J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I rise in support of the conference report, though I have many of the same reservations I heard the Senator from Pennsylvania express. I was not present to hear the comments of the Senator from Mississippi, but I suspect he has reservations about the conference report, as well. As was pointed out, the conference was adjourned as a result of the decision by the House not to come back. Many matters that were not in this conference report such as sanctions, probably would have been in the report. My guess is we are moving toward some kind of resolution of that particular issue that did not make it into the conference report. We did not get additional money in the legislation for Farm Service Agency employees. I think we will need that. I don't think it is fair to ask the Farm Service Agency to find the money from other programs, that basically the farmers will have to pay to deliver this program themselves. There was an effort to get--and I think we have succeeded--bipartisan support to provide some resources for a very heavily attacked sector of our agricultural economy, the hog industry, where there are not only low prices but also significant structural changes going on. We had an innovative proposal for cooperatives that enabled Members to come up with a win-win solution without having to put a bunch of money in the program and enabled Congress to use some ideas that this very important part of our agricultural sector had worked out on their own. I regret that is not in this legislation. There are a number of other things I would prefer to see included, and as a consequence I was disappointed that the conferees were not able to complete their work. Nonetheless, this is an extremely important piece of legislation for Nebraska. I appreciate in the Northeast there are some concerns there may not be a sufficient amount of resources in this bill to satisfy concerns, but the problem, of course, is that most of the disaster occurs as a consequence of problems with low prices that are affecting the feed grain section, and rice and cotton as well. That is where the big money is. Most of the crops are not grown in the Northeast and that tends to produce apparent inequities. There is almost nothing we can do about that kind of inequity. In the legislation I appreciate the inclusion of mandatory price reporting. The chairman and I had a little colloquy on that a year or so ago. I appreciate that being included in this legislation. A great deal of effort has been made in the meantime since last year's Agriculture appropriations bill between lots of different sectors of the involved economy: the livestock producers, packers, and feedlot operators. I appreciate that is in the legislation because I think it is a very important part of trying to make the market work to enable people who are running cow-calf operations and feedlot operations to get good price discovery. It is simply a way to ensure that the restructuring that is going on in the industry doesn't prevent the kind of price discovery needed in order to get a good market functioning. Last, I think this growing requirement to come back to Congress to fund disaster programs underscores the urgency of reexamining the Freedom to Farm contract that was not supposed to expire until 2002. Remember, in 1996, we promised the Freedom to Farm bill would be a lot less expensive than previous farm bills. We have already spent more than we anticipated for the entire 7 years of the program in the first 4 years alone. Obviously, we are not done. We are heading to a point where we will spend as much as we did at the peak of the 1980s. Talking to farmers where I come from in Nebraska, I am hard pressed to find many that think Freedom to Farm has worked. They are not very enthusiastic about getting another big check from the Government. They would rather have modifications in the farm bill similar to what the Nebraska corn growers presented to the House agricultural committee hearing in Nebraska, saying bring back the farmer loan reserve, uncap the loan rates, make some adjustments in the center on trade, on sanctions. There are lots of things that can be done to make the program better. My hope as we consider this additional disaster payment is that we understand there is a way to operate this farm program and spend a lot less money. In all the talk about the failed farm policies of the past, we never spent more than $6 billion a year through the 1970s when we had a system called normal crop acreage. It was not the heavy hand of government. There was a single base planted; farmers had flexibility coming in. If farmers wanted to have Freedom to Farm, they didn't have to sign up for the farm program. It ought to be voluntary. We had a program in the 1970s that was a lot more efficient, a lot less costly, and a lot more flexible for the farmer. This is getting more and more complicated, more and more difficult, with more and more trips to the Farm Service Agency than anybody anticipated. My hope, as we debate this conference report, is that one of the things we start to consider is that in 2000 the Senate Agriculture Committee needs to take up, as the House Agriculture Committee will do, the question of whether or not we ought to rewrite Freedom to Farm in order to not only save the family farm but also to save the taxpayer getting repeatedly hit for the bills of agricultural disasters that may not be created by Freedom to Farm. I see my good friend down here, Senator Roberts of Kansas. He heard me talking about Freedom to Farm and he rushed to the floor to defend himself. I am not saying that Freedom to Farm has caused the problem. I am simply saying I do think it is time to reexamine it. We should do it in a calm and bipartisan fashion. This Freedom to Farm is getting more and more expensive with fewer and fewer satisfied customers. Last, I also hope the Senate Agriculture Committee will be able to resolve some differences that we have over crop insurance and we can enact crop insurance reform yet this year. The Senate conference with the House has already taken action. This is by no means the only thing we need to do to help people manage the risk, but Senator Roberts and I have listened to farmers, written a bill, we have almost 20 cosponsors, a majority of people on the Agriculture Committee. The distinguished chairman of the committee has some terrific ideas, as well, incorporated in his legislation. My hope is, with 14 legislative days remaining, we can pass that out of the Senate Agriculture Committee and take it up on the floor, pass it here, get it to conference with the House, and get that signed and on to the President. There is money in the budget to do it. There is money in the disaster program to make it easier for people to afford the premiums. It is consistent with what most of us have been talking about in terms of trying to give the farmers something they can use to manage their risk. I say finally, I appreciate very much the difficulty the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee has had. Senator Cochran had no easy task of trying to produce a conference report. There are things in it I would love to change. I know I cannot change them. But I will vote for this legislation and hope the President will sign it and hope it gets into law as quickly as possible so cash can get into the hands of people who desperately need it in order to survive. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for their continued support for community health centers and other programs within the consolidated health centers account. I firmly believe that these centers represent the best investment the Federal government can make in health care for under-served populations and under-served areas. These centers provide an invaluable service to our communities and our citizens--they provide comprehensive primary and preventive services to a broad spectrum of persons without health insurance and members of under-served populations. I note that the bill before us increases funding for these centers by nearly $100 million, and exceeds the President's request by $79 million. It is my hope that the Department of Health and Human Services will use at least part of this new funding to establish new community health centers to address the needs of under-served populations. I am particularly interested in guaranteeing that a proposal from the Indian-Chicano Health Center of Omaha, Nebraska, be fully and fairly considered during any review of new health center applications. This organization has made an extraordinary effort to serve a unique community of low-income, uninsured Nebraskans who otherwise would go without health care.