Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 5, 1996, at 10 a.m.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee To Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 5, 1996, to conduct an executive session pursuant to Senate Resolution 120.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 5 at 9:00 a.m. to hold a hearing to discuss encouraging return to work in the SSI and DI Programs.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for an oversight hearing on Wednesday, June 5, 1996, which will begin at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing is entitled ``Implementation of the Small Business Agenda.''

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 5, 1996, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 5, 1996, to conduct a hearing on S. 1815, the Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 5, 1996, to consider the possible need for changes to the Commodity Exchange Act.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 5, 1996 to hold hearings on security in cyberspace.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Chair for the time. I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will honor that and wrap up my remarks so we can keep some semblance of time.

Mr. COATS. The Senator makes an excellent point and one that has not been made enough. We have a responsibility to future generations. Clearly, the one thing we can do that would most benefit the future of this country, our children and grandchildren, and succeeding generations of Americans, is to enact within the Constitution a responsibility that each of us ought to take on, but we have been unable to take on as a majority. But it will have immense benefits for the present, as the Senator has suggested. The Federal Reserve Chairman has indicated that if we could put a real balanced budget in place, we can pretty much count on an interest rate reduction of 2 percentage points. And 2 percentage points is an immense economic benefit to the present generation. For all those seeking to buy a new home, it means, over the lifetime of mortgage payments on that home, tens of thousands, if not more, of dollars in their pockets that otherwise would be paid in interest. It means, for those who own a home now and have a mortgage, the opportunity to refinance that home and put money right directly into their pocketbooks, into education for their children, into meeting the needs of their families. So there is an immediate benefit for all Americans and for American businesses that have to go out and raise the capital to expand, which provides jobs for Americans, and on and on it goes. A number of figures have been thrown out in terms of what this means. A balanced budget over the next 6 years, according to some who have studied this, indicates that it would add to the United States economy $32 billion in real disposable income, $66 billion in new purchases, $88 billion in new investment, and over 100,000 new housing starts. That translates into jobs, jobs, and jobs--real jobs, not minimum wage jobs. The best thing we can do for people looking for work or seeking to improve their position and their jobs is to jump-start this economy in a way in which we can expand opportunities for Americans to work. Average Americans will save, it is estimated, $2,388 a year on mortgage payments on a house with a $75,000, 30-year mortgage. Those of us who live in urban areas, or occupy areas where housing costs are much higher, obviously, are going to save much more than that. And it would be $1,026 saved over the life of a 4-year car loan. Every 3 or 4 years, we go out to buy a new car. Most Americans do not have the cash to purchase those cars and, therefore, put a 4- to 5-year car loan on it. We are talking about $1,000 or more in the pocket of every American who buys a new car back into their wallet to spend for other purposes, or to save, that they otherwise would pay in interest. And $1,891 interest over the life of a 10-year student loan, for all those parents and families--and I am one of them, as my third child will go off to college in a month and a half--those of us that need to borrow money to help finance that education are going to be borrowing it at lower interest costs, and it will save us the average, over a 10-year student loan, of nearly $2,000. Add all that up, and it amounts to nearly $75,000 of savings for the average family--that is, raising kids, paying for transportation, putting a mortgage on their house, trying to save some money to send their kids to college to get an education beyond high school. We are talking about real dollars. So the appeal to the American public is not just our moral responsibility and the legacy we leave for future generations for this country, but also direct economic benefits that can flow directly to this economy and to Americans in this generation. So, Mr. President, the question from the Senator from Georgia is a pertinent and relevant question to this discussion which I want to just briefly address.

