J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

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

Mr. KERREY. That is correct. Mr. President, this proposed change in the law would provide protection for every single American who has health insurance in this country--not just those that are in self-funded ERISA plans, as the Republican alternative would do. That is the most important distinction. I have been asked, well, if our amendment fails, will I vote for the Republican alternative? My answer is no. I believe that would be a step backward because it will say to the marketplace that you can fall to the lowest possible standard, which is what the Republican proposal does. Every step of the way, we have seen a sort of grudging retreat from our challenge to change the law and intervene in the marketplace. There is cost to this, Mr. President; I acknowledge that cost. But as with all regulation, we have to measure the cost versus the benefit. That is what we intend to do with this amendment--talk about the benefit to people who will be able to get continuity of care, and not just if they are pregnant, which the Republicans included in their earlier alternative, but to take care of people with terminal illness, for example. I understand it that there will be a modification to the Republican bill on this point. But you have to be declared terminal. What if you have cancer and you believe you are going to survive treatment? What if you have diabetes or some other complicated medical condition, and you established, over the years, a relationship with your physician who watched for changes in your physical condition, looked at your symptoms and determined the kind of treatment and response to those symptoms, and suddenly you are told your doctor was either removed from the managed care group, which happens, or your doctor changes venue and moves to some other locality and you are told by your managed care organization that you have to pick a different doctor. Your relationship with this physician is over. This amendment puts the law on the side of those individuals and says you can continue care with that doctor for 90 days for most conditions, and for three conditions this time can be extended. It is reasonable. Is there cost? Yes. Measure the cost against the benefit of having the law on your side when it comes time that you are told that your doctor now is different and you have had a relationship with that doctor. The doctor has diagnosed your cancer and told you here is the treatment, or has been your doctor treating your diabetes or your cardiovascular disease, or your doctor has told you what the treatment is going to be, and suddenly you have a new doctor. You have to pick somebody new. That is what this amendment does. It puts the law on the side of every single American, not just those in self-funded ERISA plans, as the Republican version would do. This takes care of everyone. I have real passion on this subject because on the 14th of March, 1969, I was a healthy human being with the U.S. Navy SEAL team, and I thought I could accomplish everything on my own. I didn't think I needed any law to support me or take care of my needs. Then I was injured. In an instant, I went from being able to take care of myself on my own to not being able to do anything at all, including going to the bathroom, without asking somebody else for help. So they sent me to the Philadelphia Naval Hospital, and I recovered there. Well, in 1989, when I came to the Senate, I was fortunate enough to be able to be a member of the Appropriations Committee, and we were marking up a bill--a law that this body considered. It occurred to me we were appropriating money for military hospitals--including the one that I had gone to in 1969. Well, in 1969, I didn't understand the relationship between that law and me. That hospital was not there because of Sears & Roebuck. I love the marketplace. I come from the business sector and I love what the market can do. But the market has limitations. My life was saved by a hospital that was authorized by this Congress. The appropriations were authorized by this Congress not because I made a financial contribution, not because I was able to come and influence anybody in this Congress--there wasn't a politician in America in 1969 I liked, let alone been willing to make a contribution to. Yet Congress passed, and the President signed, a law which saved my life--not the marketplace but a law. Was there cost? You're darn right there was cost. What was the benefit to the rest of America? I hope the benefit was being able to say we live in a country where we want our Congress to pass laws to take care of our own. We want to take care of each other. It isn't just about me. I am healthy today, and the independence I have and the health I have came as a consequence of that law. That law gave me independence. Roughly 10 days ago, we all celebrated the Fourth of July. That is Independence Day. This Nation has an over 200-year tradition of making independence meaningful by fighting against illiteracy, fighting against intolerance, and fighting against illness. If you are sick or disabled and you don't have health insurance and reliable health care, you are not likely to feel independent. It is likely to be meaningless to you. So what this amendment does is to say if you have a relationship with a doctor, and the doctor is treating you, and the market determines that the doctor no longer can treat you, you will have a right, under the law, to continue to have the care of that physician for 90 days. If it is one of the three exceptional conditions, this right can be extended. As I say, there is cost. I don't disregard the cost at all. I have heard many Senators come down and talk about how this is going to increase the cost of our insurance. I am willing to pay it. Why? Because Americans were willing to pay the bills for me. That is why we are a great country. We don't just take care of ourselves; we take care of each other. We recognize, as great as the marketplace is, as wonderful as free enterprise is in creating jobs and generating wealth, there are limits. If all we care about is the bottom line and generating profit for our businesses, we will forget the need to put the law on the side of human beings when, through no fault of their own, the bottom drops out of their lives. So I hope and pray that the Republicans will give this amendment consideration. It is the last amendment we will consider before we shut this thing down permanently. At least for the rest of this week, we are not going to have a chance to change the law and put it on the side of Americans out there who desperately need it. I understand there are costs to it. If I talk to people in Nebraska and they ask why we do this, I will not only use myself as an example, I will use hundreds of others who had the law on their side. Medicare beneficiaries have had the law on their side, and they are better off as a consequence. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Maine heading for the door. With great respect for her, I want her to hear this observation. She talked about continuity of care and said that she and Senator Grassley and Senator Enzi had worked on language in this amendment that provided continuity of care for people with terminal illness. I call her attention to pages 49 and 50 of this bill. It does not do that. It says specifically, under terminal illness, it is subject to paragraph 1, which says the general rule is just for up to 90 days. The only exception under continuity of care with this bill is for pregnancy, which was in the original bill.

