Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I was elected to Congress in 1980. I took office in January 1981. At that time, during that election, there was some view that it was a major election. Ronald Reagan was elected President, and a number of changes took place that were viewed then as historic. Republicans took control of the U.S. Senate for the first time since 1954. Republicans did not take control of the House of Representatives but in a sense they gained working control because they elected a significant number of new Members and, joining with conservative Democrats, they formed a working majority that passed some very significant legislation. One of the primary issues, if not the primary issue, of that election year and the agenda that was proposed and adopted in part during that 95th Congress was the whole question that we are debating here today and this year, which is, what is the size of Government? What is the scope of Government? Is Government too big? Does it try to do too much? Does it overregulate, overspend, overtax? What is the proper role of Government? David Stockman, then Director of the Office of Management and Budget for then President Reagan, proposed a plan to begin to trim back some of the spending of Government. There was an outcry from the American people. It was the issue of the year. When we compare what was then proposed with the magnitude of the problem then versus what is proposed today and the magnitude of the problem today, it is seen as a very, very minor, almost inconsequential, proposal, in retrospect. That debate, in one form or another, has been taking place now for the past decade and a half. In a growing sense of frustration, I think the American people are viewing the Congress as incapable of really addressing the fundamental core issues, of really doing something that makes a difference. I do not know how many times we have promised a balanced budget through plans that have been offered by Members from both sides, by both parties. But it was said, ``This is the plan that will balance the budget.'' We had, of course, the 1981 and 1982 legislation. We had the 1983 Social Security legislation, which is probably the closest we came to making a policy change that substantially made a difference in the way we spend money. We had the 1986 agreement, the 1988 agreement, the 1993 agreement. Each agreement, Members stood on the floor and said this will do the job. We have finally stepped up to the plate, and we have done what the American people have asked us to do. We go home and campaign on it. This is the real balanced budget. Gramm-Latta I, Gramm- Latta II--we have been through it all. There is plenty of blame to spread as to why this was not accomplished. The Senator from Ohio talked about tax cuts that were proposed and those were attempts to address the question of more and more hard- earned money from those who are in the work force being siphoned off to Government--whether Federal, State, local, or sales tax, or excise tax, or whatever--and also an attempt to dry up the supply of money coming from taxes, to try to slow down the spending. We can argue whether that was proper strategy or not. I do not think anybody would argue the fact that we have seen the national debt accelerate from a $1 trillion level when I came to Congress in 1981, to nearly $5 trillion level, a 500-percent increase in just this short decade and a half, that the solution would have been $4 trillion of additional taxes out of the American taxpayers pockets. I do not think anybody is advocating that as the solution. So now here we are with this ever-accelerating frustration on the part of the American people, cynicism, apathy, distrust of this institution's ability to successfully address this problem. Here we are, now, in 1995, having spent this last year primarily attempting to address this question. We had, again, what many would call a historic election in 1994. As the American people exercised their frustration with the status quo, their frustration with the way that the Congress was addressing the question, the fundamental question, of what the role of Government is and its ever-expanded expenditure that was placing our Nation's economic future in jeopardy and, I think, violated the basic moral responsibility that many people feel we have, and that is to not continue to pass on debt for the enjoyment of expenditures, the utilization of expenditures for our own enjoyment in the present, paid for by someone else's earnings in the future. I argue that there is an economic necessity for our getting hold of this ever-accelerating rate of growth in the Government and that there is a moral requirement placed on each of us to do what I think each of us knows is the right thing to do, and that is not to enjoy the benefits of this society that the Federal Government can provide to us in the form of payments and benefits to the extent that it places an extraordinary debt load and obligation on the future. That is one of the most basic principles of life: Delaying gratification so that you do the things that are necessary now to provide for a better result in the future. We have robbed our children of this lesson. We have demonstrated to them, I think, a great irresponsibility in terms of the way in which we handle our Nation's finances. Now, all of this came to a head early on when we debated the balanced budget amendment, because many of us stood here and argued, having gone through all this statutory process, this process of will, if we just work hard enough with it we are able to deal with this problem; having gone through that several times and failed miserably, that only a constitutional mandate to balance the budget would accomplish what we were seeking to accomplish. That was supported, largely by Republicans but also by a significant number of Democrats, and failed by one vote. It was the greatest disappointment of my time in Congress to lose that by one vote, because as I spoke here, I said I doubt that we will ever have on a sustained basis the will to do what is fiscally responsible on a year-after-year basis, because the political requirement, or at least the political temptation to please constituents now and worry about paying for it in the future is so great that it will continue to drive us toward providing more and more benefits and less and less personal responsibility in terms of asking people to pay for those benefits in the here and now. Because the Government has the ability to float debt and postpone repayment of those obligations, the political temptation to sort of please those people you represent now so that you can get elected at the next election and worry about repayment of that or putting the hard questions before the people we represent, that is always deferred. Now, in 1994 I think that frustration, as I said, boiled over. We had a dramatic change in the representation in the House of Representatives and, I think, a very strong mandate from the American people that they wanted something different than the status quo. They wanted the real thing. In response to many who said, ``Well, I'm not voting for this balanced budget because it doesn't have an exception for this, an exception for that, and, besides, we shouldn't have to rely on the Constitution to make us do what we know is right. We should have the will to do it ourselves. So let's forget the mandatory constitutional requirement and let's go forward by exercising our own personal will and do what we know is right.'' That is what the attempt has been all this year. Here we are. Now it is 1996. We were not able do that in 1995. We are arguing over small numbers and details and large numbers and details, but we are not focusing our efforts on the core concepts. The Senator from New Hampshire came down here a few moments ago and redirected our attention back to what I think are the basics, what should be the basics of this debate. Instead of focusing on those basics, we are focusing on whether or not a Federal employee should be paid for work that they are doing now, whether they should be held hostage to this process, what the impact is on people and their families, and that impact is real. However, it does not address the core debate. Mr. President, it seems to me our options are somewhat limited at this point. We can talk about this endlessly and posture and get spins out of the White House and spins out of Congress. This can go on and on and on and on, or we can simply say, ``Look, there is a basic principle involved here. We all know it requires major policy changes, or we will just simply be back here 2 years from now arguing the same thing.'' We all know, as the Senator from New Hampshire said, unless we address the three basic programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare reform and change policies that drive that spending and decouple the entitlement from the automatic spending train, we will not have achieved success in balancing the budget. I think everybody understands and knows that. Yet, we are now addressing that or focusing on that question. I do not know what the solution is, Mr. President. Maybe it is to require that the President of the United States, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House be sent to Dayton, locked up at Wright Patterson Air Force Base--as were the Bosnian factions, leaders of the Bosnian warring factions; they have been at war with each other for 600 years, and being locked up at Dayton produced a result most thought would not happen--perhaps locking up the three leaders of our Government in Dayton, cutting off and saying, ``No Larry King, you cannot read any newspapers, you cannot take any polls, you cannot watch the television, you cannot go to Hilton Head to play golf, and you cannot go to New Hampshire and campaign until you do what is right for America,'' maybe that is the solution. I do not know. Doing what is right for America is what ought to be driving us in this debate. I think we all know what is right for this economy and what is right for the President and what is right for the future. I think we all know or we should know that unless we address these fundamental changes in the way in which this Government spends money and we put some restraint and control on that, we will not succeed and we will be back here arguing the same thing. I regret the Federal workers are out of work. There are a lot of people out of work. AT&T just announced they are going to lay off 40,000 people, so it is not just the Federal workers. In defense of the House Republicans, they are using the only leverage they have against the President. It has not worked very well because the President's spin has captured the headlines and their spin--the Republican House has not captured headlines with that. I have probably gone over my time. I appreciate the patience of the Chair and my colleagues. I will have more to say about this later, but I do think we ought to focus on the basic issues and I do think, despite what the polls say and despite what the phone calls say, we ought to do what we believe is right for America. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the bill which Senator Lugar and I are introducing today will help correct a critical deficiency and help prevent senseless, tragic accidents at rail grade crossings. Indiana is one State which suffers from high numbers of accidents and deaths at railroad crossings. Rail transportation is important in Indiana, playing a key role in the State's agriculture and manufacturing economy. Much of the rail activity goes through northwest Indiana which accounts for 75 percent of the State's rail crossing accidents. In 1994, Indiana ranked third in the Nation with 263 rail crossing accidents, resulting in the deaths of 27 people; 6.1 percent of all rail crossing accidents in America took place in Indiana and 5.9 percent of the fatalities occurred there. As Senator Lugar and I became aware that Indiana had a critical problem with rail accidents, we asked the General Accounting Office [GAO] to examine the safety conditions in States with a high concentration of rail crossings. When the GAO report was completed in August 1995, it revealed that although Indiana had a large number of rail crossings--6,700, the sixth largest number of all States--the State received only 3.4 percent of the Federal funding available specifically targeted to prevent such tragedies. The section 130 program was established in 1973 to help States reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities at public railroad crossings. In the first 10 years of the program, accidents declined by 61 percent and deaths were reduced by 34 percent. Since 1985, however, there has been little progress made toward further reducing these numbers. The problem becomes apparent when you realize that many of the States with the highest concentration of crossings, number of accidents, and fatalities receive less money than States which do not have as great a need. Thus, the GAO concluded that the Federal Government should examine funding formulas and consider using risk factors in determining how to distribute section 130 highway dollars to States for rail safety purposes. The current formula funding--based on 10 percent of a State's surface transportation program [STP] funding--does not take into account such essential criteria as a State's total number of crossings, amount of train traffic, as well as the number of accidents and fatalities. I believe it is critical that these elements--risk factors--be considered in determining how much money a State should receive for rail safety. The formula enhancement bill corrects this flaw in the current funding formula. Based on the GAO report and working with the Federal Highway Administration, we have crafted legislation which changes the formula in way to ensure that States with the greatest risk receive more funding. This bill does not increase Federal spending in any way. Rather it ensures that current spending on rail safety under section 130 is done more effectively. Specifically, it sets aside 5 percent of the total apportionment for surface transportation program funding and directs it to the States based on the total number of accidents, total number of fatalities, number of public railway highway crossings, and number of passive warning devices. Under this new formula, Indiana--which received $4.9 million in 1995--could receive $6.6 million. Overall, 24 States would benefit from increased funding to help reduce rail crossing accidents. It is our goal to work with the Committee on Environment and Public Works to help ensure that this formula change is considered as part of Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act reauthorization when it occurs either next year or in 1997. Money alone will not solve all the problems related to rail crossing accidents. I support greater education programs such as Operation Lifesaver. Continued cooperation among all levels of government: local, State, and Federal is essential to stop these sort of tragedies. However, we should also ensure that a Federal program which was designed to help States with safety issues at rail crossings is targeted in a way which ensures the most effective use of these resources. It is time for us to direct this program where it has the best hope of making an impact and thus reduce the senseless accidents and tragic deaths at rail crossings.