Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. If the Senator will yield, I am going to get off the floor. I just came over to ask a simple question. I got everything but the answer to my question. I did not mean to prompt the opportunity for the Senator from North Dakota to repeat what he already said earlier. I simply asked the question as to how the Senator proposed that we would deter an accidental launch of a ballistic missile toward the United States. I got everything but the answer to that particular question. The Senator from Arizona is more than capable of answering--and I believe he probably has already done it--the reasons why this program is significantly different from what Reagan or anybody else proposed in the early eighties. It is not the so-called umbrella defense star wars system that has been debated on the floor here for a decade and a half. It is much, much different from that. The threat is different from that. I do not disagree with the Senator that the threat we face includes options other than----

Mr. COATS. That is true----

Mr. COATS. That may or may not----

Mr. COATS. I am saying the world has changed significantly since we employed the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, and the deterrent effect the Senator alluded to that would satisfy the concerns of the Senator from Arizona simply may not be applicable in today's world.

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. Let me say, Mr. President, if I could ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds, there is no objection to acceptance of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that has been offered by the Senator from North Dakota. If he is willing to accept that, we do not feel it is necessary to have a vote. Obviously, that is the decision the Senator has to make, but it is perfectly acceptable to our side. It is a good resolution, and I am proud to support it.

Mr. COATS. I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, I wish to join in the commendation of the Senator from North Dakota and support that he has received in bringing forth this resolution. I wish to thank him as well as the Senator from Wisconsin for their support when the issue was before the Senate. This obviously is an effort which involves the Members from both sides of the aisle because it deals with a very fundamental, important principle, and it is a principle underlying the way in which decisions are made that affect the way in which taxpayers' dollars are spent. We had what many would consider a historic debate on this issue. This effort to provide the President with line-item veto power had been tried numerous times dating well into the last century, always failing to gain a majority of support in necessary votes in both Houses of the Congress to send to the President for his signature. We accomplished that goal this year, and it was a historic vote. We fundamentally altered the balance of power between the legislative branch and the executive branch in terms of how dollars are spent. The Congress had forfeited the power that it held, gave it to the executive branch. In doing so, it made the statement and the commitment to the American people that business as usual, that is, attaching unrelated, unnecessary spending items to otherwise necessary appropriations bills, was going to end, or at least we would provide a vehicle to end that practice. We would shed light on that practice. And Members would have to come to the floor and defend the particular item, so-called pork barrel item, that was attached to a particular appropriations bill. Therefore, what I think the voters have asked of us, that is, that our yea be yea and our nay be nay on the specific item in question be cast as a vote in this Chamber, so that we no longer would hide spending from the direct public scrutiny and from the accountability that ought to fall to each of us in terms of where we stood on a particular spending item involving their tax dollars. So we passed that historic legislation but in two very different forms. The form that the Senate used was a very different form than what the House used. In fact, the House used a form that Senator McCain and I originally had used on a number of occasions. We have led this effort over the last several years, coming ever closer to a majority and finally had the breakthrough this year, for which we were grateful. But in doing so, we adopted what many would say is a somewhat convoluted vehicle to deliver the substance of line-item veto. Reconciling the two differences between the House and the Senate, while it appears on its face to be a very complicated matter, really is not that complicated, because the underlying substance of the legislation is the same. It is simply the vehicle which delivers that substance that is different. Senator McCain and I have said repeatedly that we are willing to negotiate that substance and sit down with our colleagues from the House of Representatives and work out an acceptable vehicle to accomplish that very end. Now, the House has not yet appointed conferees. The Senate has. Senator McCain and I have urged the leadership in both the Senate and in the House to accomplish this fact. Discussions have been held with the leadership, and I know that the majority leader is committed to moving forward. I know that has been communicated to the House. Obviously, this is an extraordinary year. Our plates are full as they never have been before. We are dealing with an extraordinary level and degree of complex legislative changes. We are redefining the role of Government. We are redefining how we spend the taxpayers' dollars, and so there is a great deal before us. That has, unfortunately, delayed the process of getting some of these conferences together to resolve some of this legislation that has passed both Houses of the Congress. But we do, I believe, have a commitment from both Houses now to move forward with this legislation, to appoint conferees, to meet as soon as is possible and bring back to both bodies the line-item veto in a form that is acceptable and that can be given to the President for his signature, which I believe he has indicated he would sign.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today to present a poem, ``Who Are the Veterans of World War II,'' that Dr. Jack Gren, a Fort Wayne, IN, native, has written to pay tribute to the veterans of World War II. It reflects his experiences during possibly the most historic war of this century. As a young man, Dr. Gren volunteered for the Air Force and flew the Hump in the China-Burma-India theater of operations. He has since been involved with several speaking engagements and seminars detailing his life experiences. Mr. President, I ask that the poem be printed in the Record. The poem follows: Who Are the Veterans of World War Two? Who are the veterans of World War Two? People proud of the red, white and blue. When the war broke out we got right in Knowing somehow we'd eventually win. The average age was twenty-six But there certainly was a full range mix. Some were the old guys at thirty-five Fighting to keep our country alive. A few of us were kids, still in our teens Sincere and eager and full of dreams. Joined the Air Force, Army, Marines and Navy too There was an important job we had to do. We took all the training and it was rough But that's what taught us how to be tough. Yes, we were tough when we had to be But only out of necessity. The rest of the time we were gentle and kind Just winning the war was first in our mind. We fought all over the world day by day And every night found time to pray. We fought in Europe with all our might We knew that we had to make things right. The battles were fierce in the Africa campaign And even there we did sustain. We fought throughout the Pacific Islands From jungle swamps up to the highlands. We fought in China, Burma and India as well Now that was a real living hell. We thought about our loved ones way back home And sometimes felt so terribly alone. We cared for our buddies quite a bit And it tore us apart when they got hit. Casualties occurred in many different ways Sometimes it put us in kind of a daze. It was difficult seeing wounded in terrible pain And no way to help was hard to explain. But worse was to see friends lie dying It was all we could do to keep from crying. Whether killed in a plane, a ship or tank It was then we thought the whole world stank. But that was the way it had to be And we kept on fighting till the world was free. Yes, we did our duty and did it with pride Some of us lived while others died. Then came the year of '45 The war was over and we were alive. First Victory in Europe, then VJ Day Thank You, God, we knelt to pray. Then we came home to start once more Hoping there'd not be another war. We went to college or learned a skill Thinking never again we'd have to kill. We married, had children and that was nice But like everything else we had paid a price. We struggled as we tried to build a career And many a night shed a silent tear. Some attitudes changed it was hard to understand Why certain people didn't appreciate this land. When other wars started and some people fled We remembered the ones who fought and bled. Then along came those who defiled our flag They spit on it burned it and called it a rag. They called it ``free expression,'' That it was their right Something given to them without struggle or fight. They insulted the veterans who came home lame For their outrageous actions they ought to feel shame. And some people still try to get a free ride It's through self achievement that we earn our pride. Now our children are grown and out on there own And once again we're alone. If we're lucky we still have a loving wife It's really been an interesting life. We've seen the world change and its hard to explain Why there are wars, turmoil and pain. When will people heed the message from above And learn to live in peace and love. Yes, World War II was long ago Will the veterans forget it, the answer is no. For some old guys in the war, their journey is done They lived a good life and the battles were won. We who were kids, then still in our teens Are now in our sixties and accomplished our dreams. We attend military reunions, reminisce with the guys And occasionally a thought brings tears to our eyes. We look around, observe and it's easy to see There aren't as many of us left as there used to be. But if a terrible war came, heaven forbid We'd probably do the same thing as we once did. We'd join in the fray with all our might And do what we could to make things right. For we still love this country, the red white and blue And that by God, is the best we can do.