J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks about a fellow Nebraskan and to celebrate the 30th anniversary of his legendary baseball season. ``Let us go forth a while and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our close rooms. The game of ball is glorious.''--Walt Whitman. Indeed, this year baseball has been ``glorious.'' The highlight of my job is traveling our state and going into communities to listen and learn. These learning discussions reflect the diverse and varied needs of our state, but this summer there has been one constant in all of my meetings. From Omaha to Ogallala, from Bellevue to Beatrice, everywhere throughout the State, Nebraskans have been talking baseball--specifically, the heroics of Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. This year's heroics have left me reminiscing about the 30th anniversary of another magical summer, this one in 1968, when the eyes of the world were trained on a native Nebraskan--the great Bob Gibson. The St. Louis Cardinal unleashed onto the baseball world quit possibly the best season a pitcher has ever thrown. Nebraskans have come together to watch McGwire and Sosa pursue the number 61 in a way no one thought possible. It was as if these two hitting giants entered a zone unknown to us mortals. Before this season, it seemed unheard of to even mention the numbers 70 and 66. Allowing us to follow in their chase was like joining two explorers on the verge of discovering a new world. The highlight of many a long day this season was to watch the nightly edition of ESPN's Sportcenter and see which man was setting history that day. At a time when divisions were tugging at the seams of our political system, baseball brought us together. Every American-- Republican or Democrat, right, left or center--found common ground in watching these baseball pioneers explore a new sports frontier. For me, only Bob Gibson's 1968 heroics match up with this season's, 1998 was as enjoyable as 1968 because of the tremendous season Bob Gibson had. As a New York Yankee fan, I have earlier, unhappier memories of Gibson. It was the 1964 World Series and the Cardinals were facing a tough Yankees lineup featuring Roger Maris, Mickey Mantle, and Whitey Ford. I was convinced the Bronx Bombers would win out. It was not to be. The determined Gibson won twice and finished off the series with a victory in the seventh and final game, earning the Most Valuable Player award. In 1968, Gibson was coming off another World Series MVP award as the Cardinals defeated Carl Yastrzemski's Red Sox the previous year. Gibson started that season with some hard luck losses and did not get going until late spring. But once he got going, there was no stopping this train. That summer I was in SEAL Team training in San Diego. A lot of people there were snarling, but none of them could match the menace Gibson wore on his face when he ascended the mound. When Gibson came to the mound, everyone in the park could feel his intensity. As his catcher, Tim McCarver, would say, he had the ``Look.'' It seemed as though Gibson could ``Look'' a strikeout before he even began his pitching motion. He was a command pitcher who mastered the edge he needed for each batter who dared to engage him in combat. His renowned discipline, his pure intimidation and his intellect for the game created a master craftsman in the art of pitching. Whether it be his blazing fastball or his snapping slider, the sight of Gibson with his right leg ominously moving from beginning to end, while unraveling his cannon of a right arm, exploding the unhittable white ball into the leather of the catcher's paws was a sight for all. In the beginning of June of 1968, Gibson began to unveil a performance so dominating, so powerful, it seemed as though the mystery of pitching had finally been solved and only Gibson had the blueprints, hand-delivered from the creators of the game. Starting in early June and finishing in early August, Gibson had thrown an astounding 10 shutouts. If not for one earned run against the Dodgers, Gibson would have finished with 71 straight scoreless innings, easily surpassing the record of 59 Orel Hershiser set in 1988. At one point, Gibson had pitched 95 innings, which is almost a half season for today's pitchers, and allowed only 2 earned runs, for an unheard-of ERA of 0.19. This season, Randy Johnson led baseball with six shutouts. In 1968, Gibson had 13, shutting out every team but the Dodgers. The end of Cal Ripken's streak this year reminded us of the value of baseball's work ethic. In 1968, Gibson was also a dominating workhorse, completing 28 of his 34 starts and going into the eighth inning in all but two. Led by his fastball and slider, Gibson was the league champion in strikeouts with 268. Recounting Gibson's 1968 season, Chicago Cubs Hall of Famer Billy Williams would say many right-handed batters suffered ``Gibbyitis''--a mysterious malady that would somehow take batters ill on the day their team faced Gibson. Gibson finished the 1968 season with a 1.12 ERA--which is the record for over 300 innings pitched, besting Walter Johnson's 1.14 in 1913. He won both the Cy Young Award and the MVP of the 1968 season, while also earning another Golden Glove Award for his strong fielding. His recordsetting exploits did not end in the regular season, as he set another Herculean record when he mercilessly fanned 17 Detroit Tigers in the World Series. Bob Gibson dominated 1968. While doing so, he marveled America with a performance so strong, so masterful, so historic, that it should be remembered at a time 30 years later when two others stunned the country with their mythical skills. Nebraskans should be proud that one of us could produce such a season. I want to thank baseball for 1968 and 1998, both `glorious' years.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has agreed to this Sense of the Senate Resolution which would provide funding for the maintenance, security, custodial and long-term care of the memorial by the National Park Service. This is a significant step forward in bringing the World War II Memorial to fruition. What this resolution does is put the Senate on record as supporting public funding of some sort for the World War II Memorial which will be placed on the National Mall--our nation's front yard. I felt this resolution necessary because of the continued structural problems confronting the Korean War Veterans Memorial, which lies in the same flood plain that the World War II Memorial will call home. I felt it necessary that the Senate take on some precautionary responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of what will be the most prominent memorial on the Mall. Next year, I intend to introduce legislation to fund not only maintenance, security, custodial and long-term care, but also construction costs to assist the Honorable Bob Dole in his fund-raising endeavor. I would again like to thank my colleagues, especially Senators Murkowski and Bumpers for their support and assistance.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I want to express my disappointment with H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Conference Report, and the decision of the Conference members to drop important provisions that would have helped our farmers. I voted for the Senate version of the bankruptcy bill because I believe it properly toughened provisions to keep bad seeds from filing for bankruptcy, while maintaining protections for consumers. I voted for the Senate bill because I worked hard to get important protections for farmers added to the bill. The Senate passed a bipartisan piece of legislation that not only was crafted in the best spirit of bipartisanship, but included valuable provisions to help our farmers, who are facing the worst economic crisis in a decade. I, along with my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, worked hard to add provisions to the Senate bill to specifically help family farmers by increasing debt limits so that inflation levels are factored into their debt calculations; ease regulations related to income acquired off of the farm by families trying to make ends meet; and help farmers better structure their debt in order to continue to prepare for next season's crops and livestock. All of these provisions were removed in the Conference Report. I come to the floor today to make something clear. I will not let the Conference Committee's decision to exclude these important protections for farmers be the final word. I plan on doing everything I can during these remaining days to get these much needed farming provisions included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report and I urge the President to sign this bill into law. This legislation is an essential part of Congress' annual duty to provide and direct the resources which safeguard the independence of the United States and the lives and livelihoods of the American people. Chairman Shelby's leadership and sustained effort throughout this year come to fruition in this excellent bill and I congratulate him. I also appreciate the vision and hard work of Chairman Goss and Ranking Member Dicks of the House Committee, together with the leadership of Chairman Young at the conference. This legislation, like the intelligence agencies it authorizes, seeks to maximize America's capabilities against today's threats while simultaneously building capability against the threats of 2010 and beyond. The Intelligence Community cannot be pulled back from its deployed status for retraining and retooling. It is operating tonight around the world, seeking to monitor every environment which could threaten America or our allies. But the Intelligence Community must also be able to master the steadily more complex technologies which will be tomorrow's threat environments. The outlines of the new century are apparent, as we see the continuing explosion of communications media, the global growth of strong encryption, and the increasing porosity of international borders, to mention just of the future that are already upon us. In response to challenges like these, the conference authorized the start or continuation of a number of new technology initiatives, including most of those the Senate supported previously. The Committee's efforts to advance intelligence technology were greatly assisted by a group of outside experts who formed a Technical Advisory Group to the Committee. They helped the Committee focus on the future of signals intelligence and the necessity for the National Security Agency to modernize itself, as well as how technology could better support human intelligence. Their contribution of time and expertise is paying off already for the country, and they deserve the thanks of all of us. Throughout the authorization process, the two intelligence committees have understood that their efforts to prepare U.S. intelligence to master the future must be bounded by