Mr. KERREY. I only have 3 minutes. I am sorry. I call the Senator's attention to continuity of care. Look at the language of the bill because on page 49 it describes this transitional period. This is something that is very important to me. I received health care in 1969 after I was injured in Vietnam. I have a very passionate concern for people now who are in managed care. I must say, the problem we are experiencing with managed care is not self-funded ERISA plans. That is what the Republican proposal is going to do. It is going to solve almost a nonexistent problem that may, in fact, as a consequence of setting the bar low, encourage people who are in HMOs and who are in the marketplace providing those plans to say: I see the bar is low; we are going down to that lower standard. That is a major concern I have with this proposal. It does not cover the plans that are the biggest problem. I call your attention to pages 49 and 50. Under the continuity of care provisions, the only continuity of care that would be provided would be women who are pregnant. They could go beyond 90 days under this provision, but those who were terminal would not. Terminal illness is subject to paragraph 1, according to the language of the bill itself, which does not provide for an extension. Our proposal would go beyond those three general categories, not just terminal illness, not just institutionalized people, not just women who are pregnant--all three reasonable--and certainly not just self-funded ERISA plans, which are hardly receiving any complaints at all. That is the odd thing about this debate. We are going to take care of a problem that doesn't exist under the guise of--I have heard people come down saying: We are going to address a problem with HMOs. Well, you would address the problem of HMOs if you changed your bill. This bill doesn't take care of HMOs. It takes care of self-funded ERISA plans. Go to your mailbox and see if you have any complaints about self-funded ERISA plans. You won't find any complaints about that. The complaints are about HMOs. We have watched the market move more and more into business decisions when it comes to health care. And I am for the market. I like what the market can do. When we regulate the market, we say----

Mr. KERREY. I will come back to this later, Mr. President. This bill does not provide continuity of care except for pregnancy. Those with other health problems would not be covered under this proposal.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I draw my colleagues' attention to an article that appeared earlier this year in Economic Reform Today. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of ``Safeguarding Russian Investors: Securities Chief Speaks Out'' be printed at the end of my statement.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, Economic Reform Today is a quarterly magazine published by the Center for International Private Investment. CIPE is one of the core grantees of the National Endowment for Democracy and is dedicated to promoting democratic governance and market oriented economic reform. Their work has been particularly important in assisting the ongoing transition to free markets in the former communist countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The article I will include in the Record, highlights Russia's continuing effort to implement political and economic reforms. This has been a painful process in Russia. However, it is my firm belief that Russia's transition to a free-market democracy will be measured in decades, not years. During this important time--CIPE and the other NED grantees--have been working to ensure that the Russian people have access to the information and resources necessary to make a successful transition. Again, I encourage my colleagues to read this important article. Exhibit 1 Safeguarding Russian Investors: Securities Chief Speaks Out (If Russia is to gain economic stability and attract foreign investors it will need to respond better to the needs and concerns of investors. Dmitry Vasiliyev has made this the chief reform priority of the securities commission that he heads. He is one of the strongest voices in Russia today calling for more efficient and transparent markets to provide the necessary foreign and domestic capital to jump start Russia's newly privatized enterprises. In this interview with Economic Reform Today, Vasiliyev underscores the importance of establishing strong shareholders' rights as a cornerstone of economic reform) ERT: You have made upholding shareholder rights one of the top priorities of the Federal Securities Commission (FSC). Why is this so important? Mr. Vasiliyev: Protecting investors' rights is an important prerequisite for attracting foreign investment, and, unfortunately, Russia faces serious problems in this area. Although we are gradually improving the quality of corporate governance, Russia is losing billions of dollars in investments because of poor investor safeguards, both in corporate and government securities. This is reflected in the lower value of Russian stock prices as compared with those of other emerging market countries. Better protection of investors' rights will attract more investors and allow companies to raise more capital and lead to the development of new technologies and more production. ERT: Can you gauge the damage that denying these shareholder rights inflicts on the Russian economy? Mr. Vasiliyev: The Russian economy faces serious consequences unless it can offer adequate safeguards. Not only are foreigners reluctant to invest in Russia, but Russians do not trust it either. People are putting their savings into dollars because other forms of investment don't offer enough protection. That's why we have concentrated our efforts on protecting the market from low-quality securities. Last year we denied registration to 2,600 issues; that is, we turned down 14% of all submitted prospectuses. That means we prevented 2,600 possible violations of shareholder rights. Of course we also had to cancel some issues that were already registered; for example, the well-publicized cases involving the largest Russian oil companies, such as Sidanko and Sibneft. Last week the Commission launched an investigation into the case of Yukos. We are determined to use all measure necessary to defend minority shareholders. In some cases the exchange or brokers themselves violate shareholder rights through manipulation. Our investigations have increased sevenfold in the last two years. We recognize, however, that we are only at the beginning of a long process. A responsible government should observe a strict financial policy and minimize its borrowing, including issuing government bonds. The crisis over the past year was also a crisis of sovereign debt: the crash of the GKO (government bond) pyramid caused tremendous losses to the real economy and to the financial sector. As a result, the government is developing twelve new laws aimed at protecting investors. In March, Parliament adopted one of these laws, which protects investors in the securities markets. We also need to improve our joint stock company law in order to reduce share dilution and asset stripping, as well as to allow shareholders to dismiss management and stop asset theft. We also want to change the criminal code and make nondisclosure to investors and crime. I believe that we can learn from other countries' experiences, including the United States, in this area. There are several typical violations of shareholder rights in Russia. The first is share dilution, which we have been trying to counter by denying issue registrations. The bill approved in March also introduces stricter procedures that should protect against share dilution. The second is nondisclosure or provision of false information. We have begun to address this issue through the same bill, which allows the FSC to fine issuers of securities if they provide insufficient disclosure or misleading data. For example, if a prospectus contains false information, those who have signed it--the CEO, the auditor and the independent appraiser--bear a subsidiary responsibility if investors lost money because the information was false. Of course this is only the first step; we still have to iron out how to enforce the law and other procedural matters. In the West, for instance, you have ``class action'' suits, but courts do not hear such cases in Russia. Another typical violation is transfer pricing abuse; that is, when commodities or securities are sold at artificial prices between or among affiliated companies. Here, as in the case of asset stripping, shareholders need to have stricter control over the actions of management. The FSC is trying to prevent the execution of large transactions without prior shareholders' approval. While we do not always succeed, we are trying to close this important loophole. The issue of share conversion between a holding company and its subsidiaries is very serious. Shareholders of both the holding company and the subsidiaries must insist on a fair and independent appraisal of assets and establishment of a fair conversion rate. Government officials cannot solve this question; it's a matter for management and the shareholders and points up the importance of appropriate procedures for corporate decision making. For example, in some cases, such as Lukoil's, the share conversion process went pretty smoothly because Lukoil management took a balanced and well- conceived position. Other cases, such as Sibneft, resulted in huge scandals. This is a long-term process and the FSC will be focusing on this issue indefinitely. ERT: Financial industrial groups have a very strong presence in the Russian economy. Experts argue that they need to be reformed or regulated. In your view, what type of regulation is necessary? Mr. Vasiliyev: The economic crisis last year delivered a very serious blow to financial industrial groups (FIGs). It destroyed many of them, and weakened many of the so-called ``oligarchs,'' who were forced to sell off parts of their empires. Yukos is just one example of the troubles facing these groups. I believe that FIGs are not the most efficient way to achieve economic development. Equity or investment financing through the securities market and the banking system should be kept--and regulated--as separate systems. The experiences of other countries, including the US, show that heavy investment in industry by banks and financial institutions can have catastrophic consequences. Back in 1997, I was already insisting that Russia needs banks to stay away from risky speculative operations, not to hold stock in companies and not to invest in industry. What we had in the August 1998 crisis was the collapse of the settlement system. At the same time we need investment banks involved in corporate finance, but investors know that many Russian banks are used for speculative operations not for settlement purposes. Russia's President Yeltsin recently sent a message to the Federation Council stating that the country needs both ``settlement'' banks and ``investment'' banks. The fact that President Yeltsin highlighted this critical issue is an encouraging sign for the ailing banking sector. Creditors' rights also need to be protected. In Russia creditors are not offered adequate protection. The banks say that they need a controlling interest in a company in order to be able to lend money to it. Creditors' rights should be protected, but the solution to that is for banks not to participate in a company's equity capital. If banks would lend to companies rather than invest in government bonds, they would not be so involved in speculation and not be so dependent on getting controlling interest in companies. State involvement in the economy should be minimal, but today it is still very high. Sweeping privatization is not the most important objective; the goal should be to privatize the land held by industrial companies so they can use it as collateral for loans. The sooner this is done the