Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. We could get the word to Members.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am not aware of any specific requests for time from anyone on our side. We might be able to yield some time back.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, could the Senator yield for a question, so we can get a sense where we might be with time.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for the additional time. Mr. President, all we are saying is, if you are in the business of providing this material, you have to provide barriers so it does not get in the hands of children. If you are an adult who wants to receive this material, you have to call up and get it. You have to subscribe to it. You have to prove you are an adult before you receive it. What would our amendment do? It would clean up the Internet. We ban obscenity. And we require that indecency be walled off so children cannot have access. We also require commercial on-line services to adopt this standard. If they wish to provide indecent material, they have to make what we call an effective, good-faith effort to segregate it from access to children and, as the Senator from Nebraska has said, we protect women and children from sexual predators who use this technology to harass and to stalk. Critics of the amendment are going to say it will cripple or close the Internet. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our legislation includes reasonable protections for businesses and service providers who act in good faith to shield children from indecency. We provide defenses for those who do nothing more than merely provide access to the Internet. This means that small businessmen and others who simply have a computer in their office are not going to be subjected to the penalties when that computer is misused. It is important to note that both the chamber of commerce, representing business, and a number of national family groups concerned about pornography, have both endorsed this legislation. They have understood we have defined an approach that is strong but reasonable and realistic. Critics may also charge the standards we have set are too high and this will force businesses to deny children access to the Internet entirely, but that is not true. That is a scare tactic, not an argument. Our legislation simply provides the same protections for children that currently exist in every other sector of our society. Pornographic magazines today cannot be sold to minors. Telephones today cannot be used to provide indecent messages to minors. But magazine stores and telephone companies are alive and well. They still succeed because the reasonable efforts that we ask in the interests of children are not crippling demands. Mr. President, one of the most urgent questions in any modern society is how we humanize our technology, how we make it serve us instead of corrupt us. America is on the frontier of human knowledge but it is incomplete without applying human values. One of our most important values is the protection of our children, not only the protection of their bodies from violence but the protection of their minds and souls from abuse. We cannot and we should not resist change. But our brave new world must [[Page S8334]] not be hostile to the innocence of our children. The Exon-Coats amendment is a reasonable amendment. I hope that Members will support it. I am pleased to join the Senator from Nebraska in offering it to the Senate for its consideration. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my colleague from Nebraska for his interest in this subject and for his willingness to work with me and our staff in putting together what I think is an important piece of legislation, and a very effective piece of legislation. Obviously, it is a difficult task, balancing first amendment rights with protections that go toward placing restrictions, in reasonable ways, so that particularly children are not recipients of obscene or indecent material. Mr. President, sometimes our technology races beyond our ability to stop and reflect. We are left with a very dangerous gap, a period of time when society is unprepared to deal with the results of such rapid change. That is the situation we face with the Internet. The Internet is a tool of great potential. Senator Leahy has said it opens a new world of opportunity. It has become, without, I believe, anybody specifically planning it or anticipating it, it has become one of the largest distributors of pornography in the world. One study found more than 450,000 pornographic images and text files are available to anyone with a modem. This vast library of obscenity and indecency was accessed 6.4 million times in just the last year. Now, we need to make sure what we are talking about here. We are not talking about what most people now have images in their mind as to what is available off the Internet. I looked at the Senator's blue book, and I would urge every Senator to look at that before they make a final decision on what we are doing here. It is important to understand the kind of material that is available. Everything imaginable. We are talking about images and text that deal with the sexual abuse of children. We are talking about images and words and sexual abuse of infants. By one estimate about a quarter of the images available involve the torture of women. We are dealing in many, many cases with perversion and brutality beyond normal imagination and beyond the boundaries of a civil society. These facts are clear, because it is available now in the Internet, and we have pictures of it if anybody wants to see it, or copies of the text that is available on the Internet. There is one more fact that ought to move the Senate from great and deep concern to immediate action here today. That is the fact that the Internet is the one area of communication technology that has no protection at all for children. Now, we face a somewhat unique, disturbing and urgent circumstance, because it is children who are the computer experts in our Nation's families. [[Page S8333]] My generation--I have not figured out how to use the VCR yet. I have a blinking 12 I do not know how to get rid of. It is the children today who are trained from almost kindergarten on, on how to access the computer. They have technology available at their fingertips that most adults do not have. Sometimes in the interest of helping with their homework or for the development of our children, we place the computer either in a special room or even in their bedrooms. Of the 6.8 million homes with on-line accounts currently available, 35 percent have children under the age of 18. The only barriers between those children and the material--the obscene and indecent material on the Internet--are perfunctory onscreen warnings which inform minors they are on their honor not to look at this. The Internet is like taking a porn shop and putting it in the bedroom of your children and then saying ``Do not look.'' I think anybody who is a parent understands that is a pretty difficult situation to enforce. That really is a miscarriage of the responsibility that I think adults hold to our society, to our children in our society. We have all read the worst abuses of this new technology. Children, not realizing the danger, give out their names, their addresses, their phone numbers to people they meet over the Internet. They become easy targets for sexual abuse. Recently, one man, in an attempt to find out just how difficult a problem this was, posed--typed in on the computer--posed himself as a 13-year-old. In the course of one evening on-line he was approached by more than 20 pedophiles. I suggest that, as difficult and as horrendous as these stories are, the effect of this kind of material, this kind of practice is far broader. It does not turn all who see it into rapists and killers, but it does kill something about our spirit, particularly the spirit of our children. I think we have always felt a special responsibility and obligation to defend childhood through parents, through society; to make it, to the best extent we can, a safe harbor of innocence. It is a privileged time to develop values in an environment that is not hostile to our children. But the Internet has invaded that protected place and destroys that innocence. It takes the worst excesses of sexual depravity and places it directly into the child's bedroom, on the computer that their parents purchased in the thought it would help them do their