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the bill which Senator Lugar and I are introducing today will help correct a critical deficiency and help prevent senseless, tragic accidents at rail grade crossings. Indiana is one State which suffers from high numbers of accidents and deaths at railroad crossings. Rail transportation is important in Indiana, playing a key role in the State's agriculture and manufacturing economy. Much of the rail activity goes through northwest Indiana which accounts for 75 percent of the State's rail crossing accidents. In 1994, Indiana ranked third in the Nation with 263 rail crossing accidents, resulting in the deaths of 27 people; 6.1 percent of all rail crossing accidents in America took place in Indiana and 5.9 percent of the fatalities occurred there. As Senator Lugar and I became aware that Indiana had a critical problem with rail accidents, we asked the General Accounting Office [GAO] to examine the safety conditions in States with a high concentration of rail crossings. When the GAO report was completed in August 1995, it revealed that although Indiana had a large number of rail crossings--6,700, the sixth largest number of all States--the State received only 3.4 percent of the Federal funding available specifically targeted to prevent such tragedies. The section 130 program was established in 1973 to help States reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities at public railroad crossings. In the first 10 years of the program, accidents declined by 61 percent and deaths were reduced by 34 percent. Since 1985, however, there has been little progress made toward further reducing these numbers. The problem becomes apparent when you realize that many of the States with the highest concentration of crossings, number of accidents, and fatalities receive less money than States which do not have as great a need. Thus, the GAO concluded that the Federal Government should examine funding formulas and consider using risk factors in determining how to distribute section 130 highway dollars to States for rail safety purposes. The current formula funding--based on 10 percent of a State's surface transportation program [STP] funding--does not take into account such essential criteria as a State's total number of crossings, amount of train traffic, as well as the number of accidents and fatalities. I believe it is critical that these elements--risk factors--be considered in determining how much money a State should receive for rail safety. The formula enhancement bill corrects this flaw in the current funding formula. Based on the GAO report and working with the Federal Highway Administration, we have crafted legislation which changes the formula in way to ensure that States with the greatest risk receive more funding. This bill does not increase Federal spending in any way. Rather it ensures that current spending on rail safety under section 130 is done more effectively. Specifically, it sets aside 5 percent of the total apportionment for surface transportation program funding and directs it to the States based on the total number of accidents, total number of fatalities, number of public railway highway crossings, and number of passive warning devices. Under this new formula, Indiana--which received $4.9 million in 1995--could receive $6.6 million. Overall, 24 States would benefit from increased funding to help reduce rail crossing accidents. It is our goal to work with the Committee on Environment and Public Works to help ensure that this formula change is considered as part of Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act reauthorization when it occurs either next year or in 1997. Money alone will not solve all the problems related to rail crossing accidents. I support greater education programs such as Operation Lifesaver. Continued cooperation among all levels of government: local, State, and Federal is essential to stop these sort of tragedies. However, we should also ensure that a Federal program which was designed to help States with safety issues at rail crossings is targeted in a way which ensures the most effective use of these resources. It is time for us to direct this program where it has the best hope of making an impact and thus reduce the senseless accidents and tragic deaths at rail crossings.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, first, I want to begin by commending the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, for the work that he has done this year in leading the effort in putting this defense authorization conference report together. It has been a tough year, as we all know. It has been a long and difficult year with many, many complex and difficult questions. Senator Thurmond has provided extraordinary leadership in bringing us to this point. I want to commend him for his efforts in that regard. At the same time, I want to express my disappointment that, apparently, this conference report is going to be virtually unanimously opposed by our colleagues from across the aisle. I regret that, because we have always, at least in my tenure, moved forward on defense bills in a bipartisan fashion. It appears now that we will not be doing that this year. I think that is disappointing. Nevertheless, I hope that our colleagues will see fit to support this legislation in such a manner that it can pass the Senate, be sent to the President and then he will, obviously, have to make a choice as to whether or not he wants to accept the bill or veto the bill. We heard a lot of Members state reasons why they will not vote for the bill on the basis of what is included in the bill. What we have not heard is information relative to what is now in the bill that will be lost if it is not passed. Anybody can look at a bill this massive, covering this amount of spending, and find reasons why they do not like a particular part of the bill. I have never voted for a bill where I have agreed 100 percent from beginning to end with every provision in that bill. This is the art of political compromise that tries to balance the opinions of one House versus the other, the opinions of one party versus the other, the interests of particular Senators in putting more emphasis on one portion of the bill than the other. In the end, you put a package together. You trust the major thrust of that package is in the direction that you want to go. So to raise specific concerns about specific items in this bill as a basis for rejecting the whole bill, I think, is something that if we practice it on every bill that came forward, nothing would pass in this body. But as I said, Members have stated that there are items in the bill that they do not like and, therefore, they will not vote for the bill. I would like to list, as chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, what will be lost if this bill is not passed. I think Members ought to consider some of this before they make a final determination on how they will vote. Do Senators understand that the full pay raise, which is only 2.4 percent, but the full pay raise to our troops in uniform, including those on the way to Bosnia and those deployed in areas around the world, will not be granted if this bill is not passed? The authorization for the full pay raise is included in this legislation and that will not go forward unless this bill is passed. Reserve mobilization insurance will not be established. Several bonus authorities for enlistment and reenlistment will not be authorized. At a time when we have a shrinking defense force and we are trying to find the top quality people, the bonuses for enlistment and reenlistment that are incentives to attract the kind of people we need will not be available. A whole series of quality of life initiatives will be lost. We keep talking about our No. 1 priority for our troops is quality of life. We need to provide them with the best training and the best equipment and the best leadership, but we also need to provide them with a quality of life that will allow they and their families to make a career commitment to service in our military. A whole series of initiatives on quality of life will be lost. Let me just mention some of them. There will be no increased quarters allowance to close the gap of housing cost increases. This quarters allowance equals 5.2 percent in the bill. Without it, it will be 2 percent. That means when a soldier and his or her family are stationed in particular areas of the country and sufficient base housing is not available for them, as is the case in most instances, they have to go out into the local market. When they go out into the local market, the allowance that they are given for their quarters does not begin to cover the cost of housing in that particular area. We give quarters allowance to cover that, but it has not kept pace with the increase in housing costs, and so soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines and their families will be put at a continued even greater disadvantage than they have been in the past. There will be no authority to pay quarters allowance for NCO's on ships or NCO's who currently live in inadequate quarters. These are people who are key to the successful functioning of our military, and they will not receive quarters allowance unless this bill is passed. There will be no authority to pay family separation allowances to certain single soldiers. There will be no authority to pay enlisted airmen hazardous duty incentive. There will be no authority to pay special duty pay to personnel assigned to tenders. There will be no authority to pay increased special duty pay to recruiters. There will be no authority to pay dislocation allowances to those forced to move as a result of the BRAC process. There will be no more automatic increase of servicemen's life insurance. At a time when we are deploying troops to Bosnia to undertake the risks that will be involved in this, there will be no automatic life insurance increase. That was included in our bill. There will be no COLA equity for military retirees, and I will discuss that in a moment. There are a number of service academy issues that will not be addressed. Two Navy P-3 squadrons will not be authorized. There will be no floor on military technicians, a critical request made by the service chiefs and others as they came before our committee. As the equipment becomes more sophisticated, we need people who have more technological capability to repair and deal with this equipment, and this is a very important part of the authorization bill authority, and that will not be provided. Dental/medical benefits, CHAMPUS benefits for certain members of the total force will not be included. These, just from the Personnel Subcommittee, are items that we will not have if this bill is defeated or if the President vetoes it. Let me discuss one other. There is a whole series of initiatives to provide new authorities for the provision of new housing, repaired housing, restored housing for our military personnel. Why is this important? Because over the last 30 years, while we have made some remarkable strides in providing our troops with training and equipment, we have ignored their living quarters, the repair, maintenance, and the construction of new quarters. Currently, on the military's own estimate on the basis of their own standards--and I suggest their standards are not the standards that are found generally in housing construction throughout this country; they are lower standards. Even by their standards, many of the housing units, most of which are over 30 years old, are in a state of disrepair. In fact, by Department of Defense standards, over 80 percent of the existing military housing is inadequate. Let me repeat that. Over 80 percent of the housing that we ask our military families and ask our single military personnel to live in is inadequate. It is substandard and it needs repair, maintenance, and some of it needs to be torn down. A lot of new units need to be built. Under the current rate of funding for this repair, maintenance, and construction, it will take 30 years to remedy the problem. Of course, in 30 years, the problem that is remedied this year and in succeeding years will then be inadequate. So we are getting nowhere. Under the direction of the Secretary of Defense, Bill Perry, under the very able leadership of former Secretary of the Army, John Marsh, and an internal as well as external task force, a year's worth of effort has culminated in a plan to very substantially upgrade military housing on an accelerated basis. Because we are faced with a budget crunch that does not provide the immediate funds, new housing authorities are requested by the department, so that we can use methods that are used by the civilian housing authorities, which exist in virtually every one of our States, to leverage