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, We have all become accustomed to the plethora of international conferences held by the United Nations. We tend to think of them as rather benign discussions about ideals. I have grave concerns, however, about the U.S. acquiescing to overreaching policy goals which could alter American culture. The Beijing Conference on the Status of Women has these aims. Months of preliminary meetings have produced a draft document which conflicts with the views of most Americans and is silent on the unique role of women as mothers. I hope that passage of this amendment will signal the United Nations and the administration that the Senate rejects the current language and the current approach. The goals do not seek to understand and respect women's roles all over the world, but rather promote a particular political ideology of women. The amendment which is being offered by the Senator from Texas reasserts what I believe the entire Senate and what the vast majority of Americans wish to reassert, regarding the role of mothers and the role of traditional families. It is hard to imagine how a document about the status of women could fail to even mention their roles as mothers. In fact one country had the reference to ``mother'' replaced with ``caretaker.'' And ``family with ``household''. References to fathers are made only in the negative terms of violence and abuse of wives and daughters. Likewise, the document fails to acknowledge the critical role of fathers in parenting and teaching their children by daily example to respect women and hold them in esteem. There was no attempt to discuss the importance of families in nurturing children and raising them to become responsible citizens. Some of the conference participants seem intent on dramatically altering the traditional view that the family structure is headed by a married man and woman. Demanding complete equality for men and women at home, denies basic biology and trivializes women as mothers. Senator Hutchison's amendment asserts the traditional family is the fundamental unit of society upon which healthy cultures are built and therefore the traditional family should receive both the esteem and the protection by society and the state. Traditional family has long been recognized as the fundamental foundation, building block for this successful society. There have been attempts over the past several years to undermine the role of the traditional family. I think those attempts have fortunately failed because Americans, by strong majority, believe that traditional family role should be upheld and promoted wherever possible, and not undermined. Experience shows us--today particularly, with the declining social culture and problems that exist throughout society with young people--the destructive nature of broken families and the impact that has had on our social system, the incidence of juvenile delinquency, the incidence of crime, the incidence of teenage pregnancy, of substance abuse, of teenage suicides, of breakdown in the moral fiber of our young people and in our society because of the breakdown of the traditional family. While gender is used 216 times in a 121 page document, it is never defined. When several delegates sought to define gender, their efforts were rebuffed. Behind the scenes, it became evident that the meaning of gender had been expanded to include not just male and female, but transsexual, bisexual and homosexual. A statement released by the UN Secretary General's office attempting to clarify some of this controversy only fuels it. It asserts that ``sex and equality are absolute concepts'' and ``a person is born male or female and this is an unchangeable attribute.'' Strangely, however, the Secretary General goes on to say that Gender is also a relative concept. Although many people use the term gender interchangeably with sex, the two terms are quite different. Gender refers to the relationships between women and men based on socially defined roles that are assigned to one sex or the other . . . because the roles change, gender is relative. I wonder how many Americans consider ``gender'' to be relative. The definition of gender is sex, that is male or female, period. The General Secretariat statement deliberately confuses roles of men and women with their identities as men and women. Clearly, both sexes can serve with equal skill and dexterity in many roles in our society. However, there are other roles--such as motherhood and fatherhood-- which remain distinct. We should reject outright any attempt to promote a political agenda based on a concept of gender which is alien to most Americans. The document makes clear the viewpoint that gender roles are all socially constructed. There are no differences between the sexes. Empowerment and advancement of women can only come when governments take action to ensure that men and women are completely equal in all aspects of life. Other gender statements in the draft document clearly promote this position. The conference goals would require gender sensitivity at all levels of society with direct government involvement. Education must have ``gender awareness'' Employers must have gender instruction. All governments must develop gender sensitive programs to quote ``end social subordination of women and girls''. Furthermore, the eighty-one calls in the document for ``gender equality'' would make 50-50 male-female quotas a requirement for employment and to receive funding. President Clinton's commitment to make the final product of the conference a reality make this far more than a theoretical discussion of policy aims. The ultimate effect of implementing the document will be government dictating radical cultural changes to the American people. Senator Hutchison's amendment would ensure that gender be limited to only male and female. I am also deeply concerned that the document neglects to acknowledge freedom of conscience or of religion. Instead, references to religion are cited as a source of repression for women. The one mention of women's spiritual needs has been bracketed--meaning subject to deletion in Beijing. The document does not call for religious freedom for women as you might expect. In fact, the entire process of preparing for Beijing seems determined to deny this fundamental right. A number of courageous delegates from other countries were distressed that their attempts to add and change language to reflect their views were met with contempt. These women have expressed deep reservations about proposals for social change would be contrary to the religious views of the citizens of the nations they represented. Mr. President, earlier Senator Dole introduced an amendment which would cut international conference funds to participate in the Beijing conference unless Harry Wu were released. I applaud his amendment. It reminds us that there are larger issues which are at stake. Basic human rights are being denied to U.S. citizen Harry Wu, as they are denied to thousands of Chinese. I frankly find the selection of Beijing as host of this conference the ultimate act of hypocrisy. While delegations from hundreds of countries discuss issues of concern to women, Chinese officials brutally and cruelly force women to have abortions and be sterilized to enforce a one child per family policy. Our message to Chinese women should be that Americans find such acts abhorrent. Rather, our official participation at Beijing signals them that we are not concerned about these violent acts. Diane Knippers, of the Project on Religion and Democracy, stated: One of the more serious omissions in the draft Platform is any acknowledgement of freedom of conscience or religion of women. Throughout the document, religion is cited as a source of repression of women. . . . But nowhere in the 121 pages does the document call for the religious freedom for women. . . . We believe that women should have the right to engage in religious practice, to change their religion and to propagate their religious faith, particularly to their children. [[Page S 10966]] . . . It is outrageous that this conference on women's rights is being held in a country which currently imprisons women for practicing their faith and forces many to have abortions. I strongly support Senator Hutchison's amendment. It is essential for the rest of the world to know that Americans continue to value women in their roles of mothers, and that we believe that the traditional family is an important element to maintain a strong and healthy culture. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. I am happy to yield, and I thank the Senator from Texas, and am happy to yield to the majority leader.

