Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the topic of the day, the topic of the week, the topic of the month, is clearly the budget, the fiscal crisis this country has been in for a lot longer period than we care to remember. There has been discussion on this this morning. Obviously, the decision now is in the President's hands. Republicans have clearly defined what they attempt to do. It is anything but an extreme measure. The President, if he will simply follow his own admonitions to us, will find it very difficult to disagree and veto the Republican plan that is being sent to him. The President called for a 7-year budget with real numbers. We gave him a 7-year budget with real numbers. We are asking him for a commitment to that; frankly, a commitment to simply negotiate how that is achieved in return for a resolution which would provide funding for the Government so Government workers can come back to work on Monday.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the current budget impasse in which we find ourselves. There clearly are a number of compelling reasons to support a balanced budget: lower interest rates, higher economic growth. These have all been discussed in detail on this floor over the last several days. But I do not believe that economic facts fully explain the urgency of the issue and why the lines have been drawn so sharply between these two competing philosophies. There is a moral aspect to this debate, a moral imperative that I think is important we understand because those of us who are holding firm for a commitment to a balanced budget in a fixed amount of time with honest numbers are doing so because we are convinced that not only are the deficits imposed year after year after year on the American public unwise but they are unprincipled. They are not just a drag on the economy, not just an impact on interest rates, but a burden on our national conscience. It was Thomas Jefferson who said nearly 200 years ago--in arguing the question of whether one generation has the right to impose on another generation a debt burden which is the obligation of those that are currently enacting that burden, currently supporting that spending--Jefferson said, ``The question of whether one generation has the right to bend another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and be morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' So what we have been debating are not just the numbers to compromise between the White House and this Congress, what we have been debating is a fundamental principle of Government, and I think a fundamental principle of society. I doubt that there is anyone on this floor or a Member of the Senate that has not at some time in their life sat down with their children and explained the principle of deficit spending, and whether it deals with a $1 or $2 allowance or whether it deals with setting aside money necessary to pay expenses while they are away at college, the principle is the same, and, I think, what we all try to pass on to the next generation, that is, that we cannot keep spending more than we make. If you spend more money than you earn, you are going to have only one of two recourses: You are going to quickly run yourself unto insolvency, or you are going to roll up a debt that will become such a burden in terms of payment of interest to maintain that debt that other items of expenditures, necessary expenditures, are going to be squeezed. Many young people have learned the hard way through receipt, as soon as they are independent from their family, of a Visa, Master Card, or other credit card, how easy and how attempting it is to run to the mall and roll up and use that card to purchase items for the moment. And then the bills start rolling in, and they notice that they are paying a 17, 18 percent interest rate on the mounting debt. What has happened on a national basis is that debt has been mounting at a staggering rate. It took more than 200 years to reach the first $1 trillion of debt. Now, in just the space of 15 years, we have quintupled that $1 trillion debt to the point where this Nation now stands at $4.9 trillion of national debt. It is a staggering burden. It is a burden that is imposed, I would suggest, on the next generation. And therefore, that moral tradition that we have held at the highest level in this country of sacrificing for the benefit of future generations so that our children might enjoy at least an equal but hopefully a better standard of living, better quality of life than we have been privileged to enjoy, which was transferred to us by the previous generation, this generation has become the first generation to violate that trust. Every child born in America today inherits $19,000 in public debt, and it is going up at a staggering rate. That is a destructive legacy of a government without courage. True, it has caused a budgetary crisis, but it has done more than that. It has betrayed a moral responsibility. Now, this moral imperative clashes with a political imperative. The political imperative says deficit spending makes sense because it allows elected officials and allows Government to please people in the present by placing burdens on the future. Interestingly enough, the future has no vote in the next election. And so the temptation has always been to fund for the moment, to spend for the moment, because it impacts positively on those who will go to the polls at the next election to perpetuate our existence in this elected body. That is the prime reason why I strongly believe in term limits, because term limits are the only device that I know of, as imperfect as they are, that changes the dynamic of the way we make decisions. It is human nature to obviously want to keep your job. It is human nature to want to be reelected, to be favored by the people. And the political imperative, particularly over the last 30 or 40 years, has been to accomplish that purpose essentially by spending money but not having the courage to go forth and ask taxpayers to pay for that expenditure, but simply to float the debt and pass that payment on to a future generation, which, by the way, does not go to the polls at the next election. So we see these two imperatives, the political imperative and the moral imperative, clashing against and struggling against each other. I believe the moment has come that that titanic struggle is at issue and needs to be decided, where the choice is clear before us. On one side, unfortunately, we are dealing with a President supported by many, not all, members of his party who seem to be pursuing the political imperative; and on the other, I believe we are seeing a commitment to the moral imperative. The problem that we face is that we have defined a commitment to the principle of not imposing additional burdens on future generations through an act called the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, accomplished in a defined time period and accomplished with numbers on which we can both agree. After all, it