homework or develop their intellect. When sexual violence and gross indecency are available to anyone at the touch of a button, both an individual or a culture become desensitized. It is not always that people emulate this material, but often you can become immune to it. The images and messages act like a novocaine on our national conscience. They numb our capacity for outrage. What used to outrage us now becomes almost commonplace. They have invaded our homes. They have invaded the minds of our children. I think they have numbed us to the shock that used to be present when this kind of material was exposed. This is an issue beyond partisanship. It is sponsored by a Democrat and Republican. I hope our concern will unite people across the ideological spectrum. A vote for the Exon-Coats amendment is a way to side with women endangered by rape and violence, to side with children threatened by abuse, to side with families concerned about the innocence of their children and the decency of our culture. The question, in my mind, is not if we should act but what we should we do. I believe the Exon-Coats amendment is a serious, thoughtful answer to that question. It is carefully crafted to be constitutional, to address the constitutional questions. But it is also designed to leave pornographers on the Internet, who would provide their material to children, with no place to hide. The approach we are taking has been legally upheld in the dial-a-porn statutes. It extends that approach, which has already proven its worth, to this new technology. What we are doing here is not new. What we are doing here is not something that has not been debated before this body. We are taking the standards adopted by the Senate, by the Congress, signed into law, that apply to the use of these kinds of communications over the phone wires and applied it, now, over the computer wires. It is just simply a different means of bringing a communication into a home--through the computer rather than through the phone. We are taking the same standards. This Senate, on November 16, 1989, voted 96 to 4 to adopt these standards; 96 Members of the Senate have already voted to adopt these standards and apply it to the telephone communication of obscenity and indecency. All Senator Exon and I are trying to do is apply those same standards now to this new means of reaching into our homes. The bottom line is simple. We are removing indecency from areas of cyberspace that are easily accessible to children. If individuals want to provide that material, they have to do so with barriers to minors. If adults want access to the material, they have to make an affirmative, positive effort to get it. Let me repeat that. That is the critical part of this bill. We are simply saying here if you are in the business of providing this material, you have a responsibility, and it is punishable by penalty of law if you violate that responsibility--I ask the Senator for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. COATS. It is certainly not unheard of that Senators might have an irrepressible urge to speak on this or any other amendment.

Mr. COATS. I do not object.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I also reserve the right to object. I wish to just clarify that in all of that request the Senator from Indiana will have an opportunity to speak on the contingency that--we are offering this together with the Senator from Nebraska, but on the contingency that in the event the amendment, the Exon-Coats amendment is defeated, I would like to have 5 minutes or so of that time before a vote on the underlying amendment.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President: I introduce the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1995. Child abuse is an issue which provokes our anger and anguish, and which demands our attention as legislators. Our Nation's outrage on this Topic was renewed with the murder of Susan Smith's children. It is impossible to comprehend how those who are entrusted with protecting children can hurt them, maim them, and even take their lives. In fact, it was cases just like this--involving the severe abuse and death of children--which led to Senate hearings in 1973, and eventually to the development of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. CAPTA was first authorized in 1974 and is the only Federal program specifically aimed at child abuse prevention and treatment. CAPTA has served as a catalyst, encouraging States to do some important things: Develop programs of prevention and treatment; educate law enforcement and judicial personnel; and to develop crisis hotlines, self-help groups, volunteer training, and public awareness campaigns. In 1993, the National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse and neglect reported that there were 2,898,000 child maltreatment reports. This represents a twentyfold increase from 1963, when there were about 150,000 reports. Federal and State expenditures for child protection programs and associated foster care programs now exceed $6 billion a year. The heightened awareness in the public regarding the issue of child abuse, and the corresponding increase in Federal and State dollars, is partially due to the passage of mandatory reporting laws-- required by CAPTA--and the media campaigns that have accompanied them. Certainly, many thousands of children have been saved from serious injury, and even death, during the last 20 years. Unfortunately, a byproduct of this heightened public awareness has been an explosion in the number of unfounded reports of child abuse and neglect. The staggering number of reports that are determined to be unfounded tell a disturbing tale. According to the annual 50-State survey of the National Committee To Prevent Child Abuse, only 34 percent of the reports received by child protective services were substaintiated. This means that two-thirds of all abuse and neglect reports are unsubstantiated. When you take into account the number of families involved and the numbers duplicate reports, we know that each year as many as 700,000 families are being unnecessarily investigated--their children are being questioned and family life disrupted. This is a concern, but the most important problem is this: unnecessary investigations are overwhelming the child protection system, and thereby preventing caseworkers from getting to those children who are truly in need of help. It is important to note that few of the unfounded reports are made maliciously. The reporter is usually well-intentioned, but unclear as to what constitutes maltreatment. A vague suspicion that something may be wrong sets in motion a legal obligation on the part of child protective services to investigate. This burden of empty accusations helps explain why between 25 to 50 percent of child abuse deaths involve children previously known to the authorities. With caseworkers spending significant amounts of time investigating every allegation of child maltreatment, no matter how tenuous, it is understandable that children who are truly in need of help are missed or ignored. Mr. President, the legislation that I am introducing today addresses some of the failings in the current system, and addresses ways that we can better target attention to those children in desperate need of protection. The legislation proposes to encourage the States through the development of risk assessment protocols, improved training of child protection workers, and enhanced community awareness and public education. The legislation was drafted following a fruitful hearing that examined some of the critical child protection issues facing our Nation today and particularly their impact on the families and children who come in contact with the child protective system. A great deal is at stake in these matters. The protection of children from abuse is a demand of our conscience and a demand of our laws. Our concern and compassion should be broad. But the system charged with protecting children must be focused to be effective. And that is the only measure of our success--when a child is effectively shielded from abuse and neglect. This requires a serious revision of our current approach--not its goal, but some of its methods. And I hope that with this legislation we can begin that process in earnest. For the information of my colleagues, I will summarize some of the provisions of the bill. Title I reauthorizes State grants and demonstration grants, makes reporting and data collection requirements more effective, and