better, but this process has moved very slowly since 1994. In my opinion this aspect of privatization is more important than agricultural reform. ERT: Can you delineate the responsibilities of the FSC and the Central Bank in regulating corporate transactions and capital markets? In what areas should they cooperate and in what areas should they have separate responsibilities? Mr. Vasiliyev: I believe that each has its own functions-- the main objective of the Central Bank, just like in any other country, is supporting the national currency. My task at the FSC is to protect investors and regulate the securities market. ERT: In your view, what is the Russian public's perception of the local business community? If it is negative, how should businesses work to revamp this perception? Mr. Vasiliyev: The attitude toward business people is not very good. I believe that the country's private sector should work on changing its tarnished image. It should be prestigious to be involved in business and society should appreciate that it has an important function. Changing the poor image of business will, of course, take a long time. The ideology of the old Soviet regime won't disappear overnight. In Russia it is the younger generation that is leaning toward capitalism. The private sector, of course, will play a key role in the economy. It already plays an important role, but often in the form of speculation and the ``shadow'' economy. The Russian economy needs to move from the shadows to the daylight through simplification of regulation and licensing. We need to make it profitable to pay taxes. (See ERT No. 4, 1997 pp. 6-9 for a detailed discussion of how Russia's ``shadow'' economy operates.) ERT: In Russia, much of the public perceives the privatization process as unfair. How would the changes in regulations that you have outlined in this interview improve this process? Mr. Vasiliyev: We believe that the structure of ownership will gradually change. Many companies that were privatized as joint stock companies will probably leave the securities market. They are not interested in remaining publicly traded. We will probably have 500 to 1,000 publicly traded companies. Most small shops or factories employing less than 100 persons will gradually end up being privately owned or become closely held companies, which is fine. The number of publicly traded companies is declining in countries that went through mass privatization. We see this happening in the Czech Republic and it will eventually happen in Russia, too. There were two components of Russia's privatization process. One was land privatization--the land ``under'' companies--and the other was securities markets development intended to rectify privatizations that were not done in a very efficient manner. We were forced to implement privatizations in the way we did. Other options then were not politically or psychologically acceptable in our country. I still believe this. But it is obvious that we encountered a lot of insider influence and very limited transparency because of the very fast pace of transition. When we were first starting to privatize, I worked in the state property commission as a deputy to Mr. Anatoly Chubais, its chairman, and I drafted many documents on privatization. One of the main conditions we asked for was that companies become open joint stock corporations so that stock could be sold and bought. Now that there is a battle for control of these companies and the advent of outside shareholders is beginning to strengthen their positions, Russian companies are changing bit by bit. The securities markets are helping this transition. The use of a central depository as a privatization mechanism has been adopted by many emerging market countries and is accepted by all securities commissions. If we could establish a central depository, we would be able to reduce the number of registrars and eventually move toward not using them at all. Later we could introduce centralized clearing settlements. These will lower investors' costs and significantly improve protection of their rights since they would then be protected from registrar-related risks. The attractiveness of the Russian market would benefit significantly from the results. So my position was and is that sooner or later this central depository will be created in Russia. Right now our policy is that no single issuer can control more than 20% of a registrar, and that registrars handle a large number of issuers. They gradually are becoming more independent. Our largest registrars handle 200 to 300 issuers and millions of accounts so that they are no longer dependent on a particular issuer. Of course, there are still registrars who are under the strong influence of a single issuer--Yukos, for example. But they are subject to strict control by the Commission. In the past year, we checked up on three-fourths of all registrars and have 125 of them left to check. Almost all of them are checked once a year. ERT: More broadly, what lessons should policymakers in other developing countries learn from Russia's ongoing transition to a market-oriented economy? Mr. Vasiliyev: The first lesson is that emerging markets cannot borrow the experience of Western countries. You cannot just transfer their legislation to other countries. We are at a different stage of development. The Russian economy and its financial instruments are nearly a century behind those of the US, for example, in terms of our legal base, the capitalization of our institutions, and our familiarity with how a market economy works. The Russian economy faces several key obstacles. First is a lack of expertise among Russian managers. A typical manager cannot write a reasonable plan for investors. A manager may have a project and an investor may have cash to invest, but without a decent plan, nothing will develop. Second, Russia must simplify its taxation rules and reduce the tax burden. Only then will we see real economic growth and more revenues. Third, we must greatly simplify procedures for the control and licensing of businesses. Starting up and/or liquidating a business should be easy. This would enable us to reduce crime and corruption and transfer part of the informal economy to the formal sector.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am pleased to have worked with Senator Jeffords to draft the legislation we are introducing today, the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 1999. The legislation will establish a matching grant program that provides money to states and localities that are willing to put up some of their own funds for the purposes of preserving affordable housing. In order to receive a grant under this program, the owner would have to commit to maintaining the existing affordability restrictions for a minimum of 15 years. In addition, the legislation will encourage transfer of ownership of these properties to non-profit housing corporations that work closely with residents. We believe that non-profit ownership will, in the long run, ensure the maximum possible commitment to affordability at the lowest possible cost. The current ownership structure for assisted housing constantly puts us in this bind of having to provide more and more money just to keep what we have already built and paid for. With non-profits, we will not face the constant dilemma of opt-outs, prepayments or expiring affordability restrictions. Nonetheless, private owners who want to continue to provide affordable housing will be eligible under this bill. I appreciate the efforts of Senator Jeffords in facing this problem head-on. We are facing an increasing crisis in affordable housing. Ironically, this crisis worsens as the strong economy pushes rents ever higher, out of the reach of many working Americans and the poor. This legislation will help us preserve this crucial affordable housing resource. In the long run, however, preservation of affordable housing, while necessary, won't solve the problem facing millions of American families. The real problem in many cities around the country is that there is not enough production of new housing. We need to find ways to fund the construction of new, affordable, multifamily housing for low income and working families, and we need to fund the 100,000 additional vouchers we authorized in last year's public housing bill. This is not just a poor person's issue. In many states around the country-- Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Alaska, and others--a family would need to work as many as three full time jobs at $7 per hour, well above the minimum wage, just to afford the rent on a typical 2 bedroom apartment. This is unsustainable economically, and it is simply not fair. In sum, Mr. President, the Jeffords-Kerry bill builds effectively on efforts HUD is taking to save existing housing stock. Now, we need to provide the funding to make sure these efforts can move forward, as we consider longer term solutions in the months ahead.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I want to explain my opposition to the Lautenberg amendment giving ONDCP's National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign jurisdiction to include underage alcohol consumption for the purposes of the media campaign. Like all my colleagues, I have seen the results of underage drinking, and I deplore them. Young lives should not be wasted, and I challenge the White House and my colleagues to continue to take action to curb this problem. However, I do not believe this amendment is the correct way to solve the underage drinking crisis. The Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is not the right vehicle for anti-alcohol messages. The Office of National Drug Control Policy fights the war on drugs, not alcohol. I agree with Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey that there is an important distinction between illegal drugs and alcohol, which is a legal substance. Additionally, simply adding anti-alcohol messages to the ONDCP's Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign without appropriating more funds for this purpose will dilute the anti-drug efforts. Resources which are badly needed to fight drugs will be rerouted to fight underage drinking. I cannot support a bill which chooses to fight alcohol at the expense of illegal drugs. I have supported in the past, and will continue to support, programs that discourage underage drinking. In fact, I want to applaud the efforts of alcohol distributers, who have initiated many of these important programs. Let us find a different way to take action against underage alcohol consumption that does not compromise our actions against the use of illegal drugs.