Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we are approaching perhaps one of the most historic moments in the history of the Congress, when tomorrow this Senate will vote on the balanced budget amendment. We have not had an opportunity to pass a balanced budget amendment of this magnitude since my tenure in the Congress, and I doubt this century. We are very, very close--perhaps only one vote away. I think it is important for the Senate to understand, and for Senators to consider, just how critical it is that we bring to a final resolution this now 4-week-long debate on the necessity of a balanced budget. I went back and grabbed a copy of the General Accounting Office report to the Congress, written in 1992, to review what their conclusions in a study entitled ``Prompt Action Necessary to Avert Long-Term Damage to the Economy.'' I will just cite a couple of items from their conclusion. They said, ``Failure fiscal policy, ``and the composition of Federal spending will doom future generations to a stagnating standard of living, will damage the United States competitiveness and influence in the world and hamper our ability to address pressing national needs.'' In 1992, the General Accounting Office warned the Congress, as it has repeatedly--and as many others have warned--that failure to reverse the current trends in how we spend money and the composition of that spending will doom future generations. It will doom future generations. They go on to say, ``If not nothing is done to reverse current trends, deficits will explode over the longer term.'' Finally, they conclude, ``The economic and political reality is that the Nation cannot continue on the current path.'' The discussion over the past 4 weeks in this Senate Chamber has been on whether or not we continue on the current path, or whether we put in place a device which will cause us to change direction, which will fundamentally alter the way in which this Congress addresses the spending of taxpayers' dollars, through a constitutional mandate, constitutional direction to balance the Federal budget. That is the question that is before us. We have heard speeches and we have had many, many amendments saying we need to exempt certain programs from the balanced budget amendment. Primarily, the emphasis, as we have just heard, is: let us not follow the mandates of the contract because it will doom our children. It will adversely impact those children. We have had a number of amendments saying let us exempt programs for children from the effect of the balanced budget amendment. But it seems to me that if we are really, truly interested in our children, we will face up to the responsibility that is ours to address this deficit and this national debt--a debt which has run beyond our control and, as the General Accounting Office reports, ``will doom future generations of these children.'' The contract was put before the American people, and it outlined a new direction for this Congress and a new direction for this Nation that was overwhelmingly endorsed in the last election. We are going forward in an attempt to take a look at the Federal programs as they currently exist, including those that address children, and ask ourselves the fundamental questions: Is this the best expenditure of taxpayers dollars? Can we maximize that expenditure with fewer dollars? Is this the most efficient way of getting support to the very children that our colleagues were talking about here this morning? When we delve into the record, we find that it is not efficient. There is duplication and overlap, waste and mismanagement, and administrative costs that deny benefits to the very people that we are trying to help. Many of these programs were well-intended when they were started. But because the Congress failed to adequately oversee the implementation of these programs, and because we have been in literally a feeding frenzy over the past couple of decades of adding more and more programs, we end up with an inefficiency in Government that is staggering. This Government spending is driving our deficit and driving our national debt to the point where we will have very little, if anything, to offer to those children in the future. The Labor and Human Resources Committee on which I serve looked at job training and found that there were 163 separate Federal job training programs. Is job training a worthy goal? Of course, it is. Can it be done more efficiently? I think we instinctively understand that if there are 163 programs administered by 14 agencies of the Federal Government that perhaps we can consolidate those and run those programs more efficiently. In child care, a component of the children's programs, there are 93 separate programs of child care administered by 11 different Federal agencies, disbursing $11.5 billion a year in targeted programs. Many of those programs overlap. In fact, a child in poverty could theoretically qualify for 13 separate child care programs, all providing the same benefit. So the charge to this Congress is: Can you do it better? Can you do it more efficiently? Can you do it more effectively? And time after time, year after year, Congress has failed in that responsibility. We are here seeking a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution because Congress has failed in its responsibility to provide efficient, effective management of the programs that it enacts. It has failed to correctly oversee the spending of taxpayers' dollars to the point where, in just the last 14 years, we have driven the national debt from less than $1 to $4.8 trillion. We are saddling future generations with enormous debt. Each new child born in America bears a cost of nearly $20,000 which will have to be repaid. We are approaching an interest payment alone that exceeds virtually every other category of discretionary domestic spending for the Government. Interest does not go to children's lunches. It does not to go child care. It does not go to road investment. It does not go to community policing. It does not go to fight crime. It does not go to fight drugs and all the other numbers of programs the Federal Government has been involved in. It simply goes to pay interest, simply interest on the debt. And that interest is going to explode in the future. If we really care about our children, we will look at where we are today and say: ``We must change course. We must do something differently than what we have done before.'' We have had all kinds of so-called congressional solutions, legislative solutions, to deal with this deficit. And while we are touting the promise of the latest proposal by the Congress to deal with the deficit, the deficit keeps mounting at a staggering rate. The National Taxpayers Union has estimated that for a child born today, by the time that child is 18 years old, he or she will have accumulated $103,000 in extra taxes over his or her lifetime because of the debt. Today's debt burden is over 10 times more than the debt today's adults inherited from their parents. Let me repeat that. The debt that I inherited from my parents is one-tenth of what my children will inherit from me. The National Taxpayers Union goes on to say: Our children and grandchildren will pay. In many ways--not just in extra taxes. But in higher interest rates. Less affordable homes. Fewer jobs. Lower wages. Decaying infrastructure. Meager retirement incomes. A debt-burdened Government unable to afford programs and benefits Americans now take for granted. The very programs that our colleagues were talking about--the School Lunch Programs, the Child Care Programs that go to benefit children and which we now take for granted--will become completely unaffordable by an increasing debt-burdened Government. Thomas Jefferson left us with words of wisdom that we have not followed, and that we need to ponder as we come to a decision about how we are going to vote on this balanced budget amendment. He said: The question of whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of Government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and be morally bound to pay for them ourselves. We are entrusted with a unique privilege and responsibility as Members of the U.S. Senate. We should heed the words of Jefferson that say we should be morally bound to pay our own debts. What right do we have to enjoy a standard of living now and simply dump the payment for that standard of living on to our children and our grandchildren? What right do we have to do that? It is immoral to do that. We should, as Jefferson said, be morally bound to pay for what we spend. And we have not done that. We have not done that in small margins, we have not done that in massive margins. We have expanded our national debt from less than $1 trillion in 1980 to nearly $5 trillion in 1994. We have quintupled it in 15 years. We have quintupled the debt that took 200 years to accumulate prior to that. And so, as Members contemplate their vote, I hope they would see the extraordinary implications of this vote. If the balanced budget amendment fails, I fear we will not have another opportunity to address the primary and fundamental issue facing this what we were elected to do in the first place--of determining priorities, of establishing ways in which the taxpayers' dollar can be spent in effective, efficient ways. We will have to go into every program, every program of Government, to ask ourselves the fundamental question: Is this the best way we can spend this money? Is this the highest priority for this money? Is there a more efficient way to do it? It is a question, as Jefferson said, of such consequence to place it among the fundamental principles of Government. It is wrong. It is wrong for us to continue this course. We have a choice before us tomorrow evening that will fundamentally alter the way we do business. We have proven our incapacity to be careful stewards of the Nation's debt, careful stewards of the Nation's earnings, careful stewards of the future of this country for our children's sakes, for our grandchildren's sakes, for future generations' sakes. Let us do what we all know we need to do--save us from ourselves. Give us a tool which will allow us to balance that budget and once and for all end this practice of saddling posterity with our debts. Mr. President, I yield the floor Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 7, at 9:30 a.m., in SR-332, to discuss what tax policy reforms will help strengthen American agriculture and agribusiness.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 7, at 9:30 a.m. in open session to receive testimony on U.S. national security strategy.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Tuesday, February 7, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing on the subject of regulatory reform.