J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Let me ask specifically on the ag disaster income loss, it seems to me--this is for 1999 that had been promised previously-- this is just a matter of keeping a promise that was made previously. The Senator still would not--he can shake his head no if the answer is no. I am seeking some way to build on what Senator Grassley and Senator Conrad have done, which is trying to split the difference here and come up with a proposal. Their proposal, for example, the most controversial one right off the bat, was they have all the money going out in an AMTA payment. As the Senator from Mississippi knows, the earlier effort reached by partisan agreement was one of the most difficult issues. Democrats wanted the money to go out in LDPs, and Republicans wanted it to go out in AMTA. We yielded in the bipartisan proposal of which I am fully supportive. It seems to me it would be reasonable at least to consider putting this 1999 assistance that has been promised on the appropriations bill. Does the Senator not agree with that?

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to indicate my strong support for two related research and technology initiatives in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's FY2000 budget--initiatives that were in the President's request, but which have not received any increases in this budget being debated today. The USDA Global Change Research Program and the Climate Change Technology Initiative are two very important programs that deserve additional attention and funding. I recognize that this Congress is faced with many competing funding needs, particularly with the dire situation faced by much of the agriculture community today, but I submit also that we cannot ignore the needs of potential future disasters, especially when the means to avoiding such disaster will benefit U.S. farmers and U.S. agriculture while also benefiting the entire nation. I am referring to the potential effects of global climate change, and the potential for the agriculture sector to cost-effectively and efficiently help us to mitigate against increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Like many policymakers and many of my colleagues, I am convinced by the data international scientists have amassed that indicates climate change is a phenomenon to be dealt with in order to avoid calamitous effects. I agree with the assessment of the scientific community that we must insure against potentially devastating effects of climate change by taking action now. We are certain that greenhouse gas concentrations have been substantially increasing in the atmosphere, and as those concentrations have increased, global surface temperatures have risen. While we are not sure of the exact nature or extent of the resulting climatic and weather-related disruptions that may occur as the greenhouse effect is intensified, we do know that we should act now. Acting now will benefit the global climate, and the health of our citizens. A significant body of research indicates that there is great potential for U.S. agriculture--for cropland, rangeland, and pastureland, as well as for forests--to sequester carbon at particularly low costs to society. Scientists have shown that with selected management practices, agricultural soils can effectively absorb a large proportion of the annual increases in atmospheric CO2 that are attributed to the greenhouse effect of global climate change. What this means for the U.S. is that we have a cheap, effective sink--a means to sequester a large amount of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are being emitted from fossil fuel emissions. The sequestration of carbon in soils is a benefit to agriculture, in addition to society. Increased carbon in soils leads to reduced soil erosion, increased soil tilth and fertility, increased water absorption and retention, and most notably for agriculture, increased productivity. As noted recently by Dr. Rattan Lal, an international soil carbon research scientist--carbon is the basis for all life--including in agricultural soils. Carbon absorption by soils helps agriculture, and helps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. While we understand a great deal about the means by which carbon is absorbed and retained in soils--for instance through minimal or no-till practices--there is still much that needs to be learned about the entire carbon cycle in nature, and how it moves from one pool, such as soils, to others, such as the atmosphere. We need to better understand the balance of land management and tillage techniques that sequester and retain carbon in soils, and to insure that agricultural policies are supportive of and encourage these activities. Additionally, research is needed to more accurately identify how carbon is lost from soils, either to the atmosphere or elsewhere--and to then identify how best to preserve and retain carbon in the soil sink. What we are looking at is a win-win-win situation--a win for society, a win for the climate, and a win for agriculture. But we must invest now in this future, not only because it will help us to bridge the gap, as we move in the direction of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and practices that emit greenhouse gases, but it will help us to soften the blow on all other impacted sectors. Using agriculture as a carbon sink helps not only agriculture--it gives all other sectors breathing room to technologically or otherwise adapt to reduced fossil fuel dependence. It will help this country to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions sooner, cheaper, and without the disruptions to businesses and the economy that some sectors have forecast. Mr. President, that is why I want to voice my support for funding the USDA Carbon Cycle Research Program and the Climate Change Technology Initiative. Funding for these important programs is essential to optimize the potential for agriculture and for the climate. I urge that the Senate consider additional funding for these programs. Mr. President, I ask that my full statement be included in the record during the debate on the Agriculture Appropriations Bill.