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, as I have stated before, the debate surrounding Y2K Liability is a very important one. The estimated cost associated with Y2K issues vary greatly, ranging from $600 billion to $1.6 trillion worldwide. The amount of litigation that will result from Y2K-related failures is uncertain, but at least one study has guestimated the costs for Y2K related litigation and damages to be at $300 billion. With that in mind, Congress has been debating legislation which encourages companies to prevent Y2K failures and to remedy problems quickly if they occur, and to deter frivolous lawsuits. Although I support the goals of the bill that passed the Senate last month, I voted against that bill because I did not feel it provided enough protection for consumers. I am pleased to see that changes were made in the Conference Report that address my concerns and provide protection for consumers. Because of these important changes, I intend to support the Y2K Liability Conference Report. Many of my colleagues have pointed out positive changes to this bill. I would like to highlight just two provisions that will put consumers in a better position with respect to Y2K litigation. The first provision concerns proportionate liability. Exceptions to the general rule of proportionate liability were made to ensure ordinary consumers are protected and ``bad actor'' defendants are not rewarded. These bad actor defendants, those who act recklessly, will bear a higher proportion of liability for otherwise uncollectible damage claims. This both protects consumer plaintiffs and provides companies with an incentive to identify and remedy Y2K problems. The second provision deals with the duty to mitigate. Under the bill, plaintiffs have a duty to mitigate damages, which means that they have a duty to fix computer problems that could have been reasonably avoided. The Conference Report adds an important exception to this rule. Consumers who rely on fraudulent misrepresentations made by defendants about Y2K readiness will be exempted from this duty to mitigate. In other words, if a computer company tells a consumer in bad faith that his computer is ``Y2K compliant'' and that turns out to be false, the consumer will be in a better position to recover damages from that bad faith defendant. The Y2K issue is a very unique, once in a millennium, problem. Because it is so unique, I agree that legislation is needed. I believe this legislation now strikes a proper balance between consumers and the high tech industry---computer companies have an incentive to identify and remedy potential Y2K problems, and consumers have important protections when faced with bad actor defendants. Therefore, I will cast a vote in support of the Y2K Liability Conference Report.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am pleased to have worked with Senator Jeffords to draft the legislation we are introducing today, the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 1999. The legislation will establish a matching grant program that provides money to states and localities that are willing to put up some of their own funds for the purposes of preserving affordable housing. In order to receive a grant under this program, the owner would have to commit to maintaining the existing affordability restrictions for a minimum of 15 years. In addition, the legislation will encourage transfer of ownership of these properties to non-profit housing corporations that work closely with residents. We believe that non-profit ownership will, in the long run, ensure the maximum possible commitment to affordability at the lowest possible cost. The current ownership structure for assisted housing constantly puts us in this bind of having to provide more and more money just to keep what we have already built and paid for. With non-profits, we will not face the constant dilemma of opt-outs, prepayments or expiring affordability restrictions. Nonetheless, private owners who want to continue to provide affordable housing will be eligible under this bill. I appreciate the efforts of Senator Jeffords in facing this problem head-on. We are facing an increasing crisis in affordable housing. Ironically, this crisis worsens as the strong economy pushes rents ever higher, out of the reach of many working Americans and the poor. This legislation will help us preserve this crucial affordable housing resource. In the long run, however, preservation of affordable housing, while necessary, won't solve the problem facing millions of American families. The real problem in many cities around the country is that there is not enough production of new housing. We need to find ways to fund the construction of new, affordable, multifamily housing for low income and working families, and we need to fund the 100,000 additional vouchers we authorized in last year's public housing bill. This is not just a poor person's issue. In many states around the country-- Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Alaska, and others--a family would need to work as many as three full time jobs at $7 per hour, well above the minimum wage, just to afford the rent on a typical 2 bedroom apartment. This is unsustainable economically, and it is simply not fair. In sum, Mr. President, the Jeffords-Kerry bill builds effectively on efforts HUD is taking to save existing housing stock. Now, we need to provide the funding to make sure these efforts can move forward, as we consider longer term solutions in the months ahead.

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 come to the floor to call my colleagues' attention to the current conflict between India and Pakistan over the line of control of Kashmir. I have a great deal of respect for the problem of watching situations that are not only a long way away from us but are so remote that it is hard to get a camera crew there. I fear that is what is going on. A lot of cameras and journalists are in Kosovo watching the return of refugees and watching the United States troops come back into that region, as well they should. There is a real danger in not watching and paying attention to what is going on between India and Pakistan, and there is a danger that our lack of attention to this particular problem could produce a confrontation that not only would be deadly but would draw in the rest of the world as well. One of my principal concerns about the Kosovo operation, though I supported the bombing and I am pleased it is over and pleased that we have had some measure of success, was that it drew our attention away from non-NATO missions. The United States of America, unlike many of our NATO allies--indeed, unlike most of our NATO allies--has very important missions that we are performing throughout the world. India and Pakistan is one of those missions. We were all surprised last year--and nobody should be surprised this time around--after India and Pakistan detonated nuclear weapons--surprised our State Department, surprised our CIA. We had a hearing trying to figure out why we were not able to predict this, even though the Prime Minister who won the race for the Parliament had, as part of his party platform, a promise to detonate and become a nuclear power. I do not think we should have been surprised. We were surprised. We should not be surprised in this situation if this deteriorates into an additional war. India and Pakistan have had not only three wars since independence in the last 50 years, but there have been many serious and deadly skirmishes that have taken place over the line of control in Kashmir. This could not only deteriorate again, and there is a bloody battle going on as we speak, but in addition to that, unlike the United States and the Soviet Union that over the last 50 years developed protocols to deal with nuclear weapons--and we have fairly substantial impressive margins for error--there have been no such discussions between India and Pakistan. Both of them are nuclear powers. Both of them could detonate nuclear weapons and use nuclear weapons in a confrontation of this kind. I have come before the Senate only to say to my colleagues I hope we pay an increasing amount of attention to what is clearly an issue that is vital to the security of the United States of America. This is not one where there is any doubt. It is a good example of the kind of non- NATO mission to which the United States of America, our diplomats, and our warfighters have to pay attention. This is a region of the world that is extremely unstable at the minute, and that instability could produce a confrontation with deadly consequences to us and deadly consequences to our interests in the region as well. Just because it does not appear on this evening's news or in the newspapers, or it does not appear we are getting lengthy stories and coverage of the problems going on between India and Pakistan in Kashmir right now, no one should be surprised if, through our own failure to intervene with both significant diplomacy and other efforts, this confrontation gets larger and, as a consequence, we find ourselves suffering an awful lot more than the suffering we are currently seeing in Kosovo. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am here to take a couple of minutes to point out a success story that appeared in the Lincoln Journal Star. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this is about the success of a Federally funded program that was implemented by heroic people in Lincoln, NE-- they include principals, schoolteachers, and the Lincoln school board. I am talking about Title I. One of the reasons I talk about it a great deal is that, in Nebraska, there are 17,000 students that are eligible for Title I, but because we don't appropriate enough money, they are not funded. They don't get the benefits of this kind of effort. What this article talks about is a program called Reading Recovery that has been implemented in the Lincoln public school system over the last 3 years--and it's a very rigorous program. The teachers had to train themselves; they had to make a commitment to acquire the skills necessary to implement this program. The article starts off with a parent talking about the exhilaration of seeing his daughter learn how to read and make progress--be successful, in other words. What they have done is quite remarkable. It needs to be observed because citizens need to know that success indeed is possible. Second graders have improved their reading scores 16 percent; third graders, 12 percent; fourth and fifth graders are up 8 percent. These are dramatic increases. They have achieved the increases by starting at a very early age, using Title I moneys, using this Reading Recovery program, and going after young people who are at risk, who are falling behind, who have come into the school system without these reading skills. They have said if you want to lift the overall test scores, quite correctly, you have to help those who are most likely to fail if we don't intervene. That is what Title I is. It is not the Federal Government telling these local schools what to do. We recently passed an Ed-Flex bill that provided increased flexibility. I support that. But unless we provide resources, it is impossible for local heroes to take the money and make something of it. I will point out, in addition to the necessity of an early effort, an additional challenge we face. It's explained in one little paragraph here. Those of us born in 1943 sort of remember schools in the 1950s and 1960s and think, gee, why can't we do it the way we did it? Things have changed. In this article, one little paragraph says the following about this young girl who was given the benefit of this program: She had changed schools three times in kindergarten, just as she was starting to learn, because her mom and dad were splitting up, her dad said. She ended up caught in the middle of a custody battle, a transfer occurred, and as a consequence of the transfer, she fell behind. That is what happened. What Title I enabled her to do was catch up. It is quite a miraculous thing that happened as a consequence, as I said, of significant local commitment and the help of teachers who trained themselves and a principal who was committed. One of the principals is Deann Currin at Elliott Elementary. The Lincoln school board supported Reading Recovery. They used title I money. Again, it is not the Federal Government telling them what to do, but providing them the resources. I regret to say that in Nebraska, there are 17,000 children eligible for Title I programs that simply are not able to benefit because we are not providing a sufficient amount of resources. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this is not a situation where we don't know what to do. This is a situation where there is an answer and we simply are not doing it.