eliminates certain bureaucratic bodies. The bill repeals the current mandates for a National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, for the U.S. Advisory [[Page S8258]] Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, and the Inter-Agency Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect. Instead the secretary has discretion to establish an Office on Child Abuse and Neglect to coordinate the functions of this Act, and to appoint an advisory board to report on specific issues. The data collection function for the National Clearinghouse would be expanded. In addition, the research activities function, coordinated by the Secretary of HHS, is restructured to require a continuing program of research aimed at better protecting children from abuse and neglect. The bill authorizes demonstration grants to encourages State and local innovation in training professionals, families, service providers, and communities and providing information and assistance to individuals, agencies, and organizations through child abuse resource centers; parent mutual support and self help programs; and other innovative programs, such as establishing a triage system which would allow and encourage community participation in the prevention and response to child abuse and neglect. The basic State grant program will continue to support State child protective services by assisting States with: First the intake, screening and investigation of reports of child abuse or neglect; second, case management and delivery of services provided to children and their families; third, improving risk and safety assessment tools, fourth, expanding training opportunities for service providers and mandated reporters; and fifth; provide for education and training addressing ``Baby Doe'' situations of medical neglect. In order to be eligible to receive funds under this section, a State must submit a State plan and annual data reports. The bill continues the current immunity from prosecution for individuals who report a suspicion or incident of child abuse and neglect, but adds a requirement that the reports must be made in good faith. This bill clarifies the issue of medical neglect as well, providing that parents are free to make decisions regarding the medical treatment of their children, and that States may not find a family using spiritual or non-medical means as being neglectful, solely on the basis of a religious practice, absent an affirmative finding of abuse or neglect on a case-by-case basis. Further, the bill makes clear that nothing in this act precludes a State from intervening on behalf of the child where failure or refusal to provide a medical service or treatment will lead to imminent risk of severe harm to the child. Finally, to give better direction to the States, the definition of child abuse and neglect is clarified. Title II consolidates the former community--based family resource programs grant with the Temporary Child Care for Children With Disabilities and Crisis Nurseries Act and Title VII(F)--family support services--of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act to create a comprehensive community--based family resource program. The new program provides for broad-based networks of child abuse and prevention programs and other family resource and support programs. Title III reauthorizes the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, which provides grants to States to assist in supporting programs and projects to prevent incidents or family violence and provide immediate shelter for victims of family violence. Title IV reauthorizes the Adoption Opportunities Act, which a few technical changes and a new requirement that the Secretary report on the efficacy of the current system of recruitment for prospective foster care and/or adoptive parents. Title V reauthorizes the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act, which provides discretionary grants to States to prevent abandonment of children and to provide for the needs of children who are abandoned, especially those with AIDS. And finally, Title VI provides a 2-year, straight reauthorization of the Missing Children's Assistance Act and section 214B of the Victims of Child Abuse 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 believe that the Senate's debate on the balanced budget amendment was a turning point in this session of Congress--perhaps a turning point in the economic affairs of our country. It was important, not for its disappointing final vote, but for the issues it clarified. During that debate, opponents of the balanced budget again and again challenged those of us supporting it. If you really want a balanced budget, propose one. One Member of this body put it like this: ``Let Senators get to work to show Americans we have the courage this amendment presumes that we lack.'' This seemed like a good argument to many people--an argument against easy hypocrisy on the budget. Opponents of the balanced budget amendment pressed it as hard and as far as they could. They threw down a gauntlet before a watching Nation. This week, Republicans have picked it up. And those who made that challenge have fled from the field--proposing nothing constructive of their own. They revealed that their point in the balanced budget debate was not a conviction, but an alibi. For the first time since the 1960's, thanks to this Republican 7-year budget--offered both in the House and Senate, we can see our way clear to a balanced budget. After 40 years of wandering in the desert of deficit spending, we are finally destined for the promised land of balanced budgets. There is courage in this budget--courage we have not seen for decades, courage that makes this an historic moment. But, if we are honest, it is courage without alternatives. The status quo may be comfortable, but it is not sustainable. The road we are on may seem wide and easy, but it ends with a cliff, and the fall will be disastrous for our economy, disastrous for our people (including our seniors). Disastrous for our children, and for this Nation's future. The figures are familiar, but they have lost none of 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 America. This figure will jump to $23,000 by 2002. If we ignore our budget crisis, a child born this year will pay $187,150 over their lifetime just in interest on the national debt. The argument for immediate change--immediate restraint--is simple. It is one of our highest moral traditions for parents to sacrifice for the sake of their children. It is the depth of selfishness to call on children to sacrifice for the sake of their parents. If we continue on our current path, we will violate a trust between generations, and earn the contempt of the future. There is no doubt that we need cuts in government to balance the budget. But there is one more reason as well. We need cuts in government because government itself is too large--too large in our economy, and too large in our lives. Even if the books were balanced, we would still need a sober reassessment of the Federal Government's role and reach. This is not a matter of money alone. We require cuts in government because endless, useless, duplicative programs should not be (to use a favorite term of the administration) ``Reinvented''--they should be terminated. Because we reject the vision of a passive Nation, where an arrogant government sets the rules. Because we want to return, not only to an affordable government, but to a limited government. And those limits will help unleash the unlimited potential of our economy and our people. Votes we make during this debate are likely to be some of the toughest we ever cast. But if we are honest, most of those votes would not be tough calls for most Americans. I have yet to meet a man or woman from my State who believes that reducing the rate of growth in government is anything but a minimal commitment to common sense. The changes made by this budget are bold, but not radical. They are ambitious, but not dangerous. This is a careful plan to meet a specific need. Under the Senate resolution, Government spending will rise from its current level of $1.355 trillion to $1.884 trillion in 2002. This is an increase of nearly 40 percent. To put this in perspective, a family currently making $45,000--if its income grew at the rate Government will grow under the Republican plan--would be making $63,000 in 2002. Surely a family could construct a budget to meet this higher level of spending. The Federal Government will be required, under the