Mr. COATS. I am happy to yield.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, once again we are debating the balanced budget. We should not, any longer, be debating the balanced budget. We should be living by a balanced budget. Americans have lost their patience with this endless, fruitless process of debating the issue and our failure to achieve the issue. The question now before us, again, is simple: How do we finally make this commitment real, make it lasting, and make it binding? The Democrats have argued--and I am not referring to the 13 Democrats that supported this effort in that close, almost historic vote that took place over a year ago; I am referring to Democrats because no Republicans are arguing against a balanced budget in this debate-- Democrats have argued in the past that a balanced budget amendment is unnecessary. ``Let's not amend the Constitution,'' they say, ``just simply balance the books ourselves.'' Last year, during debate on this amendment, the minority leader stated, ``The budget is not going to be balanced in 2002 unless the responsible people in 1995 start to focus on their share of the work.'' Senator Kerrey added, ``Let Senators get to work to show Americans we have the courage this amendment presumes that we lack.'' Now, that argument had some credibility when we made this debate in 1995, although it has been argued now for more than a decade, but it did have some credibility at the time. It is our responsibility. It is our job to keep the Nation's fiscal house in order and to not spend more than we take in. Of course, we fail in that job year after year after year and there is always another excuse, there is always another program that needs to be preserved. There is always an argument why we cannot do it now. Today, that argument does not have credibility. Democrats, both the President and Members of Congress, have shown little courage and have not lived up to their share of the work. Every tough question, every tough vote we have had, especially on entitlements, has been exploited for partisan advantage. Democrats have talked of balanced budgets, while refusing to pay the cost of courage. It is a cynical display. It is a hypocritical display to say we must go forward on our own, and then put every roadblock in the way to accomplishing what they say we must do. What lessons have we learned in this past year? If you make hard, necessary choices, the President and Democrat leaders will undermine you. If you carefully and responsibly confront runaway entitlements, they will vilify you. The President and his party are trying to create a Washington culture that rewards cowardice and compromises our future. What do we do about it? How can we change that culture? How can we require Washington to make the difficult choices and turn our easy words into reliable results? The answer, Mr. President, is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We have simply exhausted all other avenues in arriving at this goal. We are back where we started. Congress must be mandated to do what it has consistently refused to do. No argument could be more clear and more compelling than our experience of this last few months. If balancing the budget is not a matter of constitutional principle, it will not be accomplished. It must no longer be subject to shifting and cynical political tactics. Our first duty as legislators, to preserve a strong and solvent Nation for the next generation, that commitment should be burned into our conscience and written into our most basic law, the Constitution of the United States or it will not happen. Once again, we are here and we have the choice to make that happen. The success of this effort will depend on one thing: The President needs to persuade just 2 Democrat Senators to join 13 of their colleagues who voted for the balanced budget last year, to support this attempt at balancing the budget. The outcome is pretty much in his hands. If he refuses to act, he, then, is going to have to share the responsibility of the failure of this Congress to address what I believe is one of the most fundamental issues of our time. This is not a normal, everyday political debate we are engaged in. It concerns the very first principles of American Government and one of the most basic principles of morality. Endless debt is not just a drag on our economy, it is a burden on our national conscious. I have quoted Thomas Jefferson on this topic before but his argument is worth hearing again: The question of whether one generation has the right to bend 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 them ourselves. Let me repeat that: Thomas Jefferson said, a long time ago, but it holds true today in a way that it never has before. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and be morally bound to pay them ourselves. What we are debating here is one of the most important and one of the most basic moral commitments between generations. It has always been one of our highest ethical traditions for parents to sacrifice for the sake of their children. It is the depth of selfishness to call on children to sacrifice for the sake of their parents. It violates a trust and it betrays a duty. When Americans view our actions, they see past the numbers to a set of principles. They see more than a matter of right and left. They see a matter of right and wrong. One thing is increasingly obvious: We will not reliably consistently balance our budget until the Constitution requires it. The tug of quick political benefit is still too strong. The voice of vested interests is too loud. Buying votes by placing burdens on the future is still too easy. This amendment will force us, as a Congress, to make a choice. Will we preserve our ability to run up deficits or will we part with this destructive power once and for all? Never has the choice been more stark or more important. It is the difference between false promises and real commitments. It is the difference between public relations and public accountability. We will never be restrained until we formally and forcefully restrain ourselves. President Clinton's current budget is example No. 1, a case in point. It is a political charade, not a serious budget plan. It increases discretionary spending every year until 2001 and 2002--conveniently beyond the time when President Clinton will no longer be President. That is when he proposes to cut his spending level by $67 billion. Everybody knows this is absurd. It is an absurd proposal to say we will not make the hard choices, but we will force them onto the next President. Such cuts in those outyears, after Bill Clinton has retired to Hope, AR, will be impossible. They will be too sudden and too steep--in education, the environmental, and veterans programs. But President Clinton does not