budgetary realities. Most of the intelligence budget is dependent on a defense budget which, as we all know, is under severe pressure. The intelligence agencies have ambitious projects, and it is part of our job to set financial limits and time constraints and closely oversee the progress of these projects. The conferees placed a cost cap on the National Reconnaissance Office's Future Imagery Architecture for this reason. The bill also encourages competitive analysis of important and difficult intelligence topics. The Jeremiah Report which reviewed intelligence community performance following this year's Indian nuclear test and the Rumsfeld panel report on the ballistic missile threat both stress the need to use competitive analysis drawing on experts from both within and outside the government. This bill encourages that process. Analysis will grow stronger in the coming year, not only because of this legislation, but because there is now in place, under the Director of Central Intelligence, an Assistant Director for Analysis and Production. This official has not been confirmed by the Senate, although he may well be in the coming year, but he is already using the Director's authorities to make analysis in the Intelligence community more effective and efficient. He and his counterpart, the Assistant Director for Collection Management, and their supervisor, the Deputy Director for Community Management, are already by their actions validating Congress' wisdom in creating these positions. As I go to briefings and learn how these officials are marshaling resources in times of crisis, setting priorities, and identifying gaps, I am pleased with the work we did two years ago. Another aspect of the intelligence business should be praised, Mr. President, and that is the unparalleled level of cooperation between the agencies these days. The relationship between FBI and the CIA is particularly strong and it has paid off most recently in the investigation of the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Director Tenet and Director Freeh have overcome corporate cultures and bureaucratic impulses to forge a strong team for America and they deserve our thanks. Team-building and sound oversight both depend on the flow of information. The Senate had gone on record three times in defense of a Federal employee's right to bring classified information on wrongdoing to the appropriate committees of Congress. The House had devised a process by which such information could come to Congress while insuring the employee's privacy, making the employee's agency aware the information was going to Congress, and insuring the protection of sources and methods. The conference modified the House provision and agreed to make the information process faster. As one who has argued several times on this floor for the right of Congress to be informed, I am pleased with the conference outcome on this provision and with the work of both bodies. This legislation also recognizes the accomplishments of a great patriot, former President Bush, by naming the CIA Headquarters complex in his honor. From his initial service in World War II, President Bush has always stepped forward to do hard and sometimes dangerous work for his country. Leadership of the CIA has both characteristics. President Bush distinguished himself in that job, as in all his service, and I am pleased this legislation will honor him.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I introduce a piece of legislation that, I believe, takes an important step toward giving more individuals the ability to earn good wages so that they can support themselves and their families. This bill will allow community colleges to use their campus-based student aid to assist students who are concurrently enrolled in a high school and in a vocational-technical program in a community college. This legislation helps us solve a national problem, but it also helps more young people achieve the American Dream. We must recognize that a degree from a four-year college or university is not the only ticket to a successful, productive life. Only 60% of high school graduates enroll in college, and only 20% end up with a four-year degree. Community colleges are playing an increasingly important role in helping the other 80% of our students obtain the advanced technical training that is vital to our economy and to their futures. Today the Senate also passed the conference report that will reauthorize vocational education. I am pleased to have played a role in this process. At my request the conferees have included language that will encourage institutions to investigate opportunities for tech-prep secondary students to enroll concurrently in secondary and postsecondary coursework. The bill that I am introducing today builds upon this concept in a tangible way. As we address the need for highly skilled workers in Nebraska and throughout the nation, we must change the way that we think about our education system, and especially the way that we think about those students who are on the verge of graduation. We must make certain that a high school diploma has real value, that it says to an employer, ``I have the skills and the knowledge to make a valuable contribution to your business.'' This legislation allows community colleges to offer a helping hand to students who are still in high school but have exhausted the vocational-technical offerings and are ready and able to enroll in such programs at a community college. Throughout the nation many students are already dually enrolled, but either the school district pays the tuition or the student must pay it. In Nebraska, more than 100 students in Omaha Public Schools are dually enrolled. And more than 50 in Bellevue Public Schools are dually enrolled. Some students have the ability to enroll in a vocational-technical program, but they do not have the financial means. By making this change in law, community colleges can assist those students if they choose to do so. With a Federal commitment of $7,400,000 last year, Nebraska provided vocational and applied technology education to approximately 70,000 secondary students and 47,800 postsecondary students. This money is a wise investment, but we need to do more. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress next year to further our commitment to preparing our young people to achieve the American Dream.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I introduce a piece of legislation that, I believe, takes an important step toward giving more individuals the ability to earn good wages so that they can support themselves and their families. This bill will allow community colleges to use their campus-based student aid to assist students who are concurrently enrolled in a high school and in a vocational-technical program in a community college. This legislation helps us solve a national problem, but it also helps more young people achieve the American Dream. We must recognize that a degree from a four-year college or university is not the only ticket to a successful, productive life. Only 60% of high school graduates enroll in college, and only 20% end up with a four-year degree. Community colleges are playing an increasingly important role in helping the other 80% of our students obtain the advanced technical training that is vital to our economy and to their futures. Today the Senate also passed the conference report that will reauthorize vocational education. I am pleased to have played a role in this process. At my request the conferees have included language that will encourage institutions to investigate opportunities for tech-prep secondary students to enroll concurrently in secondary and postsecondary coursework. The bill that I am introducing today builds upon this concept in a tangible way. As we address the need for highly skilled workers in Nebraska and throughout the nation, we must change the way that we think about our education system, and especially the way that we think about those students who are on the verge of graduation. We must make certain that a high school diploma has real value, that it says to an employer, ``I have the skills and the knowledge to make a valuable contribution to your business.'' This legislation allows community colleges to offer a helping hand to students who are still in high school but have exhausted the vocational-technical offerings and are ready and able to enroll in such programs at a community college. Throughout the nation many students are already dually enrolled, but either the school district pays the tuition or the student must pay it. In Nebraska, more than 100 students in Omaha Public Schools are dually enrolled. And more than 50 in Bellevue Public Schools are dually enrolled. Some students have the ability to enroll in a vocational-technical program, but they do not have the financial means. By making this change in law, community colleges can assist those students if they choose to do so. With a Federal commitment of $7,400,000 last year, Nebraska provided vocational and applied technology education to approximately 70,000 secondary students and 47,800 postsecondary students. This money is a wise investment, but we need to do more. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress next year to further our commitment to preparing our young people to achieve the American Dream.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the McCain second- degree amendment which would extend the moratorium on States taxing Internet transactions from 3 years to 4. The Finance Committee had knocked it back to 2 years. We thought that was a reasonable length of time, given that we allowed 15 months to restructure the IRS; 18 months in getting the Medicare Commission to do its work. We believed that 2 years was a reasonable period of time. I was willing to go along with an extension of that from 2 years to 3. To go to 4 years is just much too long a time. This is an issue where the Federal Government is intervening, saying the States can't raise taxes in a certain way. This is, in my judgment, without precedent. I am willing to support this piece of legislation. I am willing to provide this moratorium so we can reach an understanding of how we will tax these transactions. But to allow 4 years--when we allow approximately 15 months in getting a commission to restructure the IRS, and 18 months in getting Medicare, Mr. President--is an unreasonable length of time. I hope my colleagues will vote against the McCain amendment. We have been contacted by our Governors who are actually asking us to go along with the Finance Committee, which was 2 years. As I said, I'm willing to support a compromise to 3 years, but 4 years, given the amount of time we have allowed for some things that are more complicated than this, it is unreasonable and too lengthy a period of time.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, what is the order of business?