Republican plan, to do the same. There are honest disagreements about the merits and priorities of many of these reductions. I expect we will have a hard-fought debate. On Medicare, it was the President's own commission which concluded: ``The Medicare Program is clearly unsustainable in its present form, we strongly recommend that the crisis presented by the financial condition of the Medicare trust funds be urgently addressed on a comprehensive basis.'' Reforming Medicare and slowing its growth is precisely what the administration itself proposed. ``We feel confident,'' said Hillary Clinton, ``that we can reduce the rate of increase in Medicare without undermining quality for Medicare recipients.'' Ira Magaziner added, ``slowing the rate of growth actually benefits beneficiaries considerably because it slows the rate of growth of the premiums they have to pay.'' Under this budget, Medicare will remain the fastest growing item in the Federal budget, increasing at an annual rate of 7.1 percent. Spending on Medicare alone will grow from $178 billion this year to $283 billion in 2002--an increase of 59 percent. As promised, Social Security will remain untouched. Spending will actually increase from the current annual total of $334 billion to $480 billion in 2002. One of our central goals has been to protect the integrity of the Social Security system. Social Security benefits will be preserved. I firmly support this budget--but I have two concerns, which will eventually come to the center of our debate. Our Government has a budget deficit which cannot be sustained. But there is another deficit that concerns Americans as well--a deficit in the resources of families to care for their own. A deficit we have created by increased taxation over the years, an erosion in the personal exemption. Many families are in a permanent recession, directly caused by Government policies. We must understand, first, that a balanced budget and family- oriented, growth-oriented tax relief are not mutually exclusive proposals. They are part of the same movement in America--a movement to limit our Government and empower our people. One idea implies and requires the other--when we reduce public spending, we should increase the resources of families to meet their own needs. That is a good investment, a sound investment. A dollar spent by families is far more useful than a dollar spent by Government. America can have a balanced budget and tax relief for families. No choice is necessary between them. One proposal in particular makes this clear. An amendment that will be offered by Senator Gramm slows the growth of spending to 3 percent rather than the 3.3 percent currently outlined in the resolution--allowing additional funds for tax cuts. Giving the American people back just 1.5 percent of total budget spending is not too much to ask. Senator Gramm's amendment embodies the provisions of the families first legislation that I introduced earlier this year with Senator Rod Grams. It proves that deficit reduction and tax relief can go hand-in- hand. We have met the challenge of those who said it could not be done. Adding this provision to the budget resolution will prove to families all across the Nation that their concerns are a central element of budget reform. It is time to admit that when families fail, so does our society. Their financial crisis is as urgent and as important as any other priority in this debate. The Gramm amendment is a way for the Senate to prove it. Much of the opposition to tax relief seems to be based on a myth--a myth that tax cuts somehow cost the Government money. But Government produces nothing, and has no resources of its own to spend. Tax cuts are not a waste of Government funds. They are simply a method to allow Americans to keep their own money and care for themselves. They are a method to build working independence as an alternative to destructive government paternalism. My second concern relates to our level of defense spending. The Clinton budget is clearly inadequate to retain our long-term readiness and the quality of life of our troops. On this issue we are talking about the primary purpose of government--to defend our national interests without placing our soldiers at needless risk. We have seen disturbing evidence in the Armed Services Committee that the Clinton level of funding will leave our forces without all the tools, training and conditions to fulfill the roles we will ask of them. Many of us are struggling to recoup at least some of this shortfall. Senator Thurmond will be proposing an amendment to restore a portion of this funding. I hope the Senate will support it. Mr. President, 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. Two decades of promises, two decades of rhetoric, budget proposals, budget deals, tax increases, unfulfilled promises on spending cuts, all these have failed. This is the best argument for a balanced budget amendment--defeated, for the moment, by just one vote. So we turn to this effort--the only effort--the only game in town. The President has abdicated his leadership on this most critical of all issues facing our Nation. Likewise, Democrats have offered no alternative of their own. So 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. community development block grant program

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Kassebaum in introducing the Child Care and Development Block Grant Amendments Act of 1995. Since its passage in 1990, this program has, and continues to enjoy strong bipartisan, community and grassroots support. With the assistance provided under this act thousands of families have, for the first time, been able to work without fearing the placement of their children in less than quality child care environments. Currently, 55 percent of all working families enroll their children in some form of child care. The dramatic increase in labor force participation of mothers continues to heighten our awareness of the need for child services. And with the imminent passage of welfare reform, the need will undoubtedly be even greater. The goals of a Federal child care program are many. First, to ensure a safe, healthy and stimulating environment for the children. Second, to afford parents the maximum amount of choice in the selection of a provider. Third, to assist with the availability of child care slots. Fourth, to ensure that limited Federal dollars are targeted to those most in need. And fifth, to distribute funds to States in a way that makes sense, eliminates redtape, and ensures maximum use of resources. I believe we have met each of these goals in this legislation. First, we continue the minimum health and safety standards negotiated in 1990. These standards are not prescriptive but they do insist that child care providers provide a safe and healthy environment for children in their care. Second, parents are able to select from a wide range of child care providers through the use of direct grants, contracts, and parent certificates. These include sectarian providers and family day care homes which currently are the largest group of providers of child care services. Third, the authorization level reflect a continued Federal priority for quality child care services. Expansion of available child care slots is important, but is equally important to maintain quality in our expansion efforts. The Kassebaum- Coats bill strikes this important balance in authorizing a 15-percent set-aside for quality improvement. Fourth, the bill targets dollars to the working poor by requiring States to establish a sliding fee scale for families up to 100 percent of the State medium income. And finally, we have included language to ensure that Federal resources used for child care are consolidated into one, uniform system. This last point is significant. In recent years, growing concern has been expressed about the number of Federal child care programs. The General Accounting Office reports there are currently 93 different child care programs administered by 11 Federal agencies and 20 offices, at a total cost to the taxpayer of at least $11.5 billion, and that does not include various tax programs targeted at families with children. The Kassebaum-Coats bill ensures that those dollars will be used in a way that meets the goals of our Federal child care policy and not in ways that contravene it. In addressing child care within the context of the welfare reform debate we must be careful not to force parents to choose between work, and quality day care. Many families, especially low-income working families, need help with their child care needs. Solutions and welfare reform must be pursued with compassionate realism, recognizing our budgetary limitations, but motivated by a concern for children and their best interests. The Kassebaum-Coats bill, coupled with the block grant and cash assistance program will significantly help those entering the work force with their child care needs--and does so in a way that is fiscally responsible. I would again like to thank Senator Kassebaum for her leadership in this area, and hope that this legislation receives swift approval in the Senate.