Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COATS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of calendar No. 194, S. 1254, regarding crack sentences.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 178, submitted earlier today by Senator Pressler.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to just see if I understand the situation here. It seems that the coroner has pronounced these two bills dead, and we all wanted to look at the body and we have all concluded that they are dead, or most of us have concluded that they are dead. In that light, it is hard for me to understand why the sense-of-the- Senate resolution of the Senator from New Hampshire is something that needs to be delayed. He feels, as a matter of law--and I daresay that would be supported by a strong majority of people on both sides of the aisle--that the President ought to seek congressional authorization for putting 25,000 American troops in Bosnia, something the President has already indicated he wants to do. But the Senator from New Hampshire has said he will not offer that as a matter of law, nor will he offer it on the continuing resolution, which is a bill which is not dead and will go through here. He will put it on a bill that we have all agreed is going nowhere, and yet objection is raised to the Senator doing that, that the bill has to be examined. It is a sense of the Senate and something we have already voted on. It is being put on a bill that we have all agreed is going nowhere. The President has already signified his support for the notion, but the Senator is not allowed to go forward with it. Can anybody explain to me why we now need to delay to examine something that is going nowhere?

Mr. COATS. I thank the leader.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 164, S. 922, the intelligence authorization bill.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I send four amendments to the desk and ask they be considered en bloc.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I move the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendments be agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, the bill be then deemed read a third time.

Mr. COATS. Further, that the Intelligence Committee be immediately discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1655, the Senate proceed immediately to its consideration, that all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 922 as amended be inserted, H.R. 1655 then be deemed read a [[Page S 14797]] third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader and after the managers of the bill have agreed on the [[Page S 14778]] managers' amendment, they turn to the consideration of S. 908, the State Department authorization and reorganization bill; that the managers' amendment be the only amendment in order; that there be a time limitation of 4 hours equally divided on the bill and managers' amendment equally divided between the two managers; that at the conclusion or yielding back of time the managers' amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time, that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of the House companion bill, H.R. 1561, that the Senate turn to its immediate consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 908, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill be advanced to third reading, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill with the preceding occurring without intervening action or debate and that S. 908 be returned to the calendar upon disposition of H.R. 1561.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be permitted to meet on Thursday, October 19, 1995, at 2 p.m. for the purpose of considering pending nominations and other committee business.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate go into Executive Session and that the Governmental Affairs Committee be immediately discharged from further consideration of the nomination of Ned McWherter; further that the Senate immediately proceed to consider the Ned McWherter nomination and the following calendar Nos. on today's Executive Calendar: numbers 313, 314, 315, 317 through 322, 326, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, over the past 25 years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of children born out of wedlock, children being raised by single parents, and children entering the foster care system because of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. Family disintegration is widespread. At the same time we have experienced an increase in family disintegration, we have seen a sharp decrease in the number of children being adopted, with formal adoptions dropping by almost 50 percent: from 89,000 in 1970 to a fairly constant 50,000 annually throughout the 1980's into the 1990's. On any given day, 37,000 children in foster care are legally free and waiting--to be adopted. Why are children waiting? Why aren't families adopting? The reason, I propose, is not a lack of compassion on the part of families. Many thousands of families would be eager to adopt were it not for the costs can be prohibitive for working class families. The average cost of an adoption is $14,000 and it is not uncommon for this figure to reach upwards of $25,000. Adoption is the compassionate response to children in need of a home. Yet, there is currently inequity in the tax system. While certain medical expenses related to the conception, delivery, and birth of a child may be deducted as medical expenses, no similar relief is available for adoptive families. Mr. President, I, like many of my colleagues know the sacrifice required of parents. Children require 100 percent of us, 100 percent of the time. The financial burden can be significant. The time element, balancing the needs of work and family--these are all very significant. Yet there are thousands who make that sacrifice every day for children they have lovingly adopted into their family, and many thousands more who would--but for the costs. The Shelby amendment will put adoption within the reach of many families, and make an important public policy statement about the value and respect we have for the institution of adoption. I've heard some say adoption tax credits should be limited to children with special needs. Well, I believe that every child in need of adoption is a child with a special need for a loving, and permanent home. Money should never be a barrier to adoption. Adoption should be encouraged as a compassionate response to children of parents who find themselves unable or unwilling to care for them. These families deserve our support, and deserve to be treated the same as families formed biologically. The Shelby amendment sends a strong message that adoption is a valued way of building a family. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, each year, over 1 million teenagers become pregnant. For many, the birth of the child signals the beginning of the cycle of welfare dependency. In 1993, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported at least 296,000 unmarried teen mothers on welfare, 67,000 under the age of 18. The current system of providing cash under AFDC to young teenage parents has failed. It has undermined families and provided the economic lifeline for generations of welfare dependency. It was wrong from the beginning for Government to provide checks to 15-year-old girls on the condition that they leave home and remain unmarried. But as this destructive policy is reconsidered, many young, pregnant women are still in need, not of cash, but of direction, compassion and support. Ending AFDC could have the perverse effect of encouraging these women to have abortions, which would compound the tragedy, not solve it. Neither the status quo, nor a total cutoff, are good options. Creative ways must be found to give women in crisis pregnancies compassionate help in their own communities. Private and religious maternity homes, also known by some as second chance homes, provide that help. They are a one-stop supportive environment where a young woman can receive counseling, housing, education, medical services, nutrition, and job and parenting training that gives them real opportunity for growth and decision making. Whether a pregnant mother makes a decision to parent themselves or to place the child up for adoption, she will receive important care, training, and life management skills to enable her make effective choices that will place her on the road to self-sufficiency. Studies have shown that the infant mortality rate of babies born to residents of maternity homes is much lower than the national average. In addition, residents are more likely to complete their education and receive better paying jobs than teens who continue in regular schools through their pregnancies. Those teens who choose to parent are provided intensive parenting courses so that their children are at less risk for abuse and neglect. Maternity homes are proven success stories. St. Elizabeth's Regional Maternity Center of New Albany, IN, is a prime example. Their mission is to ``address the needs of women and families that are in a crisis pregnancy by offering physical, emotional and spiritual support to ensure the physical and emotional health of the mother and the health of the baby.'' The results of St. Elizabeth's, like many other maternity homes, is impressive. Seventy percent of the women enrolled in their program have moved from welfare to self-sufficiency. Eighty- five percent have earned a diploma or GED.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, child abuse is a critical issue facing our Nation. Each year, close to one million children are abused or neglected and, as a result, in need of assistance and out of home care. CAPTA is a small but vital link in the provision of these services. S. 919, which has been included in the Dole welfare reform bill, streamlines CAPTA's State plan and reporting requirements; eliminates unnecessary research and technical assistance activities; and encourages local innovation through a restructured demonstration program. Additionally, we have consolidated the Child Abuse Community Based Prevention Grants, Family Resource Centers, Family Support Centers into the Community-Based Family Resource and Support Grants. Finally, S. 919 repeals the Temporary Child Care for Children with Disabilities and Crisis Nurseries Act, title VII (F) of the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, and the Emergency Child Abuse Prevention Grants. Mr. President, each day, hundreds of children and families come into contact with, and are affected by, our Nation's child protective system. For many, it is a frightening experience. For others--for those on the front lines, it is sometimes an opportunity to rescue children from horrific circumstances. Unfortunately, the issues facing this overburdened system are seldom easily resolved. Too often--overworked, underpaid, untrained, and sometimes overzealous caseworkers have a tremendous and devastating impact on families. Decisions are routinely made to remove children and place them in foster care--into situations that are sometimes far worse than from where they came. Other times, because of mounting paperwork and case files, a serious case goes uninvestigated--or a decision to return a child to an unsafe home is made because there are no more out-of-home placements available. These are all difficult circumstances that require balance, training, and resources. Since 1974, CAPTA, though a relatively small program, has assisted States in meeting child protection needs. It is a small, but powerful program, because its mandates have radically changed how we view child protection. Unfortunately, not all of these changes have been helpful. CAPTA has, until now, been viewed as a very prescriptive program, with States judged, not on how well they protect children, but how close they come to mirroring some Federal definition or example of how things ought to be. The 1995 CAPTA amendments are an important first step aimed at redressing some of the problems in CAPTA while, at the same time, building upon its strengths. Most experts agree that what CAPTA can do and do best is provide guidance to States; assist States with training and technical assistance; and promote better research and dissemination of information while allowing for maximum flexibility in approach and response. S. 919, as unanimously reported out by the Labor Committee and included in the Dole bill, builds on those strengths. Specifically, this legislation: Eliminates unnecessary bureaucracy by repealing mandates for a National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, the U.S. Advisory Board, and the Interagency Task Force on Child Abuse. Instead, the Secretary may use her discretion in deciding whether or not they are an essential function; Restructures and consolidates various research functions into one coordinated effort; Places a significant emphasis on local experimentation by expanding Demonstration Grants to encourage local innovation and experimentation. One of these grants would be available for a triage system approach which Labor Committee members heard very exciting reports about during a subcommittee hearing. Others include training for mandatory reporters, families, service providers, and communities; And reforms the Basic State Grants by allowing greater flexibility to the States in determining the circumstances and intensity of intervention that is required, while