Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think it is easy for us to be overly consumed by some of the details of this welfare debate, arguing numbers and formulas--portions of the legislation that are all important but can tend to mire us down and take our attention away from some of the broader implications of the debate we have been engaged in for the past several days. A great deal is at stake here, and I think we need to remind ourselves that this is the case. If we as a Nation accept the existence of a permanent underclass, we will become a very different Nation indeed. Social and economic mobility has always been part of our national creed. It has been an outgrowth of our belief in equality. If we abandon that goal for millions of our citizens, through either indifference or through despair, giving up, we will do a number of, I think, socially very disadvantageous things. We will divide class from class. We will foster a future of suspicion and of resentment. And, while this may be a temptation to accept, I believe it is something we as a nation cannot accept. On the left, it seems there are those who are so accustomed to the status quo that the best they can offer is some kind of maintenance of a permanent underclass as wards of the State, providing cash benefits to, hopefully, anesthetize some of their suffering, food stamps to relieve their hunger. But all hope for social and economic advancement seems to be set aside or abandoned. On the right, it seems that there are some who simply want to wash their hands of all of this, who view the underclass as beyond our help and beyond any degree of sympathy or empathy. The only realistic response, they suspect, is probably more police and more prisons to deal with the tragic consequences of this breakdown in civil society. The effect, I believe, of both of these approaches is to accept that poverty is permanent; that the underclass is going to be a fixture of urban life to be fed, feared, and forgotten. In doing so, we will condemn, in our minds, a whole class of Americans to be either wards or inmates. And I believe the American ideal will be diminished in that process. I understand those temptations. The problems we face seem so intractable. Those who listened to Senator Moynihan's initial discussion on the welfare bill last week had to understand both the brilliance and the sobering nature of that debate. We face a crisis, he said, and he outlined in graphic detail a crisis of illegitimacy that threatens not just the well-being of the children but the existence of our social order. To quote Charles Murray, he said, ``Once in a while the sky is really falling.'' And I believe, in this instance, as Senator Moynihan has pointed out to us, that the sky is falling and that our Nation faces a crisis of a proportion that we have seldom faced before. I also understand that any reform that we undertake, particularly any radical reform that we undertake of the system, is undertaken with a degree of uncertainty. Senator Moynihan has reminded us of the law of unintended consequences. Nathan Glazer has talked about ``the limits of social policy,'' arguing that whatever great actions we undertake today involve such an increase in complexity that we act generally with less knowledge than we would like to have even if with more than we once had. But I think we also need to understand that there is another law at work. That would be the ``law of unacceptable suffering.'' Because as the cost of our welfare system mounts the human cost mounts, the risk of change is diminished, and I believe there is a point beyond which inaction becomes complicity. I think we have reached that point. I think this is a principle that ought to organize and direct our debate, to try to find a source of hope so that we will not have an endless class of underrepresented, underprivileged citizens with which we have nothing to offer--hope that our divisions, class divisions, that appear to be so intractable in our society are not permanent and hope that suffering will not be endless. Mr. President, I think one source of that hope is found in devolution of power to the State. I know there is disagreement on that. But I think there is a compelling logic to the proposal. States are closer to the problems. Generally, State solutions are more acceptable to their public, and they are more flexible. We do not have a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate. Federal officials do not have a monopoly on compassion. I think that belies the lack of accomplishment over the last few decades. So I support the devolution as an element of the Republican reform. But I believe also there are limits to the approach of devolution. The fact is most States have already engaged in some flexibility experiments and some devolution, some welfare experiments through devolution. Some reforms have been in place for years, and while the results show some good results there are several cases that have been good. Often progress is marginal, and sometimes incremental. I do not offer this as a criticism. I offer it as a caution. Devolution I believe is necessary. But I do not believe it is all sufficient because, as we all know, State officials are fully capable of repeating the same mistakes as Federal officials, and State welfare bureaucracies can be just as strong and just as wrong as Federal programs. [[Page S 13498]] So I think the limitations of devolution come down to this: The problem with welfare for the last 30 years is not the level of government at which money has been spent. Our difficulty is more than procedural. It is substantive. We need to make fundamental choices on the direction that our system is going, not just about its funding mechanisms. Mr. President, I think a second source of hope is found in the strengthened work requirements of the legislation that we have been discussing. Requiring work for welfare makes entry-level jobs more attractive and discourages many from entering the welfare system in the first place. I think it is also an expression of our values as a nation. Work, as we know, is the evidence of an internal discipline. It orders and directs or lives. I believe no child should be without the moral example of a parent who is employed, if at all possible. So I support this element of welfare reform. But, as we all know, work requirements are expensive. They are often difficult to enforce. They represent the problem of what to do with the mothers of young children. Again, while not arguing that they are useless but that their effect is limited, they should be supported but they should not be oversold. I think a third source of hope is the removal of incentives to fail. We have been discussing that in detail today with these amendments. I think it is a mistake for Government to pay cash for a 14-year-old girl on the condition that they have children out of wedlock and never marry the father. We cannot justify, Mr. President, public policy that penalize marriage and provide illegitimacy its economic lifeline. I think Government violates its most fundamental responsibilities when it tempts people into self-destructive behavior. So I support the elements in the Republican plan. But the destructive incentives in our welfare system are only part of the problem. The decline of marriage, the rise of illegitimacy are rooted clearly in broader cultural trends that affect everyone, rich and poor. Without a welfare system, these trends would still exist and still threaten our society. Let me repeat that statement. Without a welfare system, the trends of illegitimacy, the decline of marriage, would still exist and still threaten at the rate of their growth, and would still threaten our society. James Q. Wilson recently authored and article called ``Culture, Incentives in the Underclass.'' He accepts the figure that less than 15 percent of rising illegitimacy between 1960 and 1974 was due to increased Government benefits. ``Some significant part of what is popularly called the `underclass problem' '' he argues, ``exists not simply because members of this group face perverse incentives but because they have been habituated in ways that weaken their self- control and their concern for others.'' In other words, I think what Wilson was trying to say is that the basic problem lies in the realm of values and character, and those values are shaped, particularly in early childhood, by certain cultural standards. ``I do not wish,'' Wilson adds, ``to deny the importance of incentives such as jobs, penalties, or opportunities, but I do wish to call attention to the fact that people facing the same incentives often behave in characteristically different ways because they have been habituated to do so.'' People are not purely economic beings analyzing costs and benefits. We are moral beings. We make choices that reflect our values. Incentives are not irrelevant but it is ultimately our beliefs and habits I think that determine our future. So I support these measures: Devolution, work requirements, changing incentives. Each one should be part of the package that the Senate passes. But even if they were all adopted