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, for decades Congress has enjoyed the unlimited luxury of unlimited debt. Our practices, which are pleasing for the moment to constituencies that profit from the practice of unlimited debt, have seriously undermined the credibility of this institution with the American people. Skepticism and cynicism abound. That skepticism and cynicism-- directed toward those who have made hollow promises, unfulfilled year after year, perceived to have been made for political purposes--brought about, in my opinion, the results that we saw in the November election. The American people want Congress to be honest and to be straightforward with them, even if it brings some unpleasant truths. Now, with the passage in the House of Representatives of the balanced budget amendment by a historic 301 to 132 vote, the spotlight has turned on the Senate. As such, we, in a sense, are on trial. Our credibility is at stake. We are debating something of which the American people have become very well aware--the impact, year after year, for 25 straight years, of expenditures that exceed our revenues. It has become apparent to the American people that we are forfeiting not only our own future but, more importantly, that of future generations and their opportunity to participate in the American dream. I do not think there should be any argument about the urgency of our circumstances. Every child born in America inherits about $18,000 in public debt. This unfair burden placed on the future is the result of a failure of political will and it is a betrayal of moral commitments. It was Thomas Jefferson who noted long ago: The question of whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of Government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and be morally bound to pay them ourselves. ``The fundamental principles of Government,'' Jefferson noted. What is perhaps the most fundamental of those fundamental principles? It is the same principle that applies to each person in our individual lives, to our family life, to corporate America, to business America, to virtually every institution. That fundamental principle involves being responsible and accountable to the people we serve, to our employees, to our family members, to ourselves. It means not spending more than we receive and running up a debt to the extent where we have become unable to pay that debt. Or, in paying that debt, we must squander resources that should go for essential purposes and essential services. That is exactly what has happened here in the United States. We now face a national debt of $4.8 trillion. Applied across the board per capita that is The debt robs people of the opportunity for economic progress. It steals their opportunity to set essential priorities of how they will spend their money. This failure of fundamental principle has led some of the most distinguished Members of this body to leave out of frustration, perhaps, or disgust. These respected Senators lost faith in our ability to act. As I said earlier, the public generally shares that skepticism. With the House of Representatives now having passed the balanced budget amendment--and I hope the Senate will soon follow--we can begin to recover the trust of the American people. Despite the pleas of constituencies that walk in each of our offices and say, ``Yes, it is a problem, but not my program,'' I believe the American people instinctively know that we have got to get our hands on this monster that has just grown beyond anybody's ability to control. Now, I understand that amending the Constitution is serious business. Perhaps it is the most serious act of which this Congress is capable. It alters the most basic social contract between government and its citizens. The continued accumulation of debt threatens the endurance, the very endurance of that very contract, because it is an agreement not only with ourselves but an agreement with our children. The constitutional amendment is, admittedly, a strong measure, a strong remedy. Sometimes it is needed, as we have demonstrated in the past. It is needed when the crisis is truly here. And it is truly here. A General Accounting Office report says that interest payments will exceed $1 trillion by the year 2020 if we simply remain on our present course. That fact has to be unacceptable to every Member of this body. That continued load of interest on the debt means that we hinder our economy from growth it can provide in jobs and opportunities for Americans. It means that we divert money from essential expenditures that this Congress needs to make while continually taking more money from hard-working taxpayers who need those funds to meet basic individual and family needs. We borrow at the rate of $1 billion a day--$1 billion a day. What could we do in this country with $1 billion a day to meet essential needs, to return funds, or allow taxpayers to retain more hard-earned dollars, to make decisions for themselves and their family. What can we do with those funds. So it does come down to a test of will. It does come down to political courage. But this Congress and previous Congresses have demonstrated, to date, that we do not have the political courage or the will because it is simply too easy to take the expedient route, to say ``yes'' to the constituent groups that might help ensure our reelection, rather than say, ``I am sorry. We simply do not have the funds.'' We can say what legislators of 48 States have to say to their constituents. That is, ``Yes, I recognize your concerns. I understand the need. But you must understand we have to decide how we will spend our scarce revenue dollars on the basis of priorities. That's what we are elected to do.'' This body has not had to do that. It has become an all too convenient method of ensuring political longevity and reelection to be able to say ``yes'' while we ask future generations to pay for that ``yes.'' Spending habits of Congress are simply too entrenched. There is an ideology of many Members that has nothing to do with left or right, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. It has to do with power. Power to use the Federal Treasury to please special interests, to make powerful constituencies happy, to ensure our longevity and our