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank my fellow Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, for yielding, and I rise today in very strong support of his amendment, which has the courage to confront an issue that I believe is essential to our future: The preservation of the American family. The amendment before us strengthens--not weakens--strengthens the budget resolution by recognizing that cutting budgets and cutting taxes are part of the same movement in America, a movement to limit our Government and empower our people. These twin goals, I contend, are not inconsistent. They are inseparable, and we can prove our commitment to both if we are willing to cut Federal spending just an additional three-tenths of 1 percent. Let us understand that. These two goals are not incompatible if Members are willing to take three-tenths of 1 percent more in Federal programs and apply it as a return to the American taxpayer. While I support the progrowth and savings provisions provided in this amendment, in the limited time I have, I would like to focus my remarks on the profamily elements of this amendment. Opponents have argued that the only way to help children is to maintain record high levels of Federal spending on every Government program. But there is a better way. What we are asking today is simply, who is better informed and who is more compassionate to make choices in the interest of our children, the Federal Government or America's families? Can there be any serious debate on how that question is answered? The lessons that we have learned from decades of social spending are clear: Government programs have proven incapable of fighting social despair and disorder. But strong families can, and it is time to admit that when families fail, so does our society. It is also time to understand that when our families are involved and favored and supported, they construct a hopeful future for America. This Congress today is presented with a choice between the failed, discredited compassion of Government and the proven power of strong families to build hope in their children and order in our society. I believe, Mr. President, it is a transparent ploy to say this is simply a matter of rich versus poor. Rather, it is a matter of where resources and authority should rest: in Government or in our families and our communities? Much of the opposition to tax relief seems to be based on a myth, a myth that tax cuts somehow waste the Government's money. The Government produces nothing. It has no resources of its own to spend. Tax cuts are not a waste of Government funds; they are simply a method to allow Americans to keep their own money. They are a method to build working independence as an alternative to Government paternalism which has proven so destructive, despite the honorable intentions of its proponents. It is tax cuts that are the best form of social investment, an investment in the ability of people to care for themselves. 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.'' 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.'' Those were the conclusions of the Bipartisan Commission on American Urban Families, and I think we should listen to their words. The findings on the National Commission of Urban Families were remarkably similar to the findings advocated 3 years ago by the Democratic Progressive Policy Institute; in an impressive report entitled ``Putting Children First,'' a progressive family policy for the nineties, this group found, ``There are some things that only families can do, and if families are placed under so much stress that they cannot raise children effectively, the rest of the society cannot make up the difference in later years.'' [[Page S7167]] Mr. President, the time of political change is the time to reassess our national priorities. We need to redirect our focus and our funds to strengthen the family. While Government's role in preserving the family is limited, it is not insignificant. Perhaps the single most important thing Government can accomplish for families is to lift the economic burdens that can cripple the family. Over the last 50 years, we have had a lousy track record in doing that. The personal exemption is now just 12 percent of income, where it used to be at 42 percent in 1948 when it was first introduced. Since the end of World War II, it is families that have borne the burden of increased taxes. That burden increased more than 200 percent for families with two children. Their average after-tax income is below that, even of elderly households, single persons, and couples without children. In my home State of Indiana, the median family income for a family of four is $30,000 and, 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 Gramm amendment completes the budget resolution by addressing not only the Government's budget deficit, but also the deficit and the resources of families to care for their own. It is a deficit created by increased taxation of the family through the erosion of the personal exemption. For too long we have ignored this growing burden and its growing social costs. Mr. President, the promise of tax relief for the American family is now before us to be fulfilled or to be ignored. At the end of this process, I want to vote on a budget that tackles both threats to the American family--the threat of the budget deficit and an ever-growing threat of a tax burden. I want to support a budget that contributes to a growing economy and builds new momentum for job creation. For too long we have dismissed the needs of families to answer the call of other interests. With this vote, that trend can end. I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of this critical amendment. Again, the fundamental choice before us is, do we want to leave more money in the hands of Federal bureaucrats to spend in their so-called wisdom on behalf of our families and the needs that are pressing on our society, or do we want to rest that decision with parents and with families? By cutting spending just an additional three-tenths of 1 percent, we can give that decision to families rather than rest it in the hands of Government bureaucrats. That is the decision before us. We can have both. It is a fundamental choice that we must make. I am pleased to join the Senator from Texas, and I am pleased that he offered this amendment because that presents us and grants us that choice. If I have any additional time, I know the Senator is pressed for time, I am happy to yield any additional time back.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am a supporter of this historic budget. But I want briefly to comment on the level of defense spending it recommends--a level I believe is clearly inadequate to retain our long- term readiness and the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. Balancing the books is one of the most important duties of Government. But it is not the first duty of Government. That duty is the defense of our country, this means more than defending our borders. It means shaping a security environment that will be favorable to America in the future. It means providing our troops with the training they need and the equipment they require. The Armed Services Committee has spent a good deal of time and effort this spring, through hearings and briefings, exploring the current and future needs of our military. [[Page S7190]] Although the cold war is over--we have found that the demands we place on our military have not diminished. If anything, they have expanded--into quick deployments, in high-risk situations, under tremendous danger and strain. For example: Our shrinking forces in Europe--from 314,000 prior to the fall of the Berlin wall and now rapidly approaching 100,000--have been deployed in more missions in the last 5 years than in the previous 45 years. The average soldier now spends approximately 138 days each year