in the form that I would like I believe that our problems and our divisions would still persist. It is important to work at the margins because those margins are broad. A 15 percent reduction in illegitimacy would be a dramatic and positive social change. A similar increase in work participation could be labeled a major victory. But I would suggest, Mr. President, that our greatest single problem lies beyond the changes that we are debating in this welfare discussion. That problem I would suggest is a breakdown in the institutions that direct and have humanized our lives throughout history, institutions of family, institutions of neighborhood, community associations, charities, and religious-based groups. Sociologists call this the ``civil society.'' They talk about ``mediating structures.'' They say that these institutions build ``social capital'' and ``positive externalities.'' But this point I think can be reduced to some simple facts. A child will never find an adequate substitute for a father who loves him or her. The mantle of government, the assistance of government, will never replace the warm hand of a neighbor. The directions of a government bureaucrat will never replace the counsel of a friend. Any society is a cold, lonely, and confusing place without the warmth of family, community, and faith. So it is interesting that this is precisely the reason that Nathan Glazer warns of the ``unintended consequences'' in social policy. ``Aside from these problems of expectations, cost, competency and limitations of knowledge,'' he argues, ``there is the simple reality that every piece of social policy substitutes for some traditional arrangement, a new arrangement in which public authorities take over, at least in part, the role of the family, of the ethnic and neighborhood group, of voluntary associations [of the church]. In doing so, social policy weakens the position of these traditional agents and further encourages needy people to depend on the government for help rather than on the traditional structures,'' according to Glazer, and I agree with him. I believe this concern is real, and I think it ought to reorient our thinking and our efforts. Our central goal in this debate ought to be to try to find a way to respect and reinvigorate these traditional structures--families, schools and neighborhoods, voluntary associations--that provide training in citizenship and pass on morality and civility to future generations. Listen again to James Wilson. I quote. Today we expect ``government programs'' to accomplish what families, villages and churches once accomplished. This expectation leads to disappointment, if not frustration. Government programs, whether aimed at farmers, professors or welfare mothers, tend to produce dependence, not self- reliance. If this is true, then our policy ought to be to identify, evaluate and encourage those local private efforts that seem to do the best job at reducing drug abuse, inducing people to marry, persuading parents, especially fathers, to take responsibility for their children and exercising informal social control over neighborhood streets. Mr. President, I believe we should adopt this approach because the alternative, centralized bureaucratic control, has failed. And because, second, the proposal of strict devolution has, as I indicated earlier, limitations. But I think there is a third reason we ought to adopt this approach, and I think that is the most central reason, that is because this is the only hopeful approach that we face. These institutions--family, neighborhood, schools, church, charitable organizations, voluntary associations--do not just feed and house the body but reach in and touch the soul. They have the power to transform individuals and the power to renew our society. There is no other alternative that offers and holds out such promise. So I believe we ought to ask one question of every social policy passed to every level of government, and that question is: Does it work through these mediating, traditional, historical institutions, does it work through families, neighborhoods, or religious or community organizations, or does it simply replace them? Our primary objective should not be to substitute bureaucrats from Washington with bureaucrats from Columbus or Sacramento or Bismarck. It should be to encourage and support private and religious, neighborhood- based, nonreligious efforts without corrupting them with intrusive governmental rules. Our goal should not only be to redistribute power within government but to spread power beyond government. This I believe, Mr. President, is the next step in the welfare debate, the [[Page S 13499]] next stage of reform, the next frontier of compassion in America. Accepting this priority would focus our attention on possibly three areas: Emphasizing the role of family and particularly the role of fathers and mentors where fathers are not present in the lives of children; rebuilding community institutions; and promoting private charities and religious institutions in the work of compassion. The next stage of welfare reform has to start with the family. The abandonment of children mainly by fathers is not a lifestyle choice. It is a form of adult behavior with disastrous consequences for children, for communities, for society as a whole. When young boys are deprived of a model of responsible male behavior, they become prone to violence and sexual aggression. Sociologists will prove to you over and over again these are irrefutable facts. When young girls are placed in the same situation, they are far more likely to have children out of wedlock. There is a growing consensus that families are not expendable and fathers are not optional. The next step in welfare reform will reestablish a preference for marriage at the center of social policy in America. Wilson again observes that: Of all the institutions through which people may pass-- schools, employers, the military--marriage has the largest effect. For every race and at every age, married men live longer than unmarried men and have lower rates of homicide, suicide, accidents and mental illness. Crime rates are lower for married men and incomes are higher. Infant mortality rates are higher for unmarried than for married women, whether black or white, and these differences cannot be explained by differences in income or availability of medical care. So substantial is this difference that an unmarried woman with a college education is more likely to have her infant die than is a married woman with less than a high school diploma. An astounding statement. Now, for those of us who have been married for a long time--and I just celebrated my 30th wedding anniversary--there are probably moments and days when that does not quite ring true.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2539 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COATS. Mrs. Coats would be delighted and will be delighted when I explain what the Senator from New York has said about her. She was a child bride, and I was privileged to marry her. And she has retained the vibrancy of her youth. I claim no credit for that. She has done that in spite of her husband. As Wilson has said, there are some great advantages to the institution of marriage; and I think that has been proven out over time, actually from the beginning of time. As I said, while there may be moments that each of us can point to where we might question that fact, it is undeniable in terms of the statistics that are now in relative to life expectancy, rates of homicide, suicide, accidents, and mental illness. And as a nation, it ought to be our policy to promote that and not have policies in place, although maybe well intended, that often serve as a disincentive. I also think that the next stage of welfare reform should find new ways of rebuilding economic and educational infrastructure, spreading ownership, housing, assets, educational opportunities. Successful businesses, active churches, effective schools, and strong neighborhoods have always been the backbone of community. To the extent that we can once again, through policy, where appropriate--in many places it is not appropriate and not effective--to the extent that we can emphasize and nurture this rebuilding, this renewal, we should do so. We should also, I believe, focus our attention and resources on private charities and religious institutions, and that is the reason Senator Ashcroft and I rise today to offer this amendment. We offer it primarily for discussion purposes, but we believe that a debate should, if it has not already, begin relative to the role of these institutions in dealing with some of our social problems. We suggest that a charity tax credit, which we introduced last Friday, can answer some very important questions, the most important of which is how can we get resources into the hands of these private and religious institutions where individuals are actually being transformed, renewed, and provided both external as well as internal help, and how can we do this without either undermining their work with our Federal and State and governmental restrictions or offending