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Five or 6 minutes.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Georgia and the Senator from New Jersey if I can split my time because though I do support the amendment of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, I have an unusual argument. It may sound as if I am both for it and against it. I appreciate him yielding time to me. It is terribly important we do save Social Security, but my frustration in the entire Social Security debate is to date, what has happened is the Social Security issue has prevented us from increasing discretionary spending and getting a budget that meets the needs of the American people. It has prevented us from doing a tax cut of any kind, whether it is $300 billion or $500 billion or $700 billion. It has prevented us from doing Medicare reform. It locked us up in a box. We cannot seem to get anything done because we are not willing to fix Social Security. We want to have the issue, but when we get down to the details of the problem, it is not an easy problem to solve because we basically--not basically--we have a liability on the table that is about 33 percent larger than what current taxes will fund. That is the problem. For 150 million Americans under the age of 45, that means they are going to face a benefit cut of between 25 and 33 percent. Thus, the announcements recently sent out by Mr. Apfel, the head of the Social Security Administration, are not accurate. He is telling people how much money they are going to get if Congress raises taxes. The last time I checked, there is not a single vote in this body to raise payroll taxes. If that is the case, it is likely to be every beneficiary under the age of 45 is going to be looking at a pretty substantial benefit cut. That is the problem we have to address. There are a number of legislative proposals that have been introduced, but, again, relevant to this debate, you would think everybody is about to fix Social Security. The lockbox does not fix Social Security. All it does is use the payroll tax to pay down the debt. After having used the payroll tax to keep the deficit low for 16 years, we are now saying to Americans who get paid by the hour: You get the pleasure of reducing all the debt. For the median family of $37,000 a year, they will pay about $5,500 in payroll taxes versus $1,300 or $1,400 in income taxes. It is not, in my view, a very fair transaction. If we enact Social Security legislation, it could be a very good transaction because we could do tax reduction for those families. We could help them on the discretionary side helping their children go to college by doing some things as well to make certain their kids get a good education in our K-12 system. There are a lot of good things that could occur if we fix Social Security. There are only 29 Members of Congress who have signed on to any specific legislation at all. I call that to the attention of those who are watching this debate because, again, one would think, given all the interest in Social Security, they were about to pass Social Security reform legislation. Earlier today, the chairman of the Finance Committee had a meeting in which he was discussing the need to extend some tax provisions, the R&D tax credit most specifically, but also making some changes in the individual alternative minimum tax, a very unfair and pretty heavy tax on working families that have multiple deductions. We were talking about that, and I suggested to the chairman that the Finance Committee take up Social Security reform; let's mark up the bill. There is a majority on the committee who would vote for a specific piece of legislation. It is not likely we are going to. As I see it, the Republicans are a little bit distrustful of what the President might do. The President has a proposal on the table that takes $25 trillion of income taxes to extend Social Security solvency for 20 years. Republicans, I believe, have correctly identified that as a mistaken way to sort of fix Social Security. I am willing to join with Republicans in that regard and hope, as we debate these various proposals, that enthusiasm will grow as a consequence of looking at what is happening to 150 million beneficiaries who will not be eligible for another 20, 30, or 40 years. What happens to them if we do not take action? They are the ones who are going to pay a price. The terrible paradox about that is not only are they going to pay a price with delay, but the lockbox basically says to them: You are going to shoulder the burden for debt reduction until we finally come to grips with this particular problem. Time is not on our side. The problem does not get easier. If you favor tax increases, the tax increases will be larger the longer you wait. If you favor cutting benefits, the benefit cuts get bigger the longer you wait. If you favor, as I do and a number of us in the Senate, making some modest reduction in benefits but coupling that with increased payments for lower-wage individuals and the establishment of savings accounts that would enable individuals, in combination with a defined benefit program, to actually get more than what is currently promised--with either one of those three proposals, the longer you wait, the more the beneficiaries and taxpayers are going to suffer. It does not get easier for them. It gets harder for them. It may be easier for us as we head to elections, but it is not easier for the American people to watch this debate get locked up over this lockbox issue, seeing who favors saving Social Security the most. It does not benefit the American people for us not to enact legislation that will fix Social Security.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I support the legislation offered earlier by the Senator from South Dakota, the Medicare Beneficiary Access to Care Act of 1999. I supported strongly the balanced budget amendment of 1997, the deficit reduction acts of 1993 and 1990, and am proud of the supporting role I played over the last 7 or 8 years in taking the United States of America to the point where the Federal Government was borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars--$300 billion when I came in 1989--to a point where we now have a surplus. It is quite an exciting change in the dynamics of this country. This morning's New York Times had a story by Louis Uchitelle about 1.1 million Americans having been lifted off the rolls of poverty as a consequence of demands of wages that occur because interest rates are low, corporate profits are good, and the American economy is as strong as it has been in my lifetime. It is quite impressive what a strong economy will do with low interest rates and what increased rates in productivity will do. The report also pointed out the significant problems we still have with income growth, especially with African Americans. But I am proud of the role I played in eliminating the deficit and creating a surplus that has contributed enormously to the growth of the U.S. economy. Certainly lots of action in the private sector contributed to it, but Congress and those who were here--Republicans and Democrats--over the last 7 or 8 years who voted for these three pieces of legislation can take some pride in taking the United States not just into recovery economically, but I remember how frustrating the deficit was--politically frustrating--that caused Americans to lose confidence that Congress could get anything done. It seemed a relatively small ``bone'' in a great nation and I am glad we finally coughed it up. I don't want to backtrack on that. That is why I am pleased Senator Daschle has indicated this bill has to be paid for. Not only do we have to be careful to not drain the Social Security trust fund, but we have to be careful we not do this in a fashion that takes America back to the bad old days of deficit financing. It is easy to do that. The 1997 act had an impressive number of people in the Senate and the House voting for the legislation. The United States was to produce $100 million of savings in 10 years. It is now estimated it will produce $200 million in savings. I voted for $100 million. That is what I