Mr. COATS

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

Mr. COATS. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as if in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Coats pertaining to the introduction of S. 1079 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Comprehensive Charity Reform Act. This legislation is designed to expand the ability of private and religious 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 antipoverty 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 [[Page S 10823]] 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. Mr. President, I was recently invited to attend a session designed to address some of the problems of homelessness and despair that was conducted by a mission organization here in Washington, DC. It is just blocks from the Federal effort at dealing with homelessness--the John L. Young Center, which has been the subject of extraordinary controversy, drug dealing, crime, management problems, and the subject of numerous investigative reports in some of our local media. The Federal project stands in stark contrast to an organization called the Gospel Mission, a shelter and drug treatment center for homeless men in the same neighborhood. At the Gospel Mission, I think we have seen the shape of 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 5 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 backyard. 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.'' Reverand Wood'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 centers 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--a war against poverty that is not directed out of a Federal agency but by many individuals, by organizations, by communities, gathered together asking, How can we help in a more effective way? 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? This legislation is an answer. It is composed of six elements, designed to increase both the depth of charitable giving to poverty relief, and the breadth of charitable giving more generally: First, 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, I am advocating an above-the-line deduction for charitable contributions made by nonitemizing taxpayers. Significant amounts of funds are donated each year by those who do not itemize on their tax return and, therefore, do not take the charitable deduction available to them if they do itemize. I think those people ought to be encouraged and rewarded for their contributions. So I am in this legislation expanding the base for charitable giving with an above the line for those who do not itemize. Third, I want to remove the 3 percent floor on itemized deductions that currently exists in the Tax Code for taxpayers of a certain income level and higher because I think we ought to do everything we can to encourage private contributions to charity. Fourth, I ask for an extension of the deadline for all charitable giving until April 15 to encourage giving up to the very date of filing. Fifth, we are requiring that any Government poverty assistance program disclose the percentage of funds it actually spends on the poor rather than on administrative costs. Taxpayers will be able to see exactly how their tax dollars are actually being spent and compare that expenditure with operations, organizations, community service, outreach programs, and nonprofit programs. This will allow us to measure the actual assistance that reaches the poor through our Government spending on anti-poverty programs and compare it with private programs. Finally, we have a provision that instructs the General Accounting Office to develop standards to determine the success rates and cost effectiveness of Government welfare programs. Mr. President, the purpose of the legislation is twofold. First, we want to take a small portion of the 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 we believe it can make a difference. Second, Mr. President, I would like 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 in which men and women examine and support the programs in their own communities that serve the poor. I hope that my colleagues will take a careful look at this new approach to compassion. It is important not only for us to spread authority and resources within the levels of Government, but I think we need to spread these resources to things beyond Government, the institutions that cannot only feed the body but can touch the soul. Mr. President, we have had a nearly three-decade-long experiment with Government compassion. As I said, many programs that have been enacted by Congress were well intended, in an effort to reach out to people in need. But we have seen the bankruptcy of many of those programs in the lives of the individuals who were the recipients of those programs. We see a litany of broken families and broken homes, of hopeless people, of taxpayer funds eaten up in administrative costs, put into programs that are simply not making a difference in the lives of the people for whom they were intended. We have also had the example of the contrast--local churches, local nonprofit charitable organizations. I could start naming a whole list of organizations that have said we are not going to wait for a Government program or Government bureaucrat to describe how we should reach out to those in our community that are in need. We are going to roll up our sleeves and design a program. And whether it is providing free medical care through a doctors' association or health clinic, whether it is providing food through a nutrition effort, or a food center, whether it is providing help to a welfare family or others in need, we have seen the effectiveness of these programs. We have seen rehabilitation rates for substance and drug abusers and others that far exceed those that the Federal Government programs can offer. We have seen this offered at a cost far less than what the taxpayers provide in Government programs. Can private charity replace Government? I am not suggesting that Federal, State and local governments will not have to be involved in poverty relief. But private initiates can offer a [[Page S 10824]] viable alternative that the Government can at least encourage. I believe a charity credit will go a long way toward nurturing and encouraging those private efforts that I think are going to be more and more important as we begin to reform and reduce the scope of the Government involvement, because government alone simply has not worked for the well being of our people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material describing and explaining this proposal be included in the Record along with the text of the bill itself.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I will do my best. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his courtesy. I did speak on this issue a few days ago, and I will attempt to summarize the statement that I have here in the interest of preserving some time for other Members. I tried to make two points. First, that it is regrettable that we are here not debating what the policy should be relative to Bosnia, fulfilling our constitutional role of advise and consent to the President of the United States, who is Commander in Chief and who is delegated and given the responsibility and authority to conduct the United States foreign policy, but regrettably we are here formulating that policy in the absence of leadership provided by the President and the administration in fulfilling their duties. That has been a continuing sad story that has permeated this entire Bosnia debate over the last 2\1/2\ to 3 years. Filling this vacuum of leadership is not something that this Senator relishes or even feels fully qualified to perform. Nevertheless, it seems that it is left to us to try to identify and define some policy relative to the United States involvement or lack of involvement in this conflict in Bosnia. It is true that the choices that face us as a nation in terms of dealing with this conflict are not easy choices. Former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin said all choices in Bosnia are bad; some are worse. It is clear that we are dealing with perhaps what might be defined as the best of the worst in terms of choices. But a couple of facts confront us very, very directly today in this conflict. Fact No. 1 is that the current attempts at negotiating a settlement to the conflict in Bosnia have failed. And they have failed for a period now of 2\1/2\ to 3 years. There have been numerous attempts. There have been numerous so-called peace agreements, new peace plans. I met with the Bosnian Foreign Minister just a few days ago. He said, ``We have signed 17 pieces of paper agreeing to cease-fires and agreeing to peace plans.'' He said that, ``We have one party in this conflict that holds a piece of paper and no weapon, and another party who holds a weapon and no piece of paper.'' He said to guess which one is going to prevail. He said, ``We will not be able to sit down at the table and begin to negotiate an agreement which both sides can agree to and adhere to until there is an equalization of the confrontation that exists between the two.'' Either both hold a piece of paper or both hold a piece of paper and a