reelection. Deficit spending has always made political sense because it allows Congress to please people in the present by placing burdens on the future. The future, significantly, has no vote in the next election. We have built that power on the ability to buy constituent support for cash funded from debt. That power, it is obvious here, will not be easily surrendered even when we face a crisis of our own creation. Even when the views of most Americans are clear, that power will not be easily surrendered. Make no mistake, what we are talking about with the balanced budget amendment is surrendering power, power which I contend we have handled irresponsibly. The record is clear. I came to this body, the body of Congress, in 1981. I remember the recoiling of new Members over the prospect of having to vote early on in 1981 to raise the debt limit to over $1 trillion. I stand here today, a few short years later, and we are looking at the prospect of a $5 trillion debt. It is a failure of political will. We all bear responsibility. The question now is, how do we address the problem, given the fact that the crisis is here and we must not continue the past practice of increasing debt and placing the responsibility on the shoulders of future generations--how do we address that? That is the fundamental question. We have had proposal after proposal, scheme after scheme, promise after promise that holds out the hope that we finally will have summoned the political will and the courage to address the crisis in a legislative manner. Yet the record is clear. Year after year, proposal after proposal, we have failed in that responsibility. So now comes the moment of truth. Now comes the opportunity for Members to enshrine in the Constitution of the United States--perhaps the one promise none of us dares violate--a mandate to which we will pledge fealty upon our swearing in, a mandate that says, ``Thou shalt not spend more than you bring in.'' Such an oath will make honest politicians out of all, honest legislators out of all. Having placed our left hand on the Bible and raised our right hand, swearing to uphold the Constitution of the United States, including the injunction that ``We will not spend more than we take in,'' we will have to face the music at every legislative session. We will have to look our constituents in the eye and say, ``We are sworn to uphold this Constitution, and this Constitution forbids us from going into debt. So your program, your proposal, the additional spending that you seek may be worthy, but it has to be placed among the categories and lists of priorities that we will have to decide each time we meet.'' We will be forced to establish those priorities. We will be able to summon the wherewithal to finally live up to the responsibility that each of us has failed in, and that is to be careful guardians of the dollars that the public entrusts to Members. It will force us to avoid a system which allows Members to transfer that responsibility from the present to the future, and ensure that we do not place on future generations the debts which we are obligated to pay. The constitutional amendment to balance the budget would transform the nature of our commitment to a responsible budget. It is one thing to vote for a deficit, it is something entirely else to violate the Constitution. That, Mr. President, I contend is what is at issue here. The constitutional amendment to balance the budget is an opportunity, a chance to leave some legacy other than monumental debt. I ask my colleagues, many of whom have provided many, many years of meritorious service, what legacy do you want to leave when your time is finished? What legacy, what heritage do you want to pass on, given the service that you have been privileged to provide as a Member of the U.S. Congress? Do we want to leave a legacy of debt which places a burden on the opportunities for this Nation. Do we want to leave a legacy for our children and grandchildren and future generations that denies them the very opportunities of which we have taken advantage? Is that the legacy we want to leave? I suggest that it is not the legacy we want to leave. I suggest that every other attempt that we have made, every other proposal that we have addressed has not solved the problem or even come close to solving the problem. There has been too much temptation to please the present by shifting the responsibility to the future. We have demonstrated that we are not capable of dealing with it. So we are almost asking to approve the balanced budget amendment as a way of saving ourselves, saving ourselves from the continued moral failure of being responsible to the very people that we are privileged to represent. Let that will ensure for future generations the rights and privileges that we have been so fortunate to enjoy. The balanced budget amendment is also a chance to restore some needed trust, to prove that the Congress can stand for something other than defense of its own power and its own privilege. Mr. President, I will have, obviously, many opportunities to speak further on this issue. It is a critical one. We will spend a considerable amount of time dealing with it. There are obviously divisions of opinion as to how we should get from here to there. I look forward to speaking and participating on this issue in the days ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the world lost a great public servant and well-known Hoosier last weekend with the death of the Honorable Richard L. Roudebush. He was born on a farm in Noblesville, IN, 77 years ago. In 1941, he graduated from Butler University in Indianapolis with a degree in business administration. Soon after, he enlisted on the