the first amendment. We think this amendment accomplishes that purpose. We respond by offering a $500-per-person tax credit for charitable contributions to poverty alleviating, poverty preventing, poverty relief organizations. We also require that individuals volunteer their time as well as donate their money to qualify for the credit, because we think it is necessary to do more than simply write a check. We think there are a couple very important things that can be accomplished by personal involvement: First, the obvious connection that comes with bringing together those that are seeking to provide assistance with those that need the assistance and the benefits that flow both ways from that effort. But, second, it is an accountability factor, a factor that allows individuals to see how their money is being used and to ensure that the agency, the church, the association, the group that is utilizing the dollars that are contributed, that they are utilized in the most effective and most efficient way. We would like to take a small portion of welfare spending in America--estimates are that roughly about 8 percent of what total welfare spending is in terms of what the reduction in revenue to the Federal Treasury would be through the charity tax credit--and give it through the Tax Code to private institutions that provide individuals with hope, with dignity, help and independence. We do not eliminate the public safety net, but we want to focus attention on resources where we think they will make a substantial difference. Second, we would like to utilize this in a way of promoting an ethic of giving in America. Because when individuals make these contributions to effective charities, it is a form of involvement beyond writing a check to the Federal Government. It encourages a new definition of citizenship and responsibility, one in which men and women examine and support the programs in their own communities. Marvin Olasky has written about all this. He comments: Within a few miles of Capitol Hill there are several places that we could visit today which solve social problems more effectively and efficiently than any measure we will pass in this welfare debate. I took him up on that challenge, and one of the organizations I visited was a shelter operated by the Gospel Mission, just within the shadow of the Capitol, about 5 blocks from here, that takes homeless, hopelessly drug-addicted men off the streets and literally has transformed them into responsible, productive citizens. Their rehabilitation rate is 66 percent over a 1-year period of time. The same program, or something similar to that program, is run by the Federal Government, called the John Young Center. I drive by it every evening on my way home from work. That center has been in and out of the newspapers. Drugs are regularly dealt. And it has been a place of despair, not a place of hope. They claim a rehabilitation rate of 10 percent. They spend 20 times the amount of the Gospel Mission. Now, we ought to be visiting these institutions and asking ourselves the question, what are they doing at the Gospel Mission that they are not doing at the Federal center? Or, conversely, what are they doing at the Federal center that is not being done--that we ought to avoid doing elsewhere? This is just one example, one example of examples that exist in almost every community in America, where because of frustration with a government-run program, with a government attempt, citizens have undertaken, either through religious charities, faith-based or not, religious-based, Big Sisters, Salvation Army, the medical volunteers, the local Matthew 25 clinic that exists in Fort Wayne, IN, where medical doctors volunteer their time to the poor--they exist everywhere, but not to the degree to which it is making a substantial difference in the macrosense in our Nation. [[Page S 13500]] So Senator Ashcroft and I are trying to highlight these organizations, show how they provide a measure of hope, how they can renew lives, renew communities and, hopefully, nurture them through acquainting our citizens with their work and giving them the means with which to contribute to them. Robert Woodson said, for virtually every social program we face today, somewhere a community group has found the solution that works. I believe, Mr. President, this is the greatest source of hope in this welfare debate. And the primary reason why I am not pessimistic is-- because it is easy to be pessimistic--that many of these groups, as Woodson points out, are faith-based, not a particular faith, not a particular denomination. In some, the faith is contrary to my own faith, but they gain their authority and their success by serving their neighbors as a form of service to their God. And their ministry includes an element of spiritual challenge and moral transformation. Government should not view this as a problem to be overcome, but as a resource that we ought to welcome with open arms because, in serving the poor, we ought to look at religious efforts as allies and not rejected as rivals to our program. That power of religious values and social change can no longer be ignored. It is one of the common denominators of a successful compass. Let me wrap up here by quoting from Robert Woodson again. Bill Raspberry wrote a fascinating article on this some time ago in the Washington Post. Woodson said: People, including me, would check out the successful social programs--I'm talking about the neighborhood-based healers who manage to turn people around--and we would report on such things as size, funding, leadership, technique. He said: Only recently has it crystallized for me that the one thing virtually all these programs had in common was a leader with a strong element of spirituality. . . . He said: We don't yet have the scales to weight the ability some people have to supply meaning [in other people's lives]--to provide the spiritual element I'm talking about. He said: I don't know how the details might work themselves out, but I know it makes as much sense to empower those who have the spiritual wherewithal to turn lives around as to empower those whose only qualification is credentials. Mr. President, the failure of our current approach has resulted among Americans in ``compassion fatigue.'' That is understandable, but that is not healthy for our society. Compassion for the poor is a valuable part of the American tradition, and it is also a central part of our moral tradition. At the very deepest level, we show compassion for others because we are all equally dependent upon the compassion of our Maker. But a renewal of compassion will ultimately be frustrated if we act on a definition of that virtue which has failed. The problem we face is not only that welfare is too expensive, which it is; the problem is that it is too stingy with the things that matter the most-- responsibility, moral values, human dignity and the warmth of community. This Nation, I suggest, Mr. President, requires a new definition of compassion, a definition which mobilizes the resources of civil society to reach our deepest needs. This is going to be a challenge to our creativity. Our response, I suggest, will determine much more about the American experiment and the limits that we place on its promise. So the amendment that Senator Ashcroft and I are offering is simply a step, a suggestion, a step toward providing a way to expand that compassion in America, to enlist our citizens in the act of citizenship, and to go beyond government to return to those institutions which historically, traditionally, and effectively have mediated some of our deepest social concerns--the family, the neighborhood, the schools, charitable organizations, religious and nonreligous voluntary associations. I hope that we can move beyond the details of the welfare debate. Much of this will be discussions for future days. But I hope that this amendment we are offering at least offers a start and this debate in which we are engaging will take us to the place where we can step back and take a broader view of the problems we face and a more creative view of the solutions to address those problems. Mr. President, with that I yield the floor. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask whether or not the Senator from Connecticut is here to offer an amendment. Senator Ashcroft and I intend to withdraw our amendment. But if there are others who want to speak on it, we obviously would encourage that. I have gotten some indication that the Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to speak on it. At the appropriate time, we will withdraw that. Before I yield, let me commend my colleague for his articulate, passionate statement on behalf of a concept that I believe is critical to the future of this country, something that we must embody, embrace, and something that we must advance if we are to address this crisis that exists in our society. He brings his experience as a Governor. He has had the opportunity that many of us have not had in dealing with this on a day-to-day basis from an executive position and as someone who was charged with the responsibility of carrying out policy instead of just making policy. He brings the experience of someone with a deep heritage of service to others, and his commitment to this concept is commendable. I want to thank him not just for his support but for his initiation and his leadership on this effort. We have been going along parallel tracks and discovered that we were attempting to advance the same ideas, so we merged our efforts. His thoughts about involving individuals as volunteers, as well as just the writing of a check for the tax credit, was instrumental to this package. His work and efforts and writings and speaking about it have been very, very important to this. I thank him and I want to tell him what a privilege it is to go forward together and hopefully have others join us as we attempt to address this next stage in the welfare debate. I thank the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise to offer on behalf of myself and Senator Ashcroft, the charity tax credit amendment. This amendment is designed to expand the ability of private and faith based charities to serve the poor by making it easier for taxpayers to make donations to these organizations. It is an important, urgently needed reform, but it also symbolizes a broader point. The Congress is currently focused on the essential task of clearing away the ruins of the Great Society. Centralized, bureaucratic anti- poverty programs have failed--and that failure has had a human cost. It is measured in broken homes and violent streets. Our current system has undermined families and fostered dependence. This is undeniable. But while our Great Society illusions have ended, the suffering of many of our people has not. Indifference to that fact is not an option. We cannot retreat into the cocoon of our affluence. We cannot accept the survival of the fittest. No society can live without hope--hope that its suffering and anguish are not endless. I think we have seen the shape of that hope it is not found in the ivory towers of academia. It is not found in the marble temples of official Washington. I found it five blocks from here, in a place so distant from Congress it is almost another world. The Reverend John Woods came to a desolate Washington neighborhood in 1990 to take over the Gospel Mission, a shelter and drug treatment center for homeless men. The day he arrived, he found crack cocaine being processed in the back yard. A few days later, the local gang fired shots into his office to scare him away. Instead of leaving, he hung a sign on the door extending this invitation: ``If you haven't got a friend in the world you can find one here. Come in.'' The Gospel Mission is a place that offers unconditional love, but accepts no excuses. Men in rehabilitation are given random drug tests. If they violate the rules, they are told to leave the program. But the success of the mission comes down to something simple: It does more than provide a meal and treat an addiction, it offers spiritual challenge and renewal. Listen to one addict who came to Reverend Woods after failing in several governmental rehabilitation programs: Those programs generally take addictions from you, but don't place anything within you. I needed a spiritual lifting. People like Reverend Woods are like God walking into your life. Not only am I drug-free, but more than that, I can be a person again. Reverend Woods's success is particularly clear compared to government approaches. The Gospel Mission has a 12-month rehabilitation rate of 66 percent, while a once heralded government program just 3 blocks away rehabilitates less than 10 percent of those it serves--while spending 20 times as much as Reverend Woods. This is just one example. It is important, not because it is rare, but because it is common. It takes place in every community, in places distant from the center of government. But it is the only compassion that consistently works--a war on poverty that marches from victory to victory. It makes every new deal, new frontier and new covenant look small in comparison. Several months ago, I asked a question: How can we get resources into the hands of these private and religious institutions where individuals are actually being helped? And, How can we do this without either undermining their work with restrictions, or offending the first amendment? I introduced S. 1120, the Comprehensive Charity Reform Act, a major portion of which we have incorporated in today's amendment. Our amendment has two central features. First, it provides a $500 charity tax credit ($1,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly) which will provide more generous tax benefits to taxpayers who decide to donate a portion of their tax liability to charities that focus on fighting or preventing poverty. Second, it requires that individuals volunteer their time, as well as donate their money, to qualify for the credit. The purpose of this legislation is twofold: First, we want to take a small portion of welfare spending in America and give it through the Tax Code to private and religious institutions that effectively provide individuals with hope, dignity, help and independence. Without eliminating a public safety net, we want to focus some attention and resources where it can make all the difference. Second, we want to promote an ethic of giving in America. When individuals make these contributions to effective charities, it is a form of involvement beyond writing a check to the Federal Government. It encourages a new definition of citizenship, one in which men and women examine and support the programs in their own communities that serve the poor. This amendment adopts Senator Ashcroft's proposal that requires individuals to volunteer their time, as well as donate their money, to local poverty relief programs. I hope that my colleagues take a careful look at this new approach to compassion. It is important for us not only to spread authority and resources within the levels of Government, but to spread them beyond Government altogether--to institutions that can not only feed the body but touch the soul. It is an issue I look forward to debating more fully next week.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Coats and Mr. Packwood pertaining to the introduction of S. 1201 through S. 1218 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to introduce a broad package of legislation motivated by a single conviction. That conviction is that we will never have a strong society if our civil society is weak. The order of our streets, the character of our children, and the renewal of our cities all depend directly on the health of families and neighborhoods, on the strength of grassroots community organizations, and on the vitality of private and religious institutions that care for those in need because it is these institutions that transmit values between generations, that encourage cooperation between citizens, and make our communities seem smaller, more friendly, and more manageable. In nearly every community, rich and poor, they once created an atmosphere in which most problems--from a teenage girl in trouble to the rowdy neighborhood kids--could be confronted before their repetition threatened the very existence of the community itself. It is an increasingly clear fact of social [[Page S 12717]] science, and I think something evident to all of us in teaching of common sense, that when this network of civil society is strong, there is hope, hope in communities, hope in families, hope in America. And when it is weak, we find a destructive form of despair that pervades our land. This fact is a challenge to the left which tends to concentrate on individuals and their rights, not communities and their standards. But it is also a challenge to the right which seems to overconcentrate on simply transferring funds from one bureaucracy to another and changing the incentives of the current welfare system. Make no mistake. I support the goal of limiting government and of transferring resources and authority to levels of government closer to the people. But our deepest social problems, especially illegitimacy and violence, are not rooted in economic incentives or the level of government where spending takes place. I suggest they are rooted in the breakdown of value-shaping institutions. Government has always depended on these institutions. It does not create them. There is no legislative package that I or anyone could offer that would rebuild them. And there is no legislative package that could ever be written to replace them, although we have had an experiment here for the last 30 years or so with failed bureaucratic government approaches to these problems. There is, however, I would suggest, an urgent need for Government to respect, recognize and, wherever possible, encourage this network of institutions that creates community. This, I am convinced, is the next challenge for this Congress and the next stage of the Republican revolution. After the reach of government is limited, as it must be, the question is how do we nurture the caring safety net of civil society? How do we depend on it rather than undermine it or attempt to