weapon, and some sort of rough stalemate exists that will cause both parties to have an incentive to come to the peace table. As the situation now exists, no peace can be achieved if one party has no reason to achieve a peace, no basis to achieve a peace. There is no reason they need to achieve a peace if they can achieve their gains through force. The second truth we face is that UNPROFOR's--the so-called protective force's--policy of protecting Bosnians in safe havens has failed. We daily read of the latest disaster in this regard. It is clear that UNPROFOR, for whatever reason, does not have the capacity, the will, or whatever, to achieve a successful implementation of the protection policy. The third basic fact, and we might as well say it and be up front about it, the United States is not going to intervene militarily to solve this and resolve this conflict. The American people do not support it, the Congress does not support it, the President has not articulated why we should do this, how it is in our vital strategic or national interest, how we could achieve this militarily, how long we would be there, what our exit strategy would be. None of the defined criteria that are used to justify American intervention have been either defined or articulated to either us or the American people, and it is clear that we will not commit troops to this conflict. Anyone who has studied the history of conflict in this region, anyone who understands to the most elementary level the nature of the environment in which we will be placing our troops, anyone who understands the complexity of this particular conflict, has to come to the conclusion that it would be a disaster, a mistake, to involve the U.S. militarily in this conflict. Therefore, we are left with what I believe is probably the best-worst option, something that I have been reluctant to endorse, but something I do now endorse, and that is a lifting of the embargo. I agree with the proposal that withdraws the U.N. protective forces first before we lift. I think that is important. I agree with the policy that says the United States should not commit to a NATO strategy that is destined to be a failed policy. But after UNPROFOR has left, and hopefully we will not need to fulfill the President's already-stated commitment and promise to our NATO allies to utilize U.S. forces to withdraw those forces, hopefully that will not be necessary. I will reluctantly support that, in an emergency situation, if there is no other way, as a commitment to NATO that I believe has been made and we need now to keep. Hopefully, we then can lift the arms embargo. I think we need to understand what this means. I asked the foreign minister, what does this mean lifting the arms embargo? What kind of arms do you seek? He said, ``You don't understand. We don't need American advisers on the ground; we don't need massive training off site, we are very skilled in the rudimentaries of conflict.'' What we are dealing with here is not a Desert Storm sophisticated arms conflict, but something more akin to pre-World War II. He said, ``The first thing we need are helmets.'' He said, ``Most of our deaths are caused by shrapnel injuries to the head because we are not allowed to have helmets under the arms embargo.'' It is an absurd restriction. Second, he said, ``We need some ammunition, small arms ammunition. We don't need people to show us how to use that. We have been an arms manufacturer in the past.'' Third, he said, ``We need some antitank weapons so that we can deter the heavy tank forces that may be arrayed against us.'' He said, ``These don't need to be sophisticated either; shoulder-held, shoulder- fired antitank weapons would be sufficient.'' And fourth, ``We need artillery to counter the artillery that is utilized by the Serbs so that we can achieve some kind of balance of forces.'' So lifting the arms embargo does not mean necessarily greater U.S. involvement, it does not mean we need to supply the arms. These arms are available on the world market. It simply means we give the Bosnians the right to do what they had asked us to do, and that is to defend their own borders. Finally, I think we need to examine a strategy of containment that is in our vital national interest, not to have this spread into the areas of Macedonia and Kosovo. We do need to draw the line, NATO does need to be involved in this, but it requires U.S. leadership to accomplish it. U.S. leadership has been the glue that formulated NATO, it has been the glue that has held it together, and it is going to be the leadership necessary to maintain NATO as a sustainable, viable defense entity. So we need that leadership, and we should consult with our NATO allies about a containment strategy that keeps this conflict contained within its current area. So, Mr. President, that is a very abbreviated explanation of why I support the Dole-Lieberman effort here. I do so reluctantly. I believe we have no other choice. I thank the Senator from Virginia for the time that he has allotted to me. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. I prefer more, but I will accept 10 minutes or so.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I inquire of the manager of the bill--I am sorry. I just walked onto the floor and did not understand what the allocation of time was. I know we are moving toward a vote at 1:45, approximately. The time is reserved for leaders. I would like to get some assurance that I will be able to speak on the pending question for up to 10 minutes or so. I do not know how that works in terms of other time that might be allocated. I just offer that so that the leader has some opportunity to make a judgment on this.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition. We are back on the Bosnia debate. In one sense, this debate should not be necessary. In the normal course of events, the President is the one who holds the duty to provide direction in these matters. I have long believed that our foreign policy ought to be directed by the chief executive officer and ratified by the Congress--the Senate--but not formulated. But the situation is far from normal in this instance. Our action today on this Bosnia resolution is required by a somewhat unusual, maybe unprecedented failure of leadership on a very important issue. The credibility of our Nation and the existence of NATO are at risk. But it seems that the administration moves from crisis to crisis in Bosnia without a clear definition of what our policy is or ought to be. We have alternated between indifference and almost panic, operating without purpose and often seemingly without principle. Over 2 years ago, as the policy of ``safe havens'' was being defined, I came to this floor expressing a concern and a question. ``A police action,'' I said, ``protecting safe havens, will probably stop some short-term suffering, but it will answer few long-term questions. After we purchase a temporary peace for fleeing refugees, what is our eventual goal?'' I asked. ``On this question,'' I then said, ``this administration is silent.'' Now it is 2 years later and that eventual goal is still unclear, and that silence has become a source of considerable embarrassment. For, 2 years later, little has changed. The situation is worse. We have maintained, during that period of time, a one-sided arms embargo against Bosnia which has only served to reinforce the advantages enjoyed by the Serb aggressors. We have placed critical command decisions in the hands of international bureaucrats who have not brought any military experience, political insight, or even moral courage to their position. We have made a series of threats against Serbian forces that proved hollow, empty, undermining our credibility with both friends and foes alike around the world. And we have repeatedly misled Bosnian leaders, first opposing and then supporting various initiatives, leaving the Bosnian Vice President to conclude ``We are going to die of these initiatives.'' Mistake has followed failure in an unending downward spiral as each safe area became progressively unsafe. ``I don't remember a time,'' says one expert, ``when there was so much scorn for American foreign policy.'' Former British Secretary David Owen comments, ``To the day I go to my grave, I will not understand the policy.'' The result has been an American retreat into a purely reactive mode. Our only role, it seems, is to respond to European proposals and initiatives. The only clear objectives of this administration seem to be to appease our allies and avoid political blame. Now the administration is reduced to floating another French proposal, which repeats every error of the past. It calls on us to place more troops into indefensible positions. It demands that we risk American lives to prove our loyalty to a failed NATO policy. And once again, it has no diplomatic or military end game. It continues an aimless and endless commitment. The President of France says the use of American helicopters and airmen is necessary ``to place the Americans squarely in front of their responsibilities.'' The effect would be to place our troops squarely in front of bullets as a symbolic commitment to a strategy which no one expects to succeed. It