encouraging them to look to other preventative services that can be provided to families, when intensive intervention is not called for. Determining the appropriate level of intervention is a very important consideration. We have studied closely the numbers of abuse and neglect reports that have been filed. Of the close to 3 million reports that have been filed, only one-third are eventually substantiated. This means that over 2 million are either unsubstantiated or even false. And while I know that these numbers and how they are interpreted are the source of some disagreement, the fact remains that for whatever reason, over 2 million investigations at some level, are occurring, and possibly resulting in inappropriate interventions--including removal of the child from the home. Members of the Labor Committee may recall the testimony of Jim Wade who spoke of his 3-year ordeal, in which his daughter was wrongfully removed from his home. I have received many such reports and complaints, and while we should be mindful not to legislate by anecdote, these stories involve real people and are chilling. With the State grant, we have worked to find ways to improve reporting so that caseworkers are able to assess and effectively respond to cases of abuse and neglect with an appropriate response. We have also ensured that persons who maliciously file reports of abuse or [[Page S 13613]] neglect will no longer be protected by CAPTA's immunity for reporting. Only good-faith reports will be protected. Finally, we have clarified the definition of child abuse or neglect to provide additional guidance and assistance to States as they endeavor to protect children from abuse and neglect. Let me briefly mention the other programs authorized in the 1995 CAPTA amendments: the new Community-Based Family Resource and Support Grants represent the result of nearly a full year's effort to consolidate the Community Based Prevention Grant, Respite Care Program, and Family Resource Programs; the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act which provides assistance to States primarily for shelters; the Adoption Opportunities Act which supports aggressive efforts to strengthen the capacity of States to find permanent homes for children with special needs; the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act which provides for the needs of children who are abandoned, especially those with AIDS; the Children's Justice Act; the Missing Children's Assistance Act and section 214 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act. Mr. President, I would like to thank the members for their attention. These are important programs and they will affect many children and families. I urge the adoption of the 1995 CAPTA amendments. student aid

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I offer my sincere thanks to both the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Connecticut for their warm words of support for a concept that I think we all endorse and believe in. I, like the Senator from Connecticut, hope that we have initiated what will be, in the end, a historic debate about how we can effectively reach out and help those Americans who, in many instances through no fault of their own, find themselves in desperate circumstances, but do it in a way that is effective. There is compassion beyond government, and I think we are beginning to discuss and tap into what that is. Because the amendment the Senator from Missouri and I have offered is subject to points of order, because it is a tax matter not directly relevant to this bill, because there needs to be more discussion and more foundation laid, in a moment I am going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. I think this has been a substantive discussion of an extremely important item that I hope will be brought back up for further debate and will become a integral part of the next tax debate on how we allocate resources of citizens of [[Page S 13504]] this Nation, how we allocate those in a way that makes a difference in people's lives and gives us the sense that our work is not in vain and that the check we write is truly making a difference, not only in our neighbors' lives but in society. We look forward to that extended debate, and we look forward to the day when we can leave the amendment on the floor and bring it to a vote before the Senate. This is not the appropriate time to do that. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent the amendment that is currently pending be withdrawn.

Mr. COATS. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I rise to support the statements made by the Senator from Missouri with some reluctance, because I understand the Senator from Maine is essentially attempting to accomplish the same end as the Senator from Missouri, coming at it from different sides of the equation. He spoke earlier about the extraordinary importance and effectiveness of the role of religious organizations and faith-based organizations in dealing with questions of welfare, poverty alleviation, poverty prevention and some of the social dislocations that exist in our country. Clearly, an examination, or even a cursory analysis of the effectiveness of those programs vis-a-vis Government programs, shows an extraordinary gap between the two. The religious organizations' programs have elements of care, elements of lower cost, elements of effectiveness that Government programs simply have not been able to match. So I think all of us recognize that and want to encourage their role in dealing with some of these seemingly intractable social problems. I, like the Senator from Missouri, certainly have no problem with the first half of the amendment of the Senator from Maine regarding the establishment clause. I think that is proper. But, as to the provision which removes the prohibition against States requiring the establishment of separate, nonsectarian operations by religious organizations, I think clearly--while the intent of the Senator from Maine is not to have unwanted State discrimination against those institutions, that very likely could be the result. The practical effect of all of that is, I believe, going to discourage, if not eliminate, most of the organizations from participating in these programs. It is the ability to bring some semblance of their sectarian nature to addressing the problem that results in the effectiveness of dealing with the problem. To remove that and subject them to what may be a discriminatory--at least a test of absolute separation from the very basis underlying their program, I think defeats the program. For that reason I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the Senator from Missouri and oppose the amendment of the Senator from Maine.