replace it? This concern should reorient our thinking and our efforts. Our central goal should be to respect and reinvigorate those traditional structures-- families, schools, neighborhoods, voluntary associations--that provide training in citizenship and pass morality from generation to generation. I hope this is a specific debate--that is what I want--not a general discussion. So I have made and will offer this morning a series of specific proposals. They are not, and I do not pretend them to be, a total solution to the problems that we face in society. But it is on these issues that I believe a constructive argument can begin. I have 18 specific pieces of legislation. People can take these 18 bills as a blueprint or as a target. But my goal is to start a debate on items that I believe matter. I will not take the time this morning to describe each of these proposals, but in the next few days every Member of the Senate and the House will receive material summarizing them. However, I do want to take a few moments to describe the theory behind these proposals. Each one is designed to encourage in the margin where it is possible three levels of society. First, eight of the bills are directed at strengthening the role of families and specifically fathers and, in their absence, providing mentoring programs. This is the most basic level of civil society and, I would suggest, the most vulnerable level of civil society today. Second, six of the bills I am introducing are aimed at encouraging private, local, grassroots organizations that are renewing their own communities: community development corporations, neighborhood watches, maternity group homes, small businesses. And, finally, four of the bills are designed to encourage private and faith-based charities in individual acts of compassion. They have an effectiveness denied to government because they have the resources of love and spiritual renewal that no government can or even should provide. This legislative package is part of a larger report and larger effort, which I have titled the ``Project for American Renewal.'' I have undertaken this project with Dr. William Bennett. I intend to call a series of hearings on these themes. We intend together to speak out on the goals, the theory behind the goals, and the specific elements of the proposal. We attempt to highlight the extraordinary success of some of these private and faith-based charities and the corresponding failure of Government bureaucracies to address some of our most fundamental, underlying social problems. Two hearings are already scheduled for the end of September. We also intend to raise this debate with Presidential candidates and in the Republican platform. It is my conviction that the Republican revolution will fail unless we have a message of hope that our worst social problems are not permanent features of American life, that these challenges are and can be confronted not by failed Government efforts but by private community faith-based institutions that nurture lives and bring renewed hope. I want to assure my Republican colleagues I believe in devolution, limiting government, giving authority and resources to State governments, but there is a bolder form of devolution that I think should take place beyond government. We should not only transfer resources and authority to States but beyond government entirely to those private institutions that humanize our lives and reclaim our communities. This I believe is the next step for Republicans. It is also a theme that I think will challenge the creativity of both parties and may likely cross party lines. We should adopt this approach because the alternative, centralized bureaucratic control, has failed. But I think there is another reason we should adopt this approach. We should adopt it because it is profoundly hopeful. These institutions do not just feed the body but they touch the soul. They have the power to transform individuals and renew our society. There is simply no alternative that holds such promise. Mr. President, I send to the desk the text of these 18 bills and ask that they be printed in the Record, and I hope that my colleagues will look at them carefully. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. PACKWOOD addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator from Oregon for his remarks, and I look forward to the analysis of the legislative items I put forward. Again, I [[Page S 12718]] want to say there is no legislation that necessarily can adequately address this underlying problem, but there are certainly things that I think we can do to encourage and to nurture, to provide respect and, hopefully, some measure of support to these institutions which, as the Senator from Oregon has said, just do remarkable jobs because they go beyond providing mere material needs and meeting those needs, which is important, but they also can transform lives. It is something that government cannot do to the extent that we can constitutionally. And we had the same concerns as we drafted this legislation. Can we constitutionally encourage these mediating institutions? I think our society will find that source of hope that so often is absent from our discussions. I thank the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. May I inquire if we are now prepared for morning business?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Student Loan Privatization Act to ensure that Americans will continue to enjoy unfettered access to higher education student aid. For the past 2 years, the Clinton administration has tried to turn the Department of Education into the biggest consumer bank in the country. If the administration succeeds, Americans will have nowhere else to turn but to the largess of the Department of Education when it comes time to finance their college education. Under the Clinton plan, every single student loan would be approved, disbursed, serviced, and collected by the Department of Education. The administration has even considered calling in the IRS to do the collecting--as if we want the IRS collecting student loans, as well as taxes. The Federal Direct Student Loan Program--which provides college loans to students directly from Uncle Sam, rather than through private sector lenders as in the traditional guaranteed loan program--ranks among the largest Government expansion drives of the Clinton administration. This Grow the Government program would add 500 new bureaucrats to the Department of Education and is a complete contradiction to the will expressed by voters last November. The direct loan program ignores the fact that the private lending industry has improved service to families, improved efficiency, and substantially lowered default rates--all of which saves the taxpayers $1 billion per year. Mr. President, when the administration asked the last Congress to authorize the direct loan program, we were told it would save $12 billion when compared to the traditional guaranteed loan program. Unfortunately, that savings estimate was produced by ignoring administrative costs and by applying budget loopholes. The fact is, Mr. President, that the Congressional Budget Office reported last month that when the two programs are scored on the same basis, the 7-year savings of the guaranteed loan program amounts to almost 10 times the Direct Loan savings. The Student Loan Privatization Act will put an end to this expensive nonsense by phasing out the direct loan program, while at the same time enacting improvements to the guaranteed student loan program. It establishes a 4-year timetable to begin decreasing direct loan volume by requiring the Secretary to modify existing participation agreements with institutions that are currently participating in the program. Mr. President, at a time when Congress is looking for savings to balance the budget, it makes no sense to continue funding a Federal program that costs more money than a better alternative in the private sector. In closing, Mr. President, I would say to my colleagues that if you believe that the Federal Government always acts more efficiently than private business, then you should continue to support the administrations efforts to nationalize student lending. On the other hand, I urge my colleagues who support limited Government and prudent fiscal restraint to cosponsor the Student Loan Privatization Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am pleased that Majority Leader Dole and Senator Rod Grams and myself to ensure the passage of a $500 per child tax credit by introducing the American Family Tax Relief Act of 1995. Many of my colleagues are already familiar with the Family's First legislation that I introduced earlier this year. The centerpiece of this legislation is the $500 per child tax credit which I have been proposing for the last 3 years. The $500 per child tax credit already has cleared the House. The introduction of this legislation with strong leadership support is great news for the hard working families of America. With Majority Leader Dole's support and leadership on this issue, I am now confident that the Senate will include a $500 per child tax credit