Army just 1 month before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and was shipped out to Egypt in September 1942, where he joined with British Forces during five major battles in North Africa. While participating in the invasion of Italy, his landing craft was hit and was sunk by the enemy, but he survived and continued the fight with the 15th Air Force. Richard Roudebush's distinguished career of serving United States does not end with his role in World War II. He demonstrated his leadership among his war veteran peers with being actively involved in the Indiana Department of Veterans of Foreign Wars and eventually being elected as national commander in chief of the national VFW. A friend of Mr. Roudebush's remarked that he was so discouraged at the way Hoosier Congressmen were handling things in Washington, that he decided to run for Congress himself. He did, and in fact, he was elected to the House of Representatives five times, and from three different districts. Through his own efforts, he quickly rose from the ranks to become the assistant minority whip and ranking member of his party on the Committee on Science and Astronautics where he was best known for his instrumental efforts in helping to get America's space program successfully off the ground. No challenge was ever too great for Richard Roudebush. This was most apparent in the contest for the Senate seat of then-Senator Vance Hartke. Mr. Roudebush did not win the race, but it was the closest Senate election race in Indiana history. Out of 2 million votes cast only 4,000 votes kept him from victory. His deep affection and commitment to his fellow veterans led him on a continued mission, especially after his congressional days, to help make better the lives of his fellow comrades. After working in the Veterans Administration for 3 years as the No. 3 man, President Gerald Ford nominated Mr. Roudebush as Veterans Administrator in 1974. His dedication to veterans continued later in life as he served on veteran advisory boards and was honored with life membership to most veteran- related organizations. Richard Roudebush fought for United States and served his country in the public sector as representative of the people. He was a Hoosier hero who exemplified the very best in public service. His vision, knowledge, and zeal for excellence, and determination to see initiatives through to their successful conclusion are some of his qualities that have endured in the Veterans Administration and the Congress. His honors and awards are a treatment to the depth of his service dedication and the impact of his efforts. His presence will be greatly missed, but his work on behalf of veterans and the residents of Indiana will remain a great legacy of which all Americans can be proud.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we are nearing the time when we are going to have a final vote on this very important piece of legislation. There has been extensive debate, numerous amendments, attempts to specify, clarify, declassify, and I think bring more complication into this issue than need be. The voters on November 8 said they wanted some very significant, major change in the way that Washington does its business, in the way it relates to the citizens which we were sent here to serve. There are some basic fundamental underlying principles that we pledged to the people in the fall of 1994 and which they endorsed on November 8: Live by the laws that you ask us to live by. Get your fiscal house in order. Do what we have to do. Do not spend more money than you take in. Fundamental to and a big part of that mandate was the request from Governors and mayors and local units of government to ``quit sending us mandates to comply with certain laws that you think are best for our communities, that you think are best for our people, and, by the way, that you think we ought to pay for.'' I have here a chart of the State of Indiana with just nine cities highlighted, with the amounts that these cities have to spend on mandates sent by this body, on priorities that they do not feel are the top priorities in their communities. They are diverting money from police on the streets. They are diverting money from essential services that our local communities have determined are most important for the citizens that they represent. Yet those are shoved down the list, down the priority list, because the Federal mandate comes with a stamp that says, ``Now, we have ordered it. You do it now. You figure out a way to pay for it.'' Their Hobson's choice is either to raise taxes on citizens that do not want taxes raised for the mandates that are coming down, or to cut essential services. Given the tax climate that exists, the deficit climate that exists in our country today, what happens is that essential services are cut. I have listed here city after city in Indiana, including Fort Wayne, IN, that has had to cut essential services that are necessary to the functioning of that community and reach the real needs of the people. We have a very basic choice here. We can follow the mandate of the fall, the mandate of the people, and return authority back to the units of government that are closest to the people and back to the people; or we can continue to take the attitude that Washington knows best, that we can decide here what is best for every community in Indiana. It may be what is best for a particular community somewhere in our Nation. But one size does not fit all. One community's needs are not every other community's needs. So we have a very basic decision to make. That decision is: Do we want to return authority and power to those units of government that are much closer to the people and