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the pending amendment regarding agricultural sanctions reform. One only has to run a search for legislation regarding sanctions to see that economic sanctions reform has become a key issue for the 106th Congress. I am pleased to be the cosponsor of several pieces of legislation that seek to address the problem of current U.S. sanctions policies. In particular, I am pleased to be the cosponsor of Senator Lugar's bill, S. 757, which seeks to create a more rational framework for consideration of future U.S. sanctions. While I strongly support the amendment currently pending before the Senate, this is only the first step in addressing economic sanctions reform. It is my hope Congress will continue to work in a bipartisan manner to make our sanctions policy more focused and effective. I am sure it comes as no surprise to my colleagues from farm states that there is a crisis in rural America. It is a crisis that is threatening the very foundations of family-based agriculture. Export markets have shrunk, commodity prices have plummeted, and rural incomes have decreased at an alarming rate. Yet while this is occurring, both Congress and the President have continued to pursue a foreign policy that places restrictions on our agricultural producers, closes off markets, and lowers the value of commodities. Too often, we have used the blunt instrument of unilateral economic sanctions--including restrictions on the sale of U.S. agricultural products--as a simple means to address complex foreign policy problems. These agricultural sanctions end up hurting the most vulnerable in the target country, eroding confidence in the United States as a supplier of food, disrupting our export markets, and placing an unfair burden on America's farmers. Mr. President, I do not mean to suggest we will bring relief to rural America by simply reforming our sanctions policy. The crisis in agriculture is principally a result of the failure--not of our foreign policy--but of our farm policy. It is time to rewrite the farm bill to safeguard producer incomes and to stop the outmigration from our rural communities. Those who argue sanctions are the sole cause of the problems in agriculture fail to realize the challenges we are facing require a more comprehensive solution. However, while we work to improve farm legislation, we cannot continue to ask our farmers to bear the brunt of U.S. foreign policy decisions. The amendment we are currently considering would be a positive first step in addressing sanctions reform. Under current law, agricultural and medicinal products may be included under a sanctions package without any special protections against such actions. However, if this amendment is adopted, agricultural products and medicine would be precluded from any new unilateral sanctions unless the President submits a report to Congress specifically requesting these products be sanctioned. Congress would then have to approve the request by joint resolution. Furthermore, should an agricultural sanction be imposed, it would automatically sunset after two years. Renewal would require a new request from the President and approval by the Congress. This amendment undoubtedly sets a high standard for the imposition of unilateral economic sanctions for food and medicine. It is a standard that seeks to end the practice of using food and medicine as a foreign policy weapon at the expense of our agricultural producers. Mr. President, the strong support we are receiving from commodity groups is a testament to the importance of this amendment to our agricultural producers. Organizations such as the American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers Association, and the National Association of Wheat Growers--groups that represent America's farmers-- support this amendment because they understand the costs and consequences associated with unilateral economic sanctions. Mr. President, this measure will help our agricultural producers by returning some common sense to the imposition of U.S. sanctions. I urge my colleagues to join with the cosponsors of this amendment to take the first step toward economic sanctions reform. Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware, the chairman of the Finance Committee. I rise enthusiastically to speak in favor of the legislation that is before us, the proposal to give Americans a $790 billion increase in our after-tax income. I want to, first of all, address this question about the size, which is one of the things I hear most about when I go home. Can we afford to do it? The distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, has just spoken about that as well. I believe this is a prudent amount. I do not believe this is going to undo the great progress we have made beginning way back in 1990 and the first balanced budget proposal for which I voted. We had another one in 1993, and another in 1997. Taken together, they have all contributed to the elimination of our deficit and the very strong economic growth which we have to be careful not to undo. The Congressional Budget Office, though they obviously will from time to time make mistakes, forecasts that there will be $3 trillion more coming in over the next 10 years than we have in obligated expenditures. While I favor significant debt reduction, I think one would have to imagine some pretty unusual economic circumstances to imagine a downturn in the economy that would eliminate a $3 trillion forecast. It is asked: To what level do we have to get? Does it have to be $5 trillion before we can give the American people back some of their money? This, it seems to me, is a reasonable proposal, a moderate proposal. One could make a case for an even larger cut in taxes, and the best way of illustrating that is if we were to imagine that the budget was balanced and CBO said that over the next 10 years we anticipate exactly the amount of revenue coming in that is needed to meet the expenditures that are forecast, and I walked down here to the floor and offered a piece of legislation to increase taxes $2 trillion, I doubt I would get a single vote. Well, I would actually have to offer a proposal to increase taxes $2.1 trillion to find myself in a situation where we are today. We are talking about reducing the projected surplus from $2.9 trillion down to $2.1 trillion. This is an increase in the after-tax income for the American household. I calculate that, in Nebraska, it means about $4 billion worth of increased income for households that is not taken into Washington, DC. That is a significant amount of money. Not