J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the financial crisis growing in our rural economy and to send an amendment to the desk. Nebraska's farmers and farm communities are confronting a series of events--most of them completely out of their control--that will lead most of them to lose money this year and may drive a fair share out of business. I have been meeting with groups of farmers for as long as I have been in the Senate, and the message I hear resounding across Nebraska is that the situation is very grim. This is a clear case of a situation in which families won't have a shot at the American dream if we don't put the law on their side. These events are a good reminder of why agriculture is such a precarious business to be in. Farmers are entrepreneurs who operate small businesses that manufacture their product outdoors. And on top of the always risky proposition of dealing with mother nature, this year our farmers are dealing with grain and livestock prices at their lowest levels in more than a decade, land rental prices that have increased by an average of 37%, a cost of living--particularly for health insurance--that keeps going up, even when commodity prices keep falling, and a rail transportation problem that will almost certainly leave record bushels of grain on the ground across middle America again this year. And I haven't even mentioned the event over which farmers have the least control--the economies of foreign countries. Nebraska sends a third of its agricultural exports to Asia. Or rather, we used to. With more than 60 million people now living on less than a dollar a day in Indonesia, those markets in Asia are gone. Many ``experts'' suggest that the key to a profitable farming operation is diversification. But when every major sector of production agriculture is operating at a loss--from corn to cattle to wheat to hogs--my farmers find that diversification is simply a decision of what to grow that will lose the least. What is most troubling to me about the financial crisis in rural America is that it comes at a time of unprecedented economic success for the rest of the country. But make no mistake: trouble in rural America will not stay confined to the farm. When Nebraska farmers lose money, Omaha laborers find themselves with less work and it will happen on a nationwide scale, too. Though less so now than in the past, the United States remains an agriculture-based economy. Agriculture is our only sector that runs a trade surplus. In Nebraska, it accounts for one of every four jobs. So I come to the floor today to issue a wake up call to the Senate. It doesn't matter what you call it--a crisis, a disaster, or just plain misfortune--family based agriculture in America is in grave danger. And there is no one who can act to preserve family based agriculture but us. The Secretary of Agriculture cannot do it and the U.S. Trade Representative cannot do it. If we believe in the value of family based agriculture, this Congress must act to preserve it ourselves. Under the leadership of Senator Daschle, we are bringing a number of amendments to the floor that will help farmers regain a measure of profitability this year. These amendments are reasonable and I believe that the Senate will recognize that they strengthen the existing farm law, rather than weaken it. And I hope that in a spirit of bipartisanship, we can agree that if we add these amendments to the farm bill we can make it work for our farmers. I am sending one of those amendments to the desk now. This amendment would try to improve market conditions in the livestock industry by mandating reporting requirements. We have price spreads between retail beef prices and the price paid to producers that are at record levels. We all know what happens when the price of crude oil goes down--we pay less for gas at the pump. But although the price of cattle has dropped precipitously, beef is still the same price if not higher at the supermarket. That defies logic and it says to me that something does not work in the cattle market. We have an amendment that would address that. This amendment will restore transparency to livestock markets by mandating the price reporting of live cattle and boxed beef. The cattle feeding industry is in an extended period of sharply negative feeding margins, with losses of about $100 per head. Earlier this year, hog prices sank to a 26-year low. But at the same time, consumer prices at the retail level remain unchanged. Producers are concerned that there is not enough information to determine fair market prices for livestock, and this price reporting amendment will change that. Common sense tells us that complete price information is vital to an efficient market. But the majority of cattle are now sold under secret pricing deals, and those transactions are not recorded in the cash market. The lack of transparency in the market creates the potential for exploitation, and we must act to stop that. My democratic colleagues support this approach and I am optimistic that Republicans can support this amendment, as well. So I hope that we will come together in a bipartisan way this week and pass these measures to help alleviate the financial crisis occurring in rural America. For we have a great deal at stake here, and it is more than just a partisan quibble over whether or not to make changes in a law. At stake is the preservation of family based agriculture and whether or not Congress has the good sense and the courage to step in while there is still time. For all of our sakes, I hope we do. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment that authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a 3-year pilot program in mandatory price reporting so that we can get a true market in the cattle industry. It has been long debated by the Agriculture Committee. I think most Members have pretty well made up their minds on it. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Montana.