give them the flexibility of providing the priorities; or, if we are going to mandate something that we believe is so important that ought to be mandated on a national basis, are we going to provide the funds necessary to so that they can accomplish that mandate without subordinating other top, important priorities that affect that particular local community? I think it is that basic. Some would say that oversimplifies it; you do not understand how it works. We have seen charts on how complicated this procedure is. There is a basic, fundamental question on which we will vote in just a couple of hours. That fundamental question is: Are we going to continue to dictate out of Washington decisions that our local citizens must live by, or are we beginning to turn that back to the people? The very first act of the new Congress was to pass a bill which ensures that Congress will live under the same laws it imposes on the rest of America. It was an important first step in fundamentally altering the culture of Congress. We will pass better laws if we must live by them; if they cannot be complied with, they will not pass. The bill before us today is equally important, because it ends business as usual. For too long, Congress has legislated with impunity. Not only has Congress exempted itself from provisions of the law; often we have indemnified ourselves from the costs. It has passed laws imposing burdens on States, communities, and businesses with little regard for the cost, and no accountability to the taxpayer. The $4.7 trillion in accumulated debt only begins to tell the story of a Congress addicted to deficits; when we have lacked the resources we have simply passed on the costs. Under current practice, Congress does not have to consider the cost of the mandates it imposes on State and local government and the private sector. This is an irresponsible way to legislate. The bill we are considering will ensure that we know the cost of Federal mandates on localities before a bill passes, and it will require that we provide a funding mechanism to pay for them. Under S. 1, mandates with costs to State and local government of more than $50 million must have a CBO cost estimate. Congress must then include the funds by finding an offset or by raising revenues. Legislation which imposes financial burdens of more than $200 million on the private sector must also have a CBO estimate or be ruled out of order. The cost of mandates to communities is significant, perhaps a sampling of communities around my State will shed some light on why this legislation is so important. City: Total cost, fiscal year 1993 Anderson...................................................$6,831,940 Columbus....................................................1,382,719 Elkhart.....................................................2,162,928 Fort Wayne..................................................5,837,492 Hammond.....................................................1,051,701 Lafayette.....................................................132,000 Mishawaka.....................................................162,447 South Bend..................................................2,751,150 These are big numbers for Indiana communities, yet they just begin to tell the story. When we require State and local government to respond to Washington's priorities--priorities Washington did not see fit to pay for--we preempt the spending priorities of local communities, regardless of their urgency. When a Federal mandate comes down, it moves to the top of the list. This means that State and local leaders are forced to deal first, not with local concerns, but with Washington's agenda. One Indiana mayor characterized this as the my-way, but-you-pay approach to Federal policy. As a result, our States and localities are faced with a Hobbsien choice--raise taxes, or forgo dealing with the real problems of the community. Let me cite an example. There is no area of public concern more profound than crime. Yet many cities divert funds away from local law enforcement to pay for Federal mandates. In a survey of 146 cities, conducted by the National Conference of Mayors and Price Waterhouse, it was estimated that over $800 million annually--an average of $5.5 million per city--would be available in 1995 if Federal mandates were funded. Many of those cities said they would spend the freed moneys on crime prevention. Most of it, 62 percent, would be spent putting new police officers on the street. The rest would be spent upgrading patrol cars, modernizing equipment, and providing overtime pay for officers. Bloomington, IN, estimates it would spend an additional $90,000 on law enforcement. South Bend would spend over $1\1/2\ million on new police protection for its citizens. Federal mandates are hampering the ability of our cities to provide for the basic safety and security of their citizens. Unfunded mandates also dramatically increase the cost of doing business. Complying with Federal regulations, as well as the liability exposure that results from Federal mandates and regulations, adds billions of dollars every year to basic business costs. These burdens thwart growth and job creation. They increase costs for consumers. And they discourage people from going into business. It is critical that Congress pass this legislation. We must return power and resources to States and communities so that they can deal effectively and creatively with the unique problems and priorities they face. We must relieve the burdens we have placed on the businesses of this country, and allow them to unleash their creative power to build a strong and growing economy. The mayor of my home town, Fort Wayne, IN, expressed the sentiments of many when he said: We need to change this irresponsible habit. If the same people who wrote the laws and drafted the regulations had to raise the funds to pay for them, they would be much more careful about the costs. In passing this legislation we take an important second step toward significant congressional reform and greater accountability to the American taxpayer.