thought the legislation would produce. Not all of that $200 million estimate occurs as a consequence of the changes in reimbursement. Some has occurred as a result of the vigorous effort by Secretary Shalala and HCFA to reduce fraud and, as a consequence, save taxpayer money. They made billing changes that produced some savings. They are doing a better job of managing the taxpayers' money. Some of the savings has occurred as a consequence. There is no question there is a fraction of that excess $100 million that has come as a result of our making some changes to take more out of the providers than anyone anticipated. This legislation will put $23 billion back. I believe that is fair, reasonable, and defendable. I think it will have a tremendously positive impact on the ability of my State of Nebraska to get high-quality health care; that is what is at stake. What is at stake is not just the health of health care institutions but the health of the citizens of the country who depend upon those institutions. I believe this piece of legislation is needed. It is needed in Nebraska and by citizens who depend upon their doctors, who depend upon their hospitals, who depend upon this thing we call the health care system in the United States of America. It is an issue of life and death for them. It is a very important issue. It is a very personal issue. When we talk to somebody in a hospital, it is easy to acquire the right sense of urgency to overcome whatever ideological differences we might have. The people of Nebraska need this Congress to act. It is not just something that we are being asked to do; it is something that is necessary in order to improve the quality of life in our State. I will go through some of the things this legislation does. For hospitals, the 1997 act cuts hospital payments in several ways: Lower inpatient payments; a new outpatient prospective payment system; a special payments cut for low-income patients: and cuts in graduate medical education. This legislation does not restore all of those cuts. It creates a 3- year transition period to protect hospitals under this new outpatient system, and there is additional protection for rural and cancer hospitals. The bill also moderates the cut in DSH and GME payments, a central concern of teaching and academic centers. And it takes action for pediatric hospitals. I urge colleagues who have not studied this to examine the very low reimbursements for graduate medical education for pediatric hospitals. There is a glaring difference and it will create tremendous problems as we try to train pediatricians--a very important profession in the health care industry. There are a number of changes that increase the quality of care in Nebraska hospitals and increase the chances, especially in rural hospitals, that we will not see a continuation of what we had in 1998 when two rural hospitals closed. My hospital administrators tell me there may be more of the same unless we make some reasonable adjustments. The Balanced Budget Act made some changes in skilled nursing facilities. We understand the need to balance the budget. This does not undo that. It is paid for. The Balanced Budget Act created a prospective payment system for skilled nursing facilities. This does not adequately account for the costs of very sick patients and rare high-cost services. This bill attempts to address both of these problems by increasing payments for groups of patients for whom payment is low and by paying separately for high-cost services, such as prosthetics, to ensure the nursing homes receive adequate payment. We have heard about the impact of therapy caps. I hope in addition to putting some money back into the providers, we can take the advice of the Senator from Oklahoma and get some structural changes enacted in Medicare. One of the problems we have as a Congress trying to make changes in Medicare is we don't know the full impact of changes. Senators Breaux and Thomas were proposing the creation of a new Senate-confirmed board that has authority over HCFA to make certain HCFA has the authority to offer fee-for-service plans on a competitive basis and make sure competitors have a level playing field to compete and offer their plans against the fee for service that HCFA has. I think it would be easier to solve the problem of dealing with waste, fraud, and abuse and make it more likely the consumers receive good information when they are trying to make decisions about what to buy. Consolidating Part A and Part B was also in the proposal of Senator Breaux, and as a consequence of consolidating those two programs, it would make it much more likely when dealing with medical procedures, such as therapy, that we get it right. What we did with the Balanced Budget Act is create a 1,500-per- annual-beneficiary cap, but these are arbitrary. They don't allow any flexibility based upon the need of the patient. What we have done with the legislation is repeal the caps until 2003 and require HCFA to implement a new system for therapy payments that is budget neutral to caps. It is designed to address the needs for varying amounts of therapy based upon a patient's condition. That is the point I was trying to make earlier, why we need structural changes, as well. There are varying needs of the patient that are extremely difficult for HCFA to address. It is a central system. They have fiscal intermediaries in the country making payments. It is still a centrally controlled system and awfully difficult to get it right in Ohio, Nebraska, and Missouri simultaneously. They have to apply a system nationwide. It is better, in my judgment, if we have a board of directors, Senate-confirmed, to manage HCFA, moving in a direction where the private sector is able to compete for HCFA's fee for service simultaneously, with HCFA offering its fee-for-service plans. It makes changes in home health. We created under the BBA an interim payment system for home health agencies which limits payments on both a per beneficiary as well as a per visit basis. The temporary system locked in very low rates. This affects rural areas more than urban areas. There are very low rates for areas that had traditionally low costs such as Nebraska. We have low costs. The IPS locked in those very low costs in October 2000, and the IPS is scheduled to be replaced by a new PPS system for home health services. Those payments will be reduced in an arbitrary fashion by 15 percent. We make three changes in the legislation that are vital: First, we postpone this 15-percent cut for 2 years; second, we assist low-cost agencies that have been disadvantaged under the IPS by increasing the per visit limit; finally, the bill reduce administrative burdens placed upon the providers by eliminating interest on overpayments, eliminating a 15-minute reporting requirement, and eliminating a requirement for home health agencies to do the billing for durable medical equipment. We make changes for physicians. The BBA created a new system for physician payments based on a target rate of growth. The system includes bonus payments and reductions intended to create incentives to meet the target rate of growth. However, what we have done will cause payments to fluctuate widely, creating tremendous uncertainty in the physician communities and causing physicians who are out there trying to manage a clinic or their business to say: We can't depend upon HCFA. We can't depend upon a revenue stream. There is too much uncertainty in the system. We may opt out as a consequence. They are facing a very big challenge in dealing with HCFA's representation that there may be fraud when, in fact, all that has occurred is there are a number of additional changes that will be very constructive for physicians, for Medicare+Choice, for rural health clinics, federally qualified health centers, and for hospice care where we have not had any rebasing of payments since 1982. It is a $1 billion--an extremely important program. Unfortunately, we do not pay a lot of attention to the problem we are facing when individuals know for certain they are dying. Hospice addresses that. This is an important change, in my view, and I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to say, whether it is with the Daschle bill, which I support, or a bill that comes out of the Finance Committee, which I am apt to support as well: This is one of the things we need to do. We need to get this done. I hope we can at least get some minimal changes in Medicare as well, but we need to address this.