Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 5, 1995, at 10 a.m. to hold an open hearing.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 5, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony on the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition for the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 5, 1995.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized April 5, 1995, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing on the crisis in Rwanda and Burundi.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his statement, and hopefully this will complement that statement. I will attempt not to repeat in areas that he has already addressed. Section 654(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, governing military matters states that a member of the Armed Forces shall be separated from the Armed Forces if it is appropriately determined: (2) that the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts. The law defines a ``homosexual'' as: a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms ``gay'' and ``lesbian.'' On Thursday of last week, in the case of Lieutenant Colonel Jane Able et al. versus United States of America, Judge Eugene H. Nickerson, a Federal district court judge sitting in Brooklyn, ruled that the portion of the current homosexual policy contained in title 10, United States Code, section 654(b)(2) and its implementing directives, which addresses statements by individuals, violates the first and fifth amendments of the Constitution. This court decision is the first one involving the current policy on homosexuals in the military. Judge Nickerson's ruling allows six self-proclaimed homosexuals to remain on active duty. These six individuals originally filed the suit anonymously and only stated that they were gay. The issue of whether an individual has a protected right to state they are a homosexual has already been decided by the courts. Declaration of one's homosexuality cannot be logically separated from homosexual acts under free speech. The Senate report on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994 which accompanied the new statute cited the case of Ben Shalom versus Marsh: The admission is not a statement protected by the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment because it can rationally and reasonably be viewed as reliable evidence of a desire and propensity to engage in homosexual conduct. That case goes on to say: The Army does not have to take the risk that an admitted homosexual will not commit homosexual acts that will be detrimental to its assigned mission. To be very basic, the courts have ruled that if you say you are a soprano, people can logically conclude that you sing. Judge Nickerson's decision clearly rejects longstanding court precedent. It is early in the judicial process, but I am confident that the constitutionality of the current policy will prevail. In 1993, the Senate began its investigation of what effect homosexuals have on the military. It held hearings on March 29 and 31; April 29; May 7, 10, and 11 and July 20, 21, and 22. Testimony was gathered from soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The Secretary of the Department of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also appeared before the Armed Services Committee and gave extensive testimony from their knowledge of the Armed Forces. There were panels of witnesses from the academic community, as well as from the Senate. The committee also heard from active and retired military officers and enlisted personnel, homosexuals who had been discharged from the services and members of the military and civilian legal community. Literally hundreds of hours of research were conducted. The chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee both dedicated themselves to the most comprehensive examination of this issue that has ever been conducted. Their efforts took them to military installations and onto ships and submarines. This issue was also debated by the committee with the House Armed Services Committee and discussed with members of the administration on several occasions. All of the committee's efforts made one thing abundantly clear. It was best pointed out in General Powell's testimony before the committee. I would like to take just a moment of the Senate's time to go over General Powell's statements because they were extremely valuable to the decision procession of the committee of the Congress and the administration. Let me now quote from that testimony. We have challenged our own assumptions. We have challenged the history of this issue. We have argued with each other. We have consulted with our commanders at every level, from lieutenant (and) ensign all the way up to the commander in chief(s) of the various theaters. We have talked to our enlisted troops. We talked to the family members who are part of the armed services team. We examined the arguments carefully of those who are on the other side of the issue from us. After all this work by the Department of Defense, General Powell concludes as follows: The presence of open homosexuality would have an unacceptable detrimental and disruptive impact on the cohesion, morale, and esprit of the armed forces. In short, trained, successful, intelligent, experienced military and civilian personnel are of the opinion that admitting homosexual individuals to the military will rob our forces of the most essential element of a fighting force; its cohesion, morale, and esprit. Is this an irrational conclusion? General Powell eloquently addressed this as well. He stated: Unlike race or gender, sexuality is not a benign trait. It is manifested by behavior. While it would be decidedly biased to assume certain behaviors based on gender or membership in a particular racial group, the same is not true for sexuality. On November 30, 1993, 10 months after this effort