normally the problem is such that it will require a significant increase in the involvement of these institutions. But it is important because they are the institutions that bring about the real solutions and bring about real hope. I propose the charity tax credit as a means of beginning this process, a way in which the taxpayer can designate on a joint basis up to $1,000 of taxes otherwise due the Government as charitable contributions to institutions that have dedicated themselves to the proposition of alleviating or preventing poverty. Who wouldn't rather give $1,000 of their hard-earned money to institutions like Habitat for Humanity, rather than Housing and Urban Development, if you really care about providing decent, affordable housing to low-income individuals? For those concerned about fatherless children, who wouldn't believe that $1,000 of their money would be better served through Boys and Girls Clubs or Big Brothers and Big Sisters or other mentoring organizations, rather than giving it to ``Big Brother'' in Washington? For those concerned about the homeless on our streets, who wouldn't rather support the gospel missions and church feeding programs, Catholic Charities and other organizations that reach out to those in our local communities, rather than turning the money over to HHS, where, by some estimates, over two-thirds of the money fueled by the Federal social welfare system never goes to the poor? It goes to those above the poverty line; it gets eaten up in bureaucracy, administration, fraud, and abuse. It has created a compassion fatigue in this country where people have no faith that their tax dollars, sometimes generously given and well-intended to help those most in need, ever reach those most in need. This is a stark alternative that can be provided to the individual without the constraints of the first amendment. They can give it to secular or nonsecular institutions, faith-based institutions which have proven and demonstrated their capability of providing services to the poor far more effectively, with far better results, at a fraction of the cost of Government. These are the institutions that we need to strengthen. And this, I hope, will be the agenda of the next Congress as we move to the next step of welfare reform, to defining compassion in an effective way, the spirit of the American people, which has always been generous, which has always reached out to help those in need, which responds to emergencies time and time again, which provides and allows grain farmers from the Midwest to ship grain down to famine areas and drought areas of other areas of our country, which cause people to jump on planes and trains and buses and go to the latest hurricane area or ravaged area to pitch in, on a volunteer basis, to help their fellows Americans. We are a country of generous spirit, yet a country that has lost confidence in the ability of Government to effectively deliver compassion to those in need. So let use energize, renew and strengthen and nourish and encourage those institutions in our own communities that are making a difference in people's lives. Community activist Robert Woodson makes the point that, . . . every social problem [in America], no matter how severe, is currently being defeated somewhere, by some religious or community group. This is one of America's great, untold stories. No alternative approach to our cultural crisis holds such promise, because these institutions have resources denied to government at every level--[the resources of] love, spiritual vitality, and true compassion. It is time to publicly, creatively, and actively take their side in the struggle to recivilize American society. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague and friend, Senator John McCain, to introduce The Government Shutdown Prevention Act. This legislation will create a statutory continuing resolution [CR] that will ensure that the Government will not shut down again-- ever. The lessons from last year are clear. The public expects us to debate our differences vigorously but they don't want our differences to overwhelm our basic responsibility to govern. No one wins when the Government shuts down. Shutdowns only confirm the American people's suspicions that we are more interested in political gain than doing the Nation's business. People are tired of gridlock. They want the Government to work for them--not against them. I believe the legislation we are introducing today will go a long way toward ensuring that we do not once again disappoint the American people. Last year, the Republican Congress tried to do the right thing. We passed fiscally sound appropriations bills and the first balanced Federal budget in a generation. Unfortunately, President Clinton was more interested in playing politics with the budget. President Clinton's irresponsible vetoes of numerous appropriations bills and a continuing resolution shut the Federal Government down. It is time to show the American people we can do better. Now, we all know that the fiscal year ends on September 30 and we also know that day is approaching very quickly. Although the appropriators are working very diligently, the appropriations process is nowhere near complete. Not one of the appropriations bills has even been sent to the President. My fear is that we are rapidly approaching a politically sensitive deadline in a political year--a virtual invitation for more budget gamesmanship on the part of the President. Our legislation preempts this gamesmanship by a safety net CR that will allow the Government to operate even if the appropriations process is not complete and even if negotiations on a larger CR are stalled. Neither party can afford another break of faith