only is there broad-based tax relief in here with a reduction in the rate from 15 to 14 percent, but there are a number of other things that will happen that I consider to be good. We have about 130,000 Nebraskans without health insurance. One of the reasons is that our tax policy doesn't favor an individual who makes a purchase of health insurance. This proposal will enable many of those 130,000 people to be able to afford that because there is an above-the-line deduction in this proposal for individuals. There are 400,000 households in Nebraska that I estimate will benefit from the savings section in the proposal of the distinguished chairman of our committee--people who are trying to figure out how do I save for my own retirement. I know Social Security doesn't provide me with everything I need. I know I need some kind of savings or pension. This has significant reform in our pension laws, making it extremely likely that people right now who don't have pensions for small businesses will have pensions in companies that employ relatively small numbers of people. So in addition to providing $4 billion worth of additional after-tax income to the people of the State of Nebraska, this proposal will also help them save for their retirement. It will result in an increasing number of Nebraskans who have health insurance, and, in addition, it is going to make it easier for working-class families to send their children to college. There is a deduction here for interest on student loans. One of the most alarming things I see today in the State is the amount of debt students are acquiring in order to be able to get a college degree. It will increase the amount of charitable giving in Nebraska. We have a problem with that today. The charitable giving is flat, and we have questions being asked about how we can increase that amount. This proposal will increase the charitable giving. There are 180,000 Nebraskans who will applaud this piece of legislation because it eliminates the current tax penalty on them as a consequence of their being married. This is a good proposal. There is a $3 trillion surplus being forecast over the next 10 years. This is a moderate proposal. One could have argued for a larger one. Not only did the chairman of our committee put together a piece of legislation that is moderate in size, but he attempts to, in addition, have broad-based tax relief to solve real problems we have in our country--that is, individuals who are struggling to plan for their own retirement, individuals who are trying to send their children to college, individuals who are trying to purchase health insurance, organizations throughout our State that are trying to solicit charitable contributions, and families who are angry because they pay a penalty once they get married. This proposal will not result in our undoing the great progress we have made since the first piece of legislation dealing with the deficit was enacted in 1990, followed with the 1993 effort, and followed by the 1997 effort. This is moderate tax relief. It will be significant for the people of the State of Nebraska. It will not bring back inflation that Mr. Greenspan talked about because of the way the chairman has drawn the bill. I have been asked by people: How can you possibly do this? It is not even a close call for me. It is not even close. I feel extremely enthusiastic about this proposal, about both the dollar size and the makeup of the things that are in it. I think one of the things that would have made this thing very attractive to Senators on this side of the aisle, and I believe many on the Republican side as well, is if we could have found a way to include an increase in the standard deduction--that is in Senator Moynihan's proposal that he will offer later--that would haven taken 3 million people in America completely off the tax rolls. It would take 9 million people that are currently itemizing deductions and put them in a standard deduction category. The proposal would have made it even better from the standpoint of working families. In the small amount of time I have remaining, there are three remaining problems this proposal doesn't even pretend to address and should attempt to address. I have heard people talk about it a lot. No. 1, discretionary spending. This tax cut is not the threat to discretionary spending. We have tremendous discretionary spending problems right now. Everybody knows VA-HUD is in trouble. We have significant cuts to veterans that are not what anybody wants. We have problems in Labor-HHS as well. We know we have problems. There is no tax cut that preceded them. What is causing that is the growing cost of mandatory programs that in the budget we passed in 1997 says that between now and 2009, 56 percent of our budget currently going to mandatory programs will grow to 70 percent. The discretionary programs will go from 31 percent to 27 percent, if we are able to reduce the national debt and reduce the net interest figure as well. That is what is putting pressure on discretionary spending. I know it is difficult to face it because it means we have to make changes in those mandatory programs to reduce their cost, or you have to come to the floor and propose increased taxes to pay for all of the things we want to pay for. There is a problem with growing mandatory and declining discretionary program expenditures. Second, there is a problem with Medicare--not just for the need to modernize the program, not just the need to provide health insurance for prescription benefits, but we should not, with the growing economy--4 percent real growth and 3 percent real growth in quarter after quarter--we should not with growth in the economy see the number of Americans who are uninsured go up. There are an estimated 41 million Americans without health insurance, and 24 million of them are in the workforce. We tax their wages to pay for health insurance for everybody else, but they don't have it. That, in my judgment, is the problem with Medicare. It is not just Medicare. It is all health care that needs to be fixed. Lastly, Social Security. Senator Thompson, I, and others intend to offer an amendment at the appropriate time. We know Social Security needs to be fixed. This is not like youth violence or Medicare or lots of issues that are extremely complicated--global climate change and others. This is a very straightforward, simple, actuarial