is hard to imagine a policy more destructive to American interests or more likely to lead to pointless loss of life. The central problem here is pretty clear. The ``safe haven'' approach has not worked. But even more than that, it could not have worked, even with less United Nations interference, even with more military commitment, because the safe havens were chosen for a humanitarian, not a military mission. Thus, the deployment of forces on the ground and the equipment they were given was matched for this humanitarian purpose, not for a military purpose. The troops were lightly armed and they were heavily restricted. But now we are being asked to expand that mission to a combat role from militarily indefensible and irrational positions. Each of these areas is a Moslem outpost in a sea of Serbian hostility. We are being asked to man and defend six exposed and vulnerable enclaves, apparently for an indefinite future. If all this sounds somewhat familiar, it should, because it is a policy that acts as though our experience in Somalia never happened; as though the deaths of those Rangers never took place. We attempted to expand that humanitarian effort into a military operation without holding military positions, without adopting military strategies, and without setting military goals. And under these circumstances, peacekeeping became bloodletting and nothing lasting was accomplished. Mr. President, we are accustomed to saying all options in Bosnia are bad, which has been used as an excuse for choosing those options which are worse. It is increasingly clear to me that only one approach is justified. Our goal should be the creation of a viable Bosnian state with defensible borders and the military equipment to uphold them. This goal will never be reached while the embargo remains in force. I believe we are led to this goal by two very direct American interests. First is our strategic interest in the containment of this crisis. The worst possible result here would be for the fighting to extend beyond Bosnia, to spread to Macedonia, Kosovo, and beyond. That would bring in other NATO allies and could result in a situation that would be far more difficult in the future than even what we face today. It seems to me the best way to make that result difficult and hopefully impossible is to have a viable Bosnian state in the region to provide a check against Serb aggression. Second, I suggest we have a moral interest and that moral interest is an eventual peace agreement between the parties in Bosnia. History offers no example of fruitful diplomacy or lasting peace between warring nations where the stronger power has a continued interest in conflict. Therefore, trying to [[Page S 10301]] bring both sides into some parity of power will bring them to the table. All along, my problem with removing U.N. forces and lifting the embargo has been the safety of the safe havens. Establishing indefensible regions and calling them ``safe havens'' was a mistake in the first place, but that is the course we took and now those safe havens exist. The President himself, at the beginning, predicted that these areas would become ``shooting galleries.'' But they were adopted anyway, at European insistence, because America offered no alternative. When one top Clinton official was asked why the President accepted this proposal he responded: ``They''--meaning the Europeans--``showed up in town with a plan and he had no choice.'' But the status of the safe havens has been the most difficult obstacle to changing the Bosnian policy. What would happen to these people, to whom we offered the temporary illusion of safety, when the United Nations left? But that dilemma, tragically, is quickly coming to an end. Precisely because these isolated areas only existed at the whim of Bosnian Serbs, they are now endangered. An indefinite commitment to safe havens is not, I suggest, a real option. Mr. President, I suggest a new Bosnian policy embody four principles. The first principle, there must be a timetable for withdrawal of UNPROFOR, the U.N. Protective Force. British and French troops in Bosnia are now the primary obstacle to any sensible policy in the region. Whenever anyone suggests some responsible action, like lifting the embargo, we are told that this is impossible because UNPROFOR forces, which are primarily British and French and some other nations-- those forces would be endangered. In fact every single member of UNPROFOR is now a virtual hostage, preventing a reasonable reassessment of our goals. One commentator has said, ``The U.N. might as well have deployed women and children.'' UNPROFOR has proven its inability to achieve its stated purpose and now stands as an impediment to a viable alternative policy. The second principle I suggest is that U.S. troops should not be used to symbolize our commitment to a failed NATO strategy. We are told that the deployment of American troops is necessary rather than risk further divisions in the Atlantic alliance. But this does nothing to rebuild the reputation of NATO, to join it in a policy that is doomed to fail. In fact, to advance down this path will further undermine NATO's fragile credibility. The United States should not accept either the deployment of American forces to defend the safe havens, or the use of 10,000 American ground troops to help extract French and British forces. The Europeans have proposed this commitment to cement American involvement, not because they are militarily incapable of performing this mission themselves. If we do, however, reach an emergency in which the only means of rescuing the French and British involves a United States role, then I suppose that is part of our duty as an ally, and we ought to have the capability of responding. In addition, I am not opposed to using American communications, logistic support, and transport to help evacuate UNPROFOR. But this is entirely different than sending American infantry and Marines into the Bosnian quagmire as a show of political solidarity for a failed policy. The third principle that I would advocate is that after UNPROFOR have been evacuated we should lift the arms embargo on Bosnia. It is certainly preferable that this be done with the cooperation of our allies. But if it cannot be done with their cooperation, I believe that we should take this action unilaterally, as the Dole-Lieberman resolution directs. The effect of our current policy has been to deny the legitimate and inherent right of Bosnian Moslems to defend themselves. It has also prevented the creation of meaningful borders that could contain Serb aggression in the region. Maintaining the embargo is a violation of both our moral commitments and our direct national interests. In the short term, lifting the embargo may cause the fight to intensify. But this is a risk the Bosnians themselves seem eager to accept. Even under a crippling embargo, the Bosnians have fought with courage and tenacity. They show increasing organization and capability, and the Bosnian Serbs themselves are overextended and plagued by desertions. All the Bosnian Moslems lack are the heavy arms to match the Serbs. Once some balance or parity is achieved, and both sides have a reason to negotiate, the United States should be aggressive in mediating some solution. I am not suggesting that this is a policy without risks. It does carry risks. But there is good reason to believe that Bosnian Moslem resistance will not collapse if UNPROFOR leaves. It is the Bosnian Moslems themselves that assert they are prepared to assume their responsibilities. I cannot forget the personal plea of the Vice President of Bosnia when he testified before the Armed Services Committee: ``We repeat over and over again: we are not asking you for your troops to fight for us on the ground. That is our job and our task. But please do not combine any more big words with small deeds. God will not forgive you if you do nothing. Doing nothing creates a tragedy in Bosnia everyday.'' I suggest that the fourth principle underlying our policy is that America must provide a serious strategy to contain the carnage in the Balkans. The flashpoints of future conflict are Macedonia and Kosovo. Here is where NATO has a compelling interest in building and fortifying a barrier against aggression. Currently, in these regions, we do not have a deterrent, only a tripwire under ineffective U.N. control. NATO should assume full control of this operation, not as a confused humanitarian effort, but as a serious military commitment. This, in general, is the approach adopted by the Dole-Lieberman bill. I believe the time has come for the Senate to support a strong measure and fill a vacuum of leadership that exists. Some will argue that this proposal will weaken NATO. Let me be clear: the health of NATO is essential to American interests. This historic comment is a continuing necessity. But this alliance was successful because its leadership has in the past been unquestioned. And that leadership was effectively provided, throughout the cold war, by America. There is nothing more likely to destroy NATO than for America to retreat from that leadership and abdicate its role. But that is exactly what this administration has allowed to