was the President--it was the President--who called on us to agree on how these numbers would be determined and derived so that we would not be arguing over differing assumptions and differing sets of numbers. Frankly, it was the President who essentially put in play the fixed period of time with which to reach the goal of a balanced budget. He campaigned on that basis. He said, ``There's a way for me to meet the stated objectives, which is a balanced budget in 7 years, with a family tax cut * * *'' That is exactly what Republicans have offered the President: a balanced budget in 7 years with a family tax cut. It is what the President called for. We responded to that. But now the President said, ``No, those are not my priorities.'' This Republican budget has the courage to confront the political imperative because we believe that we have a moral duty to the next generation. Now, my concern, Mr. President, is that as the Senator from Nebraska has said, we have allowed rhetoric to get ahead of the facts of the situation. I am concerned that the American public is focusing on our rhetoric and not the facts. [[Page S 17429]] Coming in this morning to the Senate, I listened to the President's weekend address, and the President was obviously putting the best light on his position on the acts of the Congress.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, there are a number of compelling economic reasons to support a balanced budget: Lower interest rates: Higher economic growth. Others have drawn those implications in detail. But these economic facts do not fully explain the urgency of this issue in the minds of many Americans. There is a moral aspect to this debate, and a moral imperative we must understand. Many of us are convinced that endless deficits are not only unwise, but unprincipled. They are not just a drag on our economy, they are a burden on our national conscience. Thomas Jefferson defined this moral aspect, arguing that: The question of whether one generation has the right to bend another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of Government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and be morally bound to pay them ourselves. We are debating one of the fundamental principles of government, and one of the basic moral commitments between generations. It has always been one of the highest moral traditions for parents to sacrifice for the sake of their children. It is the depth of selfishness to call on children to sacrifice for the sake of their parents. Mr. President, if we continue on the current path, we will violate this trust between generations, and earn the contempt of the future. Every child born in America now inherits nearly $19,000 in public debt. This is the destructive legacy of a Government without courage. While decades of deficit spending has caused a budgetary crisis, it has done more than that--it has betrayed a moral responsibility because when Americans view our actions, they see past the numbers to a set of principles. They see more than a matter of right and left, they see a matter of right and wrong. Make no mistake, this Balanced Budge Act makes good economic sense. But it also makes us consistent with our highest ideals. That is the moral imperative of this economic debate--the reality beyond the bottom line. But there is, as always, a political imperative that pushes in the opposite direction. Deficit spending has always made political sense. It allows government to please people in the present by placing burdens on the future. The future, significantly, has no vote in the next election. Both the President and Congress have built their power on the ability to buy constituent support with cash funded from debt. Republicans and some Democrats in Congress prepared to part with that destructive power. The President, it seems obvious, is less willing to surrender it--even in this budget crisis, even when the views of most Americans are clear, even when so much is at stake. These two imperatives--the moral imperative and the political imperative--are struggling against each other at this moment. Never in my career has the choice been more stark or more important. On one side are false numbers and false promises. The President says he favors a balanced budget, but he is willing to shut down the Government rather than commit to hard deadlines and hard numbers. His commitment during the campaign was a balanced budget in 5 years. Now he refuses to accept 7. And, in reality, because he will not use reliable budget numbers, he rejects any balanced budget at all. With this balanced budget act, we have called the President's bluff. At one point he said he could only accept Congressional Budget Office numbers. His exact quote? ``Let's at least argue about the same set of numbers so the American people will think we're shooting straight with them.'' That is precisely the Republican point: All our talk of a balanced budget is meaningless if we are simply twisting numbers, not making cuts. This is the exceptional achievement of the Balanced Budget Act--it is based on facts, not on hope. The President has already admitted that a balanced budget is possible in 7 years. His exact quote? ``There's a way for me to meet the stated objectives, which is a balanced budget in 7 years, with a family tax . . .'' But now--faced with a bill that meets this goal--he says that 7 years is too soon. This is the same old political imperative at work--preserve the ability to buy votes by robbing the future, promise benefits to every special interest in the country, the most special of all interest, the children, with no thought for the next generation. That political imperative has won every budget debate since the late 1960's. But this Republican budget finally has the courage to confront the political imperative--the courage to say that our generation has a moral duty to the next. The Balanced Budget Act is a practical, serious, responsible expression of that moral imperative. It allows us to care for the needs of our own society, without adding to the burdens of the future. Even the Washington Post has observed, ``It's gusty and in some respects inventive--and it addresses a genuine problem that is only going to get worse.'' Mr. President, this is a historic piece of legislation--and not just for economic reasons. It allows us in the Congress to leave some legacy to the future other than monumental debt--a legacy of moral courage and responsibility. We have waited a long time to make a vote like this--a vote to keep our word and keep faith with the next generation.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I would just reply to the Senator from Iowa, there are a number of Senators who have expressed either support for or opposition to this legislation. They are not now in the Chamber because they were informed that the Senate essentially concluded its business. I cannot speak on their behalf or add unanimous consent on their behalf without contacting them. And obviously they have left the Chamber.