funds to begin to dramatically accelerate the rehabilitation and construction of new quarters for our personnel. We are asking individuals to commit a career, a lifetime, to the service, and that means that we are moving from single enlisted people that formerly were brought into the service by the draft, as I entered, and now, instead of a 2, 3, or 4-year commitment, people are making a lifetime commitment. Most of those people are bringing their families with them--their spouses and children. For this country to ask individuals to put on the uniform and provide for our defense and not provide for adequate housing, I believe, is a disgrace. It is a disgrace to ask these people to live in the housing and the quarters that they currently live in. I have personally visited the family quarters and the bachelor quarters on a number of bases throughout this country and some overseas. I would not put my family in some of these living situations, and either would anybody else in this Senate. I would not begin to ask my family to live under some of the conditions that our service personnel live in, without complaint. The least we can do for these people who make this commitment to provide for our security and our freedom is give them adequate living quarters. Roofs are caving in, ceilings are caving in, water is running down the walls, broken plumbing, exterior windows cracked, cold air rushing through. You do not need air conditioning if you live in a cold climate because it comes right through the windows and the walls. I think one of the things that I will regret the most if this bill fails, either in the Senate vote or if it is vetoed by the President, is the loss of authority to do what Secretary Perry has asked us to provide--to accelerate the reconstruction and the maintenance and repairs of some of our housing that we provide for our military personnel. That is what we lose just from the personnel section of this bill. I do not have the time to go into other sections. There have been a number of allegations made here about some of the additional problems that exist. I would like to address one of those points, because it seems to be a major sticking point for several Members--that is, the statutory authority that exists providing for the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. What Members need to understand is that the conference report does not abolish this office. This is an important office, as is the Office for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict. But what the committee is attempting to address is a situation where the Department wants the flexibility to review the way it is organized, to make determinations as to how it wants to be structured and then report to us as a committee by March 1 of 1996. The repeal of the statutory authority, first of all, does not even take place until January 1, 1997. It is not prejudicial because we are asking the Secretary of Defense to report to us by March 1 of next year his recommendations as to how the Department can be reorganized so it can operate in the most efficient manner. They are feeling the budget squeeze. They know they need to make decisions relative to how they can better organize to achieve savings. All we are doing is repealing the requirement for specific positions on a statutory basis. It does not mean the position will be eliminated. We then, as a committee, will have the opportunity to review the report, question the Secretary, and look at and evaluate their reorganization plan, and we can decide that we want to retain these statutory provisions. There is no doubt that the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation is an important position. Senator Nunn, on this floor, very accurately described the nature of the position and the independence of the incumbent director. I fully expect that Secretary Perry will ask that this position be retained. The key factor is that he will make that recommendation on the merits, not because he was encumbered by a statutory protection. That is the goal of this legislation. Meritorious recommendations by the Secretary of Defense, not abolition of one position or another. The legislation is intentionally crafted to permit any repeal to be vitiated before it is implemented, if that is the appropriate outcome. There has been a lot of misinformation about this part of the bill, and if Senators will take the time to review the actual language and understand the intent, I am confident that they will see this as a workable solution. So I urge my colleagues who may be thinking of voting against the bill, on this provision alone, to look at the conference report and understand what it is we are attempting to do. Now, Mr. President, second, I want to take some remaining time here and just put this Defense authorization debate in the broader context of the budget debate, because it has been said on this floor on numerous occasions by numerous Members that if we were really serious about reducing the deficit, we would reduce defense spending. We would take this defense bill, which they say is sacrosanct from spending, and we would begin to take savings out of Defense. I do not know where those Members have been for the last 10 years. But as Senator Nunn said on this floor just about a year ago, ``Those who claim that Defense has not been substantially reduced since the end of the cold war are flat out wrong. The Defense Department, in the past few years, has carried more than its fair share of sacrifice for lowering the deficit. Indeed, the Defense Department seems to be the only part of the Federal Government that has carried its fair share.'' Let me repeat that one statement again. ``Those who claim that Defense has not been substantially reduced since the end of the cold war are flat out wrong.'' They ignore the facts. To say defense is the area that needs to be reduced so that we could prove our commitment to deficit reduction ignores reality. The fiscal year 1996 budget request for defense is at the 1975 spending level in constant dollars. The 1997 level is at the 1955 level. Since 1985, we have reduced defense procurement 71 percent. Research, development, testing, and evaluation funds have been reduced 57 percent. By 1999, defense spending as a share of the gross national product will have declined to 2.8 percent, the lowest since before World War II. We are now entering the 11th straight year of declining defense budgets. We have cut active duty personnel by 32 percent. That is the lowest level in 60 years. The Army will have 45 percent fewer divisions, the Navy 37 percent fewer battle force ships, and the Air Force 40 percent fewer attack and fighter aircraft. Now, defense spending, which has decreased--just in the 10-year decade, the decade of the 1990's, defense spending will decrease 35 percent. What are we doing with the rest of the budget? Domestic discretionary spending, during that same time period, increases 12 percent; welfare and mandatory spending will increase by 38 percent. Those that say defense has not done its share are ignoring the facts. If some of these other nondefense areas of the budget had done one- tenth of what defense has done, we would not be debating the need for a balanced budget. We would have achieved a balanced budget. Name me one program in the Federal Government, outside of defense, that has even begun to reach the decrease in spending that defense has. Name me one program that has been reduced at all. The challenge is not to further reduce defense. The challenge is to look at the other programs that are driving our costs out of sight, that are squeezing our ability to provide for an adequate defense. At the same time that defense spending is reducing dramatically and the number of personnel are reducing dramatically, the requirements for deployments are increasing. We have shrunk our forces in Europe from 314,000 prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall. That number is now rapidly approaching 100,000. Yet those remaining forces have been deployed in more missions in the last 5 years than in the previous 45 years combined. The average soldier now spends approximately 138 days each year away from home on extended short-notice deployments. This is combined with extensive training, away from home, in order to maintain the critical skills necessary. That is a tremendous strain on those personnel and particularly on their families. Our Navy surface ships are away from home at tempos in excess of 130 days per year--that is away from home. That does not count the short- term deployments to prepare them for the longer term deployment. The Marines currently have 24,000 people--pre-Bosnia--24,000 people deployed overseas carrying out a whole number of 911 fast-reaction assignments. The Air Force has had a fourfold increase in the deployment obligations over the last 7 years, while drawing down its overall end strength by a third. So we have troops deployed all over the world on all kinds of missions and yet we have fewer number of personnel to allocate to these deployments. What does that mean? Longer deployments, longer time away from home, more strain and stress on the force. We have a serious gap that is opening between our military mission and the level of funding we provide. The Armed Services Committee this year, under the very able leadership of our chairman, has done the very best that we can to take this limited budget and stretch it in a way that begins to meet the needs of our Armed Forces. To those who say, ``We have added $6.7 billion and the Pentagon didn't request it.'' If the Pentagon were calling the shots their budget requests would have been a lot higher than they were. They are not. They get a number from the President. The President's Office of Management and Budget says, ``Here is your number, now make it work.'' These people are trained to salute and say, ``Yes, sir.'' Ask any one of them, as we have in our hearings, do you need more, could you use more, would you like to have more? Their answers were ``Yes, we would.'' There are a number of things we would like to deal with but we recognize we are constrained by this budget and therefore we have done the best we could. We are on the razor's edge of readiness. We are worried about procurement in the future. We are not updating our equipment. We are sacrificing quality of life, but we have to live within this budget number. We will do the best that we can. They do a terrific job. To say they do not want the additional resources, that this extra money that Republicans have provided, $6.7 billion, is wasted money is simply not the case. You can argue over how that ought to be allocated. It is not allocated 100 percent the way I would like to allocate. The defense budget has been declining now for 11 straight years. It is certainly not some Government program run amok without control, as so many others have. Mr. President, balancing our books is one of the most important duties of Government, but it is not the first duty of Government. The first duty of Government is the defense of this country, without needless risk to the men and women who serve. That means more than defending our borders. It means shaping a security environment that will be favorable to America in the future. It means providing our troops with the training they need, the equipment they require, the kind of leadership that provides for success, and the quality of life that gives them a stake in the future of this country, that provides for their families while they are away on deployment. We are asking fewer people to do more with less. As I speak, we are deploying 20,000 troops, and many more thousands of support troops, in this effort to Bosnia. They are fighting terrible weather, as we can see every day on CNN. They are fighting some of the world's worst terrain. They are engaging in a mission that many of us still are trying to figure out what the mission is. It is a mission that is fraught with risk. We are asking and have asked and will continue to ask a great deal of the men and women who wear the uniform of this country. The very least we can do with this type of budget constraint is to provide them with the best that we can. To reject this bill now, I believe, sends an absolutely wrong signal. We talked about sending signals on the floor last week. What kind of signal do we send, with all the authorities, the quality of life initiatives, and other items in this bill. What kind of signal do we send to the troops right now trying to fight fog, the weather, the snow, and the landings on a runway they cannot see, in a mountainous area of Bosnia? Deploying into terrible weather and terrible terrain on a mission they are not sure exactly what it is. What kind of signal do we send, that the Senate rejects the bill that takes care of their families while they are gone? The Senate rejects the bill that provides the authorities we need to have a successful military effort? That is a terrible signal to send. If Members want to talk about sending a signal; walk down here now and vote. Just because there is a piece of the bill that you do not like or because this is now partisan politics and we did not get in enough of the discussions about what the final bill should look like. Therefor in a fit of pique you register your displeasure with it, I think that is a terrible mistake. It is a terrible time for our troops, as we approach Christmas, as our troops are leaving their families and going into a very uncertain, risky situation in the world's worst terrain and climate--to now reject this bill would be a huge mistake. I urge my colleagues who may be having reservations, ask us what the facts are, look at what is in the bill, let us work with you to resolve differences next year, but do not tell our troops that we are not going to give them these authorities and we will not provide for their future as included in this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I know there are speakers who will be here this morning, but at the moment let me suggest the absence of a quorum; the time will be equally divided under the previous agreement.