happen. European leaders have attempted to fill that vacuum, but have not succeeded. In David Rieff's new book on Bosnia, he concludes: ``The story of Bosnian defeat is the story of Western European and North American disgrace. What has taken place in Bosnia has revealed the bankruptcy of every European security institution, from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and exposed the fact that nowhere in these great structures was there either intellectual preparedness or moral fortitude for dealing with the crises of the post-cold-war world.'' President Chirac commented yesterday, ``There is no leader of the Atlantic Alliance.'' That is unfortunately, tragically true. It is a disaster for Bosnia, for Europe and for the world. We will not reassert American authority by following European and U.N. officials further into this policy that has not worked. The best way to restore national integrity, I suggest, is by providing it with a strategy that will work. And the best way to preserve NATO is by leading it once again. Mr. President, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that lifting of the embargo is a policy option that we should adopt. It is clear that we will not--or should not, hopefully will not--place U.S. troops in an indefensible military situation to achieve an objective that has yet to be defined, in a military manner that has yet to be defined, with an end purpose that has yet to be defined. Therefore, I believe we should heed their request, and since we will not do that, and since the UNPROFOR forces are ineffective in terms of providing the protection that they promised the Bosnian Moslems, I believe it is time that we assert those principles that I [[Page S 10302]] outlined--that we lift the embargo, and that we heed their request to allow them to defend their sovereign state. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we are grinding away slowly in this process on regulatory reform. I think all Members had hoped we would be able to move much more quickly on this legislation. The majority leader has just outlined a schedule for the Senate between now and the August--I should say supposed August--recess. It seems to me that schedule will be impossible to meet, given the timeframe and the seriousness of the issues which we will be debating. Nevertheless, we cannot even begin to get to complete that agenda if we cannot move along on this particular piece of legislation. We are now completing a full week's debate, with amendments. We have had long days and long nights, and there is no end in sight. I hope that we can continue to make progress. I certainly am not going to be one to delay that process. Let me say, Mr. President, that during the course of this debate, media reports about activities on the Senate floor, debate on this floor, and general discussion about what is taking place here, have left a misimpression as to what this legislation is designed to achieve. There have been claims made, by a number of individuals, that if this bill stands as it is and is not drastically changed, the quality of our water and our air will be placed in jeopardy, our environmental treasures will be threatened, our Nation's wildlife will be endangered. There have even been accusations that the result of this legislation would be the increased incidence of contamination of the very food that we eat and the water that we drink. I think we need to set the record straight on some of these charges. These are disturbing charges because they threaten to undermine a process of reform that I believe is critical to the viability of our economic system. Our current regulatory process is, I believe is complicated beyond the ability of many of our small business people to understand or to comply with. It is punitive in many ways. It is duplicative in many ways. It simply does not provide the efficiency, and in many instances the intended effect of the regulations as they were originally drafted. It drains family income, it chokes small businesses, it denies jobs. The Small Business Administration has estimated that small business owners spend nearly 1 billion hours a year filling out and completing Government forms. This, at a cost of millions of dollars. Turning this tide, restoring some balance and efficiency to the regulatory process is really what this legislation is all about. I think it is important we understand what this legislation does and what it does not do. I intend to review that. Before I do, let me provide a couple of examples as to why I think this legislation is necessary. Perhaps the most important reasons it is necessary is the negative impact the current system has had on our society, on the American family, on those who are seeking to hold meaningful employment. According to a 1993 study conducted by Citizens Against Government Waste, Federal regulations cost the American household $4,000 a year; roughly $400 billion annually. A former OMB official placed the cost even higher, at $500 billion annually, or $5,000 for the average American family. A popular statistic thrown out in this town every year, particularly in the spring, is how long the average American has to work through the year to pay their Federal and State taxes. The date is now approximately May 5th. If you add on their share of the regulatory burden, you push that date even farther forward, into mid-July. Many advocates of the status quo, those who would keep the current system of regulations as they are, rejecting this reform process, argue that this legislation will jeopardize our public health. I do not think this is correct. The legislation we are currently debating, and have debated all week, does not override existing health, safety or environmental law. The cost-benefit requirements of this legislation supplement, not supersede existing law. This legislation does not seek to overturn the very real progress that has been achieved in many cases of public safety regulation. To the contrary, this legislation seeks to provide procedural reform that will ensure that the rules and regulations efficiently and effectively achieve the very goals they were designed to seek. So I ask my colleagues, why should we not proceed with an effort to provide some efficiency in implementing regulations that are designed and intended to promote vital health and safety concerns for Americans? That is a goal we ought to embrace, not a goal we should resist. There have been some charges concerning health emergencies, charges that this legislation would place public health in jeopardy in cases of emergency. The reality is that the cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments are not required if they are impractical due to an emergency or health or safety threat, if they are likely to result in significant harm to the public or to our natural resources. Furthermore, on Tuesday this Senate adopted the Dole amendment by unanimous vote. That clarified the intention, in case there was any doubt, of this legislation to cover food safety emergencies in addition to all public health matters. The legislation further provides the same protections where environmental management activities are concerned. Let me repeat, cost- benefit procedures do not apply where they would result in an actual or immediate risk to human health and welfare. Where a petition for alternative compliance is sought, the petition may only be granted where an alternative achieves at least an equivalent level of protection of health, safety and the environment. So in this Senator's opinion, and I think in the opinion of many Senators, this legislation is not a radical overhaul of Federal regulations. It is a procedural reform that is designed to ensure more effective, more efficient rulemaking. I think that is a common sense approach. I doubt if there is a Member of this Chamber who has not been besieged by his constituents back home, or her constituents back home, or by groups that visit us here in the Senate who point out the duplicative, cost-ineffective, procedural nightmare that they have to go through in complying with Federal regulations. Time and time again it has been pointed out to this Senator how one regulation by one agency countermands a regulation by another agency, leaving the individual to throw up his or her hands, saying which regulation am I supposed to comply with? To comply with one violates the other. It is a nightmare of bureaucracy in terms of filling out forms and complying with injunctions handed down by the various regulatory agencies. A cost-benefit analysis is not an unreasonable request, to examine the benefit of a proposed regulation versus what will be the cost. It is information we ought to have when we assess the viability of rules and regulations and the procedure that produces those. There has been a lot of talk by advocates of the status quo about their compassion, about justifying this legislation to constituents back home. I challenge Members to go back home to a town meeting, or local diner, and to stand up and make the argument for why the Federal Government should not engage in reform of its regulatory process. Why it should not impose a cost-benefit analysis in determining the viability of a