in the reconciliation bill later this year. The time has come to show families that they are a priority--for too long we have ignored their cries of help. The federal tax burden on the typical American family has become overwhelming. In 1948, the average American family of four paid just 3 percent of its income to the Federal Government. By 1992, that tax bill has skyrocketed to 24.5 percent of family earnings. This dramatically increased tax burden complicates the family's role--to provide for the social and moral education of children. Family tax reform is more than a matter of money. It will help restore the family to an economic position that allows it to fulfill its most vital responsibilities. In 1993, the bipartisan Commission on America's Urban Families found that ``the trend of family fragmentation drives the nation's most pressing social problems: crime, educational failure, declining mental health, drug abuse, and poverty. These, in turn, further fragment families.'' The Commission continued, ``To date, the nation's basic response has been policies that attempt to address the negative consequences of this trend. This response has been insufficient. Our principal national goal must be to reverse the trend of family fragmentation.'' One of the key policy recommendations of the commission was to ``increase the self-sufficiency and economic well-being of families by either significantly increasing the personal exemption * * * or a child tax credit for all children through age 18.'' The findings of the National Commission on Urban Families were remarkably similar to those advocated 3 years earlier by the Democratic Progressive Policy Institute. In an impressive report entitled ``Putting Children First: A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990s'', this group found: America is the only country among the eighteen rich democracies in the world that does not have a family allowance or some other sort of government subsidy per child. Western European countries recognize that nurturance has a great societal value. . . [T]hese societies have acknowledged that there are some things that only families can do and that if families are placed under so much stress that they cannot raise children effectively, the rest of society cannot make up the difference in later years. The United States used to have a form of family allowance; we just did not call it that. In 1948 there was a pro-family government policy based on a simple notion: the government should not tax away that portion of a family's income that is needed to raise children. The Progressive Policy Institute concluded, ``We believe that a primary goal of our tax policy should be to bolster families who are raising children.'' When families fail, the cost to society is enormous. As we have learned in the past decades, programs aimed at fixing the failures are not only expensive, they are often ineffective. I believe that it is time to reassess our priorities. We need to direct our focus, and our funds, to strengthen the family. I believe this legislation takes us on the right course. Obviously, government's role in preserving the family is limited but it is not insignificant. Perhaps the single most important thing government can accomplish is to alleviate the economic stress on the family. Economist Eugene Steurle noted that in 1948 the personal exemption was $600 and the median family income was $3,187. This meant that a family of four paid only 3 percent of its income in federal income taxes. He noted that the net result of the ensuing erosion of the personal exemption has been that ``tax-exempt levels for households without dependents have been moving closer and closer to tax-exempt levels for households with dependents.'' In 1948, the personal exemption shielded 42 percent of family income from taxes. By 1992, that tax bill had skyrocketed to 24.5 percent of family earnings, and the value of that exemption has eroded to 11 percent of income. In order for the personal exemption to provide the same benefit as it did in 1948 it would have to be raised from $2,500 to $9,657. With rising costs and the seemingly never-ending tax burden, it is nearly impossible for American families to get ahead today. Families are working harder today than ever before. Many Hoosiers continually tell me that its just harder and harder to make ends meet. Sometimes one or both parents are working two jobs which takes more time away from the family just to pay the tax man. In my home state of Indiana the median income for a family of four is $34,082. Of that, nearly $11,000 is devoted to federal, state, and local taxes. The average family in Indiana pays more in taxes than it does in housing, food, and clothing expenses combined. The Tax Foundation has stated that Indiana families worked 117 days this year until April 27 to pay Uncle Sam. Some have said that $500 will not go far. To them I say, you have been inside the beltway for too long. Economists have noted, that invested over the life of the child, it is enough today for a state college education. It means $80 of grocery money each month. And it may buy time for parents to spend with their children, time to instill the values of love and discipline that are critical in the formation of citizens of character. Fifty-two million children are eligible for this credit, and 86 percent of this tax relief would go to families making less than $75,000 per year. The American social fabric is seriously strained. When families fail, the cost to society is enormous. That failure is measured in lost dollars and in lost lives. the lessons learned from decades of social spending are clear. Government cannot effectively stay the hand of despair and destruction. Strong families can. We simply cannot afford to ignore the evidence before us. Family preservation must be paramount in our Federal policy. I am pleased that the Majority Leader and Senator Nickles have joined the family tax relief effort. I look forward to working with them this fall to enact the $500 per child tax credit this year.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will just state that over the last 48 hours, the Senator from Oklahoma has come to me and we have discussed in great detail as to whether or not this amendment should include the rape-incest exception. He agreed, I agreed, all of us agreed that it should. He was clearly under the impression that the unanimous-consent agreement allowed for the amendment to be offered to include the life of the mother, rape and incest. He was surprised, I was surprised, we were all surprised when that was not the case. He made a valiant effort last evening to include that. So those who come to the floor and argue against this amendment because it does not include that simply have missed the point. We are attempting to try to do that and have been precluded from doing that. Mr. President, on this issue of abortion, it is clear that we are a nation at conflict among ourselves and even within ourselves. The debate over abortion has divided the country; it has divided the Senate and the Senators who represent the people of this Nation. We have come over time to believe, I think all of us, strongly in individual autonomy and personal privacy. At the same time, we have witnessed dramatic advances in medical science which shows us the complexity and the humanity of life before birth. This is a jarring inconsistency of our deepest beliefs about liberty and our strongest convictions about life, and it has led to an endless struggle, and even broken the peace, between neighbors. Law, on the one hand, is set against medical science on the other. Political rights, on the one hand, are set against moral commitments. These are contradictions that we cannot escape but nor can we accept. These contradictions are seemingly contradictions that we cannot overcome. But while our divisions are deep, there should not be division over forming a consensus on the issue that is before us. This ought to be a uniting issue rather than a dividing issue, that issue of whether or not we will force people to violate their conscience by financing a procedure that they find abhorrent. This should be the common ground in our abortion debate. Those who insist on using taxpayers' funds to subsidize abortion are not asking for choice. They are asking for involvement in complicity on the part of every single American, despite those Americans' deeply held religious beliefs and moral convictions. The committee amendment before us today is a particularly clear example of taxpayer financed abortion. Seventy-two percent of the cost of Federal employees health benefits are paid directly with tax dollars--Federal tax dollars. Through this program in the early eighties, taxpayers subsidized over 17,000 abortions at a cost of over $9 million. Now for a period of 10 years--nearly 10 years--from 1984 to 1993, Congress protected those taxpayers from contributing to elective abortions through the Federal employees health benefits plan. I believe that was a policy and a position solidly supported by a majority of the American people. During our debate over a national health