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my colleagues Senator Daschle and Senator Johnson, the Missouri River Valley Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation is important for the 10,000 people who live along the 2,321-mile Missouri River, and marks also the upcoming bicentennial anniversary of the Lewis and Clark expeditions along this great River. The intent of the Act is to improve the environmental qualtiy and public use and appreciation of the Missouri River, and to provide additional authorities to the Army Corps of Engineers to protect, enhance, and restore fish and wildlife habitat as part of their ongoing operations on the River. The Missouri River is a resource of incalculable value to the 10 states which it traverses, but it is a river that has changed dramatically since the pioneering days of Lewis and Clark. The construction of dams and levees over the past 50 years has aided navigation, flood control, and water supply along the Missouri River, but has also reduced habitat for native river fish and wildlife, and resulted in lost opportunities for recreation on the river. The legislation will help to restore a series of nature areas along the river in time to celebrate the 2004 anniversary of the Lewis and Clark, when we are anticipating greatly increased visitation along the river and to the surrounding areas, due in large part to the records and descriptions as detailed by these explorers on their 1804 trip. The bill will also aid native river fish and wildlife, help to restore cottonwoods along the river, reduce flood losses, and enhance recreation and tourism, all vital to the economies and quality of life to our communities along the river. It additional provides authorities for the revitalization of historic riverfronts, similar to the ongoing `Back to the River' revitalization project currently underway in my home state of Nebraska. The Back of the River Project in Nebraska is bringing our families and our businesses back to the Missouri River, for recreational enjoyment as well as for the commercial and business- related opportunities that follow. It is our hope that this will aid other communities to participate in similar efforts in their riverfronts. Another major provision of this bill is the creation of a long-term, science-based monitoring program on the Missouri River. This program, to be developed and operated through the U.S. Geological Survey- Biological Resources Division in Columbia, Missouri, will monitor the physical, biological, and chemical characteristics of the Missouri River. The program will help us to monitor and assess the quality of biota, habitats, and the water itself in this great river, and to provide information that will enhance our understanding of the Missouri, how it is operated, and how future operation decisions may affect the river. We currently do not understand a lot about the river, beyond the physical and some of the habitat-based impacts that have been caused by channelization. This program will create a publicly-accessible database of all the information we do have on the river, and all that is collected through the project, and will help to guide our management of the river in the future. The database will also provide additional opportunities for the people who live along the river to interact with the river in another way, and to learn more about the river that they live near. I have seen how successful educational opportunities related to the River can be, and how excited and involved children and adults get when they learn about and become more involved with their natural resources. The Fontenelle Forest Association in Nebraska, which contains forests and wetlands, and is along the Missouri River, has hands-on exhibits, live animal displays, teaching spaces, and even meeting spaces for Nebraskans. Ken Finch, the Executive Director of the Fontenelle Forest Association, has been instrumental in providing educational programs and opportunities, including a program called H2Omaha, a multi-faceted science education program which uses the Missouri River and its watershed as a living laboratory. I envision that the Missouri River database created by this Improvement Act will greatly expand information and data available to Ken and the participants at Fontenelle Forest, and I know that other communities will find this resource valuable, as well. I have also seen successful restoration efforts on the river--efforts like Boyer Chute and Hamburg Bend in Nebraska--both side channels created with the aid of the Corps of Engineers. These side channels have been enormously successful in restoring lost habitat for river species by creating slower-moving, more shallow waterways parallel to the river. These restoration areas have attracted not just wildlife, such as the native fish and birds and even river otter that historically lived in large numbers on the Missouri, but have also attracted canoeists and hikers who enjoy the scenic beauty and the recreational opportunities that these sites offer. This bill will help communities to create additional restoration projects like this along the river, projects that will not impact existing uses of the river, but that will add immensely to recreational and wildlife opportunities, and that will also add additional flood protection to surrounding communities. In anticipation of the greatly increased visitation along the river that will occur with the Lewis and Clark bicentennial celebration, the bill additionally will establish Lewis and Clark Interpretive Centers to educate the public about the Missouri River, and will allow the Corps of Engineers to provide enhancements to recreational facilities and visitors centers. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues who represent the states and communities along the Missouri River to look closely at this bill, and to join me and the other cosponsors of the bill in supporting this important legislation. The Missouri River Valley Improvement Act of 1999 will help to restore and improve our access and enjoyment of the river, and will provide vital economic, recreational, and educational opportunities for everyone who lives along and visits this great river, the Crown Jewel of the midwest.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my colleagues Senator Daschle and Senator Johnson, the Missouri River Valley Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation is important for the 10,000 people who live along the 2,321-mile Missouri River, and marks also the upcoming bicentennial anniversary of the Lewis and Clark expeditions along this great River. The intent of the Act is to improve the environmental qualtiy and public use and appreciation of the Missouri River, and to provide additional authorities to the Army Corps of Engineers to protect, enhance, and restore fish and wildlife habitat as part of their ongoing operations on the River. The Missouri River is a resource of incalculable value to the 10 states which it traverses, but it is a river that has changed dramatically since the pioneering days of Lewis and Clark. The construction of dams and levees over the past 50 years has aided navigation, flood control, and water supply along the Missouri River, but has also reduced habitat for native river fish and wildlife, and resulted in lost opportunities for recreation on the river. The legislation will help to restore a series of nature areas along the river in time to celebrate the 2004 anniversary of the Lewis and Clark, when we are anticipating greatly increased visitation along the river and to the surrounding areas, due in large part to the records and descriptions as detailed by these explorers on their 1804 trip. The bill will also aid native river fish and wildlife, help to restore cottonwoods along the river, reduce flood losses, and enhance recreation and tourism, all vital to the economies and quality of life to our communities along the river. It additional provides authorities for the revitalization of historic riverfronts, similar to the ongoing `Back to the River' revitalization project currently underway in my home state of Nebraska. The Back of the River Project in Nebraska is bringing our families and our businesses back to the Missouri River, for recreational enjoyment as well as for the commercial and business- related opportunities that follow. It is our hope that this will aid other communities to participate in similar efforts in their riverfronts. Another major provision of this bill is the creation of a long-term, science-based monitoring program on the Missouri River. This program, to be developed and operated through the U.S. Geological Survey- Biological Resources Division in Columbia, Missouri, will monitor the physical, biological, and chemical characteristics of the Missouri River. The program will help us to monitor and assess the quality of biota, habitats, and the water itself in this great river, and to provide information that will enhance our understanding of the Missouri, how it is operated, and how future operation decisions may affect the river. We currently do not understand a lot about the river, beyond the physical and some of the habitat-based impacts that have been caused by channelization. This program will create a publicly-accessible database of all the information we do have on the river, and all that is collected through the project, and will help to guide our management of the river in the future. The database will also provide additional opportunities for the people who live along the river to interact with the river in another way, and to learn more about the river that they live near. I have seen how successful educational opportunities related to the River can be, and how excited and involved children and adults get when they learn about and become more involved with their natural resources. The Fontenelle Forest Association in Nebraska, which contains forests and wetlands, and is along the Missouri River, has hands-on exhibits, live animal displays, teaching spaces, and even meeting spaces for Nebraskans. Ken Finch, the Executive Director of the Fontenelle Forest Association, has been instrumental in providing educational programs and opportunities, including a program called H2Omaha, a multi-faceted science education program which uses the Missouri River and its watershed as a living laboratory. I envision that the Missouri River database created by this Improvement Act will greatly expand information and data available to Ken and the participants at Fontenelle Forest, and I know that other communities will find this resource valuable, as well. I have also seen successful restoration efforts on the river--efforts like Boyer Chute and Hamburg Bend in Nebraska--both side channels created with the aid of the Corps of Engineers. These side channels have been enormously successful in restoring lost habitat for river species by creating slower-moving, more shallow waterways parallel to the river. These restoration areas have attracted not just wildlife, such as the native fish and birds and even river otter that historically lived in large numbers on the Missouri, but have also attracted canoeists and hikers who enjoy the scenic beauty and the recreational opportunities that these sites offer. This bill will help communities to create additional restoration projects like this along the river, projects that will not impact existing uses of the river, but that will add immensely to recreational and wildlife opportunities, and that will also add additional flood protection to surrounding communities. In anticipation of the greatly increased visitation along the river that will occur with the Lewis and Clark bicentennial celebration, the bill additionally will establish Lewis and Clark Interpretive Centers to educate the public about the Missouri River, and will allow the Corps of Engineers to provide enhancements to recreational facilities and visitors centers. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues who represent the states and communities along the Missouri River to look closely at this bill, and to join me and the other cosponsors of the bill in supporting this important legislation. The Missouri River Valley Improvement Act of 1999 will help to restore and improve our access and enjoyment of the river, and will provide vital economic, recreational, and educational opportunities for everyone who lives along and visits this great river, the Crown Jewel of the midwest.