began, the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 which contained the new policy at section 571. The act codified the military's longstanding ban on homosexuals serving in the military. It was not the result of a knee jerk reaction but the steady work of the U.S. Congress which took into full consideration the needs of the services and the rights of individuals. Judge Nickerson's ruling is the ruling of a single judge in a single district and is not the consensus of the judicial community as a whole. It is not unusual for a case to be lost at the district level. The circuit courts are full of cases being appealed from district courts. The White House, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense all agree that an appeal is in order and will take place this summer. Many appeals are met with decisions which reverse the lower courts. We recently witnessed just such a reversal in the case of Joseph E. Steffan. The law of the land is quite clear. In addressing this matter, Congress exercised its Constitutional prerogative, section 8, U.S. Constitution to-- * * * raise and support Armies, * * * provide and maintain a Navy, * * * and * * * to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. In the process, Congress made a number of findings: First, there is no constitutional right to serve in the Armed Forces. Second, pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of Congress service in the Armed Forces. Third, the primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise. Fourth, the conduct of military operations requires members of the Armed Forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense. Fifth, success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion. Sixth, one of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion; that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members. Seventh, military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that-- The extraordinary responsibilities of the Armed Forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and The military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society. Eighth, the standards of conduct for members of the Armed Forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the Armed Forces. Ninth, those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member has a military status, whether the member is on duty or off duty. Tenth, the pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the Armed Forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment. Eleventh, the worldwide deployment of U.S. military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the Armed Forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy. Twelfth, the prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long- standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service. Thirteenth, the Armed Forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the Armed Forces would create an unacceptable risk to the Armed Forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. Fourteenth, the presence in the Armed Forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. If there is any remaining confusion about the policy, the Department of Defense should ensure that all directives, implementing regulations, and teaching manuals are crystal clear. Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Homosexuality has always been, and continues to be defined by conduct. Speech is conduct, for it is rational to conclude that members of the military who say they are homosexuals have a propensity to engage in conduct. The military should not be made to bear the risk. I fully anticipate that the Supreme Court will carefully review the body of work Congress placed into law. I believe that the strong policy set forth in 10 United States Code section 654 will fully meet the constitutional test. I agree with Senator Nunn that no additional legislation is needed at this time. The law is sufficient. I am confident the court will uphold that law. Obviously we would tend to closely monitor these judicial proceedings, the implementation of department regulations, and the administration's defense of the current law. But the current law is sufficient, in my opinion. I would just assure my colleagues that we intend to pay very close attention to the implementation of that law-- as was clearly expressed with solid majority support of this Congress, with the support of this administration. I ask the Senator from Georgia if he has any additional comments?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, apparently through an oversight, mistake, or some other reason, there are courthouses that did not meet any of the criteria set out by the Senator from Nebraska but nevertheless made the selected list that was the subject of the last amendment. One of those was in Hammond, IN, the Hammond courthouse. Selected criteria indicated that those on the list were not requested by the General Services Administration. The Hammond courthouse was requested by GSA. I quote from their report: The purpose and need determination, and the . . . building project survey lead to the conclusion that a new Federal building with expanded courtroom space is required to serve Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana. It was also subject to the timeout process another criteria projects were not supposed to have met if they were on the list. I quote again: Judicial requirements for Hammond have actually grown since the initial timeout review. Savings to be identified from application of value engineering techniques during the construction phase of this project will permit us to satisfy these additional requirements without requesting any additional funds. That was stated in a letter from the GSA Administrator Roger Johnson. The amendment purported to target projects that the agencies did not request or need. However, as I just pointed