mind, because all the tough decisions would be made on someone else's watch. It is another shining example of the Washington culture of cowardice. The time for these kinds of gimmicks and maneuvers is over. Americans have been disappointed too often. We have the ability to clear away decades of decision with one clear, sincere, moral commitment--that is, that we will no longer steal from the future, that we will pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, we will leave a legacy to our children other than a monumental debt. We will leave them a legacy of courage and responsibility. What Member wants to serve in this body and leave here looking back, having had the opportunity, but failed, to rectify this extraordinary imbalance in our Nation's fiscal affairs? What Member wants to think back on their time, as they have been privileged to serve in the U.S. Senate, and say, well, I was there, I had an opportunity to deal with one of the most fundamental, important issues this Nation has ever faced, to set a legacy for the future that will determine the prosperity and posterity for our children and grandchildren and generations to follow; yet, I passed on that opportunity because, you see, I did not want to make that a mandatory effort. I did not want to make us bound to fulfill that promise because the situation might change, or a program that I really favored might be impacted. And so, therefore, we put it off until the future, and we will ask the next Congress, or the next President to deal with that problem, and we forfeited our ability to deal with it now. I do not want to have that as my legacy. But we have been talking about this ever since I have been here. There has always been an excuse not to go forward. There has always been some reason. As soon as we address the reason of the moment that is put up, then another one is raised. There is always a reason why we cannot go forward. We are just a few votes away from beginning that legacy. The President, in his rhetoric, has supported balanced budgets again and again. Now he can prove himself a partner or partisan. It is his choice. I hope he will pressure his own party to support a constitutional amendment that nearly 83 percent of the American public supports. I hope he will abandon unfair attacks on the people making the hard, necessary, and courageous budget choices. I hope he will begin to bargain in good faith for a change. I hope for all these things, Mr. President. Unfortunately, I am not confident that we will see any of them, and that is a shame because it is a missed opportunity that may not come again. and I expect the American public, in just 5 months, will remember. The moment has come to send a balanced budget amendment to the States. Let us begin a national debate, in every State legislature in this country. Americans have waited decades for this opportunity. And they have waited long enough.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to add some words to this debate. Obviously, we all believe that while we can debate what the fundamental role of the Congress and the Government is, priorities ought to be established. This is true particularly in the domestic spending areas where there is no constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government. However, there is a clear constitutional responsibility for Congress to provide for the national defense. In that regard, we are addressing what I think is one of the most fundamental and most important decisions that this Congress is going to make in the next several days; that is, what kind of defense we will provide for the United States? To date, our country has enjoyed the benefit of its strategic location--surrounded by oceans east and west, and friendly neighbors to the north and south. Our strategic location has enabled us to ensure the defense of American soil. Today, however, the advance of technology, the development of long-range ballistic missiles, and the proliferation of those missiles among nations who have not had a history of responsible leadership poses a real threat to the United States. Over the last several years we have engaged in a debate over how to best address this emerging new threat. The Senator from North Dakota raised the issue of other compelling threats. Indeed, there are other threats Americans face from a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons delivered through ballistic missiles. A truck packed with explosives, a ship cargo container that sailed up into one of our ports, or any number of other means of delivering weapons of mass destruction are clearly threats we must take seriously. However, the fact that these threats exist does not mean we should ignore the very real threat posed to American citizens by proliferating ballistic missile technology. people. The Senator from North Dakota talked about other effective deterrents. He discussed the success that Americans had with a strategy of deterrence through mutual assured destruction. During that particular era, there were two superpowers engaged in a stand-off. Mutual assured destruction seemed the most feasible strategy to counter Soviet missile threats. But, in that era, there was no threat of missile proliferation such as we face today. There was a very serious, but very definable, cold war between the two superpowers, each possessing thousands of nuclear warheads that could be used in retaliation against the other should a first strike be launched. As we all know, the strategy of mutual destruction is no longer a viable means of deterrence. There is a also a moral imperative at issue with the concept of mutual assured destruction. Simply to say that our best protection against a missile attack that could injure or kill millions of Americans is our capability to respond in kind against the country that launched the attack, violates basic moral considerations our Nation could not support today. I found it interesting that the Senator from North Dakota spoke of sunflowers now growing over former missile sites. Most of us would like to see sunflowers growing over every missile site, not only in the former Soviet Union but in other countries around the world. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. More than 25 countries-- including China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and India-- possess or are seeking to acquire ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear, chemical, or biological warheads. They are actively pursuing ballistic missile technology for their fields--not sunflowers. And, as we all know, we have had little success discouraging these nations from acquiring missile technology. North Korea has been developing ballistic missiles such as the Taepo Dong II, a missile with a range of up to 6,000 miles that can certainly target Alaska and Hawaii. North Korean President Kim Jong-Il has reportedly ordered the development and deployment of strategic long- range ballistic missiles tipped with more powerful warheads. By many estimates, in less than 10 years, North Korea will be able to deploy an operational intercontinental ballistic missile force capable of hitting the American mainland. The administration is ignoring these very serious trends. Instead, it has adopted a wait-and-see strategy in its approach to the defense of our Nation. Much of the administration's position is derived from a recent national intelligence estimate report by U.S. intelligence agencies. The NIE claims that no country will be able to acquire ballistic missile technology capable of reaching the United States for at least 15 years. But NIE's choice of 15 years is based on calculations most Americans would hardly find reassuring. The 15-year estimate is based primarily on the indigenous development of missile systems, ignoring the rapid rate of ballistic missile technology proliferation so evident today. In addition, the NIE based its threat calculations without regard to Hawaii and Alaska. The report projects that no rogue nation will possess the technology capable of hitting the lower 48 States for 15 years. In qualifying its estimate, the NIE discounts the more immediate threat of North Korea's Taepo Dong II missiles to these States. Yet, in August 1994, John Deutch, then Deputy Secretary of Defense, testified before Congress that ``If the North Koreans field the Taepo Dong 2 missile, Guam, Alaska, and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.'' At that time, the CIA estimated that this system would be deployed before the year 2000. It is unfortunate that the United States today has little control over the proliferation of ballistic missile technology. But, the time has come for us to recognize this fact and act accordingly. Mutual assured destruction and other strategies have come and gone. They are no longer appropriate for the era in which we live, nor the threats America might face in 21st century. The administration's position of adhering to a policy whose assumptions are based on the perceived intentions of countries rather than their emerging capabilities and the realities of the world today is a serious mistake. Even the NIE report warns that a future political crisis in Russia or China could lead to an unauthorized ICBM launch against the United States. Russia today is embroiled in political turmoil resulting from reform and the civil war in Chechnya, while China remains in the throes of uncertain changes in political leadership. Both China and Russia have also been actively selling technology to other nations. Indeed, recent reports indicate that China is attempting to buy SS-18 missile technology from Russia and the Ukraine--technology that would significantly enhance China's ability to target American soil. Technology transfers such as these give countries a major advantage in developing indigenous nuclear weapons and delivery systems, to include ballistic missiles. Libya and Iraq's leaders have made their desire to obtain such weapons quite clear, while North Korea has been willing to oblige by selling its missiles to interested parties. There are many other countries actively engaged in buying advanced technologies and missiles. If rogue nations are successful in buying systems already developed, or can acquire the technology to build their own indigenous systems, the United States may well face a threat even sooner than expected. In testifying before Congress earlier this year, Jim Woolsey--President Clinton's first Director of Central Intelligence--addressed the grave nature of ballistic missile technology, stating that: Ballistic missiles can, and in the future they increasingly will, be used by hostile states for blackmail, terror, and to drive wedges between us and our friends and allies. It is my judgment that the administration is not currently giving this vital problem the weight it deserves. Who is to say that the current intentions upon which the administration rationalizes its position may not quickly shift to the disadvantage of the United States? Should one of these countries decide to target the United States--for the reasons Jim Woolsey cited--how will we defend America? Reassurances that a ballistic missile defense system is under development will do nothing to defend American citizens, just as it does nothing to deter future aggressors. Even if NIE's 15-year threat window were realistic, a strategy of waiting to deploy a defensive system until we are certain we will face an imminent attack fails to recognize the reality that deploying a new system with advanced technology will invariably require fine-tuning. This hedge strategy risks the welfare of American citizens in the face of a direct threat to our national security. Proliferation of nuclear, biological, chemical weapons and the means to deliver them is a dangerous game. While we must continue our efforts to prevent rogue nations from acquiring this technology and thus endangering us, we must also concede that ultimately we are powerless to deter the acquisition of this technology. If we cannot deter the proliferation of ballistic missile technology, we must at least diminish the incentive for attacking the United States and nullify the potential consequences of such an attack. We can do this by developing and deploying a national missile defense system. In the end, it is the only plausible strategy to protect American citizens from the future threat of a ballistic missile attack. As former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher recently remarked: Acquiring an effective global defense against ballistic missiles is . . . a matter of the greatest importance and urgency. But the risk is that thousands of people may be killed by an attack which forethought and wise preparations might have prevented. It is the reality of the proliferation of ballistic missile technology, the capability of providing nuclear, chemical or biological destruction through the delivery on ballistic missiles, and the proliferation of those missiles that demands we give serious consideration to a national missile defense system. We are making positive strides in providing theater missile defense protection for our troops abroad. But, in my opinion, we are not taking the steps that we need to take to provide that same kind of protection to Americans here at home. It is a risky strategy to continue to postpone the basic decisions that need to be made relative to deployment of a national missile defense system. We can argue over timing. We can argue over the deployment. We can argue over the cost that is appropriate in relationship to our budget each year. But we must not deny our citizens protection from the grave potential of a future ballistic missile attack on the United States. There is a little doubt that the cloture vote which will take place at 2:15 will succeed. The previous speaker has challenged us to get to the debate. We will need his help in order to get to that debate. Indeed, we are going to need help from those who have opposed the proposal before us in order to get to the heart of the critical issues addressed in the Defend America Act.