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to urge the passage of H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act. Thanks to strong leadership in both Houses of Congress and thanks to the commitment of the Administration toward the goals we all share for Iraq and the region, this legislation is moving quickly. This is the point to state what this legislation is not, and what it is, from my understanding, and why I support it so strongly. First, this bill is not, in my view, and instrument to direct U.S. funds and supplies to any particular Iraqi revolutionary movement. There are Iraqi movements now in existence which could qualify for designation in accordance with this bill. Other Iraqis not now associated with each other could also band together and qualify for designation. It is for Iraqis, not Americans to organize themselves to put Saddam Hussein out of power, just as it will be for Iraqis to choose their leaders in a democratic Iraq. This bill will help the Administration encourage and support Iraqis to make their revolution. Second, this bill is not a device to involve the U.S. military in operations in or near Iraq. The Iraqi revolution is for Iraqis, not Americans, to make. The bill provides the Administration a potent new tool to help Iraqis toward this goal, and at the same time advance America's interest in a peaceful and secure Middle East. This bill, when passed and signed into law, is a clear commitment to a U.S. policy replacing the Saddam Hussein regime and replacing it with a transition to democracy. This bill is a statement that America refuses to coexist with a regime which has used chemical weapons on its own citizens and on neighboring countries, which has invaded its neighbors twice without provocation, which has still not accounted for its atrocities committed in Kuwait, which has fired ballistic missiles into the cities of three of its neighbors, which is attempting to develop nuclear and biological weapons, and which has brutalized and terrorized its own citizens for thirty years. I don't see how any democratic country could accept the existence of such a regime, but this bill says America will not. I will be an even prouder American when the refusal, and commitment to materially help the Iraqi resistance, are U.S. policy.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, during my October 5, 1998, floor statement on the 1999 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report, I referred to and inserted for the record a chart showing a state-by-state breakdown of the Democratic and Republican ag relief proposals. I wish to clarify that the chart was not generated by the Congressional Budget Office, but rather an estimate prepared by the Senate Agriculture Committee staff based on the aggregate CBO estimate of the cost to remove the caps placed on marketing loans in the 1996 Farm Bill. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to make this clarification.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Madam President, again, not only are our grain farmers adversely affected, but cattle producers and cattle processors have been as well. We have met extensively with our ranchers and our feeders, and they say to us two things need to happen, and they need to happen in order to improve our prices and increase the chances that we are going to get a market bid that is higher than what we are getting now. The first is mandatory reporting of prices, regardless of whether the prices occur in cattle that are owned by the feeder or cattle controlled through formula feeding, or some other contract by the packinghouse. Those prices today are not reported. We had extensive debate here on the floor about that issue. Unfortunately, the conferees dropped that. I believe that provision, all by itself, would increase prices for cattle in the United States, for beef, and would have a very positive impact as a consequence on our rural communities. Likewise, the meat labeling requirement included in the Senate bill was dropped by the conferees, and it is supported by almost all of the cattle organizations. There is some dispute on price reporting, although I think we can deal with the changes that we had in the conference language. There is almost no dispute, from the standpoint of the producer, on the need to put on the label information that allows the consumer to determine from where that product came. It is allowing the market to work. Rather than saying that the Government is going to impose a solution, we say inform the consumer where the product came from and let them decide. I hope, as I said in the beginning, that the President's veto of this conference report will lead to the conferees coming back quickly and looking, as no doubt they will, for ways to improve it along the lines of what the President has recommended. Not only are there tens of thousands of farmers who will survive if we can get this legislation passed and on to the President for his signature, as he has asked us to, but it will give us a chance to take a step in the direction of giving our rural communities a chance to survive. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY. Madam President, first of all, let me compliment the Senator from Mississippi for his usual articulate and persuasive fashion--always a gentleman, always wanting to work with us, regardless of momentary disagreements. I regret to say this is one of those momentary disagreements. I come to the floor today to offer arguments against this conference report. I had initially intended to offer a motion to recommit the report back to conference, but now that motion would be out of order since the House has reported it. I prefer that it go back to the conference rather than going on to the President. I appreciate very much the President indicating he will veto this bill. Perhaps if we can dispose of this conference report in a hurry, get the President's veto, the conferees can direct their attention to the objections the President has raised. Those objections are similar to the ones I will offer here this afternoon. Let me say, first of all, I do appreciate that there is bipartisan agreement that rural America is facing a real crisis. That is very good news. What the Senator from Mississippi said is quite right. There has been, throughout the year, a process of developing proposals, but there has been significant disagreement on one particular point; that is, taking the caps off the loan rate. We voted twice on that. It did not pass here in the Senate. I will talk about that later. I think, unfortunately, that ideological argument is getting in the way of our ability to be able to reach agreement. This conference report, I believe, fails in two areas: First, it does not achieve the goal of providing support, both to the farmers who grow the crop who are in serious trouble due to the prices, and those who are in trouble as a consequence of weather disasters. For livestock, this conference report fails to put the law on the sides of the producers and take action to make our markets work better. First, as to the amount of income support for grains, it is simply not enough. It is not targeted as it should be to the people growing our food. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial that appeared in the Lincoln Journal Star praising Congressman Doug Bereuter, a Republican from Nebraska, who represents the First Congressional District. Congressman Bereuter also objected to the plan in the conference report as not sufficiently generous to meet the needs of agriculture under current economic conditions; that the $4 billion in aid should be closer to $7 billion in aid that the budget has requested. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERREY. Madam President, as to the income, the proposal in the conference report would be, approximately, for corn, 7 cents a bushel. That does not get the farmer much closer to either recovering the cost of production nor providing his banker confidence to lend him money again next year, and significantly, of all the tests that I trust as to whether or not the President's proposal should be a part of the conference report or not, economists will come forward and argue on both sides of practically any proposal you come out with. The Independent Bankers of America have endorsed taking the caps off the loan rate, not because it provides more income, and by no means does it provide a sufficient amount of income that we won't still have significant people going broke, but because it is attached to a marketing loan, it increases the chances that farmers who will need operating loans will be able to get them. Likewise, this conference report is inadequate because provisions were dropped that were passed in the Senate in July, which were to require price reporting for beef, and meat labeling requirements as well. The conferees have said to farmers and ranchers that they think the livestock markets work just fine. But I am here in a brief period of time to say that the markets are not working. Cattle feeders and ranchers have lost more than $2 billion in equity this year, with millions more being lost every week. When I am home-- typically every weekend--the people in Nebraska are worried about their financial stability and they believe that this Agriculture appropriations bill, with the disaster package attached to it, will be terribly important for their financial stability. More deeply than just the money, they are worried about their way of life, because, in the final analysis, this debate is about much more than just the size and makeup of a relief package; it is about the future of rural America. We can see the future of our small towns and rural areas very clearly right now, and it doesn't look good, with prices low and economic conditions as hard as they are on our farms and ranches. Those who are not driven off the land in this crisis have already found that their children are not interested in the life farming has to offer. Two weeks ago, in Scottsbluff, I held a town hall meeting, and 60 people were in the room who are involved directly in production agriculture. I asked how many of them had children who would take over the farms, and I didn't get a single affirmative answer. Those with grown children had already lost them to the cities. Others said, ``There is no opportunity out here.'' That is what this Congress has the ability to change, and we can start with this piece of legislation. We need an agricultural sector that offers some opportunity, but first we must bring some stability to that agricultural sector. Again, I am pleased the President is going to veto it. Let me talk of the differences, specifically to our States. Again, I heard the distinguished Senator from Mississippi talk about economists who are saying taking the caps off of loan rates could have a depressing impact on price. I have not come to the floor and said that Freedom to Farm produced these lower prices. I think the lower prices are clearly there as a consequence of a declining demand in the international marketplace. Nobody is forecasting that demand is going to come back in 1999. Nobody expects the decline in exports to increase. I wish this Congress had been able to pass fast-track legislation. I have supported it in the past. I believe that, long term, it would help. But in the short term, we see substantial declines in income that are there as a consequence of this decline in demand and increased production that has occurred here in America. This package in the conference report versus what the President asked for is substantially different. I pointed this out before, and it bears repeating. In Nebraska, the difference is $434 million of income--this does not go to State government or county government; it goes to individual farm families--versus $177 million, almost a quarter of a million dollars. In Mississippi, it is $145 million versus $71 million. In Minnesota, it is $483 million versus $227 million. I ask unanimous consent that this table, which shows the differences between the package in the conference report and what the President has asked for be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, one of the things we had hoped to do with this legislation is to get consideration similar to the disaster request which we all know will occur as a result of this hurricane. We have experienced this before. The Nation comes together as a country; suddenly we are Americans. A U.S. Senator asked to help the people in Mississippi, the distinguished majority leader's State. In Alabama, probably Florida as well, and Louisiana, clearly there are damages. Here comes a natural disaster. Here comes Hurricane Georges. Nobody could have prepared for that hurricane. It has destroyed people's lives, cost them hope. What will happen is, a disaster declaration will be made, a request will come to the Congress to put the law of the country on their side, to give them opportunity and hope again. That is what the law can do at its best; it can give people hope. I know this very well, I say to my friend from North Dakota. About a year and a half in a business, in 1975, a tornado hit Omaha, NE, and I thought we were pretty much out of business as a result of the tornado having blown us away. However, I come to find out, 2 days later, that Mayor Zorinsky, the mayor of Omaha at the time and the man who preceded me in the U.S. Senate, requested from the President of the United States, Republican President Gerald Ford, a disaster declaration, and the law was put on our side. It gave us a chance to build our business back, gave us a chance to pursue our dream. That is what the law tends to do. That is what the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts was talking about earlier. I get hundreds of calls a year, and, more than any other issue, people say, ``Senator, I don't have any power when I am dealing with an HMO; can you change the law and give me some power? Can you help me in dealing with this entity?'' We are trying to change the law not to create a bureaucracy but to give people some hope. My expectation will be, when the disaster declaration occurs for these southern States, it won't be a partisan issue, it won't be Republicans and Democrats, it will be U.S. Senators and U.S. Members of the House of Representatives rallying to try to make certain that people in the southern part of the country that have been damaged by this disaster are given some hope or given some opportunity. I say to my friend from North Dakota, I was surprised, as you were, late Monday night when the House conference on appropriations for agriculture rejected the President's request for disaster assistance for the Middle West that has been destroyed and damaged by a natural disaster, a decline in demand that has produced losses across the board in agriculture. Still the most important part of our economy, creating more jobs than any other sector of our economy, and farmers throughout the bread belt of the United States, the bread basket of the United States, have lost hope. I was very surprised that it would occur on a straight party line vote that Members--who will likely say yes if the President puts down a disaster declaration request for the hurricane-- voted no. I say to my friend from North Dakota, they say, ``We are reopening Freedom to Farm; that is the reason I'm to vote no.'' I ask my friend from North Dakota if he is aware of the kind of income contribution that this disaster declaration will make to our States. There are many times when I come down here and deal with a piece of legislation and I ask myself, Will this have an impact on Nebraska? Will they feel it?--especially when I am talking to Nebraskan farmers out harvesting right now and who might not have seen what happened Monday night. Are you sure this will help? In Nebraska, the difference between what the President asked for and what the House conference, on a straight party line vote, voted for is $257 million. Rest assured, if this was a transportation grant, our entire delegation would be united. There is no Republican or Democrat differential when we are trying to get a $250 million grant for Nebraska. Yet there is a decision here as a consequence of this Freedom to Farm argument--$257 million worth of income to Nebraska. I have written the Midwestern Governors' Association and the Governors in those associations urging them to call their delegation as a consequence of not just what their State will lose but what their farmers are going to lose. Two hundred and fifty-seven million dollars' worth of income on Main Street America, in Main Street Nebraska, will make a lot of difference not just to farmers but to whether or not the businesses on Main Street will survive. In Iowa, the amount of money is $365 million. I have written Governor Branstad and urged in an immediate letter: ``Governor, weigh in on this, because you are about to lose $365 million''; to the Governor of Illinois: ``You are about to lose $341 million''; in Indiana, $182 million; in Kansas, $195 million; in Minnesota, $256 million; in North Dakota, $115 million; in Ohio, $133 million; in South Dakota, $149 million; in Wisconsin, $80 million. There are Senators from these Midwestern States who voted no for ideological reasons, because they don't want to reopen the Freedom to Farm. I don't understand that. This would make a tremendous difference in our being able to get through this recession. The President asked for a disaster declaration. As I said, I have written all of the Governors in these States putting out an appeal. It will occur when each one of these Governors are going to come to us and ask for considerably less, and the beauty of this is that it doesn't go to the Government, it goes to individual family farmers; it increases their income and makes it likely to get their operating loans extended for another year. I ask my friend if he is aware of the tremendous change in income pictures that will occur as a consequence of what the President has asked for and what the conferees turned down. Again, I ask a second question of my friend from North Dakota. He has had plenty of town hall meetings, just as I have. I am asked, ``How do we persuade those easterners to go along with us?'' The problem doesn't appear to be easterners, or people on the west coast either. Both Senators from California, both Senators from Connecticut, both Senators from Maryland, both Senators from Massachusetts, both Senators from Nevada, both Senators from New Jersey--even though they are not going to benefit--did precisely what the Senator from North Dakota said earlier. It is not just important for us to come here and defend our region, our Nation is in trouble. Our Nation is suffering as a consequence of the crisis and the disaster occurring in the Midwest right now. We are going to respond. We are going to vote aye because we know that we need to pull together as a country. I am sure that it is likely to be 100-0 when it comes time to decide whether or not we are going to respond to a disaster in the southern States that has occurred as a consequence of this hurricane. I come to the floor, Mr. President, to ask the Senator from North Dakota if he is aware of the tremendous amount of assistance that each one of these States is going to get, and if he, as well, hears from his farmers when he goes home, ``How do we persuade the folks on the east and west coasts that we have a problem out there that needs to be addressed?''