out, this particular project and others, such as an Arizona project which the Senator from Arizona pointed out to me, did not meet any of the criteria set forth by the Senator from Nebraska but were included on the list. I do not know why they were included on the list. I do not know if it was a mistake. But I know there were other projects that did meet the criteria but were not included on the list. I am not going to speculate why they were not on the list. Nevertheless, because the motion to table was not agreed to, which would have given us an opportunity to construct an accurate list, we now have an amendment before us which will rescind funding for all projects in which construction has not started. That I would suggest The Senator from Alabama has read some of those courthouses, frankly, many of which met the criteria outlined by the Senator from Nebraska but somehow were not on the list. It is a little bit puzzling to this Senator how projects that did not meet the criteria to be rescinded outlined by the Senator from Nebraska made the list but projects that did meet the criteria were not on the list. This amendment offered by Senator Shelby is about fairness. The Senator from Nebraska's capricious standards were not applied uniformly and singled out particular projects that did not even meet the standards set forth. If Senator Kerrey's purpose is to save taxpayer dollars, which is a commendable purpose, then everything should be on the table as it is in Senator Shelby's amendment. Then we are talking about big money. I will just read a few of the several that would really save the taxpayers money. The courthouse project in Sacramento, CA, $142.9 million, Wheeling, WV, courthouse, $35.8 million; Brooklyn, NY, $43.7 million; Fargo, ND, $20.1 million; and the list goes on. In fact, there are a number of courthouses included in the current amendment that have not even been authorized. We are going to take them all now. We are just going to sweep the whole bundle as long as construction has not started. We are going to take the whole bundle. I regret that those projects which GSA has approved, which GSA subjected to time out and review process, which GSA has certified are legitimate projects, are going to be included in this amendment. But if we are going to include those, then for sure we are going to include every project equitably. Quite frankly, if the Senator from Nebraska's criteria was actually followed in the list he submitted then it would have been a good amendment. But it is not right or fair for the Senator from Nebraska to claim that all the projects on the list met the criteria because they did not. And again I wish to say it is a mystery as to why some courthouses in California, North Dakota, West Virginia, and other States were not on that list when they clearly met the criteria established for rescission outlined by the Senator from Nebraska, and others that clearly did not meet that criteria were on the list. I will leave to the speculation of others why those were on the list. I regret that. But now everybody is in. We can save a ton of money--$1.842 billion. So let us go ahead and do it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague from Connecticut, to introduce the School Choice Demonstration Act. This bill will establish 10 to 20 demonstration projects to study the effects of providing low-income parents and their children with financial assistance to enable them to select the public or private school of their choice. This is a very simple and straightforward bill--we want to enable low-income parents to choose the school their children attend. They can select a public or a private school, but the point is that they will be able to make a choice. Up until now, only those families who can afford to send their children to private schools have had that option. Senator Lieberman and I believe that all families should have the opportunity to choose where their children will be educated. For too long, we have asked everyone to pay for a particular type of education without ensuring that people have a say in what they receive for their money. American education has reached a critical point. Time has taught us that we cannot simply throw more and more money at the public schools, and rely on that to improve education. As many of you know, annual per pupil spending has tripled in the last 30 years, while student achievement has dropped dramatically, evidenced by a decrease in average SAT scores of almost 90 points. Clearly, more money is not the solution. We have to do something soon. In inner cities across America, almost half of all high school students fail to graduate. This is a chilling statistic. We should take it as a wake up call. Obviously, something is seriously wrong with our educational system. This bill proposes an option for some students who are not succeeding in the public education system. Our bill is simple. It says, let us allot a small amount of funds, so that 10 to 20 demonstration grants can be awarded to local districts around the country who are interested in offering increased educational opportunities to their students. The funds granted by this bill will provide assistance to children from the lowest-income homes. The children eligible under this program are those children who qualify for reduced or free school lunches. These funds will only go to low-income families. And they are to be used to pay for education costs at public or private schools. The parents choose which school their child will attend. We have incorporated a very strict civil rights and desegregation protection clause to make sure that participating schools can in no way discriminate on the basis of race. We also stipulate that demonstration projects cannot continue if they interfere with these desegregation plans. The cost of this program will be $30 million and there will be no more than 20 projects. School