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I heard an exchange earlier between the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Oklahoma who talked about raiding the Social Security trust fund. We have not been raiding the Social Security trust fund for the last 16 years. What we have--since 1983--is a tax that generates revenue in excess of what we need. The law says we have to take that tax and purchase Treasury bonds. When the Treasury is purchasing Treasury bonds from itself, Treasury ends up with cash. The question is--since 1983--what do we do with that cash? We have been using it to fund general government, and the impact of that since 1983 is that people who get paid by the hour are the ones who suffer. We make this appeal to people over the age of 65 for political reasons: Do not raid Social Security. But the people who suffer and have been paying the price since 1983 are the American taxpayers, people who get paid by the hour. For the median-income family earning $37,000 a year, they will pay $5,700 in payroll taxes and $1,300 or $1,400 in income taxes. Since 1983, they have shouldered a disproportionate share of deficit reduction. Now that the deficit is gone, guess what they get to do. They get to shoulder all the debt reduction. This does not save Social Security. What this does is save us from having to make a change. That puts a tremendous burden upon people who are paid by the hour. What we ought to be doing is debating reducing that burden, not, in my judgment, making a play for people over the age of 65 and saying we have been raiding the trust. We have not. We have not been raiding the trust fund since 1983. The trust fund has been building up, and those Treasury bonds are valuable. They earn interest. In fact, there is $40 billion worth of interest added on to the Social Security trust this year as a result of paying for the interest on those bonds. The people who suffer as a consequence of Congress' delay on fixing Social Security are 150 million Americans under the age of 45. If you are under the age 45 and you are watching Congress say, ``Let's fix Social Security'' and do nothing, what you ought to be saying is: Mr. Congressman, when are you going to fix it? Why do we not fix it? You can see it. I was watching the news this morning. I saw Ken Apfel, the head of the Social Security Administration, in an interview with Katie Couric, proudly telling about a letter he is sending out to Social Security beneficiaries telling them what they are going to get when they retire. He left one thing out. If they are under 45 and they get a letter in the mail that says ``this is what your benefits are going to be,'' Mr. Apfel is not informing those beneficiaries that unless Congress increases taxes, there is going to be a 25- to 33-percent cut in benefits, according to the Social Security trustees. He is not informing them of that, and he is not informing them that Social Security, for that low- and moderate- wage individual, is not a very generous program. If you live very long after the age of 65, God help you if that is all you have. Those of us who have been arguing we need to fix Social Security get a little irritated when we hear people say we have been raiding Social Security for the last 16 years and that the lockbox saves Social Security. It does not. What the lockbox does is say to people who are paid by the hour, the median family who has $5,700 in payroll taxes, after shouldering all the burden for deficit reduction from 1983 to 1999, it is now their responsibility to pay down the debt. On behalf of those people, to keep Social Security as an intergenerational program, I beg my colleagues to finally decide: What will you support? I went to the University of Nebraska, graduated with a degree in pharmacy, and was trained in demolitions in the U.S. Navy. I do not consider myself to be an intellectual giant. I am neither a Rhodes scholar nor some sort of scholastic achiever. I do not consider myself to be intellectually superior to anybody in this place. An average staffer with an hour's worth of work can present to any Member of Congress the options that are available to us. This is not complicated. This is not youth violence. This is not the deterioration of the American family. This is not lots of issues that are complicated. We have a liability that is too big, and for 150 million beneficiaries who are now charged with the responsibility of paying down all the debt with their payroll taxes, they face a 25- to 33- percent cut in their benefits. We are not keeping the promise to them, and we are making an appeal to people over the age of 65, saying: The lockbox saves you. Nonsense, it does not. I know how difficult it is to finally say this is what I choose because you either have to increase taxes or you cut benefits. There are no other magical choices. There is not any other choice. You either cut the benefits in the future or you increase taxes. I wish there were some other choice, but there is not. I hope Americans, as they hear this debate about raiding Social Security, will understand we are not, in my view, raiding Social Security. What we are saying is that we are going to postpone fixing Social Security because we are afraid of people over the age of 65. We are afraid they cannot stomach the truth. I believe that is wrong. They can stomach the truth. They want to know the truth. They want the facts. They are patriotic; they love their country; they love their kids and grandkids; and they want to make certain their future is secure and sound and that Social Security is going to be there for them when they become eligible. I hope we are able to take action on the Balanced Budget Restoration Act that Senator Daschle has introduced. But I hope in this budget debate as well, we will finally recognize the sooner we fix Social Security, the smaller the changes will have to be. The people who are going to suffer the consequences today may not be us. We may be able to get by the next election by fooling people about what we are doing. But the people who are going to suffer are 150 million Americans under the age of 45 who are not going to be happy when they wake up on Christmas morning and go down and check the sock and find out there is a third less in it than they were told, by the Social Security Administration, was going to be in it. Mr. President, I appreciate your indulgence and I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Yes, it would be my pleasure. On March 31, 1999, I requested that $1.5 million be appropriated within the CDBG program's Economic Development Initiative for the North 27th Street Center for Children and Youth in Lincoln, NE. The Center is being developed by Cedars Youth Services, Inc. at the request of the City of Lincoln. The Federal dollars would be used by Cedars to develop, operate, and implement a program for the collaborative provision of services by several organizations through a design that will allow participants to avoid having to negotiate the administration and service delivery practices of the various organizations. In other words, it is an effort to develop a ``one-stop'' service center for youth programs. In addition, during March 1999, I also requested $750,000 or Project Jericho in Omaha, NE to be used by Family Housing Advisory Services for the ongoing administration and operation of Project Jericho. Project Jericho assists individuals, couples, and families who qualify for Section 8 assistance to locate safe affordable housing in the Omaha area. Financial management and mobility counseling are provided to help participants who want to find rental properties in neighborhoods with less than 35 percent minority population. Project Jericho is now one of the top recognized mobility programs in the country. Finally, I requested that $120,000 be provided from the Environmental Programs and Management Account of the EPA, to the Fontenelle Forest Association for the Missouri River Ecology Institute (MREI). Fontenelle Forest would use the funds to continue MREI, which provides an intensive, six week summertime experience in field-based natural science for teenagers (primarily students entering the 10th grade). MREI services as a leadership development initiative for students with a strong interest in the environment, and includes activities to help prepare them for future careers in this field.