with the American people. Our constituents are tired of constantly being disappointed by the actions of Congress and the President. They are tired of us not being prepared for what appears to be the inevitable. This is why Senator McCain and I have introduced this legislation. We want the American people to know that there are some of us in Congress who are thinking ahead and who do not want a replay of last year. Both Senator McCain and myself have been vigilant in our fight against wasting the taxpayers dollars. The legislation will save taxpayer dollars because the Government programs will be funded at the lowest of the following spending levels: The previous year's appropriation bill or CR; The House-passed level; The Senate-passed level; The President's budget request; or The level outlined in the most recent CR. This legislation will restore the bias in appropriations negotiations toward saving the taxpayers money not spending it. It is worth noting that last year every time Congress went to the negotiating table the President demanded more money. Although Congress saved the taxpayer nearly $19 billion last year, without President Clinton's demands we could have saved $27 billion. Passage of this legislation will guarantee that we are not faced with a choice between a Government shut down and spending taxpayer dollars irresponsibly. Finally, the hammer of very low funding levels will keep pressure on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and both parties to get the appropriations work done. Again, this is a preventative measure to ensure that politics or stalled negotiations will not stop Government operations. The time has come to show the American people that we will not allow a Government shut down, or the threat of a Government shutdown, to be used for political gain. Time is running out. September 30 will be here in just 2 short months. We must be prepared in case election year politics get in the way of funding the Government. Senator McCain and I will be offering this legislation as an amendment to the first appropriations bill the Senate turns to following the recess. Let's not continue to disappoint an already disenchanted electorate. The time has come to take control and pass this legislation.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague and friend, Senator John McCain, to introduce The Government Shutdown Prevention Act. This legislation will create a statutory continuing resolution [CR] that will ensure that the Government will not shut down again-- ever. The lessons from last year are clear. The public expects us to debate our differences vigorously but they don't want our differences to overwhelm our basic responsibility to govern. No one wins when the Government shuts down. Shutdowns only confirm the American people's suspicions that we are more interested in political gain than doing the Nation's business. People are tired of gridlock. They want the Government to work for them--not against them. I believe the legislation we are introducing today will go a long way toward ensuring that we do not once again disappoint the American people. Last year, the Republican Congress tried to do the right thing. We passed fiscally sound appropriations bills and the first balanced Federal budget in a generation. Unfortunately, President Clinton was more interested in playing politics with the budget. President Clinton's irresponsible vetoes of numerous appropriations bills and a continuing resolution shut the Federal Government down. It is time to show the American people we can do better. Now, we all know that the fiscal year ends on September 30 and we also know that day is approaching very quickly. Although the appropriators are working very diligently, the appropriations process is nowhere near complete. Not one of the appropriations bills has even been sent to the President. My fear is that we are rapidly approaching a politically sensitive deadline in a political year--a virtual invitation for more budget gamesmanship on the part of the President. Our legislation preempts this gamesmanship by a safety net CR that will allow the Government to operate even if the appropriations process is not complete and even if negotiations on a larger CR are stalled. Neither party can afford another break of faith with the American people. Our constituents are tired of constantly being disappointed by the actions of Congress and the President. They are tired of us not being prepared for what appears to be the inevitable. This is why Senator McCain and I have introduced this legislation. We want the American people to know that there are some of us in Congress who are thinking ahead and who do not want a replay of last year. Both Senator McCain and myself have been vigilant in our fight against wasting the taxpayers dollars. The legislation will save taxpayer dollars because the Government programs will be funded at the lowest of the following spending levels: The previous year's appropriation bill or CR; The House-passed level; The Senate-passed level; The President's budget request; or The level outlined in the most recent CR. This legislation will restore the bias in appropriations negotiations toward saving the taxpayers money not spending it. It is worth noting that last year every time Congress went to the negotiating table the President demanded more money. Although Congress saved the taxpayer nearly $19 billion last year, without President Clinton's demands we could have saved $27 billion. Passage of this legislation will guarantee that we are not faced with a choice between a Government shut down and spending taxpayer dollars irresponsibly. Finally, the hammer of very low funding levels will keep pressure on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and both parties to get the appropriations work done. Again, this is a preventative measure to ensure that politics or stalled negotiations will not stop Government operations. The time has come to show the American people that we will not allow a Government shut down, or the threat of a Government shutdown, to be used for political gain. Time is running out. September 30 will be here in just 2 short months. We must be prepared in case election year politics get in the way of funding the Government. Senator McCain and I will be offering this legislation as an amendment to the first appropriations bill the Senate turns to following the recess. Let's not continue to disappoint an already disenchanted electorate. The time has come to take control and pass this legislation.