districts would voluntarily apply for the grants through the secretary of education, and we have established some criteria for the secretary to make the determination as to which districts would be included. This bill also requires that a nationwide evaluation of the demonstration program be conducted. Up until now, discussion concerning the actual effects of school choice policies has been limited by a lack of conclusive data. This bill addresses that need for objective data. An evaluation will give us a baseline from which to conduct our discussion at the Federal level. Many localities are already experimenting with some type of school choice. My home State of Indiana, for example, has several existing choice initiatives under way. One program, originated by Golden Rule Insurance, helps low-income children in Indianapolis attend the private school of their choice by awarding them scholarships to cover up to half of the tuition costs. There are currently 1,100 students being sponsored, and 650 kids are on the waiting list. Our public schools are also experimenting with choice. Indianapolis public schools, for example, has initiated the select schools program, by which parents can choose which IPS school their child will attend. Eighty-six percent of IPS parents participated in this program this year. I have spoken with educators in a district in Indiana who have already expressed an interest in the program. Some public school educators have met with private and parochial school educators and there is a real interest in testing the concept to see how it works, to work out the bugs, and to see if it would actually make a difference. None of you should have any reason to oppose this bill. It is not a mandate. It is a purely voluntary program for those local education associations who are interested in broadening the educational opportunities offered in their community. This bill provides a basis by which we in Congress can evaluate the validity of this particular concept. If it results in substantially new opportunities for low- income children, then shouldn't such data be offered to school districts and education agencies across this country? Why would we not want to have this information available so we can make intelligent choices? After all, we are not here to protect a particular system. Our bottom line is to provide the best education opportunities to American children. For far too long, we have denied low-income families the educational choice that many others have. It is important to understand what this bill does not do. It does not force choice on anyone. This bill presents a purely voluntary program. It will not upset the American public education system. Ten to twenty voluntary choice programs throughout the country will not upset public education. Furthermore, Federal resources will not be drained from any public school or education system. The Secretary cannot reduce or deny funds that a public school would otherwise be eligible for, even though students in that school or school system opted out or numbers decreased. This bill does not violate civil rights protections. It does not destroy public education. In fact, I think it enhances public education. My home is Fort Wayne, IN. For decades our education system has thrived on competition. We have a vigorous Catholic school education system in Fort Wayne, IN. We have a Lutheran school system because of our heavy concentration of people of Lutheran belief. They have established their own system. These two systems exist, along with other private education opportunities, side by side with the public education system in Fort Wayne and they are all thriving. They are thriving because the parents and students of Fort Wayne have a choice. The competition between those three systems has caused each system to better their education program to compete with each other for the students, and they work hand in hand. Parents in Fort Wayne have opportunities which parents in many States and areas do not have. This bill says that it is time for low-income families to have the same can afford to send their kids to private schools already have. Let's try this limited demonstration project and see if it improves the education of some of America's neediest children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this morning, leader time has been reserved, and there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 10 a.m. At the hour of 10 a.m., the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 831, the self-employed health insurance deduction bill. That bill will be considered under a 5-hour time limitation which was agreed upon last evening. The majority leader has announced that there will be no rollcall votes during today's session of the Senate. Senator Dole has also indicated that it will be his intention to proceed to the regulation moratorium bill on Monday. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I am sorry; again I was speaking to staff.

Mr. COATS. The entitlement could be separately enrolled and subject to a line-item veto, but the funds that were obligated to be spent under the law would have to be spent.

Mr. COATS. Because it is direct spending which comes directly from the Treasury, it is a protected expenditure under the law.

Mr. COATS. Any allocation of money is an item, so the answer to that is yes.

Mr. COATS. The Senator from Indiana would answer as he has answered before, that is, that the mandatory spending, the amount of dollars expended to fulfill the requirements of the law under an entitlement-- existing requirement of the law under an entitlement--would be spent by the Treasury in accordance with the law. The separate enrollment language relative to entitlements applies, in terms of spending, in terms of dollars that are subject to line-item veto, applies only to new spending under a change in the law which would change the benefit.