away from home on extended, short notice deployments. This must be combined with extensive training to maintain key skills. Our Navy surface ships, and the men and women who man them, are deploying and training at tempos that keep them away from home in excess of 130 days per year, on average. The Marines currently have 24,000 people deployed overseas carrying out 911 fast reaction assignments. Just to give you some concept of the pace of change in the Marines, the total manning level for the Marines has been stabilized at 178,000. During the last 5 years, the Marine Corps downsized 24,000 personnel--the same figure which is currently deployed. The Air Force has gone from 18 active fighter wings to 13 wings resulting in a four-fold increase in deployment obligations over the last 7 years--while drawing down the overall end strength by one third. These commitments have required a quadrupling of the total number of people deployed over the last 5 years. My point is this: A serious gap is opening between the military mission we define and the level of funding we provide. Unfortunately, the budget resolution before us continues this dangerous trend, which may leave our forces without the tools, training or equipment to fulfill future tasks we will ask of them. The Gulf war is our benchmark of American military success. It is an effort we must be able to duplicate, well into the future. But even that war was conducted under the most favorable circumstances. We had 6 months to move equipment and troops into the region. It is very unlikely we will enjoy that sort of advantage in other situations. Our training and logistics were given extensive time to put into place. Our opponent had inferior technology, and no known weapons of mass destruction. All the surrounding countries in the region were friendly. The international community was solidly behind us. As we plan for the next war--a war we hope will never come--it would be foolish to base our strategy on advantages we enjoyed in the last one. And I am deeply concerned we have squandered some of the advantages we can control. If we attempted today to engage in a major regional conflict, I believe we have placed artificial handicaps on our ability to project American power. Future enemies have gained from the lessons learned by Iraq, and will not allow a protracted buildup to take place. We would not be able to conduct such a war because the shortfalls in air and sea lift capabilities would prevent it. The drawdown in personnel over the last 4 years is another critical element in this debate. The proposed budget levels will not allow us to adequately address these shortfalls. We need additional funding in defense to develop capable and modern equipment, and allow our men and women to do the job assigned to them. In addition, with this continued decline of our defense, we are sending the wrong message to the world, especially to our allies--a message of retreat and withdrawal. America has world-wide commitments and national interests which must be maintained. Our ability to back-up those obligations, with a strong and viable military, should be one of our highest priorities. If we build our economic security but cripple our military capability in the process, then we will have failed both our children and our Nation. Maintaining America's national strength is our best assurance of peace--and that peace is worth the price. Mr. President. I support the Thurmond amendment. It is an effort to reverse a dangerous trend, and restore a national resource--the strength of our Nation. I urge the Senate adopt the amendment from the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for yielding, and I certainly want to say how much I respect the amount of effort and time that he has personally committed into looking into this issue, certainly more than this particular Senator. I am anxiously looking forward to his discussion with us about what he has found and what he learned in those 18 months that he has committed to studying this subject. And I think he raises the essential point that we are attempting to deal with here, and that is not whether or not Members of either side are more or less committed to education. I think we are all committed to education. I think our record shows that we are committed to education. But what many of us are attempting to communicate is that the current system of education--providing public education for our children in this country--does not seem to be working very well. Report after report throughout the decade of the 1980's, and now the 1990's, indicates that there are significant problems with the public education system in America. It is not based on anecdote, but it is based on facts, studies and statistics. And so the question that Republicans are essentially raising is: Is there a better way to provide education for America's young people, so that they are better prepared to enter today's work force, so that we as a Nation are better prepared to compete internationally, so that we as parents can provide our children with better opportunities to learn? Those are the questions that are before us. It is, in a sense, a question of, do we retain the status quo, the structure, the framework that has brought us to this point in American education, or do we allow for change? Do we allow for experimentation? Do we allow for a different approach? And perhaps if we do that, we can find that there is a more effective, more cost-effective and results- oriented way of providing education in this country. Now, if it were simply a matter of money, we would be the best- educated Nation in the world. Our children would be head and shoulders above everybody else, because we have poured untold amounts of money into education in an attempt to solve the very problems that I think we all recognize exist today in education. It is the solution where we draw a line of distinction in terms of the difference between us. The fact is that education spending has increased dramatically. In the last 30 years, we have increased spending four times what we spent in the 1950's. On average, we pay as much per student per year in public schools as many private schools charge. Per pupil spending tripled from its 1960 level, resulting in an average cost of $5,971 in 1993 figures. In the last 10 years alone, [[Page S7094]] per pupil spending nationwide has increased 30 percent above the level required to keep up with inflation. That is according to the Education Commission of the States' report. The Department of Education, in its first year, which was fiscal year 1980, housed 150 programs funded at $14 billion. Today, just 15 years later, it houses 250 separately authorized programs, employing nearly 5,000 people. Its fiscal year 1995 appropriations total is $33.7 billion. Their administrative costs alone are $440 million. The Education Department spends nearly $500 for every student in America. So the question is not, are we pouring money into education, or are we making resources available either at the Federal, State or local levels for education. That is being accomplished. The question is: What are we getting for the money that we are putting into education? Are we getting the kind of results back that all of us here would desire? Or should we look to see if there is a more effective way of accomplishing this goal? I suggest that we need to look--and look pretty immediately--at whether or not there is a more effective way, because the results are pretty discouraging. We have all heard about the decline in SAT scores and the National Assessment of Educational Progress Reports, where in the face of the fact that real public spending in elementary and secondary education rose from just over $50 billion in 1960 to nearly $190 billion in 1990, and whereas real per pupil spending more than tripled from $1,450 in 1960 to $4,622 in 1990, I do not know of anybody saying that the result has been a tripling of the quality of education that is being received by our students. Eric Hanushek, in his book, ``Making Schools Work,'' which was published by the Brookings Institution, concluded from an exhaustive study of educational funding in America, that funding is not related to school quality. A study done by American Demographics, a publication of the U.S. Census Board found that----

Mr. COATS. I will be happy to yield when I have finished my statement. My understanding is that the Democrats have had their full 90 minutes. We would like to use some of our time. I know the clock is running.