benefits plan last year, only 23 percent said national health insurance policies should include coverage for abortion; 72 percent said those costs should be paid directly by the women who have the abortion. An ABC News/Washington Post poll in June 1992 indicated that 69 percent of the people surveyed felt the Government should not pay for abortions even for women who could not otherwise afford them. Therefore, by striking the committee amendment, we simply seek to restore a principle on which I believe there is a strong majority consensus; that is, that we should not appropriate tax dollars and use them to violate the deepest moral convictions of millions of Americans. Supporting the committee amendment means that abortion is not just a right but an entitlement. I understand why so many Americans are offended by being forced to support a procedure with their hard-earned tax dollars, because I also am offended. My concern is motivated by my own fundamental conviction that we are dealing with a fundamental matter of human rights, relating to the most helpless members of the human family. Abortion on demand is a violation, I say, of our compassion and of our humanity. It causes us to retreat from the history of a nation-- this Nation--whose story has been one of progress, however halting, sometimes won even through bloodshed, of extending inclusion in our ideals of human dignity and human rights. One by one, the powerless, the weakest, have been embraced and the American family has been extended. African-Americans, women, the handicapped, each discovered that America's promise, though delayed, was not denied. Over time, our Nation has developed a system of rights, deeper and wider through the persistence of those who have passionately argued for inclusion, not exclusion. Some of the opponents of this amendment have been the most outstanding spokespersons, with the deepest conviction for the inclusion in the American family, for the extension of rights to those helpless individuals. Abraham Lincoln wrote of our Founders: This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to his creatures. . . . In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on. They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children, and their children's children and the countless myriads who should inhabit the Earth in other ages. That beacon of light still shines in this world. It still lights the paths of nations whose freedom is new. It is my deepest concern that, at the very level where we reach the very weakest and helpless of Americans, we will shut out that light, that we will halt the progress of America's promise--the promise of inclusion, the promise of extension of rights to the most helpless in our society--and cast one class of the powerless into the darkness beyond our protection. I believe that is the fundamental issue and why we should support the amendment.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think everybody in the Chamber knows just exactly what we are doing here. Earlier we debated at length and voted on the issue of whether or not the taxpayer should fund abortions provided to Federal employees. The debate switched to an issue that included a definition of what exceptions would be allowed to that prohibition. I stated then, and a number of others have stated, what we believe to be a clear consensus among the American people relative to the issue of funding for abortion, use of taxpayers' dollars. We are not debating here today--although it is part of the debate and I believe it should be the central focus of debate in the Senate--the question of human life, when it begins, what protections it deserves under our Constitution, what protections it deserves in terms of the statutes that we may pass. That is probably the most fundamental issue this Senate could ever debate. And I hope we will have an opportunity to debate those central issues. That, however, is not the issue today. The issue today is whether or not we will force taxpayers to send their money to the Government to be used to provide a medical procedure which violates--for many, not all-- but for many some of their most deeply held religious beliefs, some of their most deeply held moral convictions. This Senator, and others, have stated they did not believe that is proper. Polls that have been repeatedly taken throughout this country have indicated that a very substantial majority of Americans do not believe it is proper to utilize tax dollars for Government provision of abortions for women. That is the central issue here today. Now, in the earlier debate, we debated whether or not there should be exceptions to that rule. And the exception provided for in the earlier debate was simply the life of the mother. The Senator from Oklahoma had concluded, in discussion with a number of us, had concluded some time before, up to 48 hours before, that the exceptions that he would provide in his amendment or against the amendment in his language were not only abortion provision in the exception of the life of the mother but also in the cases of rape and incest. Because of a procedural problem, he was not able to do that. That issue was presented to Members of the Senate and raised because many came down and spoke on this floor saying they could not support a provision which did not allow exceptions for rape and incest. The Senator from Oklahoma said, ``I tried to do that. I was not able to do that for procedural reasons.'' So we moved to a vote. The vote failed--the Senator's position failed, which I supported. I was disappointed that it failed. But, nevertheless, it failed. The Senator from Oklahoma now comes back with the identical underlying premise, that is, taxpayers should not fund abortions, the Government ought to get out of the abortion business, but provides exceptions in cases where the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest occur. A number of Senators spoke publicly on this floor saying that the reason they opposed the earlier amendment that did not include rape and incest is because it did not include rape and incest. They could not vote for a provision that allowed only for the exception of the life of the mother. By statement or strong implication, they left the conclusion or the belief, at least in my understanding, that if an amendment were presented that did allow exceptions for rape and incest, they would vote for it. They will have the opportunity to do that. A number of others with whom I talked privately expressed that same sentiment to me. ``I cannot vote for something that does not allow an additional exception for the life of the mother and rape and incest.'' That is what is before us. Let us keep the focus on what this issue is. Let us keep a focus on what this vote is. If, as many have said, you do support an amendment that allows life of the mother, rape and incest, then support the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. That is the issue that is before us. And I hope Members understand that and the vote will clearly state where individuals stand on that issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, how much time is available on this side?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. President, one of the myths that we are dealing with here in the debate on this defense bill is the fact that we are asking for more than what the Pentagon requested. That is technically true. The $7 billion is over and above the budget request. But member after member of the Joint Chiefs and others who testified before our committee indicated that they are complying with the number that was given to them by the administration. The Defense Department and the spokesmen for the Defense Department have said time after time after time that there is more they need to meet the requirements for defense and to meet the strategy but they are constrained by budget numbers. Therefore, they are good soldiers, salute, and provide us with a budget that comes within the top line of the administration's budget level. But there has been testimony from everyone from the Joint Chiefs of Staff on down that we are on the razor's edge of readiness, that we are in need of research and development into new technologies, that our modernization program is in deep jeopardy, that we will not have the equipment necessary to meet the threats of the next century. General Shalikashvili has been quoted as saying so, the head of the Marine Corps has been quoted as saying so, and the Secretary of Defense has intimated as such, and on and on it goes. So this mantra that we are hearing from the other side that this is some kind of a wasted expenditure that the Department of Defense has not requested this, and does not need this, simply belies the truth, belies the facts [[Page S 11402]] of what is necessary to provide an adequate defense for this country and what the Department of Defense really needs. They are just simply taking orders from the boss upstairs. Mr. President, I gave a long dissertation on this very subject earlier. I will just simply say ditto to what I said earlier in the interest of time, and yield back the time.