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, just briefly, I appreciate very much the answer the Senator from North Dakota has provided. I want to make it clear again that I put out an SOS to the Governors of the Midwestern region, pointing out to them what they are about to lose. To the Governor of Illinois, $341 million of additional income to the State of Illinois. Is that going to make every farmer in Illinois prosperous? No. For all of the free market, plenty of people are still going to go broke in Illinois even at that. But $341 million, I say to the Governor. It is the same way in Indiana--$182 million; Iowa, $365 million; Kansas, $195 million; Michigan, $60 million; Minnesota, $250 million; Missouri, $120 million; Nebraska, $250 million; North Dakota, $115 million; Ohio, $133 million; South Dakota, $150 million; Wisconsin, $80 million. I have been a part of the Midwestern Governors Association. During the agriculture crisis, there was the appeal that we made to Congress. Our income is declining; our tax revenues are going down; we are not able to support our schools--many of the things that happen as a consequence of things beyond our control. We found a positive response in the Republican Congress in the 1980s. We came and made the appeal. The Congress responded with the new farm bill which helped us enormously. Mr. President, I hope this little presentation or request of the Governors, as well as our correspondence to the Governors, will produce a response. I hope and I pray that sometime in the next 10 days we can, as we most assuredly will--when the majority leader comes to the floor on behalf of Mississippians, and many other people in the South who have been damaged by Hurricane Georges, we are not going to walk down here with a partisan hat and say, ``That is the majority leader, he is a Republican, and for ideological reasons I am going to say no.'' We will say yes. I hope in the next 10 days that we can find a way on this Agriculture appropriations bill to send this bill back to conference and instruct the conferees to do the right thing, which is to grant the President's request for the disaster assistance, which will brighten the days of not just American farmers but also Americans who understand that our livelihood depends upon their success and their prosperity. I hope we are able to take our partisan hats off and deal with this thing as U.S. Senators and not as Republicans or Democrat Senators.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, earlier this year Nebraska was recognized (along with our friends from Michigan) for being the best college football team in the land. But yesterday brought even better news about a number one ranking for Nebraska. As reported in the Omaha World-Herald, the Nebraska school system has been recognized in a recent national study as ranking first in the Nation when it comes to teachers using the Internet in the classroom. Mr. President, I ask that the article, ``Nebraska is Number One in Classroom Internet Use'' by Melissa Matczak and Michael O'Connor be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The World-Herald reported that a study released yesterday by Education Week, a national education newspaper, says Nebraska has the highest percentage of schools where at least half of the teachers use the Internet for instruction. I am not surprised by this ranking, and neither are Nebraska educators. In rural States, the Internet has become an indispensable educational tool for teachers and students. And for quite some time Nebraska has been at the forefront in connecting our classrooms to the Internet as well as in realizing the benefits of distance learning. I offer my great congratulations to Nebraska educators and educational service units, Governor Nelson and the many State and local officials who made this possible. We should be very proud. The article follows: [From the World-Herald, Sept. 29, 1998] Nebraska Is Number One in Classroom Internet Use (By Melissa Matczak and Michael O'Connor) In a tiny school district in western Nebraska, students use the Internet to chat to children in Iceland, sharing stories on rural life. Across the state in Omaha, middle-school students track space shuttles via the Internet. In some Nebraska schools, using the Internet is becoming as common as flipping open a textbook. A national study recognizes that, ranking Nebraska No. 1 when it comes to teachers using the Internet in the classroom. A report released Tuesday by Education Week, a national education newspaper, says Nebraska has the highest percentage of schools where at least half of the teachers use the Internet for instruction. Iowa ranks fourth in the report, tied with Minnesota. Nebraska education officials say the results don't surprise them. In largely rural states, they say, the Internet is fast becoming an important classroom tool. ``It helps eat up the distance,'' said Jim Lukesh, a technology administrator with the Nebraska Department of Education. ``We've got a lot of small schools that are going to be able to get things over the Internet that they wouldn't be able to get otherwise.'' The report is based on a survey of predominantly public schools that rates each state on schoolchildren's access to computers and computer training available to teachers. In 64 percent on Nebraska's schools, at least half of the teachers use the Internet for instruction, the highest percentage in the country. In Iowa and Minnesota, the figure is 46 percent. Nevada had the lowest ranking, 13 percent. Other states near the bottom were Alabama at 21 percent, Georgia at 22 and Louisiana and Florida at 23 percent. Wayne Fisher, the Internet program specialist for the Nebraska Department of Education, said policy-makers have pushed for Internet access in the state's schools. Lack of Internet training for teachers also had been a concern, but state education officials say gains have been made in that area. Five years ago, about $500,000 was spent to train teachers from across the state on how to integrate the Internet into classroom lessons. The money came from a portion of a half- cent tax levied by educational service units. About two years later, the Legislature passed a law requiring every school district to be hooked up to the Internet by the year 2000. To help the districts pay for the technology, about $13 million was shifted from a school loan program to a school technology program. Schools used the money to pay for wiring their buildings for Internet use. An $89 million bond issue approved last year is helping the Millard School District continue its push to increase Internet access. The district plans to spend at least $4 million in bond money over the next five to six years to add Internet connections and purchase new computers. Classrooms now have at least one connection. The goal is to have four. It's not just large districts such as the 18,800-student Millard school system that have made the Internet a priority. The 1,400-student Seward School District west of Lincoln started increasing Internet access a few years ago. Now all but several classrooms are connected. ``We have a community that thinks it's very important,'' Superintendent Marshall Adams said. It's a tremendous teaching tool.'' Fisher said the Internet allows students--especially those in rural isolated areas of the state-to branch out. ``Students and schools always struggle to learn beyond the walls of the classroom,'' he said. Iowa's Internet push received a boost two years ago when the Legislature approved an education measure providing $30 million a year for five years for technology. School districts receive funding based on enrollment. the money also can be used to train teachers in using the Internet and other technology. ``It's been a priority,'' said Klark Jessen, an Iowa Department of Education spokesman.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the situation in Iraq and to urge my colleagues to support the legislation introduced by the Majority Leader today. I spoke on Iraq on this floor last November and again in February, but Saddam Hussein is still in power, still threatening his neighbors and oppressing his people, so I must turn again to this topic. In fact, I will keep turning to it, joining my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, trying to change U.S. policy toward Iraq, because I cannot abide the idea of Saddam Hussein as the dictator of Iraq and I will never accept the status quo in Iraq. One of three things will happen, Mr. President: Saddam Hussein will lose his job, I will lose my job, or I will keep talking about him on this floor. 1998 has unfortunately brought us a new and less advantageous situation in our relationship with Iraq. First of all, other threats have pushed Iraq into the background. Asia's recession and the collapse of the Russian ruble have sent shock waves through all the emerging markets. Economic instability is usually the harbinger of political instability, which in turn threatens the peace between nations and the ability of weakened nations to maintain their own security. The Indian-Pakistani nuclear confrontation and the unravelling of Russia's military are two highly significant examples of this trend. Russia's crisis is particularly important because our security and that of our allies depends on Russia keeping its nuclear weapons and fissile materials out of the hands of the rogue states and terrorist groups which would deliver them to us, either by ballistic missile or by the rented or stolen truck favored by terrorists. Terrorism may or may not actually be on the rise, but terrorists have recently shown the intention and ability to attack American targets overseas. As we confront organizations like that of Usama bin Ladin, we come face to face with people who will go to great efforts to kill Americans, and we react strongly. In the aftermath of events like the bombing of Khobar Towers or the two embassies in Africa, we naturally move terrorism to the forefront of our threat concerns. As peace is gradually made in the world's most intractable ethnic and religious conflicts, terrorism ought to decline, but our rationality can not penetrate terrorist motivation. In addition, there is proliferation. Rogue missiles and their deadly cargoes are rapidly developing, and spreading: the North Korean launch follows launches by Pakistan and Iran and tests of nuclear weapons in both India and Pakistan. The trend in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is running against us as an increasing number of countries come to view these missiles as a low-cost way of placing the U.S. and our allies at risk without expending the resources to confront us militarily across the board. In a way, Iraq during the Gulf War was the precursor of this kind of thinking: they entered the war with a big army and air force, but in the end the only thing that made them a serious and deadly opponent was their arsenal of SCUD missiles. SCUDs and the like may be 1950's technology, but armed with biological, chemical, or nuclear warheads, these missiles are equalizers in 1998. And so, in this time of uncertainty and change, we rank the threats to our national life and to our individual lives and livelihoods, and we tend to forget Iraq. It is an old threat, after all, and we have lived with it for all this decade. In addition, Iraq seems held in check by its neighbors and by economic sanctions. Yet although the Iraqi threat may appear to be dormant, in fact the risk we and our allies run from the continuation of Saddam Hussein in power is in fact greater than it has been for years. We know, most recently and unambiguously from the former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, that Iraq's program to develop weapons of mass destruction continues. We know that more than fifty days have elapsed since the last UNSCOM weapons inspection. Almost two months of immunity have been granted to a regime which used chemical weapons on its own people, which seeks biological