regulation, Why we should not determine whether what is the most efficient and effective way to spend their tax dollars. I suspect they will run into a little opposition if they try to defend the status quo. There are many agencies that have been highlighted during the debate this week. There are many that we hear complaints about. Perhaps the one I receive the most complaints about from individuals that I represent is OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Regularly, constituents walk into my office with fistfuls of compliance requests and stories of the nightmare of administrative litigation proceedings, complaining, not only about the process but about the ineffectiveness, the inapplicability, and the duplicative efforts of many of the regulations they are asked to comply with. A roofing business owner in Indiana wrote to me. He said we have these forms, the material safety data sheets, MSDS's, required by OSHA. He said, and I quote from his letter: Materials have an MSDS's that were never intended to be encompassed by the regulatory standards. It has gotten to the point that almost every product in America comes with an MSDS. Products like sand and compressed air, dishwashing detergent, glass cleaner, baby oil, powder, shampoo, all have MSDS's. To carry this product, to use this product, to manufacture this product, if you store this product, you have to fill out this sheet. He tells the story about an OSHA compliance officer who illegally searched his foreman's vehicle. He writes: He searched our foreman's vehicle and found a small plumber's propane torch in the vehicle. It was the employee's personal property. It had nothing to do with the company. This was his personal property. It is not even used in the roofing business. The label had fallen off that propane torch. The foreman tried to explain to the OSHA compliance officer that this was his personal property. He even produced an MSDS sheet. The company was fined $825 because the label had fallen off the propane torch, a product not even used in the business of the employer. Yet, the employer was fined. Another individual from Indiana talked to me about the fact that they had some chalk stored. I believe they used the chalk for certain purposes not necessarily related to the product that they were manufacturing. Yet, they had to fill out the MSDS forms. It was not acceptable to fill out one MSDS form labeling the chalk. But because the chalk came in red, blue, green, yellow and different colors, they had to have spearate forms for each color of chalk. I can go on and on with these stories. In the interest of time, I will not do that. But the point is that we have an overzealous, an overregulatory process at work in America today that is placing costs and burdens on business, and particularly small business, that is denying job opportunities and competitive advantage to these businesses. I think every Member understands how the regulatory process grows and mushrooms and continues to ignore the desire and need for efficiency in imposing what had been determined to be necessary health and safety regulations but imposing it in a way that thwarts the very purpose of the rule in the first place. Mr. President, I hope that we are not derailed in the process of responding to the very clear call of the American people that we clean up the act of the Federal Government here in Washington. We have been given a somewhat historic opportunity to do that. Items that Americans, our constituents, have been complaining about for decades now have an opportunity to be vented in this Congress and reformed in this Congress. People have lost faith in our ability to apply commonsense solutions to the problems that they face. They have seen an insensitive, uncaring, ineffective government impose law after law, and regulation after regulation on their livelihoods, on their businesses, on their families, and on society as a whole. They have lost faith in government which reaches into every corner of their lives, stealing from them the very hard-earned wages that they have worked so long to accumulate. They have lost faith in a government that is suffocating their access to opportunity and to the American dream, the hope of starting and running a successful business, the opportunity to benefit from the jobs of a strong economy, the opportunity to pass along to their children the hope of a better life than they have had. This legislation does not accomplish all that we must. But it is a critical start. If we cannot reform the regulatory process that is suffocating America, there is little that we can do to respond to the very genuine calls for a reformed Congress and a reformed way of doing business. Mr. President, I hope we can move forward. We spent a week now, long days and long nights with no end in sight, with amendment, after amendment, after amendment. But I hope we can expedite this process and move forward. This is an important piece of legislation. It has been discussed, deliberated, and talked about for years. Now is the time that we need to move forward and enact it. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to bring this debate to a reasonable close so that we can exercise our final vote on whether or not we believe that the regulatory process needs to be fixed, needs to be reformed, needs to be made more efficient and effective for this Nation. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I do not want to interrupt the amendment process. I came to make a statement on the bill. I want to proceed if there are no amendments. I am willing to abbreviate my statement when the managers are ready to move to the next amendment.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, first, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Domenici and Congressman Kasich and the budget conferees for producing a historic blueprint that reprioritizes our Federal spending. It is a monumental piece of work, and they deserve a great deal of congratulations for the tireless efforts they put into producing this document. Finally, Congress, under the leadership of Republicans, has delivered on a solemn promise made to the American people to balance the Federal budget. I am particularly pleased that the conferees recognized that they were able to balance the budget and provide family tax relief and economic growth incentives. These were once described as ``mutually exclusive goals.'' We have demonstrated by the budgets brought forth in each body, and resolved in conference, that they are not mutually exclusive goals. Meeting these objectives will ensure that our economy continues to thrive and our families find real relief, even as Federal spending is restrained. Mr. President, there is courage in this budget--courage that I do not believe we have seen for decades, courage that makes this a historic moment. But I think if we are honest, we have to admit that it is courage without alternatives. The status quo may be comfortable for the time being, but it is not sustainable. The road that we have been marching down for these last several years has been wide and has been easy and has been politically pleasing; but that road ends with a precipitous drop into an abyss, from which this country may not recover. I think there has been a recognition of that, and that recognition has produced this document which we are debating today. The figures are familiar, but they have not lost their power to shock. Our national debt currently stands at $4.8 trillion, which translates into $19,000 for every man, woman, and child in this Nation. And that figure as projected, if we do nothing except retain the status quo, will jump to $23,000 for every man, woman, and child by the year 2002. If we ignore this crisis, if we ignore this reality, a child born this year will pay $187,000, or more, over his or her lifetime just in interest on the national debt. That is unacceptable. We have recognized that as unacceptable, and we now bring forth a plan designed to address that very problem. This argument for immediate change and immediate restraint is simple. It is one of the highest moral ideals and traditions in this Nation for parents to sacrifice for the sake of their children. It is the depth of selfishness to call on children to sacrifice for the sake of their parents. If we continue on the current path, we will violate a trust between generations, and we will earn the contempt of the future, and we will deserve that contempt. What we are doing is wrong. It has been virtually immoral. It has violated a fundamental tradition and value that, I think, most Members hold to. Now, there is no doubt that we need cuts in Government to balance the budget. But there is another reason. We need cuts in Government because Government itself is too large--too large in our economy, too large in our lives. Even if the books were balanced today, even if we faced no budget deficit, we would still need to provide a sober reassessment of the Federal Government's role and reach in our businesses, in our daily lives. This is not just a matter of money alone. We require cuts in Government because endless, useless, duplicative programs should not be reinvented, as the administration defines