Mr. COATS. Yes. We yield back our time.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. I will just take 30 seconds. Senator Boxer worked carefully with the committee on this proposal. While the committee language was slightly different from what the Senator's amendment proposes here today, it simply accelerates the time in which the Department has to effect the change. It is acceptable to the committee. We appreciate the Senator working with us on this, and we support this amendment. I thank the Senator. [[Page S 11389]]

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, as someone who has been engaged in attempting to move this bill forward, I would hope Members will accept reasonable time agreements. We have been working long days and long nights for a lot of weeks now. Most of us have not been home with our families for meals for weeks, and the Senate is going to be in session tomorrow. We take up the welfare debate next week, which will be a long week. If there is a way we can avoid the time it takes to have rollcall votes on amendments that are already accepted, or if there is a way that Members can reduce the amount of time they speak on issues that have been debated over and over and over, time after time after time, and everybody knows how they are going to vote, I think everybody would appreciate that. My experience is that no matter how articulate and eloquent my speeches might be--and they are not all that articulate and eloquent-- it does not change any votes. So to the extent any of us can summarize our arguments, realizing that no matter how passionate or eloquent they might be, it is probably not going to do anything except make us more tired and irritable and probably produce more votes against us than when we started speaking. I hope everybody, in the interests of those of us who have families at home and would like to see them once in a while, could take those situations into their consideration. To the extent we can move along with these bills and people can summarize their statements in the interests of providing some comity for their colleagues, I would certainly appreciate that and I am sure others would also. [[Page S 11385]] Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. I appreciate the Senator from Virginia reading the letter and the comments of the Senator from Kentucky relative to the National Guard Association and their interests. The Senator from Virginia commented on paragraph 1 of that letter. Let me add to that by reading a little bit of paragraph 2: We are opposed to efforts which would merely identify a lump sum dollar amount for equipment which would then be referred to the Department of Defense for distribution. In almost every instance the work of the members of the committee and the committee staff has resulted in identification of the highest priority unfunded equipment requirements for the National Guard. Now, we are sensitive to the question raised by the Senator from Michigan. That is why we have incorporated in the bill a request by the committee that the Department furnish us with a report indicating that they will begin to make determinations, as they submit to us on requests for the regular appropriations for the active Army and military, that they will begin to do this for the National Guard. For years, the practice has been to defer this decision to Congress. We will have that report before the Senate. We [[Page S 11412]] can evaluate that next year. We ask for it to be submitted with the budget, so we will do it concurrently with the budget and evaluate it at that time. Do not forfeit now the practice that has been undertaken by the Congress on the request of the Guard and in support by the Guard, allowing DOD to defer that decision to us. We have made that decision for this year, and we will evaluate the report next year and be back with a recommendation.

Mr. COATS. I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, the chairman of the appropriate committee is on the floor, and I will yield to him or just take a brief couple of minutes here and then let him discuss this amendment. Let me just say that we discussed this in great detail in committee and in examining it, and as chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, I concluded that moving the time obligation from 6 years to 5 years after graduation from the academies was a desirable thing to do. I base that decision primarily upon information that I received from each of the Superintendents of the academies. I have with me copies of letters from the Superintendents of the academies. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I have letters from the Superintendent of the West Point U.S. Military Academy, from the Air Force Academy and from the Naval Academy. Let me just quote from those letters: Dear Senator Coats: When legislation to extend the Active Duty Service Obligation for academy graduates was proposed for the FY 1990 defense authorization bill, all the services opposed the change. We believed the extension was unnecessary. Now they have had some experience with this and, as a result of that, they write to us and say that there are concerns that the longer obligation would harm the recruiting of high school students who have many other college and career options, especially minority applicants. They were concerned at the time when this was put in that this would adversely affect them. The Superintendent of the military academy goes on to say that ``we * * * believe the 5-year obligation is a better requirement. It helps the recruiting effort and it supports sound officer management policy.'' General Stein, Superintendent of the Air Force Academy, says: The propensity for young people to serve in the Armed Forces has declined significantly in the post-cold-war era. For example, our applications in the past 7 years are down nearly 50 percent. We believe the increased service commitment to 6 years has contributed to this trend. Over the past 3 years, in telephone interviews with those who declined appointments to the academy, over 20 percent stated that the 6-year military obligation was a major factor in their decision. Finally, Admiral Larson, Superintendent of the Naval Academy says: Our admissions statistics indicate that the FY 90 extension of the Active Duty Service Obligation has had a negative impact on the [[Page S 11417]] total number of applicants and on the number of young men and women seeking congressional appointments . . . A recent survey of those applicants who declined an offered appointment to the Naval Academy indicated that 23 percent did so because of the 6-year service obligation. Mr. President, I believe we need to listen to the people who run the academies. They are the ones who are in charge of the recruiting of top-flight high school graduates to attend the academies. Each of them has specified to us that the 6-year obligation is not only unnecessary but it hurts their recruiting. As they call and interview, those who they have selected to be at the Academy, and ask them, ``Why did you turn down a free education,'' we are finding that one-fifth or more of those who rejected the appointment have said the 6-year obligation was simply too long. There are a lot of opportunities for bright, young people today. The people that are applying for the Academies are top-flight people that have other options, not only in terms of their educational and academic options, but in terms of employment opportunities when they leave. Those individuals are saying, ``I am not prepared at this point to commit to 6 years.'' Now, the logical response to that is, well, then that means they would not stay on as officers in the respective services. If they are concerned about a 6-year obligation, why should the taxpayer pay for their education only to have them leave 5, 6 years later? But just the opposite is true. Those individuals who do accept and graduate from the Academy, a vast proportion, and very high percentage of those graduates choose a career of service in the military. The difference is that when you are an 18-year-old making a decision, 6 years seems like an eternity. But once you have received the education, gone through the academy and graduated, begun to serve in the service, the decision is to stay in the service. So that is not a deterrent. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona who initiated this proposal and was instrumental in urging the committee to adopt it.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona made a mistake. He said the Senator from Indiana has [[Page S 11419]] worked the hardest on this. That is not true. The Senator from Arizona has been passionately interested in maintaining top quality at the academies. Nobody cares more about attracting the kind of people we need to lead our armed services than him. That is why he is concerned, because we are not getting those people. The people who run the academies are saying one of the primary reasons we are losing people is the 6-year obligation. We are trying to defer to the wishes of those who run the academies and admit the students, and they are telling us, drop it from 6 to 5.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the evidence is in. We do not need another study. It was originally raised from 5 to 6 years by the Senator from Ohio without a study. But the superintendents of the three academies of West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy in Colorado have all said--they are the ones who are in charge of bringing the applicants to the academy and making sure that we have the top-flight people--they have written to us. And each have said that they support the reduction from 6 to 5. The reason they do so is they are losing top-flight academy applicants. When they follow up with interviews of those who are accepted to the academies, the ones that do not come, and ask those individuals, ``Why didn't you come?'' More than 20 percent in two different surveys and studies conducted by the academies have said, ``The 6-year requirement is too much.'' Now, the logical question is, well, if they do not want to commit to 6 years, and we are paying for their education, they will not stay and be career officers. Just the opposite is true. To an 18-year-old trying to make a decision, a 6-year commitment on top of a 4-year academy experience seems like a long, long time. But once they go through the academy, and once they serve in the services, the vast majority of those, nearly 80 percent or more, become career soldiers, sailors, and airmen. So I think we should listen to the superintendents. They are the ones that are in charge of getting the quality people to the academy. They are the ones that are saying, ``We need this help to recruit the top- flight candidates. Please drop this from 6 to 5.'' The committee supported that position. I hope the Senators will do that.

Mr. COATS. And is it not correct the Senator has already had 1 hour 15 minutes and this side has had 15 minutes? Is that the correct allocation?