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks made by the Senator from Massachusetts, having just recently learned of the tragic death of the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Boorda. Admiral Boorda was a native of Indiana and had a distinguished military career, rose to the very top as Chief of Naval Operations. As chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, I had numerous discussions and meetings with him, so I felt that I got to know him as well as you can in a busy Washington and all the busy activities we are involved in. I was shocked by the news, deeply saddened by the news, and concerned for his family. While we do not have all the details of his death, I think we all feel the sense of grief that comes with this type of an announcement. Admiral Boorda came into leadership at a difficult time for the U.S. Navy. Many changes have taken place in the Navy that brought to his desk a number of problems that were difficult problems to deal with. Yet, he did so with skill and did so with great thoroughness and determination to seek a proper solution. So, Mr. President, I intend to say more later about Admiral Boorda and his career and service to this Nation. But I join with those in saying how shocked and saddened we are with this particular announcement. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I asked the Senator from Michigan if he would assume the chair so I could take the opportunity to come down to the floor to compliment my colleague, Senator Mack from Florida. He outlined for the Senate, and for those who are observing, the real concern and the deep anxiety that exists among many Americans today about their future and their family's future. A concern that I think is now becoming almost universally shared about the impact of the decisions, or lack of decisions, that Washington has made. This inability of Congress and the President to make decisions impact their future in a negative way. We have not faced up to some of the difficult choices that clearly must be made if we are going to put our economy on an upward path, and if we are going to offer and provide opportunity for the young people of the next generation of America, not to mention this current generation that is struggling with that economic anxiety. The Senator from Florida put his finger on the most immediate items that we in this Congress and with this President can address in answering these particular problems. We can provide immediate relief to Americans today by doing what they have asked us to do, and that is examine the role, the function, the scope, and the size of Government. We can address what virtually a universe of Americans now believe--this Government tries to do too much, it is too big, it spends too much. Americans see the results of this Government and they are simply not the kind of return on investment that Americans are asking for. They are working harder in order to pay more taxes to fuel and feed a Government spending effort that is not addressing the basic needs of Americans in an effective way, and they are saying ``scale it back.'' If we could do so and make the appropriate decisions in doing so, we can provide them with an immediate increase in their wages. We can give them immediate salary or hourly wage increase by giving them tax relief from the excessive burden of taxes now being imposed. This whole question about the gas tax is not really to move the price of gasoline which I paid this morning $1.65.9 a gallon. The question is, and the issue is, that the Congress has not been straight and fair with the American people on the issue of gas taxes and on a whole range of other taxes. The Clinton 4.3-cent gas tax increase was not applied to building roads and bridges, which most motorists in Indiana and, I think, across the country believe. When Americans pay extra money to cover gasoline increases, I know they at least think it goes to build roads and bridges and to help ease their commute to work, or their travel across the country. But no. This gas tax increase went to general revenues in order to feed the excessive and seemingly unabated spending habits of Congress. So just in the gas tax alone we are talking about more than a reduction at the pump. We are talking about being honest with the American taxpayer in terms of how their money is being used and giving them some relief. The budget that we are debating today is designed to put us on a path toward fiscal responsibility that will allow us then to take the savings that occur over and above balancing the budget which can occur in outyears and return it to the American people in the form of tax relief so they do not have to work so hard and do not have to take that extra job simply to pay taxes to fuel Government. The Senator from Florida has accurately addressed the issue. And I wanted to take the opportunity to step down from the Chair to thank him for his contributions and for reminding us and keeping our eyes focused on the real picture. The second point I would make is simply that we as a Congress and the President of the United States must address the tough choices and the priority choices that we all know have to be addressed if we are going to get a handle on this budget. This idea of deferring for some future Congress the questions about mandatory spending and entitlements is simply postponing the inevitable and bringing us closer to a day of cataclysmic budget collapse. We cannot continue to run up the deficit as we have. We cannot continue to pretend that there are not problems in the mandatory spending programs that need to be addressed. It reminds me of the old commercial where the fellow picks out the dripping carburetor leaking with oil and says, ``You've got two choices. You can pay me now or you can pay me later. If you pay me now, we can make this a lot less expensive and a lot less painful. But, if you wait, the whole engine is going to fall apart.'' If we keep postponing this decision, the whole engine is going to fall apart. Republicans have attempted to come forward with budget after budget addressing these questions in an honest way even at considerable political risk only to find that President Clinton ducks his head in the sand, or slips and slides his way through the political minefield, the end result of which is to do nothing.