Mr. COATS. S. 440, the highway system designation bill.

Mr. COATS. A conference report.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m. Friday, November 17, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 440, the highway system designation bill, and that it be considered under the following [[Page S 17194]] limitations during the pendency of the conference report: Senator Biden be recognized to make a motion to recommit, with 30 minutes of debate on the motion, and with that time under the control of the Senator Biden; that when that time is used or yielded back, the motion to recommit be withdrawn; that there be 60 minutes for debate to be equally divided between Senators Chafee and Baucus or their designees, 60 minutes under the control of Senator Lautenberg or his designee, and 15 minutes of time under the control of Senator Glenn; and that upon the conclusion or yielding back of all time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report.

Mr. COATS. I have a second unanimous-consent which has also been hotlined and cleared, just setting the orders for tomorrow. I am not closing out the business of the day.

Mr. COATS. It was cleared with the minority leader. It was hotlined to all Senators and has been cleared both by the majority----

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to bring to my colleagues attention the exciting results of a 5-year study that public/private ventures released today. As a national board member of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America, it brings me great pleasure to share with you the news of public/private ventures' study of the Big Bothers/Big Sisters Program--the first ever to assess the impact of youth of any major mentoring program. At last we have scientifically reliable evidence that proves what we have known intuitively for years--mentoring programs can positively affect young people. As many of my colleagues know, Big Brothers/Big Sisters is a federated movement of over 500 affiliated agencies located in all 50 States. The Big Brothers/Big Sisters movement began in 1904 to provide one-to-one services to boys and girls in need of additional adult support and guidance. While the environment in which today's youth operate is vastly different than that of 90 years ago, basic core services of Big Brothers/Big Sisters remains the same--to provide responsible, consistent adult role models to children at risk. The need for additional adult support and guidance for our Nation's youth has never been greater, however, than at this time. Currently 38 percent of all of America's children live without their fathers. The Big Brothers/ Big Sisters Program presently supervises about 75,000 youth-adult matches, but as the public/private ventures report proves an expansion of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters Program would have a positive effect on our Nation's youth. The public/private ventures study concludes that young teenagers, who meet regularly with their Big Brother or Sister, are less involved with drugs and alcohol, do better in school and have better relationships with their parents and peers than do youth not in the program. In fact, public/private ventures found that ``Littles'' who met their ``Bigs'' regularly were: 46 percent less likely than their peers to start using illegal drugs and 27 percent less likely to start drinking; 52 percent less likely than their peers to skip a day of school and 37 percent less likely to skip a class; more trusting of their parents or guardians, less likely to lie to them, and felt more supported and less criticized by their peers and friends. Most of the 959 youth in the research sample were between the ages of 10 to 14, nearly 60 percent were members of a minority group, more than 60 percent were boys and most were poor or near poor. Many lived in families with histories of substance abuse and/or domestic violence. They are representative of our Nation's youth placed at-risk. Keeping this in mind, it is evident that the Big Brothers/Big Sisters Program suggests a strategy that the country can build upon to make a difference--especially for youth in single-parent families. And since mentoring programs work through the efforts of volunteers, only modest funds are necessary to have far-reaching impact. The Big Brothers/Big Sisters Program is an innovative and effective program with the potential of having a substantial positive impact on our Nation's youth with a small investment. That is why I was pleased to include the Character Development Act [CDA] as one of 18 bills in a legislative package which I have called the Project for American Renewal. The Character Development Act will link public schools with local mentoring organizations to give more children the chance to reap the benefits of a one-to-one relationship. The Character Development Act is based on a small, innovative, Federal program known as the Juvenile Mentoring Program [JUMP]. JUMP is a competitive grant program which allows local, nonprofit social service and education agencies to apply cooperatively and directly for grants from the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. These grants are used to establish mentoring services utilizing law enforcement officials and other responsible individuals as mentors. As we, as policymakers, begin to look at mentoring, we need to keep in mind another telling conclusion of the study. The benefits of mentoring do not occur automatically. If programs are supported by the kind of thorough screening of volunteers, careful matching and extensive supervision required by Big Brothers/Big Sisters, they can be expected to produce similar results. In programs that lack the established infrastructure of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters Program, the one-to-one relationship evaporates too soon to positively affect the youth. While the study's most dramatic findings are the degree to which participation in Big Brothers/Big Sisters prevents a young person from starting to use drugs and alcohol, the authors also noted the fact that Big Brothers/Big sisters participation produces an unusually broad range of outcomes for youth--improved school behavior and performance and better relationships with friends and family. The Big Brothers/Big Sisters Program results in improvements in attitudes, performance, and behavior--with ``littles'' one-third less likely than their peers to report hitting someone. I encourage my colleagues to join me in commending Big Brothers/Big Sisters for their continued commitment to our Nation's youth and recommend to my colleagues that they visit a local affiliate in their State so that they may see for themselves that mentoring can and does indeed work.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, on behalf of several Senators on both sides of the aisle who were informed on the last vote that would be the last vote and have therefore left the Senate Chamber, without commenting on the merits or demerits of the proposition put forward by the Senator from California, I will object on behalf of the Senators who are absent.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, there will be a rollcall vote on the National Highway System conference report on Friday. The Senate will also consider the Balanced Budget Act conference report during tomorrow's session. That conference report has a statutory limitation of 10 hours of debate. Members can therefore expect a late night session on Friday. Also, additional appropriations conference reports may become available from the House. Therefore, rollcall votes can be expected throughout Friday's session. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 10 a.m. on Friday, November 17; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 440, the national highway bill, as under the previous agreement.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. It may not. But since there was an agreement between the leaders, we have to check with them.

Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. COATS. We were informed that an agreement was made with the leaders, the majority and minority leaders, that an hour of time would be allocated, 30 minutes to each side, and that Senator Dole would then recess. May I suggest that the Senator from California take her 7 minutes. We will check to see if that can be extended, and perhaps additional time can be added on, an equal amount on each side, while she is speaking. (Mr. SANTORUM assumed the chair.)

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, what we are faced with here very shortly is essentially calling the President's bluff. We sent him a continuing resolution that would keep Government open, keep those workers working, keep the functions of Government going forward, and the President vetoed it, he said, because it was loaded with extraneous material. There were items on there that promoted the Republican budget, promoted the Republican plan to redefine some of the functions of Government, and therefore he could not accept it. But give him a clean CR, so- called clean continuing resolution, that is what he needed. That is what he wanted. We had all kinds of injunctions from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue about giving the President just a clean bill. Now, the President campaigned in 1992 vigorously on the proposal of a balanced budget in 4 years, some say 5. It might have been 5. The President has kind of been all over the lot on this. But 4 or 5 years is almost irrelevant here. The President said this country needs a balanced budget, and if I am elected, I will deliver a balanced budget. He also campaigned vigorously on tax relief for middle-income families with children, saying it is a disgrace that they are so shortchanged in our Tax Code; the costs of raising children are increasing dramatically; we need tax relief for middle America. That was 1992, and that was the campaign. Subsequently, we have not seen delivered from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue a balanced budget that is scored as a real balanced budget. It was the President himself in his first address to a Joint Session of Congress after he was elected who looked at the Republican side with a big smile on his face and said we are going to use the numbers certified by the Congressional Budget Office because they are nonpartisan and they are not politically motivated as are the numbers from the Office of Management and Budget, which is the President's own budgeting people. Now, all that the Republicans are asking for, and I assume will come over from the House of Representatives, we hope this evening, is what the President has said he wants: a continuing resolution which will bring back Federal workers to work tomorrow morning, which will continue the functions of Government. There is only one condition attached to it, and that is the condition that the President campaigned for and the President now has asked for, and that is a balanced budget. We are saying, Mr. President, we will allow Government to go forward for a period of time while we resolve the details of a balanced budget. And unlike the 4 years or 5 years that you campaigned for, we will allow 7 years in order to accomplish this fact. That is all we are asking. And we are attaching it to this continuing resolution as a condition because, frankly, that is the only way we can bring the President to the bargaining table. We have heard nothing but excuse and obfuscation from the White House and from the President, from Democrats, our friends across the aisle. ``Oh, yes, we're for a balanced budget, but not this one.'' Well, I have been here 15 years, and that is all I have heard from the party across the aisle. ``We're for a balanced budget, but not this one. We need to talk some more. We need to negotiate some more.'' That is all we have been doing this year in this body. Democrats say they have not been invited to the party. They have been at the party now for 10 months. We have debated every item that we are talking about in reconciliation. We talked about the tax cut, we talked about the changes to Medicare, to Medicaid, to welfare, to every aspect of the budget. Everybody knows what the details are. The fact of the matter is, there are people who want to maintain the status quo. They are the party of government, big government, ever-growing government. It is their ticket to political success, they think. And there are many of us who feel that our debt is of such a staggering proportion, and growing at such an extraordinary rate, that this is the moment and this is the time where, if we do not grab a hold of it now, it may be too late. So we have put a plan together to balance that budget. What we hear from the other side of the aisle is nit-picking about portions of this plan. And so we have said, ``All right, Mr. President. We will set that aside and we will simply, in return for continuing the functioning of government, we will simply ask you to agree to sit down with us and negotiate a plan to balance the budget in a 7-year period of time, certified by the very accounting agency, the Congressional Budget Office, that you asked us to use.'' So I do not know how much more we can give the President. We have essentially given him everything he has asked for. And so we are going to find out whether or not the President is really interested in balancing the budget, is really interested in keeping the promise he made to the American people in his campaign for the Presidency. We are going to put this on his desk and say, ``Mr. President, we have now given you what you asked for. If you really believe this, sign the bill, and we're in business. If you veto it, we'll all know where you stand.'' The bluff is going to be called. It will be called very quickly. And the American people will fully understand just who is willing to put it on the line for a balanced budget and who is not willing to put it on the line for a balanced budget. So we will know now in about the next 24 hours or so just who is upfront and who is straight out with the American people about the agenda that is best and good for this country. I think everyone instinctively knows we cannot continue on the path that we are on. To continue on that path is bankruptcy for this Nation. Republicans are saying, ``It's time to draw the line to make the tough choices, to balance the budget. Mr. President, why don't you join us?" I thank the Chair.