Mr. KERREY. I appreciate the consideration and the help of the distinguished Senators from Missouri and Maryland. They have always been very supportive of the needs of Nebraska and I appreciate that. economic development in wisconsin

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Hagel in introducing the Missouri River Basin, Middle Loup Division Project Facilities Conveyance Act. The bill provides for the transfer of title of irrigation project facilities and lands from the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior to the Middle Loup Division irrigation districts in central Nebraska. These districts have operated the facilities there for over 35 years. The project facilities are part of the Missouri River Basin Project, and provide water from the Middle Loup River to over 64,000 acres of irrigable land, as well as providing recreating and fish and wildlife benefits. Principal features of the projects include the Sherman Dam and Reservoir, the Arcadia Diversion Dam, the Milburn Diversion Dam, irrigation canals and laterals, drains and pumping plants. Crops grown on these irrigated lands primarily include alfalfa, small grains, sugar beets, and corn to provide feed for a thriving livestock- feeding economy in my state of Nebraska, which includes beef cattle, hogs, and poultry. In 1995, the Vice President indicated that the Bureau of Reclamation of the U.S. Department of Interior should transfer titles to allow local ownership of irrigation projects such as this. The Bureau has indicated to me that this project is a top candidate for title transfer to be achieved. This transfer also has the support of Nebraska's Game and Parks Commission as well as the Middle Loup Public Power and Irrigation District. When this legislation passes, Nebraska will become the first state where title transfer efforts have been successful. Two trust funds are to be created: one by the Districts and one by Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Those two trusts will be equally funded from the proceeds of the transfer. Details of those two trusts are as follows: First, a ``Nebraska-Middle Loup River Community Environmental Trust'' will be created by the Districts and will be funded with the proceeds of the transfer from the power producers share of the total payments. That fund will be administered and used by the Districts for environmental and conservation enhancements, to protect lands and facilities in the area of the River Basin in which the project facilities exist, and $500,000 of the funds will be used expressly for drainage work required in the Middle Loup River valley near Loup City. The funds cannot be used for routine operation and maintenance of the project facilities. And second, a ``Nebraska-Middle Loup River Game and Parks Trust'' will be created by Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and will be funded by the proceeds of the transfer from the District's share of the total payments. That fund will be administered and used by the Game and Parks Commission to improve and enhance fisheries and recreation opportunities and to expand knowledge of water and land resources for enhancing project operations and improving the service of project purposes. Like the other trust, funds cannot be used for routine operations and maintenance of project facilities. The irrigation projects and facilities were constructed between 1955 and 1966 under authorities of the Flood Control Act of 1944, and are currently operated and maintained under contracts between the Bureau and the irrigation districts and power producers. The transfer will provide for total repayment of all outstanding obligations on behalf of the irrigation districts and power producers, while retaining all current uses and purposes for the projects. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Hagel in introducing the Missouri River Basin, Middle Loup Division Project Facilities Conveyance Act. The bill provides for the transfer of title of irrigation project facilities and lands from the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior to the Middle Loup Division irrigation districts in central Nebraska. These districts have operated the facilities there for over 35 years. The project facilities are part of the Missouri River Basin Project, and provide water from the Middle Loup River to over 64,000 acres of irrigable land, as well as providing recreating and fish and wildlife benefits. Principal features of the projects include the Sherman Dam and Reservoir, the Arcadia Diversion Dam, the Milburn Diversion Dam, irrigation canals and laterals, drains and pumping plants. Crops grown on these irrigated lands primarily include alfalfa, small grains, sugar beets, and corn to provide feed for a thriving livestock- feeding economy in my state of Nebraska, which includes beef cattle, hogs, and poultry. In 1995, the Vice President indicated that the Bureau of Reclamation of the U.S. Department of Interior should transfer titles to allow local ownership of irrigation projects such as this. The Bureau has indicated to me that this project is a top candidate for title transfer to be achieved. This transfer also has the support of Nebraska's Game and Parks Commission as well as the Middle Loup Public Power and Irrigation District. When this legislation passes, Nebraska will become the first state where title transfer efforts have been successful. Two trust funds are to be created: one by the Districts and one by Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Those two trusts will be equally funded from the proceeds of the transfer. Details of those two trusts are as follows: First, a ``Nebraska-Middle Loup River Community Environmental Trust'' will be created by the Districts and will be funded with the proceeds of the transfer from the power producers share of the total payments. That fund will be administered and used by the Districts for environmental and conservation enhancements, to protect lands and facilities in the area of the River Basin in which the project facilities exist, and $500,000 of the funds will be used expressly for drainage work required in the Middle Loup River valley near Loup City. The funds cannot be used for routine operation and maintenance of the project facilities. And second, a ``Nebraska-Middle Loup River Game and Parks Trust'' will be created by Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and will be funded by the proceeds of the transfer from the District's share of the total payments. That fund will be administered and used by the Game and Parks Commission to improve and enhance fisheries and recreation opportunities and to expand knowledge of water and land resources for enhancing project operations and improving the service of project purposes. Like the other trust, funds cannot be used for routine operations and maintenance of project facilities. The irrigation projects and facilities were constructed between 1955 and 1966 under authorities of the Flood Control Act of 1944, and are currently operated and maintained under contracts between the Bureau and the irrigation districts and power producers. The transfer will provide for total repayment of all outstanding obligations on behalf of the irrigation districts and power producers, while retaining all current uses and purposes for the projects. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I realize that this year, you and Ranking Member Lautenberg, are facing a challenging appropriations season with tight budgetary constraints. However, I wanted to bring to your attention a very important project of mine regarding road improvements in Washington County, NE.

Mr. KERREY. Yes, it would be my pleasure. The State of Nebraska requires $2,432,000 for road improvements to provide access to the Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge near Fort Calhoun, Nebraska. Currently, the road that leads to Boyer Chute through Washington County is unpaved. This road is an important thoroughfare and is the most direct route to Boyer Chute. Boyer Chute has become an increasingly popular recreation area and tourist destination. Traffic on the current road has increased and will continue to increase as the National Wildlife continues its expansion next year. Paving the road will greatly improve access to this national treasure--and will be of great benefit to Nebraskans.