Mr. COATS. And if that change in the benefit would require increased spending.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I ask the clerk how much time remains?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I certainly understand that. I guess my concern is that the majority leader has indicated that it is his intent, and I think it was the agreed-upon intent of the managers of the bill as well as the minority leader, that we conclude all action on the line-item veto and bring it to final passage today.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the statement of the Senator from West Virginia is correct.

Mr. COATS. The original decision did carry through until Friday. Given the progress that we have made and the short list of amendments that was left, today, and, obviously, many Members hope that will be the case, but it is not determined and there is no particular agreement says that it has to be.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this Senator has no doubt that had the Senator from West Virginia wanted to carry this over into next week or even beyond, he certainly has the ability to do that. I take him at his word and withdraw my reservation.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, earlier the minority leader, Senator Daschle, whose amendment is currently pending, once again made the point that the complexity of the separate enrollment process is a reason to vote against the Dole amendment, because it would take a fairly simple, several-page piece of legislation that would be sent to the President and translate it into a stack of individually enrolled items, any one of which or several of which the President could veto. The strength, I will suggest, of the separately enrolled procedure is the very fact that each particular item is separately enrolled into a separate bill. And the purpose of that is so that the Congress, the President, and the American public knows just exactly what is contained in this thin little booklet as to how their money is going to be spent. It is not a matter of convenience for Congress. It will be somewhat less convenient to go to separate enrollment, although we have demonstrated that the enrolling clerk now possesses the technology through computerization to process separate enrollment in a very expeditious way. So it is not the nightmare that it might once have been. It is not the nightmare monstrosity that has been described. I wonder what the American people would say if they were polled on the question of whether, to determine how their tax dollars are spent, they wanted a booklet of about 8 or 10 or 12 pages which talked in very broad categories, or whether they would like the ability to see how each particular item is spent, and they could pull that out and say, ``Aha.'' See, the question is not whether or not the rescission process suggested by the minority leader is more convenient; the question is not even whether or not it spends less or more money; the question is, How is that money spent? The question that the American taxpayer is raising is: How is my money being spent? They care a lot more about the details of the specific expenditure than they do the overall total, although I do not mean to suggest the overall total is not important. So, if a rescission is brought to the floor and the claim is made that this rescission saves as much money as what the President requested, it does not answer the question of how is that money spent. And is it spent for a legitimate purpose? And so we annually run into the question of the expenditures for the Lawrence Welk Home--the studies that most Americans feel are inappropriate uses of their tax dollars, the special little projects and spending that goes to benefit maybe a particular Member of Congress and enhance his or her reelection but really does nothing for the individuals that the majority in Congress represent. We annually have to deal with how the money is spent. So it is not just a question of how much; it is how much is being spent and is that in the taxpayers' interest? And is there accountability to the Member who has proposed such an expenditure? Mr. President, last November, anger against this institution burned white hot. With their votes, the American people decisively demonstrated their deep frustration with the status quo. Just weeks ago, I suggest that the Senate fueled that anger and betrayed their trust by failing to pass a balanced budget amendment, demonstrating that we are an institution more concerned with preserving our power than with protecting our Nation's posterity. That is really the issue that is before us today. Are we going to preserve the status quo? Are we going to preserve the power of spending, so that we can continue to spend the way that we have spent the taxpayers' dollars in the past? Or are we going to change the procedure so that we can be held more accountable to the American taxpayer for how we spend their dollars? That is the question that is before us under the minority leader substitute. Will this institution decide to protect our powers and preserve the status quo? Or are we willing to take bold steps to end business as usual? The Wall Street Journal editorialized, in 1993, expedited rescission, which is the minority leader's alternative proposal before us that we will vote on shortly, an alternative to the tough measure that the President has requested, that Senator McCain and I have brought forward. ``Expedited rescission,'' the Wall Street Journal said, ``is to the line-item veto what chicory-flavored water is to Colombian coffee. It may