weapons, and which had an active and advanced nuclear weapons program. Further, Iraqi regime rhetoric, stated most recently by Tariq Aziz at the U.N. General Assembly meeting this week, notifies us that Iraq will no longer accept UNSCOM monitoring, at least not in an effective form. So Iraq's neighbors, and we, can expect to be threatened by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction of ever-growing lethality in coming years, with no collective international action to halt it. Saddam Hussein pays for his weapons programs by smuggling oil, at which he is getting more proficient, and by diverting resources which should be going to the Iraqi people. His military may be less capable than before the Gulf War, but his troops could still overwhelm the remaining areas of Iraqi Kurdistan outside his control. They could move north at any time or attack pockets of resistance in the southern marsh areas. It is strongly in America's interest that Iraq's neighbors and our allies in the region live in peace and security. That interest alone more than justifies a policy to change the Iraqi government. But there is an additional reason which ought to have particular resonance in the United States. Mr President, I refer to the need to free the Iraqi people from one of the most oppressive dictatorships on earth. We Americans, who have striven for more than two centuries to govern ourselves, should particularly feel the cruel anomaly which is the Iraqi government. In an age in which democracy is in the ascendant, in which democracy is universally recognized as a government's seal of legitimacy, the continued existence of a Stalinist regime like the one in Baghdad should inspire us to action. Saddam Hussein rules by raw fear. In terms of absolutism, personality cult, and terror applied at every level of society, only North Korea rivals Iraq today. The existence of such a government is a daily affront to every freedom- loving person, to everyone who is revolted by the degradation of our fellow human beings. I refuse to accept it, and I want the United States to refuse to accept it. As I have said on this floor before, when Saddam's prisons and secret police records and burial grounds are opened, when the Iraqis can at last tell their horrifying story to the international court which will try Saddam for his many crimes against his own people, we Americans will be proud we took this stand. Mr. President, over the past year we have made some progress toward a policy of replacing the Iraqi regime. The Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill passed by this body included funding for assistance to Iraqi opposition movements and for broadcasting to Iraq. The Administration has proposed a program to assist the Iraqi opposition abroad, to link the different groups together and get them organized. I support all these efforts, but they don't go far enough. The legislation before us takes the additional steps which indicate full commitment to helping the Iraqi people get rid of Saddam and his regime: the legislation states the commitment, and it enables the Administration to supply military assistance to the Iraqi opposition. Mr. President, should this legislation come into effect, we and the Administration should be prepared for the possibility that the Iraqi opposition may use the military equipment they receive, together with their own resources, to liberate some portion of Iraq. As I have said before that will be the time for the United States to recognize the opposition as Iraq's government and lift economic sanctions on the liberated part of the country. At this time in history, when some in the world seem ready to set aside their moral scruples and interact with Saddam, when the UNSCOM inspection system is at grave risk, when Saddam may attempt to break free of the sanctions which have restrained him since the Gulf War, it is urgent for the United States to clearly state its implacable opposition to Saddam and his regime. This legislation is the way to do that, and to simultaneously help Iraqis make their revolution. Besides strengthening the Iraqi opposition, this legislation tells Iraqis to keep up hope. It enables the Administration to tell Iraqis we know how bad Saddam is, we have the facts on him, and we will not rest until we see him in court. Iraqis will also learn that we understand the need to deal with the burden of debt Saddam has incurred, and we will work with Iraq's international creditors to find a solution for a post-Saddam Iraq. Iraqis will learn of our commitment to provide humanitarian assistance and democracy transition assistance to a post-Saddam Iraq. They will learn that an Iraq committed to democracy will be a welcome member in the family of nations. As they learn what we have done and what we are prepared to do, the Iraqi people will be our allies in an enterprise which will make them free, and America and its allies more secure.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. As our economy becomes increasingly knowledge-based, this legislation represents an important step in helping individuals achieve the American Dream. A college degree expands learning horizons and increases professional opportunities. One of the most satisfying efforts we can make as public officials and legislators is helping Americans acquire the knowledge and skills needed to seize these opportunities. This bipartisan conference agreement makes important strides both in improving the education students receive within colleges and universities and in increasing access to higher education. Nationwide we have about 10 million students enrolled in four-year and two-year public colleges and universities. About 83,000 of those students are in school in Nebraska. We have about 2.5 million in private institutions--19,000 in Nebraska. This legislation helps those students stay in college and also opens the door for more students to obtain a college degree. Approximately $50 billion in this bill is devoted to postsecondary grants and loans for students. This is a wise investment for all Americans because this financial assistance to obtain higher education helps individuals increase their earning power once they graduate. When we increase the income of Americans, we reduce spending and in turn reduce the tax burden on our citizens. According to the US Census, college graduates make an average of $600,000 more over their lifetime than do individuals without a college degree. That differential has doubled in the last 15 years. An individual with a bachelors degree can expect to earn $1.4 million over the course of a lifetime. With a professional degree, that person can earn over $3 million in a lifetime. But currently, only 60% of high school graduates go on to college, and by the time they are 25 years old, only about 25% have a college degree. We need to focus more attention on those students who do not enroll in four-year institutions. For those students we need to create a more seamless transition from high school to the workplace, and we need to encourage those students to take advantage of the opportunities that community colleges offer. For those students who choose to seek a college degree, this legislation helps to make college more affordable. For instance, it cuts the student loan interest rate from 8.25% to 7.46%, which will save approximately $11 billion for students over the life of their loans. In addition it increases aid to the neediest of students by increasing the authorization for maximum Pell Grants to $4,500 for 1999-2000. We still have much work to do as we try to figure out how to make higher education more affordable, but this bill is a step in the right direction. The bill also authorizes $300 million to make significant improvements in teacher training. It establishes grants to partnerships between teacher education institutions and school districts to produce highly skilled teachers who are competent not only in their content area but also in the use of technology. It also encourages partnerships that recruit and train teachers to serve in high-need schools. In addition, it supports state-level efforts to improve teacher quality through State Teacher Quality Enhancement grants, which strengthen teacher certification standards and create alternative pathways into the teaching profession. I am also pleased to contribute personally to this legislation in a number of ways. The bill authorizes a Web-Based Education Commission which will study the issue of quality control in educational software and determine the need for a Federal role in helping parents, students, and teachers identify high-quality educational software. With Senator Wellstone and others, I helped expand student-aid eligibility for distance learning programs so that more non-traditional students will be able to obtain a college degree. We also worked together to achieve a $10 million authorization for Learn Anytime Anywhere Partnerships, which will provide competitive grants to partnerships between schools, community organizations, and other public and private institutions to develop innovative distance education models. Mr. President, this is a good piece of legislation, and I am happy to be a part of it.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the situation in Iraq and to urge my colleagues to support the legislation introduced by the Majority Leader today. I spoke on Iraq on this floor last November and again in February, but Saddam Hussein is still in power, still threatening his neighbors and oppressing his people, so I must turn again to this topic. In fact, I will keep turning to it, joining my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, trying to change U.S. policy toward Iraq, because I cannot abide the idea of Saddam Hussein as the dictator of Iraq and I will never accept the status quo in Iraq. One of three things will happen, Mr. President: Saddam Hussein will lose his job, I will lose my job, or I will keep talking about him on this floor. 1998 has unfortunately brought us a new and less advantageous situation in our relationship with Iraq. First of all, other threats have pushed Iraq into the background. Asia's recession and the collapse of the Russian ruble have sent shock waves through all the emerging markets. Economic instability is usually the harbinger of political instability, which in turn threatens the peace between nations and the ability of weakened nations to maintain their own security. The Indian-Pakistani nuclear confrontation and the unravelling of Russia's military are two highly significant examples of this trend. Russia's crisis is particularly important because our security and that of our allies depends on Russia keeping its nuclear weapons and fissile materials out of the hands of the rogue states and terrorist groups which would deliver them to us, either by ballistic missile or by the rented or stolen truck favored by terrorists. Terrorism may or may not actually be on the rise, but terrorists have recently shown the intention and ability to attack American targets overseas. As we confront organizations like that of Usama bin Ladin, we come face to face with people who will go to great efforts to kill Americans, and we react strongly. In the aftermath of events like the bombing of Khobar Towers or the two embassies in Africa, we naturally move terrorism to the forefront of our threat concerns. As peace is gradually made in the world's most intractable ethnic and religious conflicts, terrorism ought to decline, but our rationality can not penetrate terrorist motivation. In addition, there is proliferation. Rogue missiles and their deadly cargoes are rapidly developing, and spreading: the North Korean launch follows launches by Pakistan and Iran and tests of nuclear weapons in both India and Pakistan. The trend in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is running against us as an increasing number of countries come to view these missiles as a low-cost way of placing the U.S. and our allies at