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, over the weekend, both in reading various newspaper accounts and watching the television accounts of the so- called standoff between the Congress and the President over the question of the continuing resolution, funds to keep the Government moving forward, the debt limit, and the budget battle that is currently underway in this Congress, I was particularly taken by an article in Saturday's Washington Post written by Ann Devroy titled, ``For Clinton, the Battle Is To Stand Firm.'' What was interesting is that apparently the President's advisers and pollsters have determined that, as Ann Devroy says, ``President Clinton's reputation for vacillation has made his political need to display strength of character now a silent partner in the nonnegotiation drama'' that is currently taking place here in Washington. It goes on to say that the President's closest adviser is exulting that polling has shown that the President is beginning to make progress on what he stands for. The article goes on to say that various sources that Ann Devroy has talked to say--and she quotes--``We were told that what people in their focus groups cite as what they disliked most about Clinton is he is weak, vacillating, opportunist, flip-flops constantly.'' ``Pollsters of both parties have''--again, quoting from the article-- ``Pollsters of both parties have throughout the Clinton presidency identified as a significant problem for the president the perception that he has no core beliefs.'' So what we have seen here now in the past couple of weeks, particularly over this past weekend, and, undoubtedly, we will see this week, is an attempt by the President, on the advice of his counselors, on the advice of his pollsters, and on the advice of those conducting his focus groups, to shore up his character, to define something of what the President believes in and, therefore, ``Stand firm, do not negotiate with the Congress to find a break to the impasse that currently exists between the executive branch and the congressional branch.'' That is what is guiding the decisionmaking process in the White House and the President's statements. So, all the President's protestations about the Congress trying to shut down the Government, denying opportunities [[Page S 16968]] for Americans to work, holding America hostage, apparently are all part of a grand political design, grand political scheme to shore up, as the article quotes, shore up the fact that the President is perceived by most people in the focus groups as weak, vacillating, opportunist, and flip-flopping. We wonder why the American public is so cynical about the political process. We wonder why so few people today show up at the polls to vote. We wonder why the elections across the country--just this past Tuesday, in many cases, less than one-quarter of those eligible to vote even bothered to show up to vote, when they see this kind of political cynicism operating in Washington, DC. At the same time, I could not help but notice in Sunday's paper a statement that the House minority leader, Mr. Gephardt, said in a recent speech that the ``GOP budget goes to the very fringes of radicalism.'' And, of course, we have heard the Vice President and others in the President's Cabinet repeat that mantra now, that it is extremism that is driving the GOP agenda. So we have had the whole spin all weekend, the focus groups, the Cabinet members, the Vice President this morning on the news shows, and other Cabinet members on the news shows, all pushing the latest White House line. Unfortunately, what they push and the rhetoric that comes across is totally separate from the facts. This so-called radical, extremist Republican budget over the next 7 years increases spending $2.6 trillion, increases in revenues to the Government of $3.3 trillion. Spending will grow between now and the year 2002 under the Republican radical, extremist budget, spending will grow from $1.514 trillion in this current year to $1.844 trillion in 2002, a 22-percent increase. Medicare spending--which I am sure everyone has heard from the President and his spokespeople that is going to produce dramatic cuts, throw people on the street, throw the elderly out of their nursing homes, and so forth--Medicare spending will increase in that 7-year period 61 percent, from $178 billion in 1995 to $286 billion in 2002. Medicaid spending will grow at a 41- percent increase. Total welfare spending will increase 38 percent. Food stamp spending will increase 45 percent; supplemental Social Security income 69 percent; earned income tax credit spending 22 percent; foster care spending 86 percent. This is the radical, extremist Republican budget. If we look a little more specifically at Medicare, I think we can begin to understand the length to which the President and members of his party will go to radically alter the news that is being presented to the American people, to put their political spin on something that is totally opposed by the facts of the situation. Republicans are addressing the Medicare spending issue because the President's own trustees' report in April 1995 stated the following: The Medicare program is clearly unsustainable in its present form. . . . We strongly recommend that the crisis presented by the financial condition of the Medicare trust funds be urgently addressed on a comprehensive basis, including a review of the program's financing methods, benefit provisions, and delivery mechanisms. That is the Medicare trustees' report of April 1995. Incidentally, three of those trustees are members of the President's own Cabinet. Our party has stepped forward in a responsible way to address this alarming report. It has done so by recognizing that unless we slow the growth of Medicare from its current three-plus times the rate of inflation, to around two times the rate of