problem. I am astonished that we are able to survive around here without answering the question, What do you think ought to be done? The 150 million Americans under the age of 45 should not like a delay because every year of delay means you have a larger cut in your benefits as a consequence. That is the result of not doing anything. Our proposal will cut payroll taxes by $1 trillion and increase the net worth. It fixes Social Security and increases the net wealth and worth of American households by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. That is the third remaining problem that needs to be addressed. We do not address it by locking the money in a lockbox. That doesn't do anything to extend the solvency of Social Security, and I hope during the progress of this debate we are able to make that clear to the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Lugar Amendment to restore funding to the National Endowment for Democracy. One of the noblest characteristics of the American people is their desire to spread the promise of freedom and democracy throughout the world. In fact, the history of our nation is replete with examples of men and women who have put their own lives on the line in defense of other people's freedom. The 9,386 U.S. soldiers buried at the Normandy American Cemetery in France are more than heroes. They are a testimony to the American willingness to defend democracy. Yet, they are just a few of the literally hundreds of thousands of Americans who have sacrificed their lives to secure democracy both at home and abroad. However, the fight for freedom need not always be waged on the battlefield. Indeed, some of the greatest democratic victories have come, not as a result of our military might, but rather from the power of our ideas. If you doubt this, ask Vaclav Havel how the irresistible pull of democratic values helped liberate the Czech people. Ask Nelson Mandela about how the persuasive power of American democracy helped encourage the struggle for freedom in South Africa's townships. Ask Kim Dae Jung about the decades of American sacrifice and the difference between life in a free South Korea and a totalitarian North Korea. Mr. President, each of these men have come before Congress to say that their freedom is due in no small part to the willingness of the American people to oppose despotism and to support nascent democratic movements in their country. The transformation from totalitarianism to democracy that has swept much of the world in the last decade is nothing short of remarkable. Much of the success of this movement can be attributed to U.S. support for democratic movements, including the on-the-ground programs of the National Endowment for Democracy. This is a legacy of which we should be proud. It's a success story we should do a better job of explaining to the American people. NED was established by Congress in 1983 as a non-profit, bi-partisan organization. It promotes democratic values by encouraging the development of democracy in a manner consistent with U.S. interests, assisting pro-democracy groups abroad, and strengthening electoral processes and democratic institutions. NED accomplishes these goals by providing funding to a wide variety of grantees that operate programs in more than 80 countries throughout the world. Mr. President, for over 15 years the National Endowment for Democracy has been at the center of our global democracy efforts. Critics have argued it is a relic of the Cold War. They insist NED's usefulness as an organization disappeared with the Soviet Union. This simply is not the case. As long as there are people still struggling to be free, there will be a need to support democratic reforms. The truth is, almost two-fifths of the world's population still live in un-democratic countries. In these countries, people are not given the ability to speak their minds, to practice their religious beliefs, or to unleash the power of their own enterprise. NED grantees are in these countries and are working with pro- democracy groups. In Cuba, NED grantees are helping local dissidents use the world wide web to interconnect and to spread independent news. NED sponsors radio broadcasts into Burma in support of the democracy movement led by Aung San Suu Kyi. And in Iraq, NED provides support for the Free Iraq Foundation to disseminate human rights information from within Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. Beyond extending the power of democracy to those people still toiling under despotic governments, NED is also actively engaged in the effort to solidify democratic progress. Democracy does not exist simply after the first free and fair election--democracy cannot be established solely by the ballot box. Instead, a true democratic society is based on the foundations of the rule of law, respect for the rights of all people, a free press, and civilian control of the military. In countries around the world, NED grantees are involved in helping develop this broader concept of democracy. For example, in Russia NED grantees are supporting efforts to promote the rule of law and to establish legal guarantees for the ownership of land. In Nigeria, they have supported local pro-democracy groups who were instrumental in facilitating this year's historic elections. These are examples of the hundreds of programs NED and its grantees have been involved with in support of democratic reform. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to argue that the fight for democracy is as important to U.S. national security today as it was at the height of the Cold War. It is for this reason that I will vote in favor of the Lugar amendment to restore funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. I recognize the tight discretionary spending limits the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee were forced to work under. I understand very difficult decisions had to be made in preparing the piece of legislation. However, there are few priorities as great, and few programs as cost-effective, as our global democracy efforts. I urge my colleagues to support freedom around the world by supporting the National Endowment for Democracy and the Lugar amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk--one on behalf of myself for Senator Shelby, and the other for Senator Feinstein.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. KERREY