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

Mr. COATS. May I inquire how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this bill is now back on the calendar but it is still hoped this important matter can be cleared for action, soon. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the action taken on Calendar No. 280, S. 1228, be vitiated and the bill be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, let me announce that we will immediately begin consideration of the conference report to accompany the Department of Defense authorization bill, and that under the unanimous-consent agreement reached last night, if all time is used, a vote will occur on the conference report at approximately 5:25 p.m. The Senate will recess today between the hours of 12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. for weekly policy conferences, and a cloture vote is still possible today on the motion to proceed to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, unless an agreement can be reached on that bill today. Also, if a continuing resolution would become available from the House, we will take action on that today.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will not take nearly that much time. I thank my colleague and friend from Ohio, Senator DeWine, for his support throughout this effort. I will take a portion of that allotted time to explain what we are about and why we feel it is so important, at this particular time, to define the future for those students and parents who are anxiously wondering about what their opportunities will be to secure guaranteed loans for college expenses and university expenses in the future. As many who have followed this issue know, after weeks of negotiations, the Senate and House reconciled the differences between their two pieces of legislation regarding student loans, and came up with a savings figure of $4.9 billion. We had to do so because, in an effort to balance the budget, which is a noble effort which will hopefully come to a conclusion here in this next week, each committee was directed to achieve a certain amount of savings. The Labor and Human Resources Committee has a very limited impact in terms of the savings that it can contribute to this balanced budget effort and, in fact, had very little other choice other than to look at student loans. We were faced with somewhat of a dilemma. We know college costs are rising and tuition costs are rising. We know cutting back on the amount of loans available, or the repayment obligations of those loans, puts a serious crimp on families and students alike. So, what we were able to do is come up with our recommended savings, $4.9 billion, without decreasing, without limiting, without imposing any new costs on students, on their families or on the schools. Not one student or one parent will pay 1 cent more for a student loan under the Republican reconciliation package, the balanced budget package, than they pay today. This debate has gone on for more than a year, but particularly this year. And, unfortunately, there is a tremendous amount of disinformation being spread by the administration that somehow students and parents are going to be adversely affected by these drastic cuts in education; that students will not be able to secure loans to pay for their future education. Demonstrations have been held during hearings. The hearing room is packed with students coming down. As we point out the facts to these students, they are almost in disbelief, because they have been told that the Republican balanced budget plan is going to drastically reduce their ability to secure student loans and drastically increase the repayment obligations on those loans. The fact of the matter is, not 1 cent of additional cost is being imposed on students. Mr. President, 70 percent of the $4.9 billion are costs that are imposed on the banks and guaranty agencies and secondary markets who participate in administering these loans: Taking the applications, determining who is eligible, providing the money, doing the repayment collection and so forth. Those are the agencies that will take a second, additional, substantial increase in the amount of expenditures that they will have to absorb without passing any of that on to the students or the parents who take out the loans. The 1993 Budget Act imposed a very substantial cost, several billion dollars of additional costs on these banks and agencies, and now we are adding an additional $4.9 billion. All of the rhetoric coming out of the Department of Education and coming out of the administration speaks to the opposite of what is happening. Because the balanced budget package actually affords students not only the ability to retain their existing benefits in the same form that they currently exist, but creates new benefits by ensuring that the two student loan programs, the guaranteed loan program and the direct lending program, will offer the same benefits to students. For example, until now, students receiving loans through the direct lending program were given the option of an income-contingent repayment. That is, their repayments were based on their ability to repay--income-contingent. Under the package that is now presented to us, this same option will be extended to students in the guaranteed loan program as well as the direct lending program. Furthermore, students, their families, and colleges were protected from a precipitous move to an unproven program by capping the direct lending program at 10 percent of total loan volume. The administration has opposed this cap because the President and Department of Education have been committed for some time to a very dramatic extension, an expansion of this program, the direct lending program, and were not willing to take some time and set aside a demonstration to see whether or not it would be in the better interests of the students and colleges and actually provide the savings they claim. Initially, the savings claimed started out somewhere close to $12- plus billion. That was revised to $6 billion. Then we finally got an estimate back from the Congressional Budget Office saying that, no, it not only would not save money for the Government, it would actually cost money because of a number of factors including administrative costs at the Department of Education. A point we are trying to deal with here is that if we were to adopt and accept the President's proposals to continually raise the cap and eventually get, I think, to a program that only administered student loans through the direct lending program, we are likely to see the termination of the competing program, the guaranteed loan program, because these agencies cannot continue to absorb increased administrative costs while their market for distributing loans continues to shrink, as more shift over into the direct loan program. So the conferees thought that what we ought to do is double the current size of the direct lending program from 5 to 10 percent, put a cap on that 10 percent, test it as a demonstration program to see how we could administer it efficiently and effectively to see whether or not it lived up to the claims that were made for it, and then make a final decision on what the best way to offer student loans to students would be. The Clinton plan began by removing any participation target for direct lending, effectively allowing, as I said, direct lending to go to 100 percent, as the administration has been pushing as recently as 5 months ago in legislation that it sent to the Congress. At the same time, the administration was imposing virtually all of the subsidy reductions on the guaranteed loan program, the other program, added to, as I said, increases in costs that were imposed in 1993. Taken together, these subsidy reductions along with the open-ended level of the direct loan program, in my opinion and in the opinions of many, would have effectively ended the guaranteed loan program and effectively denied and taken away the choice for the vast majority of the Nation's schools and students. Again, let me state the facts. Even though we are putting together a plan to balance the budget in 7 years, the decision was made that we will not achieve savings by imposing on students or their parents or the schools or universities any additional costs. That ought to be good news for every college, every university, and every student and young person in this country. Despite that, we continue to hear and read the rhetoric coming out of the administration that we are denying opportunities to students and imposing higher costs on them. That is simply not true. Make no mistake, there is a real higher education debate going on. But the debate is not whether we will provide loan assistance to students going to school. The debate is how we will provide that assistance. It is not a debate about student cuts or school fees, it is a debate about where the funds for loans will originate and who will handle that, administer the loans once they are made. The difference really comes down to whether or not you believe that a Government-run program will be more cost efficient and more effective than a private sector-run program. That point was made very well in the Washington Post op-ed article 2 weeks ago. Two economists at the CRS, Dennis Zimmerman and Barbara Miles, wrote an article explaining that the debate between the direct lending and the guaranteed loan program is fundamentally a debate over political philosophy and not a debate over economics. I have a quote from what they wrote on this chart: There are no inherent cost advantages in direct lending as opposed to guaranteed lending. Regardless of how the loans are made, rules of the program dictate that the same number of loans will be made to the same students for the same purposes, and with the same interest rates and repayment terms. The idea that direct lending would somehow produce multibillion-dollar savings was attributable to . . . [and I think they generously said] misunderstanding. The choice between the two boils down to political philosophy, not economics. It is important to keep in mind that these economists at the Congressional Research Service are not individuals who work for the Republican Party, nor are they individuals who have some hidden agenda, who have some connection to the banks or the guaranty agencies. They are simply economists who work for the Congressional Research Service and provide us with objective, nonpartisan analyses of the programs that Congress develops. As many know, I have been a vocal opponent of the direct lending program since its inception. To put it simply, I simply do not believe that the Federal Government is able to better manage a program than the private sector at a time when we are looking to privatize many Government services because we are discovering--whether it is in small town America, whether it is in our States, or whether it is at the Federal level--that the private sector does the job more efficiently and cost effectively than Government. At a time when we are attempting to privatize and find the savings in Government, along comes the administration saying, ``Let us create a brand new program to be administered by a Government agency, Government bureaucracy, and let us take away a function that is being performed by the private sector and transfer it to Government.'' I think anybody who has studied, or looked at, or even instinctively understands that Government programs do not operate as efficiently or effectively as the private sector, has to seriously question the decision of the administration to begin to administer an entirely new program at the Department of Education. In my opinion, and on the basis of my analysis of Government programs and the thousands of requests, complaints, and inquiries that come into my Senate office here in Washington, or my Senate or regional offices in Indiana, complaints about the ineptness, the mismanagement, the bureaucracy, and the delays of administering Federal programs, I simply cannot endorse a program that would add yet another function to the Federal Government. I believe that quality of service would seriously decline. I believe that the default rate would skyrocket. I think that making a Federal agency the responsible agent to ensure that the loans are repaid is not going to begin to give us the accountability that we achieve through the private sector. One of my greatest concerns is program management. The direct lending program will centralize control at the Department of Education. The new Federal bureaucracy needed to oversee direct lending is already growing and having predictable results. We started with a 5-percent test, and already we are considerably more than that. Some of the results are in. The Department has had to hire 400 new people to administer the program and has plans to hire some 700 more by the time the program is fully operational. Yet, a recent issue of Forbes magazine reported that the Department is already having problems managing the $700 million that it disbursed in 1994 through direct loans. In the first year of that program, when the Department was only responsible for 5 percent of total loan volume, they somehow lost track of almost 15 percent of the loans disbursed. The program mismanagement becomes an even greater concern with the possibility that direct lending could become the only student loan program. As I mentioned