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

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator for those comments. I will close by quoting what has already been quoted on the floor today probably, the piece written in the Washington Post by Robert Samuelson, who is an economist and writer that I greatly respect because he speaks with great candor, and I think speaks about the thrust that this Congress and that the President needs to address. Just to quote part of this. He says, ``As a moral matter, Americans deserve candor.'' Americans deserve to hear the truth about the financial situation in which we find ourselves. We are debating in the Senate this week the budget for the next fiscal year and a budget which lays out a plan to achieve a balance in the future. We are debating about these very issues, the issues of how we spend taxpayer dollars, and how we establish priorities. And there is no better time to talk about it than this particular week in the Senate. Samuelson said, ``As a moral matter, Americans deserve candor. As we debate this issue, they deserve what we believe to be the truth. They deserve candor about the situation in which we find ourselves. When you look at the mandatory spending in just the Social Security and Medicare areas, it is an unassailable fact that longer lives, steep health costs, and an aging baby boom will inevitably make Social Security and Medicare unbearably expensive in the next century.'' The next century sounds like a long way away. We have plenty of time to worry about it. This is 1996 approaching 1997. We will be at the next century before we know it. He uses the word ``unbearably expensive.'' ``We are facing a crisis of fiscal proportions that this Nation has never faced in its history. It will be unbearably expensive, if we do not address it, and address it now.'' He goes on to say, ``At some point, spending and benefits will be cut to avoid costs that seem politically intolerable. But the trouble is that the longer changes are delayed the more abrupt and unfair those changes will be, and that's why silence is irresponsible.'' We are today hearing silence on this issue from the White House. We are seeing gimmicks, budgetary gimmicks, as the Senator from New Mexico just outlined, to fool, or attempt to fool the American people about the status of the Medicare trust fund by shifting $55 billion out of that trust fund to the general revenues to either put the benefit program at risk, or to add additional costs to the taxpayer, or to drive us deeper into debt. Samuelson says ``This is a relevant character issue about the President. Question: Does he have the moral fiber to help America make difficult choices?'' We are trying to make difficult choices. This budget requires difficult choices. But it is time that we stood up and began to tell the American people the truth about those difficult choices and not postpone the inevitable. At great risk to this economy, at great risk to the future of this generation, and an extraordinarily unbearable risk to the future generation. So I hope we will use this time to make these discussions relevant, to talk about them in an honest way, and to quit the posturing and the pretending and to end the practice of saying, ``Well, we cannot do it now because there is an election just months away.'' I have served in this body for some time, and every 2 years the excuse is ``we will do it after the next election.'' The time to do it after is running out. The risk is extraordinary; the results are unbearable; and I hope we could face up to these decisions and honestly put it before the American people. Frankly, I think they are ready for the truth. Frankly, I think they will reward truth and reward candor, and I hope this can be a major part of this debate in the Presidential election and in the Senate and congressional elections, and I hope we can initiate the debate this week. Mr. President, I thank you for your patience. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Dole's and Senator Nickles' bill (S. 1740) defining marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Marriage is the institution that civilizes our society by humanizing our lives. It is the social, legal, and spiritual relationship that prepares the next generation for its duties and opportunities. A 1884 decision of the Supreme Court called it ``the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.'' The definition of marriage is not created by politicians and judges, and it cannot be changed by them. It is rooted in our history, our laws, our deepest moral and religious convictions, and our nature as human beings. It is the union of one man and one woman. This fact can be respected or it can be resented, but it cannot be altered. Our society has a compelling interest in respecting that definition. The breakdown of traditional marriage is our central social crisis--the cause of so much anguish and suffering, particularly for our children. Our urgent responsibility is to nurture and strengthen that institution, not undermine it with trendy moral relativism. The institution of marriage is our most valuable cultural inheritance. It is our duty--perhaps our first duty--to pass it intact to the future. The distortion of marriage is sometimes defended as a form of tolerance. But this represents a fundamental misunderstanding, both of marriage and tolerance. I believe strongly in tolerance, not only for the peace of society, but because it is the proper way to treat others. As individuals, we should never compromise our moral convictions. But we should always treat others with respect and dignity. A government, however, has another duty. All law embodies some moral consensus. No society can be indifferent to its moral life, because there are consequences for us all. Every government must set certain standards as sign posts. It must create expectations for responsible behavior. Not every lifestyle is equal for the purpose of the common good. This does not mean the persecution of those who fall short of the standard, but it does mean giving legal preference to that standard. A tolerant society does not need to be an indifferent society. A government that values freedom can permit some things that it would not encourage or condone. But a government must also promote things that are worthy examples and social ideals. Government cannot be neutral in the debate over marriage. It has sound reasons to prefer the traditional family in its policies. As social thinker Michael Novak has written: A people whose marriage and families are weak have no solid institutions . . . family life is the seedbed of economic skills, money habits, attitudes toward work and the arts of independence. When we prefer traditional marriage and family in our laws, it is not intolerance. Tolerance does not require us to say that all lifestyles are morally equal, only that no individual deserves to be persecuted. It does not require us to weaken our social ideals. It does not require a reconstruction of our most basic human institutions. It does not require special recognition for those who have rejected the standard. It is amazing and disturbing that this legislation should be necessary. It is a sign of the times, and an indication of a deep moral confusion. But events have made this definition essential. The preservation of marriage has become an issue of self-preservation for our society. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate my friend and colleague, Senator Richard Lugar, on his remarkable achievement and extraordinary service to the people of Indiana. He has had the privilege of representing Hoosiers in the U.S. Senate longer than any other Senator in Indiana history. His tenure has been distinguished and well deserved. In Indiana, we are proud of Dick Lugar and his leadership. Both in the Senate and on the campaign trail, he has consistently raised issues our Nation cannot afford to ignore. His thoughtful and skillful approach to policy has made our Nation safer and America's influence in the world more secure. We are proud of his long record of accomplishments: fighting for freedom in the Philippines, enhancing the world's nuclear security, working for American farmers. But Dick Lugar brings more to the Senate than his skills as a legislator. His politics are informed by character. Dick Lugar understands that values count and that principle is worth defending. He represents the bet of Hoosier values--honesty, integrity, determination. On behalf of the people of Indiana, I thank Richard Lugar for his service to our State and to our Nation. It is my privilege to serve with them in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise to voice my serious concerns that this omnibus appropriations bill fails to include an important provision: a limitation on the expansion of the Federal Direct Loan Program to 40 percent of loan volume for the academic year that begins on July 1, 1996. As my colleagues know, back in the fall when we passed the Balanced Budget and Reconciliation Act, Congress agreed to return this questionable, big-government program to a true demonstration size--10 percent of total student loan volume. Many of us viewed the 10 percent cap as a reasonable compromise, especially in light of the House vote to repeal the program altogether. And, many of us would still prefer to repeal this misguided takeover of the student loan program. Nonetheless, I and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, were willing to support a middle ground on this issue: a limit on the expansion of direct lending to 40 percent of loan volume. I believe that this was a more-than-reasonable compromise because it would permit all currently participating schools to remain in the program. Let me say that again: not one school that is already participating in direct loans would be forced out. However, the administration would not accept this reasonable compromise. The President allegedly threatened to veto the entire omnibus appropriations bill if a cap on direct lending was included. This is incredible! That the President would be willing to hold the entire appropriations process hostage to ensure the continued expansion of a program which is nothing more than a delivery system for loans, is truly an extreme position. Remember, this President told the country just a few short months ago, during his State of the Union address, that the era of big Government is over. This same President stressed the need for stronger public-private partnerships in meeting the needs of the American people. Yet he threatened to stop the budget process once again if this omnibus appropriations bill included a cap on a massive, new government bureaucracy which seeks to end a public/private partnership which has been successfully serving students for 30 years! We should not allow the President to pretend to be moderate on the campaign trail while he engineers a potentially disastrous federal takeover of the student loan industry. The President's refusal to negotiate a reasonable cap on the untested direct loan program exposes the true colors of this administration: rather than new Democrats they are clearly old-fashioned, bureaucracy-building, Washington-knows-best liberals. Unlike the more complex debates over Medicare, Medicaid and welfare delivery systems, it is quite obvious that direct lending is an intuitively backward idea that will: Make the Department of Education the single largest consumer finance lender in the country, while driving private lenders out of the student loan business. Result in a $150 billion increase in federal debt by 2002, and a $350 billion increase over the next 20 years. Eliminate a program where the private lenders share default risk, and replace it with a system where private sector contractors shift the entire risk to the taxpayer. Replace private sector competition with government contractors. Substitute an untested student aid delivery system that has yet to demonstrate the ability to collect the loans it makes for the guaranteed loan program, which has dramatically improved the performance of the student loan portfolio in recent years. We should keep in mind that the Department of Education's management track record bodes ill for the future of the direct loan program. The management track record of the Department of Education over the past few years--and the last several months in particular--raises grave questions concerning whether the Department has the management ability to take over student lending without jeopardizing the uninterrupted flow of funds in the Nation's largest program of student financial assistance. Major missteps in the past year have included: I. Inability to process on a timely basis the Federal Application for Student Financial Aid (FAFSA), the basis calculation of financial need required of all applicants for student assistance. Although the Department continues to blame weather and Federal furloughs for the unprecedented delays, the fact is that the Department started 6 months behind schedule, and hired new contractors using new, untested technology. In trying to cover up their very serious