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this important measure to keep our agricultural export markets open. Beyond the legislation currently under consideration, I am pleased that Congress has begun a serious discussion about the general issue of our sanctions policy. Too often in the past we have been quick to use the blunt instrument of unilateral sanctions without fully evaluating its impact. I believe that when considering sanctions, we in the Congress must take into account not only the likelihood the policy will meet our objectives, but also the effects sanctions will have both domestically and abroad. By acknowledging that our farmers should no longer bear the brunt of our sanctions policy, this legislation is a small but important first step. More importantly, those of us from rural states know that a crisis is brewing in rural America and I think it is vitally important that the Senate begin to act to preserve family based agriculture. Exports are down, prices are collapsing, and producer incomes are decreasing at an alarming rate. And somehow, this crisis in rural America is growing at a time when the rest of the country enjoys an unprecedented economic boom. Without action, we are about to see another migration from our family farms. If we don't act to preserve this way of life, we are going to alter forever the face of rural America. And I suspect that the agricultural sector we end up with will not be one we like. I believe strongly that this Congress should act and will act to preserve family based agriculture. I am pleased that we are taking this first step to support our wheat farmers today and I look forward to the upcoming debate about how best to act to preserve a healthy and prosperous rural economy. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1882, the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, which is perhaps the most important piece of legislation Congress will pass this year to ensure that more Americans have a shot at the American Dream. This legislation makes important strides both in improving the education students receive within colleges and universities and in increasing access to higher education. For example, the bill makes significant improvements in teacher training. It authorizes $300 million for competitive grants to states improve teaching, and it also authorizes $37 million for grants to institutions with teacher education programs working in partnership with school districts in underserved areas in an effort to recruit teachers to communities that are most in need of assistance. It also provides support for institutions that serve large numbers of low-income students. In particular it creates a new authorization for tribal colleges, which play an important role in educating students in my state of Nebraska. But most importantly, this legislation is important because it opens the doors of higher education to more individuals. It helps more individuals acquire the knowledge and skills that will help them make better lives for themselves and their families. Approximately $45 billion in this bill is devoted to postsecondary grants and loans for students. This is 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 U.S. 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, on 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. Many young people have the intellectual ability to succeed in college, but they do not have the financial ability. We still have much work to do as we try to figure out how to make higher education more affordable. 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. About 36% of students nationwide receive some form of Title IV assistance: 22% receive Pell Grants; 22% receive subsidized loans; 10% receive unsubsidized loans; not to mention a smaller percentage who receive PLUS loans, Federal Work Study, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, and Perkins loans. In public institutions in Nebraska, the number of Pell grants is about 20,000. The dollar volume is $27.4 million. And the number of loans made to Nebraska students in public institutions is about 40,000. That dollar volume is $137 million. This $137 million is a substantial increase over the 1990-91 loan dollar volume, which was $43.5 million. We must figure out how to bring student loan debt under control. At the same time, we must remember that Title IV assistance goes to those most in need. 91% of Pell recipients have incomes of $30,000 or less. 65% of all recipients of subsidized loans have incomes of $30,000 or less. This bill is a step in the right direction. It increases the authorization for maximum Pell Grants to $5,000 for 1999-2000. But it also calls for more reporting by institutions on college costs. Reducing college costs and increasing access to higher education must be a joint effort. I am pleased to be a part of this effort. I am also pleased to contribute to this legislation in a number of other ways. The bill includes a Web-based education commission to determine the Federal role in helping parents, students, and teachers identify high-quality educational software. With Senator Wellstone and others, I encouraged the expansion of distance-learning opportunities through the Learn Anytime Anywhere partnerships. We must also continue to stress the need for substantive partnerships between higher education institutions, K-12 institutions, and business communities. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to pass S. 1882 so that all Americans will have a shot at achieving the American Dream.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada and I have had the occasion to work together on a number of things. I appreciate his early support, not just of this piece of legislation, but his early support for changing laws giving taxpayers more rights when dealing with the Internal Revenue Service. This is just a continuation of Taxpayer Bill of Rights 1 and 2 with which I know the Senator from Nevada was very much involved. I also thank him for bringing to our attention this issue of meals deductibility. That was a judgment that was being made by the Treasury Department. I understand it is one of those situations that sort of makes sense if all you are doing is pushing a pencil and trying to make your numbers and the law come together. Had he not brought that to our attention, we would have had one more example, one more situation where the Code becomes enormously complicated, enormously burdensome. What happens is, people just lose confidence in their government. They say, ``How could you do something so stupid?'' I appreciate him bringing it to our attention. It had not been brought to our attention. Not only would the people of Nevada have been up in arms about it, but I say throughout the country. I say to my friend from Nevada there would have been an awful lot of people knocking on our doors talking to us about ``How could you do something that required people of average means to reach even farther to try to stay on the right side of the law?'' I was happy to assist in this matter, but I assisted not just to help the people of Nevada who have such able leadership in the Senator from Nevada, but I believe everybody from the United States of America is going to benefit as a consequence of that change. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I also rise in support of the conference report, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. I would like to begin my comments with high praise for the Chairman of the Finance Committee, both for calling the hearings last fall and again this year, and for his efforts every step of the way to make certain that this was a responsible bill, a balanced bill, and a bill that reflected the high values of the American people. I appreciate very much his leadership, as well as the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan. The chairman, I think conducted the hearings in a very responsible way and in a way that enabled the American people to see that the laws governing the IRS were in urgent need of changing. It simply would not have happened without Senator Roth's diligence and willingness to bring to the American people's attention many of the problems that they saw last fall and again this year. Mr. President, representative democracy is a very difficult system. We all know it. We all view it to be the best. With all of its faults, it still is the best system around. But it is a difficult system, because the people themselves have to decide what they want their laws to be. We, as their representatives, have to reflect their wishes and desires. But at the end of the day, you have to write a law and decide which words they ought to be. What goes into those laws very often is an attempt to resolve conflicts. This piece of legislation I believe is in an area of government that in many ways is the most difficult of all. I would put law enforcement closely behind it as being both the most important and the most difficult. You always have conflicts between law enforcement and the desire for public safety, which is an overriding concern in the desire to protect individual rights. It is always there. It will never end. It is a never-ending battle. It is a never-ending argument. It is a never- ending struggle to try to resolve those conflicts. Likewise, when it comes to paying for government--and all of us, I presume, are careful in how we spend the taxpayers' money--many of us are of the view that government itself needs to be watched very carefully, in an attempt, especially at the Federal level, to reduce it as much as possible so that taxpayers get to keep as much of their money as possible. The bottom line is, we are going to have some government. I was very struck watching President Jiang Zemin in China. I didn't see any demonstrators over in China. And the reason is, they don't have a law protecting them. They don't have government of, by, and for the people. That is a law that protects, but it also costs us money. We have to decide how we are going to organize our police force, fire department, and all the rest of it. When, at the Federal level we decide we want an Army, a Navy, an Air Force, and a Marine Corps, which we authorized not too long ago for the defense of this Nation, we have to decide how we are going to collect the money. So we write a law that not only decides how that money is going to be collected but we write a law that authorizes the collection agency--in this case, the IRS. I begin with those basics because sometimes I hear people describe the IRS as if it is a Sears & Roebuck or a private-sector operation. It is not. It is a creation of law. If you wanted to get rid of the IRS completely--I have heard some people argue that--you could come down here and offer an amendment to abolish the IRS. The IRS needs a law. The IRS--and in its current form, for those who are in the private sector and used to working with private-sector organizations--the IRS has a board of directors composed of 535 Members of Congress, 100 in the Senate and 435 in the House. Again, it is important to understand that. We come--all of us--with different views, different ideas. The distinguished occupant of the Chair represents the good people of Arkansas. I represent the good people of Nebraska. The chairman of the committee so responsible for this legislation represents the good people of Delaware. We come with a variety of ideas in the way that we want the IRS to be governed. We bring those ideas typically forcefully to the floor, or to our respective committees, to try to get things done. I say that because sometimes those ideas are in conflict. Sometimes at the very moment we are calling for tax simplification, we are voting ``aye'' on something that makes the code more complicated. As the distinguished Senator from New York said, this piece of legislation amends the 1986 act, which itself was called, I think, the Tax Simplification Act of 1986. It was enacted before I arrived in the Senate. Fortunately, I could blame all of the problems that thing created on those who voted for it. But that legislation has been amended 64 times, and each time, typically, it makes the code a bit more complicated. We talk about wanting the IRS to do a better job of collecting revenue. It doesn't take long, after they have been trained and get up to speed, before the private sector puts an offer on the table to try to pull the good people away, hire them away. Sometimes the IRS says, ``We want to modernize so as to have good computer operating systems.'' Sometimes we fail to appropriate the money that they need to get the job done. All of this, and more besides, describes the difficulty of writing a law that enables the IRS to do the things that the American people want, which is to collect the amount of money that is owed in a voluntary fashion and to create an environment so that those who are willing to pay in a voluntary fashion--those who are volunteering to pay their fair share--get the answer to the question, ``How much do I owe?'' in as efficient a way as possible and get their taxes paid in as efficient a way as possible with the least amount of cost and harassment on their side, while still preserving the power of the IRS to go after individuals who are not willing to voluntarily comply, don't want to pay their fair share, and who, I think it is fair to say, burden those who are voluntarily complying by withholding their fair share. So the IRS restructuring legislation is an attempt to improve the law. I believe it does that in a number of very, very significant ways. I would like to describe a few of those for my colleagues. Indeed, at the press conference, after the conference work was done, I heard a number of people in the press ask--and I have been asked as well in Nebraska--``How will we notice the changes in this law? How will the changes be noticed by me, a taxpayer who has a relationship with the IRS?'' I would like to identify a few of those. First, the law that creates governance for the IRS has been dramatically changed. It has been changed in the executive branch side. But it also has been changed in the legislative branch side. It must be noted, I think, in fairness, that we first started noticing problems with the IRS a half-dozen years ago when the tax system modernization program that we had appropriated