it. They should be eliminated. We reject the vision of a passive Nation, where an arrogant Government sets the rules. We want to return not only to an affordable Government, but to a limited Government. Those limits will help unleash limited potential of our economy and of our people. Now, the votes that we will make, or have to make in implementing this budget through the appropriation process and the reconciliation process, will likely be some of the toughest votes that any elected Member of Congress has ever been asked to cast. If we are honest, again, most of those votes would not be tough calls for the people that we represent. They would not be tough calls for most Americans, though they seem momentous here as we look at it and try to weigh the political consequences. But that is not what I find as I travel through Indiana. When I talk to the men and women of Indiana, they see what we are doing as a minimal commitment to common sense. A minimal commitment to doing what we should [[Page S 9357]] have done a long time ago. A minimal commitment to doing what we are required to do or should feel we were required to do. Changes made by this budget are bold, but they are not radical. They are ambitious, but they are not dangerous. It is a careful plan to meet a specific need. Listen to some of the facts: Under the budget resolution, Government spending will rise from its current legal of $1.5 trillion to $1.9 trillion by the year 2002. This is an increase of 30 percent. So all the doomsayers and the political rhetoric that is floating around this town and floating around the country, that we are undermining the very foundation of Government services, is simply not the case. It will be a 30-percent increase in Government spending over the next 7 years. The difference is that increase is going to be a lot lower than what it would have been if we leave everything the same. We are going to increase spending at a slower rate. That increase at a slower rate is going to produce the savings necessary to bring our budget into balance. A good example, if we take a family currently making $45,000 a year, if the income grew at the rate we allow Government to grow under this plan, that family would be making $63,000 into the year 2002, 7 years from now. Surely, a family could construct a budget to meet this higher level of spending. The Federal Government is being asked to do the same. Now, there are honest disagreements about the merits and priorities of many of these reductions. I expect we will continue to have an honest, hard-fought, debate. We must not allow these deliberations to be ruled by half-truths or distortions. We will not allow, we cannot allow, political charges which are simply untrue, to remain unrebutted. Every American, no matter what their age, has an interest in a strong, viable, Medicare System. But Medicare faces an impending crisis. The President's own commission concluded that Medicare will be bankrupt in 7 years. The Republican budget ensures that this will not happen, that Medicare will remain a viable program. But we have no choice but to reduce the rate of growth, hopefully through reforms in the system, that can continue to provide a central medical care to our elderly and have a fund available to do that for those that will be approaching retirement age some time in the future. It is important to note that Medicare will continue to increase at a 6.4-percent annual rate, to ensure the solvency of that program. That is down from its current double-digit growth rate of a little more than 10 percent. But it is absolutely necessary to do this or we lose the whole system. It is the President's own commission and the President himself, now, who has acknowledged that this is the step that we must take, to ensure the solvency of Medicare and to assure that this program is available in the future. As promised, Social Security remains untouched. Spending will increase in Social Security from the current annual total of $340 billion to $480 billion in 2002. One of our central goals here has been to protect the integrity of the Social Security System. We have done that. Social Security benefits must be preserved for the retirees who have paid into that system and count on that system. We have done that. I firmly support this budget. It tackles not only our unsustainable budget deficit but also the needs of our families. America's deficit crisis concerns not only our budget but also a deficit in the resources of families to care for their own. This deficit has been widened by ever-increasing taxation, and a steady erosion of the personal exemption. Many families are in current recession directly caused by Government policy. A balanced budget and family-oriented, growth-oriented tax relief are part of the same movement in America, a movement to limit our Government on the one hand, and empower our people on the other. One idea implies and requires the other. When we reduce public spending, we should increase proportionately the resources of families to meet their own needs. If Government no longer is going to provide and meet those needs or attempt to meet those needs, I should say, because as well-motivated and as well- intended as some of the Government programs are to reach family needs and reach social needs in this country, they have been a dismal failure, eaten up by administrative costs and simply not achieving their goals. The results are beginning to address the problem. As we downsize the one, we increase the capability of the other. We give families, we give individuals, we empower communities, we empower nonprofit organizations, with the ability to reach out and address those needs in a much more effective way. That is a good investment. That is a sound investment, because $1 spent by our families is far more useful than $1 spent by Government. It is time to admit when our families fail, so does our society. Their financial crisis is as urgent and as important as any other priority in this debate. Now, Mr. President, another priority of mine has been to ensure that the Nation is represented to defend its interest and ideals in the world. The administration has pushed us to the razor's edge of readiness, through dangerous defense cuts, while extending our military commitments beyond our national interests. It is a recipe for disaster. This budget ends that hemorrhaging. Even though it does not restore us to full strength, it stops the hemorrhages and begins to move toward a path of correcting the problems. For that reason, I am grateful as we markup, today, the defense bill for the next fiscal year, we are dealing with many of these difficult issues about what is necessary for our preparedness, what is necessary to provide an adequate, sound, defense. Nobody can argue that is not a priority of the Federal Government. There is a role for Federal Government and this is, perhaps, its primary role. Our decisions today in the Armed Services Committee, meeting as I speak--and I will be back there as soon as I am done--is easier today because of the decisions that the Budget Committee made in their conference. They have given the tools to address more readily some of these problems. We are thankful for that, although we did not get all we wanted. Mr. President, we have come to the beginning of the end of deficit spending in America. Let me repeat that: We have come to the beginning of the end of deficit spending in America. We have come to this place because there is no alternative for us. The work before us is not a task for the timid, but it is nothing more than what most Americans expect of us. We have come to a time that is unique and historic, an authentic moment of decision. It is a moment to act--worthy of our words--and keep faith with the future. Again, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for the time and for his diligent efforts in this entire task, and again congratulate him for the magnificent work he has accomplished in this past year. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. I do not think I will need more than that.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, when America celebrates its independence, it celebrates the courage and sacrifice of the men and women who defend it--people who pay a price of pain, inconvenience, and danger. Jeff Durham has shown that courage, paid that price, and earned our thanks. Millions of Americans were inspired by the dedication and boldness of the team that rescued Scott O'Grady. When Captain O'Grady returned to America, he gave the lion's share of praise to both God and those soldiers who saved him. As a vital part of that dramatic and successful mission, Jeff Durham is an example of courage and commitment. There is no virtue more generous than courage. It values duty over comfort, honor over safety, others over self. It is the hallmark of heroes. From moment to moment our Nation depends on people who will stand guard for American interests and American ideals. That is a lonely watch in a dangerous world. It is a privilege to praise someone who fulfilled that duty with such skill and distinction. Thank you, Jeff, from all of us in Indiana, for serving God and your neighbors by serving your Nation so well.