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

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I also believe this is a good amendment. I am going to accept it. I think it is a sign that Senators on both sides of the aisle understand that we have an opportunity to do something that is long overdue, but that there is a reason in the past this has not been done; that is to say, restructuring the agency to increase the accountability for the work that is being done on nuclear weapons, both to make certain we preserve sound science at its best and security at its best. I fervently hope we continue in this spirit, because if we do, we will produce a bill with a big vote, and we will be able to conference it, be able to change the law, and enact good reform that will keep the United States of America and our people safe. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. KERREY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KERREY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I am pleased to.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I apologize to the Senator from Arizona. I did not hear all the reasons for opposing the Levin amendment because I am afraid, in my own mind, this is getting down to a point where it seems to me--I said to Senator Levin earlier that it seems the bill gives the Secretary the right to do all these things. I don't see a lot of reason to oppose this, I really don't. As I understand it, the Senator from Arizona has a problem with the last sentence, which says, ``The director of the agency may establish''--this is a nuclear security agency--``agency-specific policies''--that is the same autonomous objection that we have--``so long as they are fully consistent with departmental policy established by the secretary.'' It seems to me we want the Secretary to be able to establish Department policies that would apply to everybody and allow the new security Agency still to be able to establish specific policies that don't relate to the rest of the Department. I don't understand the Senator's objection to that because it seems to me that is a reasonable thing to say. The trouble I am having--and I am trying to make certain we achieve a big bipartisan vote on this because I don't want to lose the opportunity that we have been given many times in the past couple of decades, and the Senator from Arizona has been pushing hard on this thing. I would hate for us to fail as a consequence of not being able to resolve what seems to me is not that big a conflict. I would appreciate the Senator talking about this last sentence and what he thinks seems to be wrong with it.

Mr. KERREY. I will yield the floor and let the Senator have more than a moment.

Mr. KERREY. Can the Senator refer to where that is in the bill?

Mr. KERREY. I appreciate that answer. I am struggling. I have been in this position before, I say to my friend from Arizona, where I hear words and they mean something to me and they mean something entirely different to somebody else. I am still struggling. It seems to me that the language of ``the director of the agency may establish agency-specific policies,'' which is what the Senator from Arizona wants, by the way, this amendment amends section 213(a). At the end of the following, ``the secretary shall be responsible''--OK, at the end. It has a paragraph (u) to this. Is that what the Senator from Michigan just took? Is the Senator saying in his amendment that the Secretary shall be responsible for all policies of the Agency? The Senator is saying the Secretary still has that authority. How is that inconsistent? I still don't understand how that undercuts. This one says: The director of the agency may establish agency-specific policies so long as they are fully consistent with the departmental policies established by the Secretary.

Mr. KERREY. The Senator is saying that if this language says that the Director of the Agency may establish agency-specific policies--the Senator is quite right; I added that. I appreciate very much that change being made. Before I get to the rest of it, let me say that one of the reasons I did that was because of the experience of dealing with agencies or situations in the executive branch where somebody has the responsibility but lacks authority. It is a heck of a problem to be in where you are held accountable for something, but you don't really have the authority to do anything about it in the first place. That is exactly the problem that the Senator is trying to fix with this amendment in the first place--situations where Secretaries have authority and responsibility, but they lack the authority. They lack the ability to actually be able to manage. I appreciate that inclusion. The Senator is saying that if the language said the Director of the Agency may establish agency-specific policies subject to the approval of the Secretary, you have no problem with that?