Mr. KERREY. I thank the chairman for his assistance. I appreciate his consideration of this very important project. clarifying project flexibility

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to provide enhanced incentives for charitable giving. I very much believe that we ought to do what we can to encourage those who are doing so well in this economy to give generously to organizations who serve those who have been left behind in these prosperous times. I worked to have a number of charitable giving provisions included in the Senate version of the tax bill we passed earlier this year and was delighted that those provisions were included in that bill. Regrettably these provisions were deleted from the final version of the tax bill, something which contributed to my decision to vote against the conference report on that bill. The bill I am introducing today is a stand-alone version of the charitable giving provisions that I was proud to have worked to include in the Senate version of the tax bill. The purpose of this bill is simple: to provide powerful incentives for those who have more to give to those who have less. The first provision in this bill would allow taxpayers some extra time to decide to make donations to low-income schools in a given tax year. Under current law individuals can already take charitable deductions for contributions to public and private schools. Clearly, wealthier schools, where parents have the resources to make these contributions, benefit most from this tax treatment. What this provision attempts to do is highlight the fact that a charitable deduction can be taken for these types of donations generally while providing an incentive for giving to low-income private and public schools in particular. Since the parents in these schools are low-income, this provision is not aimed at getting them to give--it is aimed at getting taxpayers outside of these low-income schools to help the children in those schools. Wealthier public and private schools already get these contributions, this provision attempts to get some contributions going to schools where more than half of the children are economically disadvantaged. This provision tracks the way we allow contributions to Individual Retirement Accounts, IRAs, to be made. Under current law, taxpayers can make contributions to an IRA up until the date their taxes are due-- April 15--and still have those contributions qualify for the previous taxable year. This provision would simply allow contributions to low income elementary and secondary schools to be made up until April 15-- thereby highlighting and encouraging taxpayers to make these contributions. The second provision in this bill allows taxpayers who do not itemize their deductions, to take a small deduction for charitable contributions. Across the country, seventy-three percent of all taxpayers do not itemize and therefore are not able to take a charitable deduction. In Nebraska, that number is even higher, a full seventy-eight percent of Nebraska's taxpayers do not itemize. This bill would allow a single taxpayer who does not itemize a $50 deduction and taxpayers filing jointly a $100 charitable deduction. While this provision may not cover all of the charitable giving that these individuals and families make, it recognizes and encourages charitable giving by people who may not give a million dollars, but give donations that are meaningful nonetheless to good causes like their church or synagogue, or their children's PTA, or the Girl Scouts or the Salvation Army. We ought to encourage that giving and provide a small incentive to do so. That is the purpose behind this provision. The legislation I am introducing today also raises the percentage amount of income that an individual may deduct in a given year from 50 percent of their adjusted gross income to 75 percent. It also raises the limits on gifts of capital gain property to charities from 30 percent to 50 percent. In addition, this bill increases the corporate charitable deduction limit from 10 to 20 percent of taxable income. These provisions are designed to encourage those who give a lot, to give even more. While I recognize that those who receive these tax benefits are apt to be higher-income taxpayers, I also recognize that the charities that will receive these increased donations are apt to use these donations to help low-income individuals. In short, I'm not overly troubled by distributional tables on a policy which will induce those with more to give to those who need help the most. And finally, this bill contains an important reform of what is known as the excess business holdings rule. That rule limits the ability of a private foundation to hold more than twenty percent of a corporation's voting stock for more than five years. At present, I believe this rule discourages potential donors with major stockholdings in publicly-trade corporate stock from making significant contributions of these holdings to charitable foundations. This is just the opposite of what we should be doing, particularly at a time when we are expecting more, not less, from organizations with charitable purposes. The proposal I have included in this bill would allow private foundations to increase their holding in publicly traded stock of a corporation received by bequest from 20 percent to 49 percent. Taken together I believe these proposals do much to encourage people to give more. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and hope that it will be included in any broad tax legislation that we consider. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to provide enhanced incentives for charitable giving. I very much believe that we ought to do what we can to encourage those who are doing so well in this economy to give generously to organizations who serve those who have been left behind in these prosperous times. I worked to have a number of charitable giving provisions included in the Senate version of the tax bill we passed earlier this year and was delighted that those provisions were included in that bill. Regrettably these provisions were deleted from the final version of the tax bill, something which contributed to my decision to vote against the conference report on that bill. The bill I am introducing today is a stand-alone version of the charitable giving provisions that I was proud to have worked to include in the Senate version of the tax bill. The purpose of this bill is simple: to provide powerful incentives for those who have more to give to those who have less. The first provision in this bill would allow taxpayers some extra time to decide to make donations to low-income schools in a given tax year. Under current law individuals can already take charitable deductions for contributions to public and private schools. Clearly, wealthier schools, where parents have the resources to make these contributions, benefit most from this tax treatment. What this provision attempts to do is highlight the fact that a charitable deduction can be taken for these types of donations generally while providing an incentive for giving to low-income private and public schools in particular. Since the parents in these schools are low-income, this provision is not aimed at getting them to give--it is aimed at getting taxpayers outside of these low-income schools to help the children in those schools. Wealthier public and private schools already get these contributions, this provision attempts to get some contributions going to schools where more than half of the children are economically disadvantaged. This provision tracks the way we allow contributions to Individual Retirement Accounts, IRAs, to be made. Under current law, taxpayers can make contributions to an IRA up until the date their taxes are due-- April 15--and still have those contributions qualify for the previous taxable year. This provision would simply allow contributions to low income elementary and secondary schools to be made up until April 15-- thereby highlighting and encouraging taxpayers to make these contributions. The second provision in this bill allows taxpayers who do not itemize their deductions, to take a small deduction for charitable contributions. Across the country, seventy-three percent of all taxpayers do not itemize and therefore are not able to take a charitable deduction. In Nebraska, that number is even higher, a full seventy-eight percent of Nebraska's taxpayers do not itemize. This bill would allow a single taxpayer who does not itemize a $50 deduction and taxpayers filing jointly a $100 charitable deduction. While this provision may not cover all of the charitable giving that these individuals and families make, it recognizes and encourages charitable giving by people who may not give a million dollars, but give donations that are meaningful nonetheless to good causes like their church or synagogue, or their children's PTA, or the Girl Scouts or the Salvation Army. We ought to encourage that giving and provide a small incentive to do so. That is the purpose behind this provision. The legislation I am introducing today also raises the percentage amount of income that an individual may deduct in a given year from 50 percent of their adjusted gross income to 75 percent. It also raises the limits on gifts of capital gain property to charities from 30 percent to 50 percent. In addition, this bill increases the corporate charitable deduction limit from 10 to 20 percent of taxable income. These provisions are designed to encourage those who give a lot, to give even more. While I recognize that those who receive these tax benefits are apt to be higher-income taxpayers, I also recognize that the charities that will receive these increased donations are apt to use these donations to help low-income individuals. In short, I'm not overly troubled by distributional tables on a policy which will induce those with more to give to those who need help the most. And finally, this bill contains an important reform of what is known as the excess business holdings rule. That rule limits the ability of a private foundation to hold more than twenty percent of a corporation's voting stock for more than five years. At present, I believe this rule discourages potential donors with major stockholdings in publicly-trade corporate stock from making significant contributions of these holdings to charitable foundations. This is just the opposite of what we should be doing, particularly at a time when we are expecting more, not less, from organizations with charitable purposes. The proposal I have included in this bill would allow private foundations to increase their holding in publicly traded stock of a corporation received by bequest from 20 percent to 49 percent. Taken together I believe these proposals do much to encourage people to give more. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and hope that it will be included in any broad tax legislation that we consider. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I rise today with my good friend and colleague, Senator Hagel, to talk about a very important and worthwhile project, the Mari Sandoz High Plains Heritage Center in Chadron, Nebraska. Mari Sandoz was a world-renowned and internationally-acclaimed writer, born and raised in the Nebraska Sand Hills. Drawing on her childhood experiences and her research at the Nebraska State Historical Society, Sandoz wrote passionately and poetically about life on the Great Plains. Her works dealt with the early fur traders, the Plains Indians, the cattlemen and ranchers, the immigrant homesteaders, and the persecution of the Northern Cheyenne and Ogallala Sioux. Through her writing, Sandoz played an important role in the cultural preservation of the Western Nebraska of the 1800s and early 1900s. Preserving her works and her legacy is a way of preserving our own cultural heritage.