earlier, despite their newfound love for program choice, the President and the Department of Education have made it very clear that they want ultimately to end up with 100 percent direct lending. And, in this environment, the Department of Education would then become the third largest bank in the country requiring a vast new Government bureaucracy to handle details like customer assistance and loan checks. This is the same Department that, after 16 years of operation and $342 billion of taxpayer money, has failed to improve the quality of education in this country. Do we want this institution to have a monopoly on student loans? Concern over this program management and whether this is a proper expansion of Federal Government is shared by four former Secretaries of Education. Former Secretaries Bennett, Cavazos, Alexander, and Hufstedler, President Carter's first Secretary of Education, wrote a letter to Senator Dole opposing direct loans on the grounds that the Department of Education simply cannot manage this program. I have put on this chart--it may be difficult to see--a copy of this letter to Senator Dole from the three former Secretaries of Education, Lamar Alexander, Lauro Cavazos and William Bennett, and I will read only a portion of it. The effort to rapidly federalize the administration of the massive student loan program is ill-conceived and presents substantial risk to the financial lifeline for millions of this Nation's college students and families. They further wrote that at a time when the Clinton administration has advocated public-private partnerships and deregulation to improve American competitiveness, the nationalization of the student loan program directly conflicts with those objectives. Such strong bipartisan opposition to direct lending clearly sends a signal that we need to at the most test this program before allowing it unrestricted and unfettered growth, as the President proposed in his balanced budget plan. The report that the conference between the House and the Senate gave back to us said they believed it was appropriate to cap this program at a 10-percent rate--10 percent of the total loan volume--and test it to see whether or not our concerns were real concerns. I believe that a 10-percent cap would allow for a reasonable demonstration to occur. We can then take the results and make further decisions as to what we ought to do. We ought to heed the words of those former Secretaries of Education from both parties who caution that rapid federalization of student loans as currently being undertaken by the administration presents substantial risk to the financial lifeline for millions of this Nation's college students and families. I urge my colleagues to save student loans and to support the balanced budget provision which was supported by the Senate. We are entering now into a period of time over the next several days when some very fundamental decisions will have to be made in terms of getting to a balanced budget in a 7-year period of time with honest numbers, without fudging the numbers or cooking the books or making false assumptions. We owe it to the future of this country, we owe it to our children and grandchildren, and we owe it to those young people who ought to have the kind of opportunities that we have enjoyed. This is just one piece of the puzzle. It is an important piece. It is a $4.9 billion piece. But it could result in a program which, if left unfettered, left uncapped and not tested first, could begin to push us down that road which we have been traveling for the last several decades of open-ended programs with entitlements to individuals and no ability of Congress to check it. We have a program now that works. We have substantially improved that program in the private sector. We have imposed costs and fees on the banks, guarantors, and lenders that have helped us in our budget savings without imposing additional restrictions on students. Frankly, it is a pretty good deal for America, to be able, when you send your children to school, to borrow funds at no interest, use those funds to pay college costs, and then have an extended repayment period after graduation where you are not even paying interest on the use of the funds for the entire time that you are in school, plus in a 6-month period of time after graduation from school. Now, I do not know if there are many better deals in America. If there are, I would like to know about them. And so I think we ought to deal with the facts and not the political rhetoric. We ought to recognize that we have in place an extraordinarily generous program to help parents who need the help and students who need the help in providing funds to pay for their college costs. A program which allows you to borrow at zero interest for your entire time in school and then gives you a generous 10-year or more repayment program where the interest does not even begin to run on the amount that you have borrowed until 6 months after you have graduated, give you time to go out and look for employment so that you can begin to pay back these loans, is a pretty generous program. At a time when we are facing a substantial budget crisis, are attempting to bring fiscal responsibility to the Federal Government, at this historic moment when we hope to finally once and for all balance the budget, this is more than a reasonable proposition. So I hope that the conferees in deciding what the final composition of the Balanced Budget Act will look like and in negotiating with the President understand what the House and Senate have come up with in terms of the student loan program is more than reasonable, does not impose additional costs on students, does not reduce the amount of loans available to those students, and simply is the way we ought to proceed. Mr. President, I thank you for the time. Whatever time I have remaining I yield back. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the remarks I made on the floor earlier today with respect to the size of the direct loan program. The Federal Direct Student Loan Program was originally authorized to administer 5 percent of total loan volume as a demonstration program. In 1993-94, the first year of the Direct Lending Program, the Department of Education was authorized to administer 5 percent of total loan volume. The Balanced Budget Act of 1995 imposes a 10-percent cap on direct loans, and ensures that all schools who participated in the first year of the program will continue to serve as the demonstration group, thereby allowing a proper test to take place. I would also like to be very clear about the impact of the proposed 10-percent cap: a 10-percent cap on direct loans will in no way affect any student's ability to receive a student loan. The law requires that the eligibility requirements for both loan programs be identical, and therefore a 10-percent cap on direct loans will not limit any student's ability to receive the loans they need to attend college. The administration continues to try to frighten students and their families by implying that a cap on direct lending will limit student loans, but this is simply not the case: a cap on direct lending only affects how the loans are delivered--it does not affect loan access or availability.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, first, I want to commend my colleague, Senator Hutchison, from Texas, for the initiative she has taken, addressing what I think is one of the most critical and important issues the Senate will face in a long, long time. It is appropriate we give proper deliberation to this issue. There really is no more serious, wrenching decision than one similar to what we face today, because it not only has consequences for America's role in the world, but consequences for the lives of young men and women, poised at this very moment for deployment in Bosnia. We have two burdens in this debate. One is to exercise American leadership and the second is to justify American sacrifice. Let me state at the beginning, I firmly believe in American leadership. Our active engagement in the world is an expression of our interest and our values. But in exercising this leadership, I think it is important that we understand that justifying American sacrifice is the higher and the harder and the heavier responsibility that we face because it demands not just plausible goals, but compelling reasons. It is not enough to say that a questionable promise has been made, or that an alliance needs to be politically repaired, or that we feel guilty or somehow compromised and helpless. These are factors that may contribute to a case for intervention, but I do not believe they are determinative factors in terms of deciding whether or not we intervene. Because, in the end, I think we have to be able to say certain things with confidence, that there is no other, more viable option consistent with our interests and that there is no honorable alternative to the risk of American lives. This is a decision that has to be made deliberately, not by default. Like many of my colleagues here, I faced these questions before. I voted to send United States marines to Lebanon to be a presence in a land that was factionalized and fractionalized like Bosnia, and I will always regret that decision and that vote which resulted in the deaths of 241 marines who saluted smartly when ordered to what clearly, in retrospect, was an ill-defined mission. I also voted to send American troops to the gulf to fight aggression. When America's interests are clear, as I believe they were in the gulf, even great sacrifice can be justified, but when America's interests and goals are vague and murky and unobtainable, the loss of one life is too much. In the administration's proposed police action in the Balkans, there are a number of operational questions, some of which I will briefly raise, but I want to begin by stepping back and asking some fundamental questions of philosophy and strategy. Why Bosnia? Why this region? Why this moment? It is said we have a moral responsibility to end the bloodshed. But I think that goal is too broad to be useful. Bosnia, unfortunately, is not unique when it comes to undeserved suffering. Bloody civil wars rage today in Rwanda, Sudan, Liberia, and other places of the world. There were far more civilians killed in a year in Kabul than there were in Sarajevo. So, how do we choose where American troops are used to end the world's civil wars? Is that a decision made by TV news, determining which country has the most telegenic suffering? Clearly, this alone cannot be a sufficient basis for intervention. It is said the Bosnia conflict is a direct threat to the security of Europe, an area where American interests are implicated. It has been repeatedly stated by the administration that intervention is necessary to prevent the spread of the Bosnia conflict to other nations, including Hungary, Albania, even Greece, and that failure to intervene now will inevitably lead to a broader conflict and a greater involvement at greater sacrifice of American troops. But I believe this to be a serious exaggeration. Europe today is not the Europe of 1914, deeply factionalized and arming for a broader war. In fact, the Balkan war has not been expanding, but contracted. It is a serious crisis, but it is not an expanding crisis. No European leaders are seriously convinced that the dominoes of France, Germany, Italy, Greece, and the rest are about to fall, pushed by Balkan violence. It is said that our vital national interests are challenged by a Balkan civil war, but this is simply not credible. What resources are threatened? What trade route is interrupted? What strategic military threat to the United States has developed? What American citizens are being placed in danger? The term ``national interests'' cannot be stretched indefinitely. It must mean something or it means nothing. So, it seems that we are left with one reason, one explanation why 20,000 American troops are headed for the Balkan winter: Because the President gave his word, and we cannot go back on it. Is this what the administration means by credibility? National interest is not found in the Balkans themselves but found in closing a credibility gap that the administration itself has opened. Henry Kissinger summarizes this point as follows: ``The paradox of the decision before Congress is that while we have no inherent national interest to justify the sending of troops, a vital national interest has been created by the administration's policies: If other nations,'' Kissinger says, ``cease to believe our assurances, our capacity to shape events to protect American security and values will be jeopardized.'' I do not want to minimize this concern. Many scholars and experts that I deeply respect believe that this reason alone is sufficient to justify American intervention. But, if that is the case, I have two questions that have yet to be answered in this regard. First, how do we come to this place? Why should the world's only superpower, fresh off the success of Desert Storm, need to prove its credibility in a Balkan civil war? Have we so squandered American leadership and credibility that now it needs to be bought back with the presence of American troops and the risk of American blood? This brings me to my second question: Will this intervention actually rebuild American credibility? It is possible, but only under one circumstance: The mission must be an obvious