Mr. COATS. The results of the American Demographics study found that there was no direct correlation between the amount of money spent per pupil and student performance. In fact, there were many examples where it was the reverse--the more money spent per pupil, the worse the student performance in that school actually was. And oftentimes, where the amounts per pupil were relatively low, performance was relatively high. And so experts studying the situation had to go in and determine whether or not there were other factors involved in providing learning and education for our students. They found that there were many other factors involved. Many have pointed to those factors. And those are factors that I would hope throughout the debate this year on education--and to my colleagues who said it is unconscionable that we only have 3 hours, let me just reply that I was not here when the unanimous-consent agreement was offered, but unanimous consent by its very nature means that any one of us can object. If anybody wanted to object, I suppose we could have objected to that. We will have probably hundreds of hours of debate on education this year in this Congress. There are many bills that will be coming up. Senator Lieberman and I are offering a bill, which may be an amendment to education. Others will be offering amendments on various bills. We will be dealing with this subject at length. So I do not think anybody needs to worry that we are going to be shorted in the amount of time we are going to speak on education subjects. But, clearly, for those who think the solution to education is simply to pump more money into a system that has produced such disastrous results--I cannot understand that logic. It seems to me that now is the time to be asking fundamental questions about how we can reform the education system in this country. What changes can we make? What demonstration programs should we enter into to give us more data with which we can make decisions? I have found--and I think this is supported by a number of studies and researchers--that there are some very basic principles that are involved in providing sound education. If you study schools that produce results, if you look at students that can demonstrate through their educational achievement the kind of success that we are looking for, you find some very common themes running through the whole program. One theme is that the education process to which those students have been subjected to dealt with basic core subjects--the reading, writing, arithmetic and other subjects that have traditionally formed the core of our elementary and secondary education in this country. We have seen a great deviation from that in the last few decades. There have been many new experimental programs and so forth, and unfortunately, the kind of electives that students have been allowed to sign up for, have not resulted in the kind of educational achievement in the basic subjects necessary for adequate performance in the workplace. Schools that have returned to basic core subject teaching have turned out students that are much better prepared to compete in today's society. Second, we found that in those schools that have demonstrated success and students have demonstrated success, we have found that there has been a pretty steady, high level of discipline, that the standards established by the schools, by the communities in which those schools resided, and administered by the administrators and the standards to which the students were held accountable, were high standards. Discipline was one of the major ingredients, one of the basic principles underlying the education process. Third, we found that there was an emphasis on teachers, not on administrators. We have seen an explosion of administrative costs in our schools, where it seems that we have more positions filled by administrators than we do teachers.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I give the same reply to the Senator from Minnesota that I gave before. I would like to be able to complete my statement. I am sure the Senator has a number of questions he would like to ask, but I would prefer to make my statement. To the best of my knowledge, we allowed your side to make your statements without interruption, and I think we would appreciate making our statements without interruption. I know the Senator would like to engage in debate on this subject. The time is divided. We will be happy to do that. There will be plenty of opportunities all year long, in committee, on the floor. We are under a time limitation. The limitation was agreed to. The Senator from Minnesota and Iowa agreed to it, or did not object to it. So here we are. I think those of us who have a statement to make, to counter the statements made by the Senator from Iowa, the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Massachusetts, would like to make those statements without interruption. Mr. President, if I could do that, I would appreciate that.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, as I was saying, I think one of the basic principles underlying the provision of a sound education is the emphasis on those providing the education, not on those administering the building. One of the most discouraging things to this Senator in viewing public education is to find the layer upon layer upon layer upon layer of administrative bureaucracy designed to solve every problem in the school except providing the teaching of the student. Inevitably, the more we involve the Federal Government in the educational process, the more layers of administration are required. The more assistant principals for this, that and everything else, the more forms, the more procedures, the more rules, the more of everything but what ought to take place in the classroom. [[Page S7095]] I, for one, have been urging the Senate to revise the way in which we fund our schools so that we can provide funds to hire competent teachers and then let them teach. Another thing I have noticed: it does not make a difference how fancy the school is, how much equipment they have, or what the condition of the building is, these items pale in comparison to the requirement that the teacher knows what they are doing and the teacher is able to provide sound teaching to the students under his or her tutelage. The fourth basic principle I found that seems to be a component of successful education is that the school involves the parents, that there is parental involvement and community involvement in the education process. There is a direct correlation between parental involvement and educational success. Those are part of the values that we cannot necessarily legislate. Pumping more money into the Department of Education is not going to suddenly transform parents into being more concerned about their children's education. It is not going to make them show up at school more often, be more involved in the homework, be more involved in making sure their student gets to class on time and performs the work that is assigned. Community involvement and parental involvement is an essential key ingredient to educational success. Finally, and I know this is controversial, but those schools that maintain some core basic values, have some value education as part of their curriculum, are more successful in turning out students who perform better, who are better trained, who do better on the tests. It provides, I believe, a better atmosphere for learning and has been demonstrated to be effective. The sad reality that has emerged from about 30 years of Federal involvement and ever-increasing Federal dollars and ever-increasing Federal rules and regulations into our education is a pattern of more spending, especially as I said for administration, fewer students staying in school through graduation, lower SAT scores, lower graduation rates and dismal rates of academic proficiency. We only need to look at the District of Columbia right outside our door to show that spending per pupil is not the solution to the problem. Most public school graduates arriving at college, graduating from District of Columbia schools, are ill-prepared for their further education. Nearly 90 percent of the freshmen at the University of the District of Columbia last fall needed remedial work in English, 49 percent had trouble reading, and 49 percent could not do basic math. Now, is the solution to pour more money into the system? Or is the solution to say maybe there is something wrong with the system. Maybe we ought to look at ways in which we can change the system. That is one of the things that Senator Lieberman and I are attempting to do with our school choice demonstration project, designed for low- income families and low-income students and parents who find that their students are trapped in a public education system that is not going to provide them with the education they need to rise out of their current level of poverty. Many parents, particularly those who live in the inner city, are begging for the opportunity to send their students somewhere other than the public education facility. We have a school in Indianapolis, IN, which is a private parochial school that spends one-third of the amount per pupil as the public school just down the block. We have parents standing in line trying to enroll their students in a parochial school that spends one-third less on their students than the public schools, because they know they are going to get a better education. And why will they get a better education? Because the basic principles underlying the education in that parochial school, many of which I have outlined earlier, are not provided in the local public school. All Senator Lieberman and I are attempting to do is set aside some funds so that on a voluntary basis, communities can enter into demonstration programs, demonstration programs which will provide this Congress with objective data about the school choice alternative, which we can