risk without expending the resources to confront us militarily across the board. In a way, Iraq during the Gulf War was the precursor of this kind of thinking: they entered the war with a big army and air force, but in the end the only thing that made them a serious and deadly opponent was their arsenal of SCUD missiles. SCUDs and the like may be 1950's technology, but armed with biological, chemical, or nuclear warheads, these missiles are equalizers in 1998. And so, in this time of uncertainty and change, we rank the threats to our national life and to our individual lives and livelihoods, and we tend to forget Iraq. It is an old threat, after all, and we have lived with it for all this decade. In addition, Iraq seems held in check by its neighbors and by economic sanctions. Yet although the Iraqi threat may appear to be dormant, in fact the risk we and our allies run from the continuation of Saddam Hussein in power is in fact greater than it has been for years. We know, most recently and unambiguously from the former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, that Iraq's program to develop weapons of mass destruction continues. We know that more than fifty days have elapsed since the last UNSCOM weapons inspection. Almost two months of immunity have been granted to a regime which used chemical weapons on its own people, which seeks biological weapons, and which had an active and advanced nuclear weapons program. Further, Iraqi regime rhetoric, stated most recently by Tariq Aziz at the U.N. General Assembly meeting this week, notifies us that Iraq will no longer accept UNSCOM monitoring, at least not in an effective form. So Iraq's neighbors, and we, can expect to be threatened by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction of ever-growing lethality in coming years, with no collective international action to halt it. Saddam Hussein pays for his weapons programs by smuggling oil, at which he is getting more proficient, and by diverting resources which should be going to the Iraqi people. His military may be less capable than before the Gulf War, but his troops could still overwhelm the remaining areas of Iraqi Kurdistan outside his control. They could move north at any time or attack pockets of resistance in the southern marsh areas. It is strongly in America's interest that Iraq's neighbors and our allies in the region live in peace and security. That interest alone more than justifies a policy to change the Iraqi government. But there is an additional reason which ought to have particular resonance in the United States. Mr President, I refer to the need to free the Iraqi people from one of the most oppressive dictatorships on earth. We Americans, who have striven for more than two centuries to govern ourselves, should particularly feel the cruel anomaly which is the Iraqi government. In an age in which democracy is in the ascendant, in which democracy is universally recognized as a government's seal of legitimacy, the continued existence of a Stalinist regime like the one in Baghdad should inspire us to action. Saddam Hussein rules by raw fear. In terms of absolutism, personality cult, and terror applied at every level of society, only North Korea rivals Iraq today. The existence of such a government is a daily affront to every freedom- loving person, to everyone who is revolted by the degradation of our fellow human beings. I refuse to accept it, and I want the United States to refuse to accept it. As I have said on this floor before, when Saddam's prisons and secret police records and burial grounds are opened, when the Iraqis can at last tell their horrifying story to the international court which will try Saddam for his many crimes against his own people, we Americans will be proud we took this stand. Mr. President, over the past year we have made some progress toward a policy of replacing the Iraqi regime. The Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill passed by this body included funding for assistance to Iraqi opposition movements and for broadcasting to Iraq. The Administration has proposed a program to assist the Iraqi opposition abroad, to link the different groups together and get them organized. I support all these efforts, but they don't go far enough. The legislation before us takes the additional steps which indicate full commitment to helping the Iraqi people get rid of Saddam and his regime: the legislation states the commitment, and it enables the Administration to supply military assistance to the Iraqi opposition. Mr. President, should this legislation come into effect, we and the Administration should be prepared for the possibility that the Iraqi opposition may use the military equipment they receive, together with their own resources, to liberate some portion of Iraq. As I have said before that will be the time for the United States to recognize the opposition as Iraq's government and lift economic sanctions on the liberated part of the country. At this time in history, when some in the world seem ready to set aside their moral scruples and interact with Saddam, when the UNSCOM inspection system is at grave risk, when Saddam may attempt to break free of the sanctions which have restrained him since the Gulf War, it is urgent for the United States to clearly state its implacable opposition to Saddam and his regime. This legislation is the way to do that, and to simultaneously help Iraqis make their revolution. Besides strengthening the Iraqi opposition, this legislation tells Iraqis to keep up hope. It enables the Administration to tell Iraqis we know how bad Saddam is, we have the facts on him, and we will not rest until we see him in court. Iraqis will also learn that we understand the need to deal with the burden of debt Saddam has incurred, and we will work with Iraq's international creditors to find a solution for a post-Saddam Iraq. Iraqis will learn of our commitment to provide humanitarian assistance and democracy transition assistance to a post-Saddam Iraq. They will learn that an Iraq committed to democracy will be a welcome member in the family of nations. As they learn what we have done and what we are prepared to do, the Iraqi people will be our allies in an enterprise which will make them free, and America and its allies more secure.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as the distinguished Senator from Kentucky said--as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee--to make the same commitment that the Senator from Kentucky just made, that our committee will not fund any candidate who uses the personal problems or past failures of their opponent to win their election. The objective in a campaign is not just to win an office. And we all know in campaigns that there is a temptation to justify every means by the end that is in sight. As the Senator from Kentucky described himself, I describe myself the same way. I am not reluctant or shy to have full contact sport when it comes to campaigns, but I do believe that the ultimate objective of the candidate needs to be to not just acquire the office, but also to serve the larger good of preserving our Democratic institutions, in this case the U.S. Congress. I have been asked many times, and suspect the Senator from Kentucky has as well, Is this going to have a negative impact on your chances in the fall? He has probably been asked more times, Is this going to have a positive impact on your chances in the fall? But my answer has always been that my chief concern is that there are good men and women in America today who have thought about running for office--it may be the Senate or a local school board--and they have said, ``Gosh, I don't want to go through what I see Henry Hyde going through. And if I run for office, that is exactly what is going to happen to me. I don't want everything that I have done since I was an infant to be drug out and paraded before the people of my district or the people of my city or the people of my State.'' Far be it from me to say that any vote or statement or belief I have should be withheld. They should not be withheld and should be subject to the review and debate and discussion of the people. But my concern and why it is important that my colleague from Kentucky, whose suggestion this was, and I do this in this campaign is that if we do not exercise restraint and show American citizens that we will not fund candidates who use personal problems or past failures to win their office, the institutions of democracy will suffer. Forget the impact upon political parties. Neither party is going to do very well if citizens increasingly turn off and withdraw and say that ``I may do many things for my country, but one of them will not be to be a candidate for any office'' because of the fear that they have that something that happened 30 years ago or 40 years ago or 20 years ago--that is irrelevant to the campaign itself and that they have dealt with their family and their friends and their God, in whatever way that they felt was necessary--now becomes drug out into the open. So I join enthusiastically in making the commitment that we will not fund any candidates who do that. I appreciate that very much because what the Senator from Kentucky suggested serves the interests of democracy, and I am willing, as well, on the part of the DSCC to do the same.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first of all, in the spirit of the suggestion made by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire and earlier, as well, by the Senator from Pennsylvania, I reached my conclusion as to what our law ought to be. This is unquestionably a decision that required not just a considerable amount of research about what our laws and our Constitution permit us to do, but also a considerable amount of soul-searching. In Nebraska, there are many people--friends, family and people whom I do not know--who have offered their prayers for me during this deliberation. Before I offer my own words as to why I believe the law as proposed is both unconstitutional and incorrect, let me say that I very much appreciate those prayers. I have offered them myself on this particular issue. I have had a career now of some 14 years serving the people of Nebraska and have told them almost from day one that though I may sound from time to time as if I am absolutely convinced on an issue, I have never, if the evidence proves otherwise, been unwilling to change my position. I say to my colleagues, I nearly did so in this case, on account of very good friends who were urging me otherwise, on account of the prayers and concerns and the good wishes that were extended to me by people in Nebraska. Mr. President, abortion is a choice a woman makes and, at least in my limited conversations with women who have had to make that choice, is a decision that produces a considerable amount of grief, a feeling that something has been ended no matter at what stage, whether it is done in the first week or whether it is done in the 15th week. No matter when it occurs, it produces a considerable amount of grief. Even when the termination is spontaneous, when it is a spontaneous abortion, a miscarriage, there is a sense of loss. Something has happened that was unanticipated. The idea of something good happening has been interrupted by something that is, to the woman's mind anyway, bad. It is very important, it seems to me, to begin with that understanding. I was very moved, I must say--in fact, I told the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania--by an article not long ago about the struggles he and his wife endured. It was a very moving piece. It does, I think, something that very often is missed by the public--this comment is unrelated to this particular debate--it shows the human side of our Members. It is unfortunately true that people often see us through our positions, through the positions we have taken, our identity as a Democrat, a Republican and they form an impression. Sometimes we love you, sometimes