Mr. KERREY. I agree that the construction of the Center is an important commemoration of Sandoz' contributions to Nebraska. Earlier this year, I requested that $450,000 be appropriated from available funds in the National Park Service's Historic Preservation Fund or the Save America's Treasures to fund the Mari Sandoz Cultural Center. These dollars will help renovate, rehabilitate, and equip the former library facility on the Chadron State campus.

Mr. KERREY. Yes, both organizations have been working diligently to raise $900,000 in private funding for the construction and equipment of the new Center. I am hopeful that we will be able to provide additional Federal dollars for this historically and culturally significant Center.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I thank the Senator from New York very much. I am sorry I didn't wear the same necktie that he did. Other than that, we are deeply matched. Mr. President, first I want to compliment Chairman Roth. I believe all through the Finance Committee deliberations and last week on the Senate floor he held true to two ideas that I share. The first is that we can cut taxes. The second is we must do so fairly. Indeed, the net effect of cutting taxes by nearly $800 billion over ten years is to give the American people an $800 billion increase in their after-tax income. I believe we can do it safely. We have $3 trillion in surpluses forecast over the next ten years. And I don't believe that cutting taxes will generate inflation if done correctly. In his original package, the Chairman held true to the idea that some standard of fairness need be applied in how the income tax cuts would be distributed. He attempted to do that. Doing that caused him a little grief on his side of the aisle. I appreciate very much what the chairman attempted to do with his original tax cut package. Accordingly, I voted for the package enthusiastically on the floor. I believe it was a good proposal. I may have written it a little differently if I were the one who was doing the writing. But I thought it was a balanced proposal and a good proposal, and I was fully supportive of it. I was one of four Democrats to do so. Thus, I come to the floor with some regret. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that you should know that people like me took a position that said we were prepared to vote for a tax cut of $800 billion. The Chairman's original package received 57 votes on this floor. I understand the other side has been working all night to get the votes to pass the package we have before us and I suspect the most votes this package will receive is 52. So I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if you are trying to get a piece of legislation passed to try to change the law and give Americans an income tax cut, you are going in the wrong direction. With the President threatening to veto the bill, it seems to me that a better approach would have been to try to get more votes, not fewer. I am here, regrettably, to say that I will not only change my vote from an enthusiastic ``aye,'' but I will now change and be voting enthusiastically ``no.'' Let me tell my colleagues why. First of all, I want to identify some things that are in this package that I think would be good. I appreciated very much the chairman fighting for them and getting them into the bill, and I am fully supportive of them. Eliminating the marriage penalty is terribly important. There are new provisions in here which will make it more likely that Americans will save and will have the resources they need for retirement. There are provisions in here which will make it more likely that Americans will have health insurance, and that will make it more likely that Americans will be able to afford the cost of higher education. I do not object at all to eliminating the inheritance tax. I cosponsored legislation to do that. I am not going to take a great deal of time explaining why, as a Democrat, I reached that conclusion. I am prepared, if anybody is interested, in debating it at a later time. I am not ideologically opposed to lowering the capital gains tax. There are many things in this proposal that I, in short, like or don't have strong objections to. It is this test of fairness which I believe was applied to the Senate version that I find lacking in the conference report. Let me take the one provision that is the most important provision in the Senate version. The provision that cut the lowest tax rate on income from 15 to 14 percent that was in the Senate finance bill would have cut taxes for families in Nebraska with an income of $46,000, for a family of four, by $440. It would have cut taxes on a U.S. Senator with a spouse and two kids by $440 as well. That was the idea. I am not interested in engaging in class warfare. I have no quarrel with upper-income Americans or upper-income Nebraskans. Quite the contrary. In Nebraska, there were 775,000 federal income tax returns in 1996. Of that, 6,500 had adjusted gross incomes of over $200,000. That is a relatively small number. But they paid almost a third of all the $3.6 billion in federal taxes paid by Nebraskans. So I am not here to say that upper-income people don't deserve a tax break. I think it is very important for us to take a look at America and try to discern which taxpayers are most in need of help. It is, it seems to me, a fair question for us to ask. And to try to apply a standard of fairness, it seems to me, is something we ought to be doing. Under last week's proposal, a single Member of Congress, I would have gotten a $260 tax rate cut, just as a single person with $26,000 of income. But under this proposal, by decreasing the taxes for everyone at higher rates as well, a Member of Congress, a single Member such as myself, I am going to get a tax cut of $1,185. I get over $900 more under this proposal. And if I got married, I would do even better. I can make an argument that because I am paying more taxes I ought to get more of a tax cut. But look at households. A family of four with $46,000 worth of income probably ought to have a larger tax cut than I do. At the very least, I should not receive more than they do. That is what I mean when I say that this bill, when it passed here last week, met the minimal standard of fairness. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that if you are trying to figure out how to get more votes and not fewer, you have now figured out how to get fewer. You had 57 votes on this side last week. The high water mark today, in my view, is likely to be 52. I understand that the conference report had to be reopened in the later hours of yesterday evening and some provisions had to be put in to woo some votes for a bare majority. I know there were some concerns that the Vice President might be sitting up there at the end of business today and there might be no more than 50 votes for this legislation. All of that should be a sign. You had 57 votes. Yesterday you did not have 50. Something is going in the wrong direction. I believe a majority of Democrats and Republicans in chamber, want to apply a standard of fairness. The distinguished junior Senator from Texas, offered an amendment on this floor last week that would increase the standard deduction for a married couple. Why did she want to eliminate the marriage penalty for people who are using the standard deduction? It got a lot of Democratic votes and a lot of Republicans votes. Indeed, I think it was the only amendment that actually broke the 60-vote requirement. That is a clue. That was a fairness issue and the junior Senator wanted that fairness applied to married people who take the standard deduction, people who do not itemize, people who are generally not in the upper reaches of income in this country. I'm