use to determine how best to make the necessary changes in the education system to enable the children in this country to lead successful, productive lives. Yet each time we offer this amendment, we are thwarted by the same proponents of this amendment. We are not allowed any experimentation. ``Do not do anything different. Keep the system just exactly as it is. The only thing it lacks is more money.'' Well, I would argue, Mr. President, that it lacks much more than greater amounts of money, rather that it needs fundamental, basic reform. I do not have the answers as to exactly what that reform ought to be, but we ought to at least be able to experiment and give students and parents a choice outside the system. If we can give them a choice outside the system, maybe it will make the system better. If we had one car company in America, I daresay that we, as consumers, would not enjoy the variety, the quality, nor the cost effectiveness that we get from having competition throughout the industry. I am not aware of any system in America, that as a monopoly, operates efficiently. Competition spurs better performance, it spurs more cost- effective performance, it spurs better results. Yet we do not have competition in schooling alternatives in America for those with low incomes. It is easy for Senators to say, ``Let us keep all the emphasis on public schools.'' We can afford to send our kids somewhere outside the public schools. My children go to public schools, but it is easy for me. If I do not like the public school I can afford to send them somewhere else. But what about the low-income mother, living in the inner city? What about the parents who do not have the income to have a choice? They are condemned to a school which is condemning their child to an inferior education, trapping that child in circumstances and in poverty. And we cannot even provide a demonstration project to see whether or not it would benefit the children to have a degree of choice as to what school they attend. Who are we trying to protect? The administrators? The system? Or do we really care about the education of children? I submit our goal here is not to protect the system. It is not to protect the administrators. It is not to protect the lobbying groups. Our goal is to look out for the children and give them opportunities that they have not had under our current system. So, I urge my colleagues to reject this ``Let us just put more money into the existing system'' amendment. That is what it is. ``Let us make sure we perpetuate the status quo. Let us keep everything within the box and the framework will be defined by the public system and their lobbyists. They will define the framework. And do not let anybody dare compete with them because they might do it better.'' Who do we really care about? Who are we really looking out for? I contend it is the students we should care about. It is their future we should care about. And we ought to give them the opportunities to escape a lousy, rotten, failed school if that is where they find themselves. There are many public schools doing a fine job in America. But there are many lousy schools doing a lousy job in America. And to trap a certain segment of our population, low-income families, in that situation I think is a great disservice to the future of this country. To argue that those who object to putting more money into the failed system are against education, or do not care about the future of America, or somehow do not care about the future of our children, is the most disingenuous argument that I have heard. It just flies in the face of the facts that we all know are true. As the report in the 1980's said, we are just treading along in a sea of mediocrity in public education in this country. It is high time we made some changes in the system. In 1995 let us be a little bit innovative, let us be bold, let us take some chances, especially when we are dealing with a system that has failed us so badly. I went on longer than I intended. I thank the Senator from Utah for his generous yielding of time. I yield the floor. [[Page S7096]]

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think the Senate's debate on the balanced budget amendment a few moments ago was a turning point in this session of Congress--perhaps and hopefully, a turning point in the economic affairs of our country. It was important not for its disappointing final vote but for the issues that it clarified. During that debate, opponents of the balanced budget amendment again and again challenged those who supported it: If we really want a balanced budget, they would say, propose one. One Member of this body put it like this: ``Let Senators get to work, to show Americans we have the courage this amendment presumes that we lack.'' Opponents of the balanced budget amendment pressed that argument as hard and as far as they could. They threw down a gauntlet before a watching Nation. Mr. President, this week, Republicans have picked it up. And those who made that challenge have fled from the field-- proposing nothing of their own. They revealed that their point in the balanced budget debate was not a conviction but an alibi. It is a terrible, disturbing thing, to have your bluff called before an entire country. That is precisely what has happened to the Democrats. Their bluff has been called. Their call for ``Go ahead and propose one,'' was taken up by Republicans. We have proposed one. Thanks to the Republican 7-year budget, we can now see our way clear to a balanced budget. After 40 years of wandering in the desert of deficit spending, we are finally destined for the promised land of balanced budgets. There is courage in this budget--courage we have not seen for decades. Courage that makes this a historic moment. But, if we are honest, it is courage without alternatives. The status quo may be comfortable, but it is not sustainable. Because the road we are on, while it may seem wide and easy, ends with a cliff, and the fall will be disastrous for our economy, disastrous for our people, including our seniors, disastrous for our children and for the Nation's future. Mr. President, 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. Two decades of promises, two decades of rhetoric, budget proposals, budget deals, tax increases, unfulfilled promises, and spending cuts, all these have failed. This is the best argument for a balanced budget amendment, defeated for the moment by just one vote. So we turn to this effort, this courageous effort, let me say to the Senator from New Mexico, the only effort, the only game in town is the Republican budget proposal. No one has proposed anything different. If you do not like this, you are walking away from the debate. The President has abdicated his leadership on this most critical of all issues facing our Nation. Likewise, Democrats have abdicated leadership on this, the most critical of all issues.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, Yogi Berra said, ``It ain't over 'til it's over.'' We are not through yet, but it is awful close; we are in the bottom of the ninth on this issue I have been working on for 6 years. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] and the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] and Senator Baucus, who is not in the Chamber right now, and others who have joined with me in this effort that started out as a lonely vigil and now has turned into nearly a consensus effort. Senator D'Amato was willing to sit down at the table and negotiate a very difficult problem for his State with those of us who had difficult problems for our States. I believe we reached, last Friday afternoon, a satisfactory resolution of that concern. We have every reason to believe there will be favorable treatment of this in the House. It has been stopped there before. I believe we are as close to success there as we have ever been and we can resolve whatever differences may exist between the House and Senate and put this on the President's desk, and finally give the States and communities we represent a basis for dealing with their own environmental problems but not having to solve everybody else's environmental problems--the ability to say that is all we can take, or we cannot take anymore, or you are going to have to find a way to dispose of that in your own State. We are doing our share; you do your share. We are that far away, and I am optimistic we are going to finally complete this effort. A lot of people have participated in it, and I thank them for their efforts. I am looking forward to finally putting this issue to rest and then moving on to other concerns before the Senate. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor. harrisburg, pa, flow control issue

Mr. COATS

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

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

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the Senator from Montana commended me for laboring in the vineyards for so many years. It did not seem like I was in the vineyards--more like the town dump. I want to thank the chairman, Senator Chafee, for his work this year with me and with the coalition in fashioning this legislation, in particular this amendment that is being sent to the desk. It is the culmination of a lot of years, of a lot of work, by a lot of people. As the Senator from Montana said, it is critical that States that are unwilling recipients of out-of-State waste have a say as to whether or not they receive this waste. The Senator from Montana has worked tirelessly to help Members accomplish this effort. I would say to the Senator from Rhode Island, what a difference a year makes. We are here, together, working together on fashioning what I think is very appropriate legislation. I want to thank him, along with Senator Smith, Senator D'Amato, and others, for helping to put this amendment together. I urge its adoption.

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