Mr. KERREY

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

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I had intended to come over and talk on the ag appropriations bill. I am not going to talk about the ag appropriations bill since we are not on it. I am going to talk about a couple of amendments I intend to offer, if we ever get to that point. I will put us back into a quorum call when I am through. There are many important things in this ag appropriations bill that I strongly support. I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for the work that both Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl have done on this piece of legislation. Every appropriator, every Senator who has the responsibility of working on the Appropriations Committee, understands we are seeing a decline, a deterioration in our capacity to invest in our future as a result of a growing problem we have with our budget; that is, a larger and larger share that is going to mandatory programs and a smaller and smaller share available for these long-term investments, whether it is in soil, whether it is in research, all the other things that are in this particular piece of legislation. The problem is only going to get worse. I didn't come to talk about that, but I did feel obliged to say I understand that all these men and women who serve on the Appropriations Committee are under an awful lot of pressure, and that pressure is going to grow. We currently take from the American people about 20.5 percent of GDP to spend on Federal programs. That one-fifth of total GDP that we have been taking for the last 50 or 60 years has remained relatively constant, though at 20.5 it has not been at that high level since 1945. I say that only because there is an upper limit as to what we can take. I think we are there. Indeed, I support cutting taxes right now; I believe we can cut taxes. Indeed, part of the reason I am for it is that, at 20.5, in order to send a signal, we need to understand there is an upper limit. Otherwise, we are apt to spend it on a variety of things, and all the fiscal discipline we have had throughout most of this decade will be evaporated in a hurry. But as to this bill itself, whenever it becomes appropriate, I intend to offer a couple amendments. As I said, while this piece of legislation does support a number of very important aspects of agriculture spending, from agriculture research to food stamps, in fact, it can't, given its mission, address the enormous amount of changes sweeping across rural Nebraska. I get calls all the time from farmers who ask me: Does anybody in Washington understand what is going on? I answer, genuinely, yes. I think both Republicans and Democrats are scratching their heads trying to figure out what we can do. I was encouraged by the chairman's comments during the markup of the dire emergency supplemental bill for Kosovo; he does understand that both Republicans and Democrats understand there is a need to do an additional supplemental appropriations bill at some time for emergency purposes to help agriculture. But this merely underscores the problem we are experiencing in rural America today. Unfortunately, what is happening is that family farmer, who very often has a job outside of agriculture, is not certain there is any opportunity left. I want to say to my colleagues, though, I am very much a free market person; I support free trade. I believe we ought to have rules and laws that support the free enterprise system. In agriculture, we do a lot more on these family farms than just produce food. The food is important, a vital part of our export strategy, and it has economic value that one cannot deny. But these farms produce human beings. All of us who have had the pleasure of working with boys and girls who are working for the 4-H organization, or the Future Farmers of America, when you see these young men and women, you see kids with unusually good character and values that are acquired as a result of living in an environment where you understand that this biblical motto that says you can't reap what you don't sow is true; where you live constantly in an environment of understanding that, though you may have a good or a bad farm program, and like or not like what is going on in Congress, still the most important act you have is the act that occurs when you are on your knees in the morning, or in evening, or you are bowing your head at lunch or supper and praying and being grateful for what you have but hoping that Mother Nature delivers enough and the right amount of rain, enough and the right amount of other conditions that are necessary in order to produce this product. As the distinguished occupant of the Chair knows, being from Arkansas, food production is unusual because, unlike manufacturing businesses, it is produced out of doors. It may seem like an obvious fact, but in my businesses I regulate the environment. I have an air conditioner; I have a heater; I have a furnace that produces heat in the winter; and I have an air conditioner that produces cool air in the summertime. I can control that environment 365 days a year. I did get wiped out once by a tornado in 1975, but I don't, in the normal course of business, worry about hail or about not getting enough rain. I don't have a growing season where I can be wiped out with a single event, and I don't have all my annual sales gone just like that as a result of something way beyond my control. So we understand that we have basics that we are dealing with. I hope we understand that agriculture produces people with values. There is a rural policy aspect of our farm program that is not really economic. We want people to live in rural America. We understand that our program has to provide them with some hope of economic prosperity, and we understand that these farms produce more than just some thing, some commodity that has economic value. The question is how to do that. We had a great debate in 1995 over Freedom to Farm. Though I didn't vote for it, let me say that I was very sympathetic to the idea that the Government should not be out there regulating every single thing the farmer does. Under the old farm program, that happened. Farmers were saying to me: I am not making decisions anymore. All my decisions are made down at the Farm Service Agency. I have to go down and find out from USDA and Soil Conservation Service and other people what I can do before I make plans. They wanted those handcuffs taken off. They were also very uncomfortable and not happy with the Government's performance in owning grain reserves. They watched the Government operate those reserves at times that caused the price to go low and subsidies to go up, and then their neighbors were saying to them: You are farming for your welfare check. They didn't like being on welfare. I am not here this morning to attack Freedom to Farm, but I do think there are a number of things about our underlying law that deserve attention and deserve modification. First of all, we are spending way more than we thought we were going to spend. Last year, we spent $20 billion. It is estimated we will spend more than that this year. We have an Uruguay Round commitment not to spend more than $19 billion on production or price-related support. We are already at $12 billion to $13 billion, and there is an anticipation that there will be additional spending, especially for loan deficiency payments under the soybean program. The Commodity Credit Corporation is out of money for the first time since 1987. CCC borrowing has an authority of $30 billion, so this is not what we considered to be too low of a ceiling but with the combination of direct payments, loan deficiency payments, dairy price supports, and export programs, we have already exhausted what we thought was a generous amount of money to provide the Commodity Credit Corporation. These are all technicalities. (Mr. BURNS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. KERREY. Now we have a new ``Mr. President'' in the Chair with slightly different agriculture interests but still substantial agriculture interests. So I feel that I am speaking to a kindred spirit. I notify anybody who happens to be watching this on television that the occupant of the Chair is the only person here listening to me other than the pages and the staff. I appreciate very much that he is now looking at me. I appreciate that. Freedom to Farm was supposed to cost $43.5 billion over 7 years. It has cost more than that already. That is before we have an additional payment, which is likely to occur. We have 2 more years to go. I said earlier I am not attacking either Freedom to Farm or those who support it. I understand exactly why it was there. There are many aspects of it that I like a great deal. But I will offer, when it is an appropriate time, two amendments to this appropriations bill that I hope get due consideration by both supporters and opponents of Freedom to Farm. First of all, I will offer an amendment that will reestablish the farmer-owned reserves. I will offer it, as I said, as an amendment to the bill at the appropriate time. The farmer-owned reserve is a proven tool; it works. I will not offer documentation this morning, but I will if the debate becomes a serious debate. It is a tool that will increase market prices; it will decrease expenditures by the Government. History has shown that for feed grains every 100 million bushels removed from the immediate market stream increases