look the same, but one taste tells the difference. A true line-item veto,'' the editorial said, ``would mean that the President will receive a spending bill from the Congress and would have the right to strike out items he considered unnecessary spending. Congress could restore the spending but only by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate. The push to replace the line-item veto with a sham substitute is typical of how Congress is dealing with reform in this session. It is faking it.'' The substitute that is offered by the minority leader simply does nothing to change the way in which we spend people's money. It does not alter the balance in favor of savings. The same simple majority that voted to spend the money in the first place is all that is required to continue the spending. Procedure in the minority leader's bill says that Members on this floor can take the President's rescission which, yes, does now have to be brought to a vote under expedited rescission, but with just a simple majority can strike any rescission that the President sends up. So the same majority that passed the bill in the first place can take the President's rescission and strike it. Although the title of the minority leader's bill is the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act, this is false advertising. There is no veto contemplated anywhere in the bill, none whatsoever. The President is given the chance to veto spending, and Congress is not forced to muster the two-thirds to override the veto. In 1992, former President Reagan said, ``There is talk that the congressional leadership may offer the new President expedited rescission authority. This will not do the job,'' he said. ``Although it would permit the President to strike budget-busting expenditures, they could easily be reinstated by a simple majority vote of the Congress. A true line-item veto,'' President Reagan said, ``must require a two-thirds vote to override. Not only does the substitute fail to give the President veto power over spending accounts, it does little to address the failures of the Impoundment and Control Act.'' Since 1974, Congress' record on acting on Presidential impoundments has been embarrassing. The minority leader said as much. By simple inaction, we have ignored tens of billions of dollars in Presidential requests for rescission or impoundment authority. It has been the will of Congress not to act. It has been the will of Congress to fail to act. And Members of the minority leader's party have as much as said so. They have come down here and said, ``We have to stop the current practice.'' The problem is, their bill will not stop the current practice. All the substitute does is expedite a vote. It does nothing to change the presumption in favor of savings. It takes no step toward restoring the impoundment powers which the President exercised prior to 1974. And after rescission of the President rejected by this Congress. The separate enrollment legislation before us, on the other hand, would restore authority to the President. It would allow him to veto spending and require two-thirds of both Houses to override it. The substitute offered by the minority retains the current procedures, with the one exception that Congress could no longer bury the impoundments, but they must vote. Quite frankly, Mr. President, their idea is too little too late. Nothing but the threat of a true line-item veto has even prodded their opposing our efforts into a vote on expedited rescission. Where were they when Senator McCain and I were on the floor year after year after year offering enhanced rescission, offering some way to deal with the problem that they all admit exists? A handful of Democrats--you can count them on one hand--were supporting our efforts. Now it is only the legitimate, real threat of a true line-item veto that brings them to the floor saying, ``We are for line-item veto, we are just not for your line-item veto. Let us do it our way.'' Well, their way basically continues the practice that brought us to this place in the first place. They have never brought up, since my time in Congress and in the Senate--or Senator McCain's time in Congress and the Senate--a freestanding bill. The majority leader, Senator Mitchell, never brought up a freestanding bill to deal with this problem. Expedited rescission does nothing to restore power to the Executive which Congress grabbed in 1974. Congress, which chose to spend the money in the first place, retains complete control under expedited rescission. The only argument for expedited rescission is that it might shame the Congress with a public vote. But the time for shame is over. With a $4.8 trillion debt, with our children facing a lifetime tax rate that is unconscionable, shame is simply not enough. We are already shamed. We need more than a sense of shame; we need to give the Executive power to challenge our spending habits. We need a true line-item veto. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by the minority leader and vote for a true line-item veto. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, 1995, for purposes of conducting a Full Committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider S. 575, a bill to provide Outer Continental Shelf [OCS] Impact Assistance to State and local governments, and S. 158, a bill to encourage production of domestic oil and gas resources in deep water on the OCS.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to meet for a business meeting Thursday, March 23, at 9:30 a.m. to consider S. 534, S. 268, S. 503, and other pending business.