success. Credibility is not determined by the promises we keep but by the outcome we achieve. An outcome similar to Somalia or Lebanon would be difficult to calculate. the important questions are: Is this Bosnian mission likely to add to American credibility? And what is the prospect of success? These are questions I asked in the hearing process. In several key areas, and I have yet to find adequate answers. How can the United States remain neutral and build up the Bosnian Army? Is not this logically contradictory, and inherently dangerous? Though it is not entirely clear what form these arms and training will take, does anyone believe that the Serbs will stand by while their military advantage is reduced as the Bosnians arm and train with the best quality arms to the best extent possible? The Dole resolution portion of that--and I commend Senator Dole, Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, and others for a well-intentioned and serious effort at outlining the conditions of American involvement--and much of this resolution contains language I can enthusiastically support, but a portion of it is deeply disturbing to me, particularly section (2)(b)3 which says the United States will ``lead an immediate international effort to provide equipment, arms, training and related logistics assistance of the highest possible quality to ensure that the federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina provide for its own defense, including, as necessary, existing military drawdown authority.'' And on it goes. America, in effect, will be acting as a shield while one faction in a civil war aggressively arms. Taking sides in previous peacekeeping efforts have brought tragedy--not success. Clearly, the implementation agreement to an implementation of this section (2)(b)3 of the Dole- McCain resolution could lead to both a mission impossible to achieve and potentially disastrous consequences. A second question is, How certain are we that a Bosnian Moslem-Croat federation is politically sustainable? The Dayton agreement presupposes the survival of this fragile alliance--an alliance that is not even 2 years old. It was not even in existence when the Bosnian conflict began. It was the Bosnian Moslems and the Croats that were the warring factions--the Croats on the same side as the Serbs, each trying to carve up Bosnia for its own benefit. What we have today is a marriage of convenience between some very reluctant partners. Are we going to stake American credibility on the assumption that eventually these uncomfortable allies will continue to enjoy each other's company? Henry Kissinger has cautioned that, ``It is naive to expect the Croat-Moslem marriage of convenience to last indefinitely.'' He argues that the relationship is more of a time bomb than a permanent political identity. A third question: What exactly is our mission, and how will we define success? The President believes our mission is to supervise the separation of the forces and to give the parties confidence that each side will live up to their agreements. He wants the U.S. military to serve in this capacity for 1 year in order to ``break the cycle of violence.'' The most clear portion of the proposed mission is keeping the warring factions separated. That will not be easy. But at least its effectiveness can be measured, and I think it can be accomplished. I argue, however, that it is a mission that should not be necessary if, in fact, there is a real peace agreement reached. But the second component of the President's mission statement, that of ``giving the parties the confidence that each side will live up to their agreements,'' is dangerously unclear. These confidence-building measures include establishing the foundation for economic, social, and political reconstruction in the region. But, as I just previously stated, it is the explicitly stated but not agreed to by the parties to this agreement, it is that explicitly stated mission of arming and training one side in what I believe to be a civil war that is most disturbing to me. I have struggled to understand this. I have struggled to find answers to these questions. I have struggled to find agreement with this so that I could support the Dole-McCain resolution. But I cannot resolve in my mind what I believe to be an inherent contradiction between a stated, written, agreed-to-by-all-parties portion of this Dayton peace agreement that calls for disarming of the parties, an achievement of a military balance, and the contradictory goal of immediately leading an effort to ensure arms and training to one faction of the three warring parties. This militarization--not demilitarization--inevitably will lead to an arms race and, I believe, will inevitably lead to a failure of mission. And that failure of mission then squanders the last opportunity to establish or regain American credibility. I ask the question I asked before. Have we since the gulf war so squandered American leadership and credibility that now we must regain it by engaging in a civil war in the Balkans at great risk of loss of American lives and at great risk of squandering future American credibility? All these problems conspire to create a very difficult situation. We have staked our credibility on one outcome in the Balkans--peace. But that is the outcome that is the least likely of the many possibilities. On the one side, we have the evidence of 600 years of bitter conflict and, more recently, 34 broken cease-fires. On the other, we have the desperate hope that all the participants will show good will and good sense. I trust and pray that they will. That would be contradictory to 600 years of history. The problem here is simple. Our credibility is at sake, but we do not control the outcome. Our success or failure will be determined by the parties and factions that have demonstrated that they cannot control themselves. If, at the end of 12 months, there is chaos in the Balkans, the pressure on American credibility will be even greater than it is today. We will have invested American lives, American resources, and American leadership. So then how can we walk away at that moment with our leadership enhanced? Will there not be inevitable pressure to expand our efforts, to extend them? Jeanne Kirkpatrick has commented that ``failure to provide ground troops might do superficial damage to America's credibility, but committing troops and failing to achieve our goal would do major damage to America's credibility--really major damage. It is not possible to contemplate the damage to America's credibility that would result,'' she said. Mr. President, I am convinced that this Bosnian crisis is a symptom of a deeper foreign policy crisis, the evidence of a basic misunderstanding of what it means to be a superpower. The will to intervene, to spend lives and money, is a limited resource of any nation. It must be carefully preserved for essential missions that concern our vital interests and maintains stability in the world. Endless and pointless interventions squander that limited resource of national will. It is precisely because we cannot be isolationists that we must be deliberate and realistic in our actions. It is because intervention must remain an option of American policy that our interventions must be wise. In Bosnia, discretion is wisdom. This does not mean America should be and can be indifferent about situations like the Balkans, but it does mean we should consider other options--alternatives to ground forces--in conflicts where our interests are not directly engaged. One of those options available to a superpower is to lead our allies instead of following them. Unfortunately, that course has not been taken. Gen. John Shalikashvili has conceded that ``from a purely military standpoint'' the West Europeans could undertake the Bosnian mission on their own. They have chosen not to do so. Rather, they have insisted that America make a symbolic commitment--not so symbolic when you consider it is 20,000 troops--to the extension of an unwise NATO policy of peace enforcement among ancient enemies. It is not the kind of mission for which American troops are trained or suited. It is a mission much closer to the British in Belfast than the Americans in the gulf war, and it is clearly not a mission to be achieved in 12 months. I am deeply troubled that American lives should be sacrificed to prove loyalty to an organization--NATO--that America should be leading, not following it into mistakes that can be reliably predicted by our experience in Lebanon and Somalia. Once these troops are placed in the field--and they are being placed now--I will do everything in my power to assure that they succeed. But I cannot accept the responsibility of voting to place them there in the first place simply for the purpose of preserving U.S. credibility. It will do nothing in the long run for American credibility to follow our allies into this misguided deployment. I will reluctantly be opposing the Dole resolution for reasons that I have stated and supporting the Hutchison-Inhofe resolution that we will be voting on shortly today. Again, I thank Senator Hutchison, Senator Inhofe, and others for their efforts in attempting to address what I think is an extraordinarily difficult situation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today we consider a constitutional amendment which allows States to enact laws to protect the American flag. I am cosponsor of this amendment and I strongly believe that it is necessary to render this protection to the most important symbol of our Nation. The debate about the flag began in 1989 when the Supreme Court curiously determined that it was perfectly legal to burn the American flag as a form of political speech. This ruling led to shock and outrage from all across the United States. Congress immediately took action, passing a statute setting penalties for anyone who physically desecrates the flag. The Supreme Court ruled again that the Federal statute was unconstitutional, violating the first amendment. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to pass a constitutional amendment to protect the flag. Today, however, we are very near this goal, with 56 cosponsors to the amendment. The amendment reads simply ``The Congress and the States shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' I feel an overwhelming mixture of regret and thanks--which is the substance of patriotism--when I consider the sacrifice of so many for the sake of America. This pride is rooted in one solid and extraordinary fact--the selflessness of thousands of men and women who have given their lives to preserve American freedom. I believe for the vast majority of Americans the flag intrinsically represents this pride. Americans do not blindly follow traditions. But we do care deeply about symbols--particularly that one symbol of ideas and values for which men and women have sacrificed and died in every generation. To desecrate the flag, I believe, is to desecrate the memory and make light of their sacrifice. Justice Stevens writing in dissent to the 1989 Supreme Court decision said: So it is with the American flag. It is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations. The symbol carries its message to dissenters both at home and abroad who may have no interest at all in our national unity or survival. There is a type of patriotism that is held so deeply that if finds expression in concrete things like a patriot's crippled body--or in bits of colored cloth. For men who have risked death in service of a flag it is more than just a symbol, it is sacrifice you can hold in your hand--or trample underfoot in contempt. Men and women who we ask to die for a flag have a right to expect that flag to be respected by those who benefit from their sacrifice. It is part of the compact we make with those who will serve. At the time of the Supreme Court decision, it was the law in 48 States. Since that time, 49 State legislatures have called for a constitutional amendment to prohibit physical desecration of the flag. No other amendment in our history has had the same degree of support in State legislatures. Tolerance is an important thing in a free and diverse society. Agreement must never be a prerequisite for civility. But tolerance can never be rooted in the view that nothing is worth outrage because nothing is worth our sacrifice. In Chief Justice Rehnquist's stinging dissent to the court decision, labeled flag burning as ``conduct that is regarded as evil and offensive to the majority of people--in a category with--murder, embezzlement or pollution.'' The Court's ruling, he noted, ``found that the American flag is just another symbol, about which not only must opinions pro and con be tolerated, but for which the most minimal public respect may not be enjoined. The Government may conscript men into the Armed Forces where they must fight and die for the flag, but the Government may not prohibit the public burning of the banner under which they fight.'' Yes, we must be tolerant but we must never adopt and enervating and cowardly disdain that strips us of patriotic conviction and dulls our ability to be offended by the desecration of vital symbols. ``In the world it is called tolerance,'' wrote author Dorothy Sayers, ``but in hell it is called despair * * * the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, enjoys nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.''