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers fought a revolution against what they saw as an imperial government, a government that taxed them to the point of despair and denied their freedom. From this revolution, they built a country on the idea that the preservation of the freedom and the integrity of the common man was the measure of good government. Last year, on the 8th day of November, the American people rebelled once again, this time not against an imperial government but against an imperial Congress. They fought this revolution with the legacy of our Founding Fathers. They fought it with their vote. The American people voted in November to overthrow an entrenched, distant Congress. They forcefully demonstrated that they were very deeply cynical about their Government and deeply skeptical about its ability to create sound public policy. They decided that an institution which could not govern itself could not govern the rest of us. It was a sobering decision because it is impossible to be simultaneously held in contempt by the American public and to be viewed as an institution capable of providing leadership on the major problems facing our Nation. And so the simple conclusion and the simple fact is this. We must restore the faith of the American people in their elected representatives if major problems are to be effectively addressed and endorsed and embraced by the American people. We need to create an environment in this body where we can focus on important problems. That is the mandate of the election and that requires major reform in the way that this institution conducts its business. Four years ago I stood before this body to introduce four measures designed to rein in an out-of-touch Congress. These measures ensured that there would be an end to the midnight pay raises slipped in in the back rooms to an otherwise popular bill, hoping to slip it by the process that would expose it to debate and allow Members to vote up or down and have their constituents know what their vote was. I am pleased that this measure has now been adopted into law and is part of the Constitution of the United States so that no longer will we be allowed to raise or adjust our pay without exposing it to the light of debate and putting our yeas and nays in public for the public to judge us on. I introduced a measure to reform the way in which we judge each other and I introduced a measure that would return this body from one of a professional body to a citizen legislature, which I believe our Founding Fathers intended. Finally, I introduced a measure guaranteeing that the Congress would live under the same laws it passes for everyone else. Significantly, we are here today debating that fourth measure. It is the worst, most obvious hypocrisy, for the Senate to pass legislation that applies to every other American except for those who wrote the legislation. It sets the Congress apart as a privileged elite, unbound by normal rules and standards. And it protects the Congress from the consequences of its own failures and excessive burdens. This measure, this one that we are debating today and will vote on--this measure ensures that public laws would be applied to public servants. Anything less is a dangerous double standard. From the Clean Air Act, which I supported, to the Americans With Disabilities Act, to OSHA regulations, to labor standards, to civil rights laws, Congress will be forced to come into compliance with the very laws that Congress has passed and imposed on the citizens Congress was elected to serve. Knowing that Congress must comply with laws that it considers, hopefully we will write better laws or perhaps maybe no law at all. I fully expect that we will be overwhelmed and in many cases simply unable to comply with the laws already on the books. The basement of the Capitol alone will be enough to employ a team of OSHA inspectors in perpetuity. Yet, if it is impossible for us to comply, perhaps we will finally understand the extent of the burden which we have placed on American citizens. Our citizens and families, small businesses, the lifeblood of jobs in America, are suffering under the weight of unprecedented Government intrusion into the very way they live their lives and do their work. The premise is simple enough. We will write better laws if we are forced to live under those laws. If it is impossible to comply with the law, we should not write it. With a vote earned by the sacrifice of so many Americans, the American people have staged a second American revolution. The Congressional Accountability Act is the first measure in fulfilling the promise of that revolution for future generations of Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I do want to state I came to the floor to make a statement on the underlying bill and not on this particular amendment. If it would be more appropriate to make that statement at a different time, I will be happy to do that. The Senator may want to address the specifics of this amendment before he yields the time.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, if I may inquire of the Chair of the procedure here, it is my understanding that we will move to procedure under the unanimous-consent agreement. If that is the case, I will not be able to give my statement and I can give it later.