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Chairman for clarifying this and appreciate his leadership and assistance in helping us craft a compromise that is acceptable to the committee and to the FDA. Medication Guides

Mr. COATS. At this point, I would like to make sure I understand that this provision does not preclude the FDA from using its existing authority to require, on a drug-by-drug basis, the provision of written information prepared by the manufacturer to consumers about prescription drugs that pose a serious risk. We have been informed by the FDA that it will only be required to use its existing authority to require patient information for a very limited number of products.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to engage the Senator from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, about his understanding of the provision included in the conference report of the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture appropriations bill relating to the FDA's proposed medguide regulation. Am I correct in saying that the conferees retained the language in the conference report that was adopted by the full Senate last week?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would also like to add my name as a cosponsor to the Gramm amendment, if I am not already on it.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think it is also important to understand why some of us are so sensitive on issues like this. Coming from a donor State, a State that over the years has consistently contributed substantially more to the highway trust fund than it receives back, we are sensitive about any changes in formulas that result in a further loss of funds to our State. Now, it appears that a technical error was made and not a formula change. The resulting formula change corrects that area rather than being a formula designed to benefit some States at the expense of others. I think a number of us who come from those donor States--and 16 of the 19 States affected here that lose money are donor States--felt that we needed a certification as to the validity of that particular technical error and the fact that this proposal by the Senator from Montana corrects that error in the correct fashion. So the certification here will allow us to receive that information. I think it will leave us with some feeling that we are adopting the right procedures here in terms of certifying the accuracy of this. So I thank the Senator from Montana for his willingness to work with us. I particularly thank the Senator from Texas for his ability to discern and take a complex issue and put it into understandable amendment form in a fairly short amount of time. I thank him for his efforts.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will not object to proceed with business outside the scope of the Baucus amendment, but I want to preserve the right to offer or to join with others in offering an amendment on that subject. So I just want to put Members on notice that this bill is not going to go forward until we have that opportunity to do so.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. All Members of this body remember early in this Congress we introduced and passed into law the Congressional Accountability Act which applied the various civil rights and labor laws that are currently applicable to employers and employees throughout America's workplaces, and applied this same restrictions to Members of Congress. For too long we had exempted ourselves from the laws and regulations that we had imposed on virtually every other business operation in America. There were only a couple of workplaces that were exempted: The Labor Standards Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disability Act, and the other items that we discussed. Those institutions were the U.S. Congress and the executive branch, in particular, the White House. We remedied that, partially, for the Congress with the adoption of the Congressional Accountability Act. Now, these 11 specific items apply to Members of Congress as well as to the private sector. I think what we are learning is that some of these laws are good, some of these laws are applicable to what we do, but some of them are overly burdensome and overly restrictive and therefore need to be examined. Because they apply to us as they apply to everyone else, we feel that burden, and perhaps we can be reasonable when we examine these to determine whether or not reforms are needed. This act would apply these same provisions that now apply to Congress and virtually every other workplace in the country, to the White House. This legislation, which I send to the desk for referral, was originally cosponsored by Senator Stevens, as well as other Members including Senators Nickles, Abraham, DeWine, Coverdell, and Faircloth. Mr. President, today I send to the desk a bill designed to eliminate a dubious