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, on December 1, Romania celebrated the 75th anniversary of its founding as a modern country. While its roots as a nation actually go back as far as the Roman Empire, its modern history began on December 1, 1918, when Romania, as we know it today, was created. Seventy-seven years ago, there were roughly 50 nation states in the world. Half of these were considered democracies. Today more than 180 nations in the world are democracies, with this number on the rise. Romania, I am pleased to note, is not only a member of the international community but of the community of democracies. Since its revolution in 1989, Romania has made strides in democratic reform and the development of a free-market economy. Difficult decisions have been to bring down inflation, bring in foreign investment, and privatize government. GDP which had dropped initially has been growing over the last 3 years. Inflation has been reduced from 300 to 60 percent in 1994 and is expected to be less than 30 percent this year. Unemployment is down to 10 percent. Foreign investment has been greater in the last 6 months than in the previous 4 years. There are more steps which must be taken to strengthen democratic institutions, further economic growth, and develop rule of law. I encourage Romania to keep its commitment to these goals. Romania has actively pursued improving relations with the West. It was the first of the former Eastern bloc countries to sign the Partnership for Peace Program. In 1994 it became a member of the Council of Europe. Romania has even sent troops and medical staff to participate in peacekeeping efforts in Angola. On September 26 President Iliescu made his first official visit to Washington, DC, meeting with the President, Cabinet members, and Congressmen. I hope my colleagues will join with me in congratulating Romania on its national day and extending to the people of Romania best wishes as they celebrate the founding of their nation.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, Americans have honest disagreements over the subject of abortion. Strong convictions often lead to strident rhetoric, at times straining the bounds of civil discourse. Labels and name calling too easily substitute for persuasion as a means of winning the hearts and minds of fellow citizens. Extremism and fanaticism are served up as daily fare, often being dismissively attached to those with strong pro-life views. And yet there are times when strong words are necessary, when truth, raw and exposed, merits an apt label. There is only one issue at stake here: It is an affront to humanity and justice to kill a kicking infant with scissors as it emerges from its mother. This legislation is not the expression of extremism. Only the procedure itself is extreme--extreme in its violence, extreme in its disregard for human life and dignity. We have listened to the words of an eyewitness to this procedure. So we know what the procedure is. A pro-choice nurse who assisted an abortionist in this procedure described the procedure. I do not like to describe the procedure on this floor. I do not like to read the procedure. But I know one thing. I cannot condone or support this procedure. And, if we are going to vote with a clear understanding of what it is we are dealing with, we need to understand the procedure. I quote from this pro-choice nurse who assisted an abortionist in this procedure. What I saw is branded on my mind forever . . . Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . . The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startled reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The Doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. I was really completely unprepared for what I was seeing. I almost threw up as I watched Dr. Haskell doing these things. Next, Dr. Haskell delivered the baby's head. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby into a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse, and she said it was just ``reflexes.'' I had been a nurse for a long time, and I have seen a lot of death--people maimed in accidents, gunshot wounds, you name it. I have seen surgical procedures of every sort. But in all my professional years, I had never witnessed anything like this. The woman wanted to see her baby, so they cleaned up the baby and put it in a blanked and handed it to her. She cried the whole time. She kept saying, ``I am so sorry, please forgive me.'' I was crying, too. I couldn't take it. That baby boy had the most perfect angelic face I think I have ever seen in my life. The only possible way to defend this procedure is with evasion and misrepresentation. It is said that this procedure is rare. But we are safely talking about hundreds of these abortions annually. And as a matter of unalienable human rights, it should not only be rare, it should be nonexistent. I suggest, if we are talking about 1 abortion with this procedure rather than 600, the issue is exactly the same. It is said that the child feels nothing. But we know that a mother's anesthesia does not eliminate her child's pain. And we know that a child killed in this procedure feels exactly what a preemie would feel if its doctors decided to kill it in its nursery. It is said that this procedure is done to save the life of the mother. But we know that this procedure is not without substantial risk for the mother. And, in fact, its primary purpose is the convenience of the abortionist. It is said that partial birth abortions are part of the mainstream of medicine. But we know that the AMA Council on Legislation stated that this practice is not a ``recognized medical technique'' and that the ``procedure is basically repulsive.'' I am quoting. The AMA Council on Legislation said that this procedure is ``basically repulsive.'' I think anyone who understands the procedure and knows the description of the procedure can come to no other conclusion. It is said that only prolife fanatics support this legislation. But how could this possibly apply to Members of the House like Patrick Kennedy, Susan Molinari, and John Dingell? One pro-choice Member of the House commented, ``It undermines the credibility of the pro-choice movement to be defending such an indefensible procedure.'' When we strip away all these arguments, we are left an uncomfortable truth: This procedure is not the practice of medicine, it is an act of violence. It is hard to clearly confront reality in this matter, because clarity causes such anguish. But that reality is simple and terrible: The death of a child with the most perfect angelic face I think I have ever seen in my life. That face should haunt us and shame us as a society. It should cause us to grieve--but more than that, it should cause us to turn back from this path to barbarism. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article written by George Will called, ``Fanatics For `Choice.' Partial-birth abortions, sonogram photos and `the idea that the fetus means nothing.' ''

Mr. COATS. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, 60 years ago, during the holiday season that we are now celebrating, a young man by the name of Richard Halverson, fresh from the humble upbringing in North Dakota, found himself discouraged and lonely in Hollywood, CA--discouraged by his struggles to become an actor, and lonely as he was away from home during Christmas for the first time in his 19 years of life. It was then that Dick Halverson heard a call from the Lord--first, to believe and follow God, and then to preach the Lord's gospel and minister to all who had the great fortune of knowing him. In 1988, I was privileged to be appointed to the U.S. Senate, filling the vacancy created by the election of then Senator Dan Quayle to the Vice Presidency. Several thoughts occurred to me and my family at that moment, but one of the greatest was that I would have the privilege of serving in the same institution where Rev. Dick Halverson served as Chaplain. My admiration for Dr. Halverson extended then and now beyond the fact that we graduated from the same institution, Wheaton College. My respect for Dick Halverson is based on the way he lived his life every day in humble service to his God. The American public primarily saw Chaplain Halverson in the role of opening each Senate session with prayer. As he prepared those invocations each day, Pastor Halverson prayed that God would give him the wisdom to speak the Lord's truth in what is known as the world's greatest deliberative body. Without touching on specific bills or legislation, Dr. Halverson prayed that God would lead Members of the Senate in reasoned, respectful debate. For example, Chaplain Halverson prayed here on the Senate floor, ``God of our fathers, if we separate morality from politics, we imperil our Nation and threaten self-destruction. Imperial Rome was not defeated by an enemy from without; it was destroyed by moral decay from within. Mighty God, over and over again you warned your people, Israel, that righteousness is essential to national health.'' Words of wisdom from a man of great wisdom. Those of us privileged to know Dr. Halverson also experienced the dedicated and loving service he provided away from the lights of the Senate floor. Washington, DC, is one of the toughest, most intense places anybody can live, especially for those of us who work on Capitol Hill. From overloaded Senate schedules to endless traffic jams, Washington can grind even the strongest individuals--which I think is one of the reasons God gave us Dick Halverson. Pastor Halverson used to say, ``I never try to be in a hurry.'' While all of us would scurry around from scheduled event to scheduled event, Chaplain Halverson lived that phrase, ``I never try to be in a hurry.'' And he slowed us down. A smile, a hand on the arm, a twinkle in his eye, and the words ``God bless you'' were delivered literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of times to Members of this body. While our lives can be filled with stress and strife, it was Chaplain Halverson who always had the time to walk back with us to our office, chat with us on the telephone, and when necessary counsel us through our deepest struggles. The real greatness of Dick Halverson, however, was exhibited in the ways that he provided this selfless service, not just to those of us privileged to serve as elected officials here in the U.S. Senate, but to all who crossed his doorstep or came upon his path. Just ask the Senate staffers, just ask the security guards, just ask the custodians, just ask the cooks in the kitchens, all of whom Dick Halverson knew on a first-name basis. For Pastor Halverson, we are created equal in the sight of God. Each person is equally important and equally significant. Each personal need conveyed to him by others was serious and substantial regardless of who it was who conveyed that need. Our loss is great and our prayers are with his surviving family. But for Richard Halverson this is a new day. He has left his post in his Nation's Government to sit in the throne room of the King. He has fought the good fight. He has finished the race and he kept the faith. Chaplain Halverson once described himself as ``a servant to the public servants.'' Because he served his role so well, we know today with confidence that Dick Halverson is hearing those loving words from the Lord Almighty, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.'' I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Chair and my colleague from Texas. I was deeply concerned that the rhetoric of the President far exceeded the reality of the facts that we are dealing with. The President characterized, on about as many occasions as possible in a 5- minute speech, the Republican effort as an extreme effort. Now, somewhere in the process here the President's pollsters, focus groups, so forth, have discovered that the American public has an emotional, visceral reaction to the word ``extremism.'' So it seems everything Republicans are attempting to do all year, whether it is a defense bill or whether it is welfare reform or whether it is balancing the budget, is labeled as extremist. He used to say it was right-wing religious extremists. Then, they found out people of faith resented that and that did not go down too well, so now we are down just to the word ``extremist.'' The President and Vice President just incessantly use the word ``extremist.'' You heard that from the minority leader's speech last evening. I think there must be a reward for those who can use the word more times within each minute of statement because it seems like it is almost every other word. Now, I ask the American people and I ask my colleagues to examine the rhetoric, and in the light of the reality of the budget, because what Republicans are saying is that with this moral imperative and this staggering debt, we believe it is important to enact the principle of a balanced budget not this year, not next year, not 1999, not by the turn of the century, the new millennium, but by the year 2002. Over a 7-year period of time, we believe we should make an orderly transition from where we now are to a