inflation, we will not successfully even begin to address the concern raised by the trustees' report. We are not the only ones who think that something needs to be done. On October 5, 1993, the following statement was issued: Today Medicaid and Medicare are going up at three times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at two times the rate of inflation. That is not a Medicare or a Medicaid cut. So when you hear all this business about cuts, let me caution you that that is not what is going on. What Republican said that? because that is exactly what Republicans have attempted to do. So when you hear all this business about cuts, this person said, ``Let me caution you that is not what is happening. What is happening is that we are reducing the rate of growth from three times the rate of inflation to two times the rate of inflation.'' That statement was made by the President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in October 1993. You would never know that today, because what is coming out of the White House is the exact opposite of that statement. We are also talking about the level of premium at 31.5 percent. That is what it is currently today. You see this country offers an extraordinarily generous benefit program for those 65 and older called Medicare. Part A of Medicare hospitalization is 100 percent covered. And part B, which provides for doctors' fees and other nonhospital costs, is paid for to the extent of 69.5 percent by the taxpayer. We are asking the elderly for that part B coverage only to cover 31.5 percent. That is the current rate that we are asking them to pay, their part, their share of the program. And the GOP budget plan requires that that stay at that level, does not increase it but asks that it stay at that level. But what the President would like to do is revert it back to a level of 25 percent. We are saying, given this trustees' report, this is not responsible. Can we just ask those currently under Medicare to maintain their same level of support? That is the so-called cut that the White House and the President, or those who speak for him, are talking about. And it is not a cut. Ironically, in the year 2002, under the Republican plan, Medicare recipients will pay a $90-a-month premium, if current increases in Medicare costs are as projected. Under the President's plan, they will pay $82-a-month premium, an $8 difference. This is what is labeled as throwing people out of nursing homes, on the street, without medical care. These are the cuts, the so-called cuts, in Medicare. When we debated the balanced budget amendment earlier this year, we were told by member after member of the Democratic Party, on the other side of the aisle, that balancing the budget was an absolute imperative, and I want to quote some of them. I will not give their names: ``The budget is not going to be balanced in 2002 unless the responsible people, that is those of us in the Congress, in 1995 start to focus on their share of the work.'' ``Words on a piece of paper cannot balance the budget, only legislators like you and I can,'' said another Senator. A third said: ``Let's go on the record, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we are serious about deficit reduction, we are serious about balancing the budget, because I think that we all are.'' Another said: ``I believe a balanced budget is the correct policy decision for this country.'' Another said: ``Let Senators get to work and show Americans we have the courage this amendment presumes that we lack.'' Republicans had the courage. They came forward with a balanced budget plan enacted over a 7-year period of time, because a $4.9 trillion debt is irresponsible legislating. The rate of growth of our debt is staggering. It imposes a burden on the American economy and on the future and future generations that is immoral. We have come forward with a plan. Our friends and colleagues from across the aisle did not bring forward a plan, and what little attempt they made out of the White House was discounted by the very scoring agency that the President asked us to use. So now here we are with a plan, a plan to deal with one of the most serious financial crises this country has ever faced. It is not a radical plan. It is not an extremist plan. It is a responsible plan. And for the first time in decades, in response to the call of the American people in November 1994, we are beginning to rein in the out- of-control growth of Government. For the first time in decades, we will actually limit the rate of growth of Government. Finally, the Congress, under the leadership of the Republicans, has proven that they can deliver on the promises made to the American people to balance the budget. [[Page S 16969]] Several weeks ago, Mr. President, I stood on this floor discussing and debating the reconciliation bill which we were about to pass, that bill that combines a number of efforts to reach our goals for putting in place the process of responsible spending and balancing the budget, and I said: The reconciliation bill we are debating not only makes sense, it makes history. For many of us, a balanced Federal budget is a distant memory. For decades it has been an empty political promise. All that remains is one final act of courage and vision. I went on to say: That courage will be tested in the Congress by some difficult choices, and that vision will be measured in the President as he becomes either a partner or a partisan. If either he or we are unequal to the task, the patience of the public will be exhausted, and we will have squandered a unique opportunity, and we will feed a dangerous disillusionment with American politics. That moment is here. That time for courage is here. The courage has been met by the Republican budget plan. Republicans stand today and say: Mr. President, we have a plan. We have responded to the call--your call, our colleagues' call--to be responsible and balance this budget. But the vision called for and necessary on the part of the President has not been met. There is no vision beyond November 1996. The vision is to reelect the President at whatever cost. The vision is to make sure that the President's