mistakes, the Department has had to hire additional processors and authorized 24- hour, 7-day-a-week operation, at unknown additional taxpayer cost. Students and institutions have been severely affected by this mix-up at the Department: institutional financial aid officers and State scholarship programs are unable to offer student aid packages to prospective students; a million students do not know where or whether they will be able to attend college this fall; and 23 percent of our Nation's colleges are planning to push back their May 1 deadline for students to decide which college to attend. II. The Department has mismanaged the congressionally mandated anti- default initiative, which is designed to terminate high-default schools from Federal student loan programs. Although the law requires the Department to decide institutional appeals within 45 days, the Department failed to meet this requirement. In an effort to get rid of its 1992 backlog, the Department threw in the towel and accepted whatever default rate a school claimed for itself, without investigation. As a result, schools with default rates of as high as 24 percent now boast single digit official rates for fiscal year 1992. Incredibly, there is still a backlog of 400 appeals of rates calculated for 1990 and 1991! As a result, students at high-default institutions have remained eligible for student loans--loans which have a high probability of defaulting, burdening taxpayers with millions of dollars in unnecessary costs. The Department's default rate for 1993 for high risk schools was so flawed that it had to be withdrawn and reissued in February 1996. III. The Inspector General severely criticized the cost effectiveness of the Department's efforts to encourage defaulters to consolidate their defaulted loans into direct lending's income contingent repayment. The Inspector General estimated this flawed initiative could cost taxpayers $38 million. IV. Failure of the Department's contractor to post information received from guaranty agencies on a timely basis has resulted in thousands of defaulted borrowers having their income tax refunds wrongly withheld. In addition, these individuals have been subjected to Federal collections efforts despite the fact that they had entered into satisfactory repayment arrangements with their guarantor. V. The National Student Loan Data System, mandated by Congress in 1986 and only implemented by the Department in 1995, is so flawed that it has erroneously calculated school default rates and cannot be relied upon for its basic function of determining student's eligibility for grants or loans. What does this woeful litany of mismanagement mean? It means that the Department of Education has used poor judgment in developing its computer systems and overseeing its contractors. It means that its current management is incapable of performing essential technological functions which it had been performing successfully for a number of years. It means that the taxpayer will be unnecessarily burdened with additional costs incurred because of the Department's inability to manage. It means that millions of students and their parents are, at the very least, extremely inconvenienced by the Department's inability to generate information essential to awarding of student financial aid on a timely basis. And in far too many cases, a student's entire future-- whether or not he/she attends college--may be jeopardized by the Department's mismanagement. And it means that it would be foolhardy to trust the Nation's largest student financial assistance program--student loans--to the same Departmental officials that have in the past few months mismanaged every major contract and system for which they have been responsible. This debate is about what is the best way of delivering student loans--whether through a Federal bureaucracy, or through a private- public partnership. While I believe very strongly that the latter will prevail in the long run, the compromise that the President would not allow simply called for leaving things where they are, and not expanding this program further. We should not be allowing the administration to go forward with its grandiose plans for taking over the student loan program with its own untested, costly direct government lending program. The administration's direct loan program is more Federal bureaucrats, more Government spending, and a more costly program. The administration wants this massive, new bureaucracy to replace the current bank-based student loan program. By not including a cap on this experimental program in this omnibus appropriations bill we are trusting the Department of Education to distribute, account for, and collect billions of dollars in student loans. This is the same Department that is currently causing students across the country to have to worry needlessly about their financial aid awards because the Department was unable to manage the processing of the forms. We should be stopping this insanity today. A reasonable cap of 40 percent on direct lending would have forced the Department to slow down and pay attention to all the student aid programs, not just direct lending--hopefully avoiding a repeat of the trauma which is facing students now during the application cycle. Unfortunately, this reasonable approach was lost along the way. President Clinton's pronouncements in his State of the Union Address notwithstanding, the era of big government continues.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute to conclude my statement.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, as I said, this is a procedural bill. Even though this bill will not completely conform to my own legislation regarding unexpired terms, I do believe that the debate should go forward. If changes are necessary, amendments obviously can be offered. This is too important an issue, too vital a reform to die in a procedural vote here today. The American people deserve full consideration, and only a vote of 60 Senators to invoke cloture will allow that full consideration to take place. So I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting for cloture. Hopefully we can garner 60 votes so that we can, in this important debate, fulfill the wishes of more than 80 percent of the American people, that we address this fairly, and give them a fair opportunity to weigh in, as I think they deserve. Mr. President, I thank Senator Thompson and Senator Ashcroft for their diligent efforts in this and the additional time they have yielded me, and I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.