prices 3 to 5 cents. Wheat is double that, 8 to 10 cents a bushel. This sets very strict release trigger points based upon existing loan rates, and though critics have said this puts a ceiling on the market price, a market price of $2.78 for corn and $4.12 for wheat looks rather appealing, I argue, both today and in the foreseeable future for any family out there producing either one of those two commodities. Increased market prices, not Government payments, are the most equitable way to provide income to farmers. The farmer-owned reserve is embraced in Nebraska as a commonsense way to help farmers without throwing out Freedom to Farm. The idea originally came to me in testimony that was offered by the Nebraska corn growers at a hearing that was conducted by Congressman Bill Barrett in Nebraska. The corn growers and the wheat growers have endorsed this idea. They understand that it has worked in the past. It is a way to decrease the payments that are being made by taxpayers and increase the margin of the price the farmers are receiving at the market. I hope when I have an opportunity to offer that amendment we can get by some of the normal ideological fears about the farm program itself and put this reasonable change into law. I also intend to offer an amendment to put the antitrust authority for agriculture on a par with the antitrust authority over other industries; that is, to remove it from Packers and Stockyards and take it under the law over to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. I would love for the jurisdiction to stay at USDA. By it staying at USDA, I retain authority as a result of being on the Agriculture Committee. I am not on the Judiciary Committee. I understand that I am surrendering some jurisdiction when I do that. But the fact is that the USDA will never have the resources to be as aggressive as Justice, and producers, in my view, who want competition, who want the marketplace to work now more than ever, need to know that somebody in Washington, DC, is going to be making certain that that marketplace is, indeed, competitive. The appropriations bill provides no new funding for Packers and Stockyards. Indeed, the recommendation is to provide $2.5 million less than last year's appropriations. I understand that last year's appropriations provided for a one-time revolving GIPSA. I criticize the committee for cutting GIPSA's budget. However, the fact still remains that Packers and Stockyards will have no additional resources next year. In the meantime, the Antitrust Division appropriations in Commerce- State-Justice is $14 million more than we had in 1999. To his credit, the President asked for an additional $600,000 to investigate packer competition. But not to his credit, the President proposed to pay for it with additional user fees, which the committee quite appropriately refused to do. It leaves us with the status quo. What I am hearing from Nebraska producers is, that is not enough. I pause to say that last year during debate in the Agriculture Appropriations Committee, I offered an amendment that would increase competition, that would provide for a change in the law so prices that were offered under contract or formula had to be reported. The distinguished occupant of the Chair, with his great courage, great wisdom, and great leadership, enabled that amendment to be agreed to in the agriculture appropriations. Unfortunately, it was stuck in the murky process that led to $500 million or $600 million being spent. It was dropped, unfortunately. We will be back to revisit that issue again. This is very much an issue that dovetails with mandatory price reporting. Earlier this year, Americans who went to motion pictures shows, who went to movie theaters to watch a movie, were concerned because in their communities they didn't have access to movies that were nominated for Academy Awards. They feared, quite correctly, that the theater owners were not allowing them to see movies that they wanted to see. There is a concentration of ownership in the theater business. So where did they go? They went to the Antitrust Division of Justice. Guess what. The Antitrust Division of Justice opens an investigation against concentration of ownership, trying to ask the question, Do we have competition in the marketplace, and is the lack of competition having a negative impact upon people who are consuming motion pictures, who go and spend 6 or 8 bucks--whatever it costs--in their local communities to see the movies that they wanted to see? They have the law on their side. People who go to motion picture shows have the law on their side. Our packers are out there saying, my gosh, if the Federal Government is willing to forcefully intervene on behalf of those consumers, why are they not willing to forcefully intervene on our side? We met with Joel Klein. We have met with other agencies of government. They say to us--especially Antitrust--that they simply lack authority. The Federal Trade Commission said the same thing to us--that the only thing we have on our side is the Packers and Stockyards Administration. But Congress constantly underfunds this agency. As a consequence, they have been either unable or unwilling, since this law has been enacted, to file any antitrust action against individuals who are out there in the business. I believe in the American way. I don't want anybody to be prevented from becoming as big and as prosperous as they want. These larger companies, in my view, are organizing for success. They contribute an enormous amount of tax revenue to the Federal Government. They contribute by building jobs. They are doing lots of really good things. But if you are going to have the United States of America be the land of opportunity, you have to have the rules written so that a man or woman who wants to start a small business has a chance to compete and has a chance with an operation with a small amount of resources. They are not going to have anybody lobby the Government. They are not likely to have the money to hire an accountant, or lawyer, or all of the other sorts of people you can hire when you became a larger entity. They are not likely, as a consequence of commanding fewer resources, to be able to survive by pricing their product under their cost for very darned long. As a result, they are vulnerable. That is why we have antitrust laws. The laws are there to protect not just the small businessperson but to protect the United States of America so that we are the land of opportunity. That is where the jobs are created. That is where the innovation occurs. I will offer this amendment transferring authority from Packers and Stockyards, regrettably, because, as I have said, I have jurisdiction over that, being a member of the Agriculture Committee, and I don't like to surrender jurisdiction. But the evidence to me is overwhelming. Consumers have somebody on their side in the Antitrust Division at Justice. Consumers and producers, when it comes to Packers and Stockyards, do not. In conclusion, as I said earlier, when it comes to the agriculture crisis, I intend to work in a bipartisan fashion. I know the distinguished occupant of the Chair is very concerned about what is going on in rural America today. I hope we are able to do much more than just talk. I don't intend to try to command an issue. I prefer to produce results. My hope is that either on this piece of legislation or at some later time we can take action and have the farmers in Nebraska and the farmers in Montana and the farmers in Oklahoma and throughout the country say they believe the Congress understands what is going on in rural America today and is making a concerted effort to finally do something about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I rise today in support of S. 886, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Helms and Senator Biden for their leadership in crafting this bipartisan bill. Simply put, the bill before us is a piece of national security legislation. I know we don't often think about the authorization of the State Department in these terms, but the truth is our first line of national defense is diplomacy. We in Congress have spent far too little of our time and resources on ensuring we have a strong, well-financed diplomatic corps. As a consequence we have failed to convince the American public of the importance of our foreign policy institution in maintaining U.S. national security. I recognize that it's much easier to explain to our constituents the importance of the Defense Authorization Bill to their safety and security. The tangible results of the Defense Authorization Bill--a well trained and well-equipped military force--is easily translatable into a sense of greater national security. Rather than tanks and fighter aircraft, this bill authorizes our diplomats and overseas embassies. It authorizes funding for U.S. participation in international organizations and foreign language broadcasting. It is much less obvious to the American people how these types of activities help protect America. Mr. President, they do. One of the most important lessons of the post-Communist era is the increasing importance of diplomacy. A failure of diplomacy in today's world is more likely to result in the need for the use of force. As one thinks about the instances in which the United States has been compelled to use military force in the last decade--from the Persian Gulf to Kosovo--each conflict was preceded by a breakdown of diplomacy, or at least