we hate you, just based upon that position. I appreciate very much the willingness of the Senator from Pennsylvania to allow that story to be told because it shows the human dimension of this issue, and the grieving and the terror and the soul-searching that does occur. I say that, Mr. President, because one of the things that needs to be understood is, the law does not direct women to make this choice. It merely gives them the choice, the opportunity to make this decision. It does not make the decision any easier, it does not make the decision free of soul-searching and prayer, and, again, from my experience in talking with women who have made this decision, it does not produce a feeling that they have just done something wonderful. Indeed, some of the most powerful people in opposition to a woman's right to choose, to the current law, are people who have gone through this procedure. So people need to understand that we begin by extending our prayers, not just to us lawmakers, but to people who are going through this decisionmaking process. What we have attempted to do over the course of this debate is to balance the rights of the woman who is carrying the fetus and the fetus itself--not an easy debate. The Senator from New Hampshire again makes a case, I believe, that abortion in all circumstances should be illegal. It is very moving, and I am impressed by his passion and the commitment to this issue. But in the process of trying to settle this debate, Mr. President, we have been given guidance by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the guidance of the Supreme Court in both the decision known as Roe v. Wade and the decision known as the Casey decision in Pennsylvania. The language of these decisions needs to guide this Congress and needs to guide the American people in drafting legislation, drafting laws that determine how we are going to balance those rights. Otherwise, you should come as, again, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire has said he would like to come, and change our Constitution. He wants to change the Constitution so the Supreme Court can reach a different decision than they did in either the Roe v. Wade decision or the Casey decision. Again, Mr. President, I am coming to the floor very mindful of the wishes and prayers of many people in Nebraska who have listened and heard this procedure described. And they say, ``It's awful. How can you allow it to go on under the law?'' And I am going to describe how I reached the conclusion that this piece of legislation would be, I believe, both unwise and, I believe, unconstitutional. First of all, listen to the language--first the language of the decision in 1973: For the period of pregnancy prior to this compelling point [that is the moment of viability; approximately 24 weeks into pregnancy], the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State. That is us. That is what we do with our laws; we determine whether additional laws need to regulate this decision. Again, going on: With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ``compelling'' point is at viability . . . I emphasize that. Very often I will hear people who are pro-choice advocates say, ``Well, why are you doing this at all?'' The Court did say there is a legitimate interest. The Court did provide us guidance as to how we can pass laws and restrict this type of health service. There are instructions that enable us to, if we wanted to. We could write legislation that followed this guidance. I will get to that point later: This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe [prevent] abortion during that period, except where it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Those are the instructions. And I am willing to vote, and have in the past, to place restrictions, to proscribe, and say that abortions cannot be done if the life or the health of the mother is not at stake. That is what the Court has said. And in many instances there have been challenges brought by people who have different views and say the Constitution does not provide that right. Again, most recently, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court confirms: Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortion after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger a woman's health. So again, Mr. President, the Court has held--they have heard the arguments, and they have come back and said yes, to those who say that Government should not be engaged at all in writing laws, the State does have a legitimate right to proscribe abortions after viability. Again, I emphasize, I have voted for such restrictions. But the Court has held that there must be a protection for the woman's right to choose if either life or health are at stake. That is the language of the Court. That is what the Court has said under challenge from those who believe that the Court erred in its judgment in 1973. Thus, when the AMA comes and argues that this procedure should be banned, I give them heavy weight, substantial weight. But I have as well to give substantial weight to the Constitution and those who are interpreting that Constitution on our behalf, the U.S. Supreme Court. We should attempt, when we write laws governing abortion--for those of us who believe that a woman should have the right to make a largely unburdened decision, burdened only by her own conscience, which is substantial; I say it again for emphasis, I am troubled very often in this debate that an insufficient amount of attention is paid to the grieving, to the suffering, to the difficulty that a woman faces at this particular moment and afterwards--to balance the rights of the woman against the right of the fetus. That is what we should do. We should write a piece of legislation that keeps a constitutional balance in place. Mr. President, I believe this particular piece of legislation fails that test. It might, indeed, be a useful exercise, but it is going to be thrown out. It is going to be thrown out, Mr. President, because it does two things that the Court has said repeatedly are unconstitutional. First of all, let me just read the language, Mr. President. It is a fairly short and clear description of what the proponents would like the law to be. It says that: Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. That brings the State into it, obviously. The doctor could be fined or placed in prison as a consequence of doing this procedure in all States. It gives a right of legal action to the father. It gives a right of legal action to, I believe, the woman s parents as well. It gives the State the right to come in and bring a case against that doctor--but not, Mr. President, only post-viability. The language of this law does not reference either Roe or Casey. It does not say that this would apply only post-viability; it applies in all cases. And though it is quite true that many, as I understand it, of these procedures are done post-viability--and, by the way, there are many other procedures that are done, most of which, as they have been described to me, are equally grizzly and therefore difficult, on a personal basis, to sustain the argument that this is a good thing to do--many are done before viability. But the Constitution says that we are to provide that woman with an uninhibited choice in that previability stage. And this law makes no distinction between pre- and post-viability. Indeed, one of the reasons I supported Senator Daschle's proposal last year, which was sharply criticized as a way to provide political cover, is because it did address the legitimate interests of the State in the post-viability period. I have no idea whether or not there will be additional bills, or whether or not the President's veto will be overridden, but my guess is, even if the veto is overridden--assume for the moment that it will be--this will not be the last time that we address the question of the State role to regulate abortion, particularly post-viability. I say to my colleagues here, and to the people of Nebraska who have offered their prayers, that I am willing to enter into earnest negotiations with the goal of placing additional restrictions around abortions late in pregnancy. And this will probably involve some careful definitions around the issue of a health exception, and therefore the circumstances under which a woman can legally choose abortion. This bill would create an unspecified prohibition on a particular procedure--a prohibition that would result in the State putting restrictions on pre-viability choices and decisions that a woman and her doctor make. Thus, I believe strongly that the Court would find this legislation, this law, unconstitutional and that it would strike it down. Even more compelling--and I know we have had this debate before, and I don't want to drag it out because I want to merely offer my thoughts not so much to my colleagues, who I suspect have mostly made up their minds on this particular piece of legislation, but to the people in Nebraska--the Court over and over has used the words ``life or health.'' I heard the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire say he did not find any doctor who could justify this procedure. I don't remember his exact language. However, our reference in this case can't be only physicians. Our reference has to be the Constitution. The Court has given us instructions. They told us what we can do and what we can't do. Unless we change the Constitution, we are not going to be able to simply ignore the Court's repeated opinion that post-viability restrictions must include both life and health exceptions. Again, I come to the floor, having heard the prayers of thousands of Nebraska friends and people who I don't know quite so well, who have hoped that I would cast a vote to override this veto. I cannot. Not because I do not believe that the government has a legitimate interest to restrict abortions after viability. In fact, I believe it is in all of our interests to do so. This legislation does not do that. This legislation deals with a single procedure across the span of pregnancy. As a consequence of that, I cannot in either good conscience, or in faith to this Constitution, cast my vote to override the President's veto. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I yield such time----