Mr. KERREY. Part of the problem I am having with this is it is very clear in the Senator's amendment that the Secretary shall be responsible for all policies of the Agency. That is very clear in the language of the amendment. That is why I am having difficulty understanding how this language undercuts that, or changes that. The Senator wants the Secretary to have the responsibility for the policies of the Agency. What the Senator is trying to do is establish a sufficient amount of independence that this new Agency for nuclear security can develop its own agency-specific policies. It doesn't undercut or eliminate the authority of the Secretary to be able to come in and say: I don't like that. I am not going to allow you to do it. But it is going to occur in an environment where Congress knows it, and the people understand what is going on. It seems to me that is what Senator Levin is trying to do, as well.

Mr. KERREY. We have comparable agencies. I was very much involved with the development of the new law governing the IRS. We wanted that agency also to be semiautonomous. In that case, we created a board with authority to evaluate the budget and make budget recommendations to the Secretary of the Treasury, and that budget has to be forwarded on. If the President wants to change it, he can change it. That budget gets forwarded on to us. In addition, we made a change that the Internal Revenue Commissioner has a 5-year term allowing some continuity. That is one of the problems we had. We had lots of turnover. The same problem existed with the FBI Director a number of years ago. I don't know who was involved in changing that law. We changed some independence of the FBI Director. But in both cases, if the Secretary of the Treasury decides they don't like what the IRS Commissioner is doing, or in Justice's case they don't like what the FBI Director is doing, one of the things we are not talking about is they can always go to the President. The President issues an Executive order; everybody does it. At least they are supposed to do it. Although, again, that is part of the problem that we are trying to address--eliminating a lot of that middle-level management and creating direct lines of authority so Executive orders are carried out. In this case, a Presidential directive was implemented relatively slowly. Perhaps the Senator from Michigan has some suggestions. Does the Senator see a substantial difference between the language in his amendment that says, ``the director of the agency may establish agency-specific policies so long as they are fully consistent,'' and language that says, ``the director of the agency may establish agency-specific policies understanding,'' and then reference back to section 213(c) that says the Secretary shall be responsible for all policies of the agency? If the Senator can tie it into that line, it seems that is what he is trying to do.

Mr. KERREY. If the Senator will yield, it seems to me what we ought to try to do is work this thing a little bit longer and see if we can get agreement. I think in the key area with the amendment, we have to reference back this very declarative and clear line the Senator from Arizona referenced, which is 213(C) that says the Secretary shall be responsible for all policies of the Agency. The Senator is shaking his head.

Mr. KERREY. If I can respond, the Senator from Michigan has a lot of respect on this side of the aisle and I know a lot of respect on that side of the aisle as well, not just because of this particular issue but because of his longstanding interest in the operations of government and his understanding of how statutes need to be written in order to get government to function properly. If the goal is to produce a big bipartisan vote so we can seize this opportunity, as the Senator from Arizona has pressed so relentlessly to get done, it is my hope that there could be a meeting of the minds leading to an agreement of language. If we can get that done, we are one step closer to getting a very large bipartisan vote. That sends a very important signal to the House. That increases the chances to successfully conference this in the Intelligence Committee and bring it back to the full Senate for approval.

Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to speak on this and to respond on our side.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I wonder if there is a chance, rather than going to a motion to table, we can work this out. If we can work it out, it increases the chances of getting a big affirmative vote on this bill, which all of us want. The Senator from Michigan sees a flaw in the bill and is concerned about national security and concerned about good science. He has a lot of experience in this. I ask the Senator from Arizona if it is possible we could get the two sides to see if the meeting of the minds we apparently have could lead to an agreement on specific language and acceptance of this amendment, rather than having to get a vote to table or a vote up or down on the amendment with disagreement.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, like Chairman Shelby, I fully support these two amendments and am enthusiastic as well for the efforts the senior Senator, Mr. Moynihan, has made in the area of secrecy over the years. I made a point earlier, when we were talking about secrecy, that sometimes secrecy does equal security. We have to have secrecy in order to maintain security. But there are times when secrecy actually makes it harder for us to achieve security. It can make us less secure. I retold the story in the Senator's book on the Venona project when Omar Bradley made the decision not to inform the President of the United States about Klaus Fuchs and others. As a consequence of believing the President didn't have a need to know, he kept the secret. I think, as a consequence, there was less security for the Nation. I appreciate and fully agree with the chairman. These amendments are good amendments and should be adopted. I appreciate and applaud and am grateful for the leadership of the Senator from New York on this issue of secrecy.