money for wasn't functioning very well. The GAO was requested to do an examination. The GAO came back and said that as much as $3 billion had been wasted. At the time, I had the high honor of serving on the Appropriations Committee under Chairman Byrd and the ranking Republican, Senator Hatfield. Our Subcommittee on Treasury-Postal Appropriations tried to fence the money for a couple of years. We tried to work with the IRS to figure out some way to make this work better. In 1995, what Senator Shelby and I were going to do was withhold the money entirely. We took an alternative course to create in 1995 this restructuring commission that Congressman Portman and I had the high honor to be cochairs of in 1996 and 1997. We were just one of six committees, and still are, that the IRS had to report to. They had to come to the Appropriations Committee, the Finance Committee, and they go to the Governmental Affairs Committee. And they had to go to all three of their counterparts on the House side. They are required under law to go to each one of those. What the GAO reported--both at that time and later to the restructuring commission--was that you need to reorganize that, that you are not going to be able to make good investments in computers and operating systems and the software for those computers. You will make a mistake when you spend the taxpayers' money unless you get to a point in some environment where there is a shared agreement on how that money is to be spent: What is the purpose? What is the goal? Where is it that you are trying to go? This legislation creates on the executive branch side a new board of governance which the President appoints. They have a considerable amount of power and independence. These individuals will come from the private sector with a variety of different experiences to be able to assist the Commissioner in making a decision about what kinds of management objectives and what kinds of computer systems and software systems are going to be in place. But that board will have the opportunity as well under this legislation to meet with a single committee on an annual basis to review IRS operations and management. So the appropriators, the Finance Committee, and the Governmental Affairs people, in both the House and the Senate, will be meeting with this board of directors in reaching agreement. It is much more likely in this kind of environment--whatever plan the IRS comes up with and the Commissioner comes up with--that the Congress will support that plan, and support that plan on a consistent basis. This governing board is also much more likely to provide taxpayers with a sense that the IRS is more directly accountable to them. There will be an opportunity for citizens to go to that board, and it is much more likely that we in our offices will be able to follow up on cases that are brought to our attention. So the governance board on the executive branch under this law and the change in governance on the legislative branch are the first things that I believe taxpayers are going to see. They are going to see better decisions and more consistent support being provided for those decisions as a consequence of the changes in this law. They were very controversial for a long period of time. The administration reached agreement with the Congress on what those provisions were going to be. But I believe every single taxpayer is going to see a benefit as a consequence of improved governance and improved decisionmaking being made by the Commissioner of the IRS. The second big area where people are going to notice a change is the new management powers and authorities that are granted to the Commissioner. First of all, under law, the Commissioner will be able to serve a full 5-year term. Over the past, I think, 5 years now, we have had three different Commissioners. There has been substantial turnover and difficulty as a consequence of maintaining continuity. And the maintenance of continuity is a very important objective of this legislation. The IRS Commissioner not only will have the power to make management decisions in an affirmative way by providing incentives for people to perform and rewarding them when they do perform but new authorities to terminate employees who are not performing up to the highest standards of the American people and the American taxpayer. In addition, the Commissioner is not only given authority but directed to change the way we manage the IRS from the current system, which is a district and regional geographical organization, to functional lines of governance. Every single taxpayer is going to notice that change, Mr. President, not this year but certainly over the next 2 or 3 years. Our taxpayers are going to say it is an awful lot easier now that the Commissioner has organized the IRS by individual taxpayers, by corporate taxpayers small, by corporate taxpayers big, and by nonprofits. It is going to be a lot more likely that the Commissioner is going to be able to give each one of those entities the continuity of service they are asking for. As individuals move from one part of the country to another, they find themselves in a different region, in a different district. It is much more likely that the Commissioner is going to be coming to the Congress saying: Here are some changes we could make to decrease the cost of compliance and make it easier for larger taxpayers, for smaller taxpayers, for individual taxpayers--much more likely when we organize around functional lines. And with the increased authority under the law the Commissioner will have, it is much more likely that every single taxpayer will say: It has gotten much easier for me to pay my taxes. They may still think they are too high. They may still say: It should be a consumption tax or some other way of paying my taxes, but it has gotten easier; I have gotten the information more quickly; there is an operating system here, a computer system here, an information system here, that has made it easier for me to acquire the information if I have a complaint or discrepancy. And you hear it all the time. Somebody calls up and says: I am making $10,000 a year; I got a bill for $140,000; it's ridiculous; something is wrong. I call up my IRS office. They don't have the ability to reassure me that a mistake has been made. It takes months and months and months. With this new governance structure, with this new authority, we are providing the Commissioner what I think every single Senator and every single Representative is going to hear citizens saying: I am able to call up and get an immediate change. If I have a change of address and my refund check hasn't arrived, it is going to be much more likely I am going to get immediate attention, same-day attention, to that and shorten the amount of