not talking about crafting a social engineering package. What I am talking about is applying a standard of fairness. As I said, I have great respect for the chairman of the Finance Committee. I believe he attempted to apply a standard of fairness, and, in my judgment, his package of last week passed that test. I voted for it enthusiastically. But the conference committee report does not pass that test. It does not pass the test of fairness. So I enthusiastically and confidently will vote ``no'' on it. I do so regrettably because I believe there was an opportunity this year not just to do this but to get a bipartisan solution on Medicare and to get a bipartisan solution on Social Security. The package before us today does not bode well for future bipartisan efforts to come up with those solutions. This bill had 57 votes last week. As I said, were it not for the sort of last-minute work to try to have some changes to get some additional votes, it might not have even 50 votes later today when we will have a vote on final passage. I say to my Republican friends, if you want to cut Americans' taxes, listen not just to what Democrats are saying but also listen to what Republicans are saying. They want a standard of fairness applied. It is a legitimate concern. I don't know how many Members of the Senate believe that $800 billion is too much. I believe the distinguished occupant of the Chair does. He fought very hard as mayor and Governor, and I think he is coming to this Congress saying we ought to be careful not to spend the surplus and lose all the progress that we have made. Fine. Make that argument. But for the majority of us who believe that $800 billion is not too much, if we want to persuade our reluctant colleagues to support cutting taxes for American families, then you have to apply a standard of fairness, a test of fairness. You may not like doing it. You may believe your ideology tells you that you should do something else. But if you want to change the law and get this done, you had darned sure better do it, because not only will you not get the strong majority you will need but you will never, in my judgment, get the President of United States to sign a piece of legislation that doesn't attempt to measure and apply some test of fairness. Again, I appreciate very much the work that the distinguished chairman did, Senator Roth of Delaware, as well as the ranking Democrat, Senator Moynihan. I appreciate very much the leadership of both of them. Senator Moynihan led the Democrats in the committee to come up with a $300 billion tax cut proposal. It had a very key component in there, which was to increase the standard deduction for individuals. That takes a number of people off the income tax rolls, reduces the top tax rate for many and simplifies tax filing for millions. I suggest to my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle that if you want to get a bill, that is the kind of proposal that you should have included in this package and it is unfortunate that you did not. It is unfortunate that the centerpiece of the tax proposal that we voted for last week--the reduction of the 15 percent tax rate to 14 percent--was not left alone. If there is a second chance to consider a tax bill this year, I hope we will work harder to pass a bill that will get significant support from this side of the aisle and the way to do that is to ensure a bill meets a basic standard of fairness. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am concerned the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska funding for health services is not adequate to provide these services to tribal members. As the Chairman may know, the Ponca Tribe was terminated in 1962 and restored as a federally recognized Tribe in 1990. At the time of restoration, the Tribe's user population was estimated at 654 and was allocated a $1.2 million budget. In January 1998, the Ponca Tribe established the Ponca Health and Wellness Center in Omaha, Nebraska. This clinic provides quality medical, dental, pharmaceutical, and community outreach health services to members of all federally recognized Tribes. As a result of this new clinic, the user population has increased to over 2000 users without a budget increase to address the larger population. Does the distinguished Senator from Washington agree this problem must be addressed?

Mr. KERREY. Clearly, the Ponca Tribe needs resources in order to meet the health needs of an increased user population. It is my hope the Indian Health Service (IHS) will address this unusual increase with its resources. I encourage the IHS to provide increased funding to any Tribe that has experienced an increase in the user population of 50 percent or more over fiscal years 1996-99 to the extent possible within existing resources. mari sandoz cultural center $450,000 funding request

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I wish to ask the distinguished floor manager a question.

Mr. KERREY. I realize that this year, you and Ranking Member Byrd are facing a challenging appropriations season with tight budgetary constraints. I appreciate your hard work and all that you have done. However, I wanted to bring to your attention a very important project for the State of Nebraska, especially the western part of the state, the Mari Sandoz Cultural Center at Chadron State College in Chadron, Nebraska. Mari Sandoz wrote extensively about the Great Plains--about fur traders and homesteaders, about cattlemen and grangers; about the Cheyenne and Oglala Sioux. She captured in her writings a special time and place. Chadron State College and the Mari Sandoz Society are developing a cultural center to preserve, protect and exhibit a collection that is associated with Mari Sandoz's life and work. I had hoped that we would be able to find $450,000 to assist with this project.

Mr. KERREY. I thank the Chairman for his assistance. I appreciate the consideration of this important project, and I know the people of Nebraska, especially western Nebraska, will also be more appreciative. forest service reconstruction and maintenance

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank both Senator Conrad from North Dakota and Senator Grassley from Iowa. This is the first bipartisan effort we have had. I also want to key on what the Senator from Mississippi just said. I appreciate very much what the Senator from Mississippi did earlier with the voice vote, basically saying let's try to get some agreement on what our baseline is going to be. I am wondering. I say to the Senator from Mississippi, it seems some things put together in the package by Senators Grassley and Conrad might be agreeable to the Senator from Mississippi. Perhaps all of them are not. I wonder if the Senator will be willing to consider adding by voice vote some of the things? Look, for example, at the 1999 agricultural disaster losses. That almost on the face cries out for funding, it seems to me. I wonder if the Senator from Mississippi will respond to that. I know earlier we had a voice vote that set down a foundation of what we were going to do. Since this is the first truly bipartisan effort we have had, which is exactly what we are going to need in order to get the President's signature and the House to come along, we have a ways to go before we can get something signed and assistance out to farmers who are in need. As I said, I appreciate very much the Senator from Mississippi--there is no question he understands there is a real need there, and it is not a question of whether or not he wants to help. He has a problem with some of the details of it and the timing of it. I wonder if there is anything on this list that the Senator from Mississippi by voice vote will be able to add in at this stage of the game?