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, 7 years ago last month, hard-line and aging Communist bosses in the Soviet Union made a clumsy attempt at a coup d'etat against then President Gorbachev. The coup accelerated the slow-motion implosion of the Soviet empire. By December of that year, our old nemesis had collapsed in an overwhelming, decisive and total victory for the United States. This ended 50 years of cold war that had exacted a tremendous toll in blood, sweat and treasure from our Nation. Our emotions ran the gamut from pride to relief--relief especially that the dark cloud of nuclear annihilation seemed to have passed and, in a more subtle way, relief that the heavy burden of leading the world in a battle for freedom against communism had been lifted from our shoulders. We clamored for a peace dividend. We reveled in our newfound ability to focus the Nation's energy on domestic affairs. But the last few weeks of events in Russia have been a rude wake-up call, a convincing demonstration that neither the danger nor the burden have been lifted. If anything, Mr. President, they are greater. Russia's economy and currency have been stressed to the point of breaking. President Yeltsin's government is in grave crisis. The men and women who tend Russia's nuclear arsenal--the one remaining threat on this planet to the instantaneous extinction of the United States-- have not been paid, by some reports, inasmuch as a year. The danger is still great, Mr. President, but so is the burden, and it is that burden I want to discuss this evening. We may react to these developments with a tinge of surprise. It is an axiom of the American tradition--an axiom, incidentally, in which I firmly believe--that democracies do not behave this way. When last most of us tuned in to the Russian saga, they had held democratic elections. They had abandoned central planning and other tenets of Communist ideology and embraced basic precepts of capitalism. They had agreed to swallow the magic elixir that we all assumed would cure the disease and now--just when we thought it might be safe to retreat from our global responsibilities--they are sick again. And once again, the burden of global leadership is thrust upon us. What happened? Let me stipulate, first of all, that I don't believe capitalism and democracy are magic elixirs that cure all diseases in a single dose. But I do believe that, taken as a rigorous regimen of treatment, they are about as good a cure for a whole variety of ills as we will ever find. What we are learning, Mr. President, isn't that democracy and free markets are bad medicine, but that it is tough medicine that works as part of a sustained regimen. We are learning that democracy does not exist simply because the first election was called, and that capitalism does not exist the moment after the central planners are fired. Infrastructure must be built to sustain and manage these systems in a lawful manner. I believe the true test of the success of Russia will be determined by our ability to help the Russian people build this infrastructure. The first institution that must undergird capitalism and democracy is the rule of law. The importance of that institution is illustrated by one of this century's great inventions, the airplane. Five years passed from the first successful flight at Kitty Hawk to the first public demonstration of the ``Wright Model A'' in France. The reason is that the Wright brothers were busy litigating a patent. It was that protection--the protection of law for their invention--that unleashed the ingenuity of the air age. Without the knowledge that the law protected their right to earn a living off their own ingenuity, the air age might never have been born. It is exactly this sort of simple institution of law that makes capitalism possible. Such institutions do not yet exist in Russia. There is a joke that in America, when two businessmen agree on something, put their agreement down on a piece of paper and sign their names to it, they have a contract. In Russia, all they have is a piece of paper. Without the rule of law, the simple act of opening a business, marketing a new idea or so much as buying a house becomes foolish and risky. What we have learned, and what the Russian people are learning, is that democracy is also hard work, and our challenge now is to help the Russian people build the institutions that enable freedom to succeed. That Russia is still struggling to make democracy work should come as no surprise to us. For 222 years, we have been struggling with the same questions. On this day we are debating a bill whose goal is to fine- tune our own democracy. We helped the Russian people become free; now we must help them do the much harder work of being free. Mr. President, the true test of the success of Russia will be determined by our ability to help the Russian people build this infrastructure. Despite these tall hurdles, the Russian people deserve credit for the long distance they have traveled. They have created a democratic environment with the guarantee of essential freedoms like speech and press. They have a functioning democratic electoral system. Boris Yeltsin is the democratically elected President of Russia. In turn, there is a democratically elected Duma controlled by an opposition party. As a result, Russia has learned the lesson that we in this body know all too well--democratic politics sometimes means gridlock. Here as I see them are the areas in which Russia has fallen short: Simply put, they have not done enough to establish the rule of law. Because the style of capitalism they have implemented does not rest on the solid base of the rule of law, economic interactions have become distorted and unstable. The government has not lived up to its responsibilities, and by failing to collect taxes and pay pensions, back wages and so forth, the government has lost the faith of the people. Corrupt privatization of state-owned enterprises and the failure to implement reforms, such as the protection of private property, have given the people a distorted vision of capitalism. Take just the collection of taxes. We all know in this body that we just reformed the laws governing our Internal Revenue Service and reformed them because a significant percentage of Americans no longer trusted the tax collector. But what we failed to acknowledge is, as bad as our system is, and as much as it can be improved--and I hope this legislation will improve it--a well functioning tax collector is a critical part, and a trusted tax collector is a critical part, of a functioning free market democratic form of Government. As a result, the Russian people have become discouraged by ``cowboy capitalism'' and do not realize a true market economy should have the checks and balances of the rule of law. Mr. President, we cannot be content to treat these simply as Russia's problems. And I submit there are three reasons why we cannot. First, Russia's problems are our problems. Our own economy is not closely entwined with theirs, but it is not insulated either. Furthermore, the potential consequence of allowing this economic crisis to spread throughout the world poses too great a threat to our own economic security to stand idly by and watch the total collapse of the Russian political and economic system. Much more ominously, political instability and nuclear weapons are a dangerous mix. Second, the Russian people are human beings who are suffering. Our hearts and hands of assistance should go out to them. Third, and most important, the United States of America is the firstborn child of democracy in the modern age. We are the oldest and most successful, and when democracy is being born, history has called us to the duty of being its midwife, not a disinterested observer in the waiting room. We may wish this burden had been not cast on us, but it has. This is our duty. Mr. President, what can we do? First of all, I believe we must look at Russian democracy in terms of decades, not just years. The future is still very bright for them. It is a great nation blessed with vast resources and talented people. I remain confident that the transition to democracy will be successful. Nothing will cool their ardor for democratic reforms more than if we become pessimistic about the possibility of their democracy surviving. We know it is tough. We know it is difficult. All of us have faced difficult moments in a democracy where we have wondered whether or not our system itself could work, but we always rise to the task. We always manage to rise to the challenge, to do that little more that is necessary to make our system work. We simply have to say to the Russian people over and over: ``Do not be discouraged. It's far better than what you had before. The rule of law and the opportunity to govern yourself will be frustrating, it will produce disappointments, but do not stop persevering. Your children and your grandchildren will reward you with praise if you do.'' Secondly, Mr. President, we have to continue to engage Russia as a partner. Not only is it desirable for us to do so as a consequence of their need, but it is desirable for us to do so as a consequence of ours. They are a permanent member of the Security Council. They are actively involved in many of the most important world issues that we face. And it is imperative that we continue to treat them as a full partner. Third, we must continue to support the International Monetary Fund. While imperfect, and certainly demanding reform itself to become more open to our observation to know what they are doing and the decisions that they are making, it is still the only institution that pools the world's resources to address large-scale financial crises. I am pleased that the Senate has once again passed legislation to provide $18 billion to replenish the IMF's capital base. Next, we must continue to work with the Russians on arms control and security issues. Instability in Russia is still the greatest foreign threat to our safety. Working to reduce nuclear and conventional arms will help Russia financially and improve the safety of the American people. I do not mean to imply by that that arms control all by itself will solve this problem. We have lived through the tragedy of disarmament from the Second World War. We watched what happened when this Nation said in the 1920s: There are no threats out there, and therefore we are going to disarm. We have an obligation, based upon that memory, to keep our military and Armed Forces as strong as necessary, not just to meet today's threats but to meet tomorrow's threats. Still, it is true that the great amount of effort to reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons will produce tremendous benefits not just to the people of the United States but to the people of all of this world. Our most important long-term challenge, though, is working with Russia to develop the rule of law. This has to be a hands-on process of teaching. I believe the most important effort is likely to be the least expensive, and that is just long-term exchange programs, giving their people a chance to come here to see how democracy works, to understand the importance of having that law there to protect you not only so you can speak but so that you can start your business and enjoy the benefits that come as a consequence of the reward that we provide people in the market system--and it simply isn't there--to show them that we have also faced in the past problems with Government officials who are corrupted, but again the rule of law is there to protect the people, that they cannot tolerate corruption and they need not tolerate corruption in order to have a market system, and that they should not be discouraged as a consequence of the failures and the problems that they experience in the birthing years of their democracy and their market system. We need to tell them, Mr. President, as we no doubt can, that we experience similar problems, that it is a long voyage, that we on the Fourth of July, we on Memorial Day, and we on Veterans Day, and we in great moments in our history stand and pay tribute not to ourselves but to our forefathers for the sacrifice of blood, for the sacrifice of treasury, for putting themselves on the line for our freedom. We need to say that the burden on freedom is a great burden, that freedom is not free, that in wartime we must do as John Miller in ``Saving Private Ryan'' did--put down our chalk and give up our careers as teachers and put our lives on the line at the beaches of Normandy. But in peacetime the burden is, we have to put our own selves on the line to fight to make our laws give people the protection and the freedom that they deserve, to come together and argue, to come together with our ideas, as we do here, day after day after day. We have, I think, an opportunity, through exchange programs, through very small hands-on efforts, an opportunity to show the people of Russia that their great character that enabled them to turn back Napoleon, that enabled them to turn back Adolph Hitler, that enabled them to survive so much that it is almost unimaginable that they were able to get the job done, that a people that can do that can make democracy and free markets work not just for them but for their futures. Mr. President, I hope and believe indeed there is reason to have optimism, that this Congress will not, on behalf of the American people, shirk our responsibilities and our duties to work with the people of Russia to make this experiment in democracy in their country as big a success as it has been for us. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

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