time that is required to get the problem resolved. Mr. President, not only do taxpayers save money because the IRS will spend less money, but the taxpayers themselves downstream will save a lot more money, not having to chase around and solve the problem. The third big area is in taxpayer rights, and there are a lot of changes. I am just going to list a few of them. The chairman talked extensively about the burden of proof shift. I think it is a reasonable compromise, although there is still some cause for concern. If we find ourselves with some problems as a consequence of this provision, which I don't think we will, Congress can always make some modifications. It shifts the burden of proof in all forms of income at the Tax Court. There are changes in the way taxpayers' proceedings are handled at the IRS, including such issues as to how costs are awarded and apportioned, civil damages if the IRS is negligent. One of the things we are trying to do all the way through the rights provision is make certain that when the IRS sends out a collection notice, they are going after a taxpayer for doing something, that they have relatively high certainty the taxpayer has done something wrong. The burden is on them to make a judgment with this new law, because if we find that the IRS has been negligent, the IRS has done something wrong, under these new provisions the IRS can be held not only responsible but liable for payment to the taxpayer--much more likely, as a consequence, taxpayers are going to see fewer collection notices that are sent out when no collection is warranted. There is relief for innocent spouses, changes in interest and penalty, new protections under audit, new disclosure requirements to taxpayers--extremely important provisions, Mr. President. The taxpayer very often just doesn't get the information, doesn't know what is going on. As a consequence, they are not able to make a judgment about how much they owe. There are provisions in the bill to create low-income clinics, a very important provision as well. We all know that the higher your income, the more likely it is you are going to have somebody do your taxes for you. With all the tax simplification and complexity issues that we hear, as income gets more complicated, it is more and more likely as a result that your income is going to be higher and more likely that somebody else is going to do your tax return for you. But for that lower-income American, these low-income clinics are going to be, I think, an extremely important part of our overall effort to make certain that all Americans say, whether it is the IRS or the FBI or the USDA or whatever it is, it is still Government of, by, and for the people. And the law has to be on the side of all Americans, not just those of higher incomes but on the side of middle-income Americans and lower-income Americans. And I think this low-income clinic provision is a very important part of it. In addition, under the rights provision, the IRS will be required to catalog complaints it can bring to Congress, and we can sort out and see if there are any repetitive problems here and make judgments about whether or not, as a result of those repetitive problems, we need to make further changes in the law. The fourth big area is the area of simplicity. The distinguished Senator from New York commented on that at length. I would only point out that I think, again, Members are going to hear taxpayers saying: Well, finally we have some things in there that help us deal with this problem, estimated to be $100- to $200-billion a year, of costs to the taxpayer to comply with the current code. Now, it has to be said, as long as you tax income, it is going to be invasive. That is my own belief. If you tax income, it is almost going to be true that it is going to feel invasive if you are in an audit situation. This law will give taxpayers, I think, some new evidence that we are getting the word out on simplification. First of all, for the first time under law, the Commissioner is empowered to make comments and to be there when laws are being written. Right now, you will have to search your memory bank, and I think in vain, to find a time when you have ever heard an IRS Commissioner say: Great idea, Mr. President; great idea, Senator Blowhard--for some new tax break--but here is what it is going to cost the taxpayer to comply. We heard in the restructuring commission examples, and we filed them as a part of our index, of situations where provisions in the code cost far more to enforce than they generate in revenue. The cost to the taxpayer and the cost to the IRS to collect the money is greater than the benefit measured in the amount of money that is collected. So in addition to putting the Tax Commissioner at the table and giving him authority to comment, as the distinguished Senator from New York mentioned earlier, there is a new simplicity analysis that will be done and prepared so we can judge whether or not an idea that we have is going to either increase or decrease the cost to the American people to comply. There are new provisions, next, Mr. President, in the area of the Taxpayer Advocate, making the advocate more independent, making the Advocate more likely to help in the resolution of problems--a very important section. And I think every single taxpayer who has a problem with the IRS is going to see that this new Taxpayer Advocate is more likely under this new law to be able to help resolve in an expeditious fashion any complaint or problem they have. Last, Mr. President, in the section dealing with electronic filing, those of us who have spent some time on this believe, No. 1, that if you are trying to reduce the cost, the most important thing is to reduce the number of errors. In the electronic world, there is less than half of 1 percent errors. In the paper world, it is 20 to 25 percent errors being made both by the IRS and the individuals who are filling out the forms. The electronic world offers us a tremendous opportunity to decrease the cost to comply for both the taxpayer and the IRS. The language of this bill says that the IRS would encourage private sector competition. Again, I must say I think it is very important that Congress pay attention to this. Though I want the IRS to be able to offer services to the American taxpayer, I want to make certain that there is vigorous competition out in the private sector for the delivery of these services. All in all, I believe this piece of legislation represents a good- faith effort on the part of Members of this body and the House to do something that is extremely difficult, and that is to write the laws governing the collection of our taxes in a way that resolves all the various conflicts that you have when you are trying to write any piece of