double standard that remains in the application of our civil rights and labor protection laws. Last year, this Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act, requiring Congress to live under the laws it passes--and oftentimes imposes--on the rest of the Nation. Now that the Congressional Accountability Act is the law of the land, only one workplace in America remains exempt from our Nation's laws and regulations. In just one place of employment, workers do not enjoy the rights and protections afforded to all other Americans. That one place is the White House, and it's time for the White House to join the rest of the United States in living under the civil rights and labor laws governing the rest of the Nation. For decades, Congress callously exempted itself from rules and regulations it was passing for the rest of the country. Many of us had supported the Congressional Accountability Act for years, but were thwarted in our efforts. Finally, when--for the first time in 40 years--Republicans gained control of Congress, we wasted little time and passed the Congressional Accountability Act into law. I remain in strong support of the principle that Congress should not be exempt from the laws that apply to all other Americans, and because of the Congressional Accountability Act, Congress now is living under 11 different labor and civil rights laws from which it had previously exempted itself. I continue to believe that this is a simple issue of fundamentlal fairness. Congress should live under the laws it passes for everyone else. In doing so, lawmakers will learn first hand which laws work, and perhaps more often than not, which laws are overly intrusive and burdensome. These lessons also would be appropriate for the White House, since under President Clinton the Federal Register of Government regulations now totals about 65,000 pages, the largest number in more than 15 years. Despite President Clinton's stated concerns for the working men and women of this country, the White House continues to exempt itself from the laws and regulations covering the rest of the country, including Congress and all private businesses. For example, because of this privileged loophole, the White House does not have to abide by the minimum wage or the Family Medical Leave Act or the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act or several of the other civil rights and labor laws that apply to all other Americans. I think America's labor leaders will agree with me when I say that employees of the White House should be protected by the same laws that the President approves for the rest of the country. Employees should have the same rights and protections regardless of where they work--whether the individual labors in the private sector, the Congress, and yes, even in the White House. There are some in the White House who argue that this legislation is unnecessary because the White House voluntarily complies with the spirit of many of these laws. Mr. President, I argue that voluntary compliance is not good enough. How many private sector companies are allowed to voluntarily comply with the laws of the land? The answer is zero, and the White House should not be an exception. The Congressional Accountability Act, and the proposed White House Accountability Act, give employees of these two branches of Government the same rights as any other citizen to go into a court of law and have their case heard by a jury of their peers. White House employees should not have to depend on the benevolence or arbitrary good will of a supervisor to ensure that they are not taken advantage of, sexually harassed, or otherwise dealt with in an inappropriate and possibly illegal manner. They deserve the right to be free from discrimination, the right to work in a safe and healthy work environment, the right not to be fired simply because of race, sex, disability, or age. White House workers deserve the same rights and protections that every other American enjoys in the private sector, and now in the U.S. Congress. The White House Accountability Act also would be good policy for senior management and administrators. White House policy makers and their staffs would gain a first-hand understanding of the laws they propose and enact. Perhaps the White House will find, as many in Congress have been forced to learn, that some of the laws we pass are good, some do not go far enough and need to be strengthened, or--and this is too often the case--that many of the regulations imposed on the Nation by the Federal bureaucracy in Washington are onerous and in serious need of reform. Writing in the Federalist Papers, James Madison instructed us that no branch of Government is above the law. Madison wrote, ``Congress can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of society.'' Because of the Congressional Accountability Act, Federal laws and regulations now apply from our Nation's assembly lines to our Nation's general assembly. When President Clinton was inaugurated, he called the White House, ``the people's house.'' It's time he backed up that statement by letting his workers in the White House enjoy the same civil rights and labor protections enjoyed by the rest of the people in whose house they serve.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I noted the absence of a quorum and thought perhaps there was a timeframe open here for me to introduce a bill; however, I see the Senator from West Virginia is here and prepared to go ahead. Under the previous order, I am happy to abide by that and will do this at another time.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I ask what the current business of the Senate is?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.