campaign succeeds, regardless of what he has said in the past, regardless of his rhetoric. Just a few short weeks ago, it appeared we were on a path to negotiating a sensible plan to balance this budget with the President's support. If you looked at what the President said and what he called for, it was very close to what the Republicans enacted. But then someone determined that the President needed to have his weak, vacillating character firmed up. And so the whole plan was thrown out the window. Now we are in an exercise of what I think is the utmost in political cynicism: Of making sure that the President's political posture is the kind of posture that will be necessary to inch him up in the polls so that he can be reelected in November of 1996. The courage of the Republicans in providing a plan which, yes, includes tough choices but, yes, responds to a desperate need, a need to get control of a government that for years and years and years has been simply out of control, that plan is before us, but that plan is before us without the vision of the executive branch and particularly of the President. So while the Democrats continue their efforts to tear this bill apart piece by piece, we have to remember that the centerpiece of what we are attempting to do is to balance this budget. In the future, this will be recalled as our contribution to history. If we ignore this budget crisis, this country and future generations will pay dearly. I think the argument for a balanced budget comes down to something simple. It is one of our highest moral traditions that parents sacrifice for the sake of their children, and it is the depth of selfishness to call on children to sacrifice for the sake of their parents. If we continue on our current path, we will violate a trust between generations, and we will earn the contempt of the future. This is our moment. This is our time. It will take courage and it will take vision. Let us trust that both the Congress and the President will have an ample amount of each in order to accomplish what I think we all know needs to be accomplished. Mr. President, I thank you, and I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I would be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield for an observation?

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for yielding. I had asked him for some time, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue. This is not a pleasant issue to debate on the Senate floor. It is not a comfortable issue to debate on the Senate floor, but we are not elected to come here just to discuss and debate pleasant issues. We are likely to face some [[Page S 16783]] of the most difficult issues that the country has to face, face them honestly and openly, and in the end cast our position either for or against. There probably is no issue that is potentially more divisive and certainly more emotional than the issue of abortion because it goes to the issue of the meaning of life itself. I am a pro-life Senator. I have argued on this floor a number of times that we, as a nation, as elected representatives of the American people, as individuals of conscience and conviction ultimately need to confront the issue of abortion, its impact on the question of life, and the meaning of life, to talk about the broader issue itself. Advances in science and medical technology clearly will require that we will confront, both now and in the future, some ethical questions and some judgmental questions that are profoundly disturbing and profoundly important. Science and medical technology reveals the unborn child as undeniably and uncomfortably human. We treat the unborn as a patient. We provide it with blood transfusions. We perform surgery. We know it is sensitive to pain. We know that it can be a victim of drug and alcohol abuse. And I think all of our best impulses are to reach out to help those that are considered the weakest in society. Our history as a nation, our history as a Senate, has been to broaden access to participation in this wonderful experiment in democracy. Our history has been one of inclusion, not exclusion, and to try the find ways to incorporate into the human family ever-larger classes, to reach out to the disadvantaged and to the weakest. I find it somewhat ironic that some of the most outspoken, courageous, forward leaders of the movement of inclusion takes such a firm stand against inclusion of the weakest in our society. And I think that is a debate that we have to pursue and continue. However the debate today is not on that issue. The debate today is on a much more specific medical procedure. It has been well-discussed on the floor, well-documented on this floor. It is difficult to discuss, difficult to view the graphic illustration of the procedure itself. Yet I think it is necessary. I will not repeat that graphic discussion. But I think it is incumbent on every Senator before they vote to fully understand the medical procedure involved, fully understand just exactly what is taking place surgically and medically in the partial- birth abortion, or whatever term any Senator wants to place on this procedure. You do not have to call it partial-birth abortion. You do not have to label it at all. But it is extraordinarily important, I believe, for everyone to at least avail themselves of an understanding of what is taking place here medically, what the procedure is, because I think an understanding of this procedure, regardless of what label you give it, has to do more than just give us pause. It forces us to ask ourselves some very basic questions concerning whether or not we, as a society, have an obligation to state in law whether or not we condone or support such a procedure. If this procedure were done in another country, we would not be standing here labeling it as a violation of human rights. If it were done in a war, we would call it a crime against humanity. But here we are trying to calmly, rationally discuss a procedure which is shocking in its description and which many have called descent into almost barbarism. Madam President, I do not believe this is just another skirmish in the running debate between left