legislation dealing with something where you are simultaneously trying to make it easy for taxpayers to comply and make it difficult for people who are not willing to comply to live outside the letter, the spirit, and the intent of the law. I close with what I said at the beginning. I have high praise for Chairman Roth for his good work, his balance, and his determination to finally get this done. I have high praise as well for Senator Grassley, who served on the restructuring commission, for Congressman Portman, who was my chairman, as well as Congressman Cardin and the senior Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, the ranking Democrat on the committee. I look forward to final passage, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. One of the things the Senator from New York has referenced--and I will later in my remarks praise both he and the chairman of this committee for what they have done in bringing this legislation to the floor--one of the things the Senator referenced in his comments was the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Indeed, this bill, it should be noted by colleagues, amends that act. So this would be the, I guess, the 65th tax bill we have passed since 1986. I wonder if the Senator from New York can engage briefly in a discussion for the benefit of the Senator from New Hampshire and for those who happen to be watching this debate. One of the things that we struggle to do as citizens is to understand what it is that the government is doing and why. Under our constitutional authorities as a Congress we have a whole range of things we are charged with doing. One of the most difficult things we are charged with doing, once we have decided we are going to have a government of any kind at all, is we have to collect taxes and what to use those taxes for and we then have to decide who is going to pay the taxes, and we write the law accordingly. We then distribute the money to the various agencies of government that we previously created. I wonder if the Senator from New York, with his understanding of the rest of the world, can talk a little bit about how much we take for granted our capacity to voluntarily collect. We have a voluntary system of tax collection, unlike many other nations on Earth. I know right now one of the most difficult problems, for example, that the newly democratic Russia is facing is their capacity to collect tax revenues in sometimes a not-so-voluntary fashion. I wonder if the Senator can talk a little bit about the constitutional issues of us raising the taxes to pay for the government and the importance of our being able to maintain a voluntary system of tax collection.

Mr. KERREY. I thank the Senator for delaying his exit from the floor. I appreciate very much that reference. Mr. President, I believe this piece of legislation goes to the heart of our capacity to maintain government of, by and for the people. Our republican form of government is at risk if people feel they are not getting a fair shake with this voluntary system of collection. Congressman Portman and I cochaired this restructuring commission. We noted U.S. tax collection is the most efficient in the world. Less than half of a percent of the total revenues collected is in cost. In the face of mounting criticism, problems, it seems to me it is very important to make certain that as we write the laws that will determine how this money is collected, that we not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. We have problems, and this legislation attempts to correct the problems. But underneath these problems is a relatively efficient system of collecting taxes that enables the citizens to fund their Government, and in a relatively efficient fashion.

Mr. KERREY. I am prepared to proceed.

Mr. KERREY. One of the things I want to do, and I will be pleased to step aside for 10 minutes, I want to engage in a short colloquy with the distinguished Senator from New York on this bill. I will try to be as brief as possible and then yield back to the Senator. I have a longer statement I will make on this legislation.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Intelligence Authorization Bill. This bill is the product of the Intelligence Committee's efforts to match national intelligence resources and activities with today's and tomorrow's threats. Under Chairman Shelby's leadership, the Committee has tried to move the Intelligence Community toward new technologies which address emerging threats like weapons proliferation, terrorism, and information operations, while at the same time keeping intelligence strong against the mature threats, such as Russian nuclear forces, which still can kill scores of millions of Americans. Most of this bill is secret, contained in a classified annex available to all Members for review in S-407. However, it has been reported that the bill authorizes less money for intelligence programs than the President requested. I am not pleased with this outcome. But as the national security budgets are currently organized, the Intelligence Authorization bill must respond to larger Defense requirements. The dependent relationship of intelligence to defense is anachronistic, in my view, but it exists and Chairman Shelby and I have worked with our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to make the best of a bad budgetary situation for both Committees. Let me add, I am equally concerned that the Defense budget is skirting the level of inadequacy, especially with regard to our conventional forces. National security is the principal function of government, and we should fund it better. The Intelligence Committee looked at the way intelligence is collected--through imagery, signals, human, and measurements and signatures--and saw mature technologies which have served America well for many years pitted against revolutionary change in the collection environments. The Committee studied solutions to this imbalance. In addition to its own evaluation, the Committee gathered a group of outside scientific experts, including some who have had no previous connection to intelligence, to recommend solutions to our shortfalls in signals and human intelligence. This panel's recommendations are also reflected in this bill. So Chairman Shelby and I have a strong basis in evidence for the new technologies and initiatives which would be authorized by this bill. The recent nuclear tests in India brought accusations of ``intelligence failure'' in our media. In fact, I think the episode might be more accurately called a policy failure, but intelligence could certainly have done a better job. Director of Central Intelligence Tenet quickly tasked Admiral David Jeremiah to review the Intelligence Community's performance, and a summary of