an inability of diplomacy to solve the problem. During the Cold War, we relied on our military might to deter Soviet aggression. Today's threats are more diverse and must be countered, not only with military strength, but with strong intelligence and diplomatic capabilities. I intend to vote for this bill because I believe it is a positive step in strengthening our diplomatic capabilities. To begin, this bill would fully authorize the President's request for Diplomatic and Consular Programs. Just as we strive to have the best-trained and best- equipped military force in the world, we should do everything in our ability to create a diplomatic corps with unparalleled insights into how the world works. A key component of this is creating a State Department that is responsive, efficient, and capable. In my opinion, the integration of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) and the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) into the State Department has improved coordination of U.S. policy and led to greater effectiveness. For our diplomats to be successful, they must be reasonably safe. The bill contains a five-year authorization for a $3 billion program for embassy construction and upgrading U.S. diplomatic facilities overseas. The bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania taught us the painful lesson that too many of our diplomatic posts remain too vulnerable to terrorist attack. We can never guarantee absolute security, but this bill will make an immediate downpayment of $600 million to upgrade security and establish a process to identify those facilities most vulnerable and most in need of improvements. This bill further promotes U.S. national security by authorizing such programs as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Each of these are vital tools in our effort to promote democracy and provide hope to those people seeking to end totalitarian rule. The surest way to foster U.S. national security is to extend the benefits of democracy and the rule of law to people in places like Iraq and Cuba. Perhaps the most important component of S. 886 is the authorization to begin repayment of U.S. arrears to the United Nations. It may be surprising to many Americans that, due to our failure to meet our international financial obligations, the United States is perilously close to losing its vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations. Any member country with arrears equal to two years of its annual assessment automatically loses its right to vote in the General Assembly. Our failure to act on this issue by the end of the year will put the United States in such illustrious company as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia--each of which have also lost their voting rights. Some may question the need for U.S. participation in the United Nations. The simple fact is the multilateral nature of the U.N. improves our ability to confront global challenges. Our participation in the United Nations has helped to reduce the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program. Our participation in the United Nations has forced Libya to turn over the suspects from the Lockerbie bombing so that they may face justice. Just recently we sought support in the United Nations to strengthen our hand in Kosovo and provide multilateral support for the ongoing peace implementation effort. It's naive to believe that being the largest debtor nation at the U.N. will not have an increasingly negative impact on our ability to lead. Therefore, it is critically important that we pass this bill and set ourselves on the path to paying our debts. There is one group of my constituents that consistently understand the importance of U.S. foreign policy. Nebraska farmers and food processors know maintaining good diplomatic relations is essential to maintaining good markets for their products. They also understand that international conflict and instability can affect not only their prosperity, but their safety as well. I intend to vote for this bill because I believe it will increase the safety of the American people by strengthening our foreign policy institutions and improving our ability to avoid conflict.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Rural Education Initiative introduced by Senator Collins today, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important piece of legislation. The Rural Education Initiative takes a significant step toward ensuring that all young people have a shot at the American Dream. It addresses an important problem that many rural schools face: Often they receive small amounts of funding for a variety of programs, but they don't have the budget and personnel to develop and sustain multiple programs. Yet they still have students who need our help to raise their achievement levels and become productive, successful citizens. The Rural Education Initiative asks us to make a $125 million investment in rural schools. And it allows small rural districts to pool funds from a handful of federal programs and target funding in those areas where they see the greatest need and where the funding will have the greatest impact. But this legislation also ensures that districts remain accountable-- in exchange for increased flexibility, they must demonstrate improved performance. Over 70 percent of Nebraska's school districts are small, rural districts, as defined by this legislation. Currently Nebraska receives approximately $92 million in federal funds for elementary and secondary education. The Rural Education Initiative would increase that contribution by more than $10 million. Mr. President, recently I contacted Jim Havelka, superintendent of both Dodge and Howells Public Schools in Nebraska. Dodge has 175 students K-12, and Howells has 225 students K-12. I said, ``Jim, what do you need to do a better job of educating your kids?'' Jim said, ``You know, it's awfully hard to start a new initiative on $900. But if I could pool funds from a few programs, I could hire an experienced instructional technology teacher to help us make even better use of computer hardware and software that is so crucial in improving learning opportunities for our students. And I could share that instructor with 2 or 3 other schools. Keep Title I, special education, and other major programs intact, but give me a little flexibility with a few other programs, and I'll give you results.'' Mr. President, I intend to do what I can to help Jim and his students produce results. I believe that in addition to this initiative, we should increase our investment in Title I and in education technology, both of which are especially important to rural schools. I look forward to working with Senator Collins and the other cosponsors of this legislation to accomplish these goals as we move this legislation through Congress.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Rural Education Initiative introduced by Senator Collins today, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important piece of legislation. The Rural Education Initiative takes a significant step toward ensuring that all young people have a shot at the American Dream. It addresses an important problem that many rural schools face: Often they receive small amounts of funding for a variety of programs, but they don't have the budget and personnel to develop and sustain multiple programs. Yet they still have students who need our help to raise their achievement levels and become productive, successful citizens. The Rural Education Initiative asks us to make a $125 million investment in rural schools. And it allows small rural districts to pool funds from a handful of federal programs and target funding in those areas where they see the greatest need and where the funding will have the greatest impact. But this legislation also ensures that districts remain accountable-- in exchange for increased flexibility, they must demonstrate improved performance. Over 70 percent of Nebraska's school districts are small, rural districts, as defined by this legislation. Currently Nebraska receives approximately $92 million in federal funds for elementary and secondary education. The Rural Education Initiative would increase that contribution by more than $10 million. Mr. President, recently I contacted Jim Havelka, superintendent of both Dodge and Howells Public Schools in Nebraska. Dodge has 175 students K-12, and Howells has 225 students K-12. I said, ``Jim, what do you need to do a better job of educating your kids?'' Jim said, ``You know, it's awfully hard to start a new initiative on $900. But if I could pool funds from a few programs, I could hire an experienced instructional technology teacher to help us make even better use of computer hardware and software that is so crucial in improving learning opportunities for our students. And I could share that instructor with 2 or 3 other schools. Keep Title I, special education, and other major programs intact, but give me a little flexibility with a few other programs, and I'll give you results.'' Mr. President, I intend to do what I can to help Jim and his students produce results. I believe that in addition to this initiative, we should increase our investment in Title I and in education technology, both of which are especially important to rural schools. I look forward to working with Senator Collins and the other cosponsors of this legislation to accomplish these goals as we move this legislation through Congress.