position where we will not spend more than we take in. And if we do it over a 7-year period of time, it will allow spending to increase at a rate of 22 percent. It will increase over that period of time in expenditures such as Medicare at a rate of 65 percent; that the Medicare increases will go up at a rate of 7.4 percent annually. One would think, listening to the President and listening to some of our colleagues who oppose that--because they use terms such as ``cutting off at the knees,'' ``throwing children out on the street,'' ``denying aid to widows,'' ``turning our backs on the disabled,'' ``gutting the American social compact''--you would think that what Republicans are offering are drastic, drastic cuts in the amount of social welfare and the amount of expenditures on a whole number of programs. Medicaid increases will go up 43 percent; welfare spending will increase by $100 billion over this time period. Republicans find themselves in an unusual position, because a lot of people back home say, ``Wait a minute, we thought you were going to do more than that. We thought you were going to cut back.'' Well, we are slowing the rate of growth, but in no sense can those be characterized as cuts from current expenditures. The spending will continue, but it will continue at a slower rate and over a 7-year period of time. As our economy grows and as expenditures decrease from the standpoint of a lower rate than before, those two lines will cross, and, as certified by the agency that the President asked us to use to certify those numbers, we will reach a balanced budget in 2002. As I said, we do this not just because it makes good economic sense, but we do this because we believe we have a moral imperative to do so. This is a historic piece of legislation. It allows us in the Congress to leave some legacy to the future, other than monumental debt--a legacy of moral courage and a legacy of responsibility. We have waited a long time to get to this point. It has been an unusual convergence of events that have led us to this moment. I do not know that we will have another opportunity to do this, and so a vote to keep our word and keep our faith with the next generation is a vote that I hope the President will exercise, as we exercised last evening. The President, with one stroke of the pen, can address what I believe is the economic imperative but, more importantly, can address the moral imperative. The President can address the issue of whether or not we will keep faith with the next generation. He will address the question of whether or not this generation, this selfish generation, this me- first generation, will finally say, ``We have run the course. It has been a disaster for the future of America.'' The economic consequences are untold, and it is time that we drew a line and had the courage to do what I think every one of us instinctively knows is right. Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to divert from that just for a moment because, were it not for the overshadowing presence of the budget debate, which is appropriate, I suspect we may be on this floor debating an issue that is of great significance and great importance. As we speak, the United States is leading an effort in Dayton, OH, to attempt to reach some kind of peace agreement between the warring factions in Bosnia. That has been an elusive goal, one which different parties and different factions have been attempting over nearly a 600- year period of time; in this latest conflict, 4 years of serious engagement with disastrous and tragic consequences for hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions of people, in that part of the world. But, if we have learned anything, I think, from our recent history in terms of the United States involvement in conflicts abroad, it is that any kind of involvement, and particularly a long-term involvement, anything exceeding just a matter of days, ultimately cannot succeed without the support of the American people. That support is expressed through their elected representatives. The President has said and Congress has said that it is appropriate for Congress to examine the conditions upon which any U.S. troops will be subject to deployment to a foreign land, particularly one in which potential conflict and potential threat to their health and safety and life exist. At this point, hopefully, we are nearing a real peace agreement in Dayton. I have some very deep concerns about the nature of that agreement and whether it can even be accurately described as a peace agreement. But, unfortunately, the President of the United States for whatever reason some time ago, and on numerous occasions, has made commitments to deploy troops as soon as this agreement is reached. There have been some recent indications that the President is willing to let Congress take a look at, examine, and analyze the peace agreement but no commitment that, even if we disagree, the troops will not be sent. In fact, there is pretty good indication that an advance party of up to 2,000 American troops will be sent there to sort of hold the line while the so-called 2-week ``period of examination'' passes. The President hopes for congressional support and authorization. He has not yet received it, nor will he unless he is able to go before the American people and go before this Congress and make a compelling case for use of United States troops on the ground in Bosnia. That case, I suggest, has not been made, and has not even been attempted to be presented to the American people a cogent, logical, understandable reason why 20,000 uniformed troops of the United States Armed Forces need to be inserted into the conflict in Bosnia. The President may intend to do that. I do not know. He has waited a dangerously long time. The argument that the administration has made, feeble as it is, is that it is necessary for two reasons: One, to contain the spread of the conflict to other areas which involve other NATO allies which eventually will pull in all of Europe. There is little reason to suspect that will happen. It has not in a 4-year period of time. What we have essentially looked at is a civil war within a confined border of three factions fighting for land which they have fought for for nearly 600 years--avenging tragedies, avenging killings, avenging land seizures and private property seizures which have taken place over a significant period of time. Even if spreading beyond the current borders were a real possibility, there are strategies, containment strategies, that NATO could employ which are far different and involve far less risk than inserting 20,000 American troops and 40,000 NATO troops for a total of 60,000 onto the ground in the middle of the conflict that currently exists in Bosnia. The second reason the administration postulates is that our involvement with troops on the ground is necessary to maintain the integrity of NATO. I think that even that is a questionable proposition. In a recent article in Time magazine by Charles Krauthammer he talks about that very point, saying, ``Of course, the single most powerful argument in favor of deployment invokes NATO: to renege on this promise of American relief for our NATO allies already trapped in Bosnia in a fruitless `peacekeeping' mission.'' He asserts that it ``would be the worst blow Clinton has yet dealt''--I am quoting--``to NATO cohesion.'' ``Whatever the strategic policy of having our troops in Bosnia, the argument goes, our NATO allies want us to take the lead on the ground, and we promised that we would do that.'' But, as Krauthammer goes on to explain, our recent history indicates that one of two things are going to probably happen. Either we will suffer a loss of life--either we will suffer a situation which is far different than what could be described as peace, and, therefore, without having gotten the commitment of the Congress, or the commitment of the American people, we will call for a withdrawal of those troops which would be a serious blow to the integrity of NATO--or it may result in a long-term deployment and commitment of those troops which we have not again made the case for, nor do I think we can begin to expect American support for, a long-term commitment to that. Either one of those occurrences, one of which is likely to happen, could do great damage to the NATO alliance and, as Krauthammer argues, and I agree, actually do more damage than not providing troops on the ground. The President has not defined our vital interests in that involvement. He has not defined what our objective and mission would be. He has not defined how we would exit from the situation other than to say we will be out of there within a year. I think what he means by that is that we will be out of there before the next election. It is politically not feasible, and untenable to think the troops would still be there and become an election issue. That in [[Page S 17441]] and of itself is a recipe for disaster given the nature of the warfare. And anybody who understands the enmity that exists between the parties, and the conflict over who owns what land, knows that the American troops being out longer than a year is likely to just promote and produce a situation in which the parties wait out the situation, and then would return to the status quo, which is obviously not something that any of us looks forward to. There are a couple of other concerns that I have. One is the question of neutrality. It is one thing to send troops into a situation when those troops are viewed--and that nation sending the troops is viewed-- as a truly neutral partner in the process. In this case, we have decidedly sided with one faction in this conflict--the Bosnian Moslems. While we have not seen the final details of the peace agreement, the United States has indicated that one of our objectives in this deployment will be to arm the Moslems, will be to bring them to ``a level of parity'' with the other factions. That may be comforting news to the Bosnian Moslems. I doubt that is very comforting to the other parties in the conflict, and certainly not the Serbs. So what our goal should be is a disarming of all parties involved, to reduce the level of tension and reduce the level of potential conflict rather than build up the capacity of one of the parties but, in doing so, even if that were an agreed upon military strategy, I think that is a terrible political strategy because we will not be viewed as a neutral party. The United States, which is already by the very nature of its--I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. COATS. The United States which is already viewed by a number of countries as not necessarily a neutral entity, and which has become a target, unfortunately, over the years for terrorists and extremists and others that want to disrupt either the peace talks or simply make a point, I think would clearly be identified as a party which was not neutral in this conflict and clearly would be a potential target for terrorism. I had the experience nearly a decade ago of traveling to Beirut visiting the marines that were encamped between warring factions, and witnessed the aftereffects of the tragic bombing of the marine barracks that cost the loss of several hundred lives. Those that perpetrated this incident wanted to make a point, and by making that point they felt that they could influence the course of that conflict. And they did. I think the very same something--maybe not the very same but something similar--happened in Somalia. So we at great risk put our troops between the warring factions. My final point is that I think we need to be very, very careful about what a peace agreement says and means that might come out of Dayton. Dayton could very well produce a ``peace''--I put that word in quotation marks. Again, I am referring to the Krauthammer piece--a ``peace'' that is unstable and divisive, and largely unenforceable. It may be a peace imposed rather than a peace sought and agreed to by the warring factions; imposed by outside forces. If that is the case, we are likely to have a situation where, as Krauthammer says, this lowest common denominator peace plan commands three grudging, resentful signatures from unreconciled parties. That is a disaster for American troops on the ground. And particularly, if the President has not sought the support of the American people, the support of their elected representatives, and defined for the American people just why it is necessary to utilize American troops on the ground. We need to make sure. I ask for one additional minute, and I promise to quit even if I am not finished.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I appreciate the last discussion. Clearly the issue of sugar subsidy and maintaining the price that is substantially above the market price has been detrimental to consumers in this country. It is true it has no direct effect or impact on the Federal budget. That is simply because we have shifted the entire impact to the consumers of this country. But that is not why I am here to speak. I think that subject has been adequately debated between the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Nebraska.