his recommendations have been declassified at the Committee's request. The India nuclear case offers many lessons, but two are especially important to intelligence. The first is that the Director of Central Intelligence needs to run the national Intelligence Community to ensure agency efforts are focused and priorities across the individual agencies are clear. I am holding off on legislation to increase the DCI's management powers because new officials are in place in positions already created by Congress to help manage the Community better. I want to see what progress Deputy Director Joan Dempsey and her new Assistant Directors make in harnessing the DCI's existing powers, before Congress creates new ones. Congress and the American people hold the DCI accountable for these problems. We need the DCI to be in charge. The second India lesson is the tendency to ``mirror image'', to assume Indians, in this case, would behave as we do. This tendency increases when there is unanimity among analysts and no one is asking contrarian questions. To insure such questions are always asked during the analysis of significant intelligence, Chairman Shelby and I are offering an amendment today which, among other things, will require competitive analysis as an integral, routine part of the analytic process. The fundamental purpose of intelligence is to keep our policymakers and military commanders from being surprised. Competitive analysis should at least reduce the chance of surprise. Finally, Mr. President, I understand Chairman Shelby will introduce an amendment to name the CIA headquarters building after the only U.S. President who has also served as DCI, former President George Bush. While I am not enthusiastic about the current fad of naming things after living politicians, I make an exception in this case. In political terms, service as DCI carries considerable risk. Your apparent failures are big news, while your successes are secret and the fruits of your leadership are harvested by your successor. But in peace or war, George Bush never calculated risks when there was an opportunity to serve his country, and I think he particularly relished the hardest tasks. Naming his old headquarters in his honor is a fitting tribute which I am proud to support. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, and I yield the floor. Amendments Nos. 3051 through 3053, en bloc

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Missouri River Basin, Middle Loup Division Project Facilities Conveyance Act.'' The bill provides for the transfer of title of irrigation project facilities and lands from the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior to the Middle Loup Division irrigation districts in central Nebraska. These districts have operated the facilities there for over 35 years. The project facilities are part of the Missouri River Basin Project, and provide water from the Middle Loup River to over 64,000 acres of irrigable land, as well as providing recreation and fish and wildlife benefits. Principal features of the projects include the Sherman Dam and Reservoir, the Arcadia Diversion Dam, the Milburn Diversion Dam, irrigation canals and laterals, drains and pumping plants. Crops grown on these irrigated lands primarily include alfalfa, small grains, sugar beets, and corn to provide feed for a thriving livestock- feeding economy in my state of Nebraska, which includes beef cattle, hogs, and poultry. In 1995 the Vice President indicated that the Bureau of Reclamation of the U.S. Department of Interior should transfer title to allow local ownership of irrigation projects such as this. The Bureau has indicated to me that this project is a top candidate for title transfer to be achieved. When this legislation passes, Nebraska will become the first state where title transfer efforts have been successful. A Nebraska-Middle Loup River Community Environmental Trust Fund is also created through the transfer, to be administered by a 7-member Interlocal Cooperation Agency (ICA). The fund is to be used for environmental and conservation enhancements to project lands and facilities, as agreed to by the 7-member ICA, and cannot be used for routine operation and maintenance of the project or facilities. The irrigation projects and facilities were constructed between 1955 and 1966 under authorities of the Flood Control Act of 1944, and are currently operated and maintained under contracts between the Bureau and the irrigation districts and power producers. The transfer will provide for total repayment of all outstanding obligations on behalf of the irrigation districts and power producers, while retaining all current uses and purposes for the projects. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the Senate is now in the process of creating arguably the most important legislation we produce all year, the Defense Authorization Bill. We are authorizing the activities of government which keep Americans free and safe, and we are authorizing activities which are carried out by young Americans in a spirit of courage and selfless service. So there is no more serious legislation than this. My purpose today is to ask my colleagues as they deliberate on this bill to consider the threats to our country as they are and as they likely will be in the decade ahead, so we authorize armed forces which will be able to deter or defeat those threats. The arms forces we authorize in this bill keep America safe mainly by their credible potential for overwhelming, focused, sustained violence. We allocate the funds by categories such as training, operations and maintenance, quality of life, readiness, but in actuality these funds are to support the credibility of that potential for violence. It is a potential to counter and, if necessary, defeat the threats which put at risk our national life, the lives of Americans, and in some cases the livelihoods and interests of Americans. It is a potential which is an essential element of our national power. Our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee have taken on the daunting task of measuring the forces the President has requested against the threats we face. I say this is a daunting task because while the threats are dynamic, there is a normal human trait to see the threats as static, particularly when we are already heavily invested in a technology or a family of weapons that have proven successful against a particular threat in the past. It is our duty, Mr. President, to resist that trait, to see the world as it is and to try our best to see it as it will be. In our analysis our most useful tool is the information produced by our Intelligence Community. Let's look out across the world of the present and near future. We see Russian nuclear forces, still deployed, still