and right. I believe this is an issue that raises some of the most basic questions that ought to be asked in any democracy: Who is my neighbor? Who is my brother? Who do I define as inferior and cast beyond my sympathy and beyond my protection? Who do I embrace and who do I value in both law and in love? I do not believe this should be a matter of ideology. I think it is a matter and a question of humanity. It should not be a matter of what constituency we ought to side with. This is not just a matter of our Nation's politics, but a matter of our Nation's soul and how our Nation will be judged by God and by history. In this body, we can agree and disagree on other matters of social policy, yet I think we ought to come together and agree on this: That a born child should not be subject to violence and to death. Surely, there is no disagreement on that. The question is, should an unborn child be subject to the same protection? I hope that at least in this body we could come together, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, and begin to define those situations in which an unborn, yet almost born, seconds from being technically born, but clearly a child defined by its physical appearance, defined by its medical condition, defined by its very aliveness can receive some protection from violence, can receive some protection which every other human being in this country receives. Can we at least acknowledge there is a line that we will not cross, a line that we can say, ``While we may have disagreement over other aspects of when life begins, whether abortion is appropriate or not, at least here with this procedure, with this so obvious, visible view of the beginning at least of life that we will not terminate that, that we will refuse as a body to cross that line''? This vote today is an opportunity to take a different path, an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, even for those who oppose abortion and those who support it, because by voting for this measure, we can begin to define some common ground: that every child born in America will be embraced by our community; that no one is expendable; that no one will be turned away from participation in this experiment in freedom and democracy. We are faced with a vote in a short amount of time on a motion to commit. We have all participated in this exercise. We all know what it means. It means that we do not want to vote, we do not want to vote on the issue itself, we do not want to stand up and be counted on one side or the other; it is too politically sensitive, it is too uncomfortable, it is too difficult; I do not want to have to deal with this issue. So we are attempting to retreat to a time-honored procedural technique: We need to know more about this; we need to consign this to a committee so that they can study it and they can have hearings. There is not anybody in this body who does not know what we are dealing with here. There is not anybody who has not had an opportunity to examine the medical procedure, to think through the question, to come to a conclusion. We are not elected to commit difficult issues, uncomfortable issues to an abyss of committee consideration that we know will paper over and delay and push a decision to some unknown point in the future. There is no lack of information available to Members. There are no unanswered questions outstanding relative to this procedure. All the materials are available for every Senator to look at and to discuss and to examine and to form a conclusion over. So the motion to commit is what it is: It is a procedure to allow us to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable subject. Everyone needs to know that a motion to commit is simply an unwillingness to take a stand, to let people know where you stand. There is nothing that is going to be gained by committing this to a committee so that they can deep six the issue. It is an issue we are going to be confronted with in the future anyway, so we might as well deal with it now. Let us have some courage to stand on our convictions one way or the other. Those who have spoken on the floor both for and against this procedure speak out of conviction. I am not here to question their motives. I accept their conviction. But we are not elected to avoid expressing that conviction by our vote. If cynicism exists in our electorate, it is because we keep playing these games. The scriptural injunction is let your yea be yea and your nay be nay. Do we not at least have the courage to let our yea be yea and our nay be nay on the most fundamental question and issue probably facing this body, the very issue of the meaning of life? Are we going to take a pass? Are we going to say that is too tough for us to take? Are we going to say it is politically too sensitive? Now, if we have learned anything about the opinion of the electorate toward this elected body, it is that it has [[Page S 16784]] almost gotten to the point of dangerous cynicism about our ability to stand up and say what we believe and accept the consequences of that. I think what the public is looking for are some people with conviction one way or another, who are willing to stand up in front of a group of people back home and say, ``Look, this is what I believe. If you support that, I would like your vote. If you do not support that, that is fine, my life does not begin or end on whether or not I am elected to this office or any other office.'' But this is what I believe. We are not here to bide our time. We are here to express our convictions, as supported by the people in our States. If this legislation is passed, it will mean that the circle of protection in our democracy begins to expand just a little bit more. We have brought in people of different ethnic backgrounds, different racial backgrounds, people with disabilities, an ever-expanding circle of protection provided by a democracy that promotes independence and liberty, but also guarantees the right to life. This is a test of a just civilization. I think it is a standard by which each of us is going to be tested as well. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for the time. I yield the floor.