on alert, still capable of killing scores of millions of Americans. We see growing indiscipline in the way Russian nuclear weapons are stored and maintained, combined with a hunger for plutonium and weapons-grade uranium among the world's weapons proliferators. In China we see a much smaller but still deadly Chinese nuclear force, reportedly with its weapons targeted on the U.S. We depend heavily on the intelligence community to monitor Russia's and China's nuclear status, for the reason we always did: because our national survival could be at stake. In Russia we see conventional forces in steep decline and in China conventional forces which appear to be outmoded and immobile, compared with U.S. forces. Looking more broadly, we see a small and diminishing number of countries with capable conventional land or naval forces, but an increasing number of countries and movements trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. In the case of India and Pakistan, we see vividly how successful proliferation efforts add to global danger. We also see non-national and multi-national threats such as terrorist movements and drug cartels posing greater threats to the safety of Americans than the threats posed by the conventional military forces of the few isolated, weak rogue states who claim to be our adversary. Looking more broadly, past the ability of our potential adversaries to do violence, we see a new world in which people increasingly do not look to their national governments as the sole means of accomplishing their goals in international matters. The age of imperialism, in which national governments invaded each other's territory to extend their power, seems a distant memory. Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait eight years ago and the current nuclear tension between India and Pakistan are two indicators that we must keep a sharp eye on relations between states, and if our policymakers choose to intervene in such conflicts, we must have armed forces capable of doing so. But we are in a world in which nonnational actors--individuals as well as corporations and movements have taken international relations into their own hands. The global nature of the Internet and the global, not national, outlook of the world's dominant corporations, are well known to all. Daimler-Benz' recent purchase of a company which less than twenty years ago we were bailing out as a patriotic duty, and the lack of concern in this country about that purchase, underscores the point. At the other, individual end of the scale, we see individual Irish citizens, both north and south, looking beyond their governments and the borders created by governments and seeing the advantage of direct personal and commercial relationships, the advantage not just of peace but of lower barriers. The relentless integration of Europe, most recently marked by the introduction of a common currency, is a sharp contrast to the conflicts and ancient rivalries which marked and divided Europe for centuries. European conflict called forth the greatest armies America ever raised, twice in this century. Today we are concerned with residual ethnic disputes in isolated corners of Europe and in the case of Bosnia even deploy military force in an effort to stabilize and contain the conflict. But large-scale conventional conflict in Europe, for the first time since the invention of gunpowder, is unthinkable. Outside Europe, we see economic integration throughout Asia and in our own hemisphere, and we see economic integration leading cultural integration. The national boundaries are blurring. In this metropolitan area, for example, there are cable TV stations broadcasting in Spanish, Arabic, Japanese, and other languages. Even in Pakistan and India, the elites who rattle nuclear weapons at each other are part of the same global culture; their children are studying in American universities. There are exceptions to the trend of global integration. There are pockets of recalcitrance: dictatorships who retain power by force, immature democracies in which crime rivals legitimate business and creates internal civil wars, unscrupulous leaders in places like the Middle East, South Asia, and the former Yugoslavia who manipulate ethnic rivalries as a tool to retain power. These are the places likely to generate conflicts which threaten our safety or our interests. These are the places which, especially if economic disparity is added to ethnic or religious differences, from which violence will emanate. These are the places in which U.S. intelligence ought to provide policymakers and warfighters the edge. Given that such places exist, and given the enduring strategic threat we also face from Russia, what should our armed forces be able to do? First, our forces should be able to deter the threat of Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons, along with the growing threat posed by regional nuclear programs. The Wall may have fallen, but until verifiable arms control agreements bring this nuclear episode of military history to an end, we need modern, robust nuclear forces and we need the intelligence to closely watch not just Russia and China, but also the nuclear activities of proliferating countries. Good intelligence is inextricably linked to a sound strategic defense, and it is not cheap. Strong nuclear forces in the absence of nuclear testing means a dependable Stockpile Stewardship Program. We and the world must have absolute confidence in our nuclear capabilities. I will therefore support the efforts of the Senator from New Mexico to restore full funding to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Defending America from nuclear threats also means preventing fissile materials from falling into the hands of those aspiring to develop nuclear weapons, be they aspiring countries or terrorists. The Indian- Pakistani attainment of nuclear weapons does not cease our efforts; it means we should redouble them. In this sense, the security of Russia's vast nuclear arsenal is very much in our interest. The Armed Services Committee has long recognized this fact through the Nunn-Lugar program, and I will support restoration of full funding for Nunn-Lugar in this bill. Beyond the nuclear threat, the increasingly interconnected world I described presents little likelihood of a clash of large conventional forces. In addition to globalization, we see a reduction in conventional forces of most countries. With the vitally important exception of the United States, I also see a decline in recent years in the fighting spirit in the remaining large conventional forces in the world. All these trends suggest we will not see our military engaged in a major conventional conflict in the foreseeable future. Certainly the example of the Gulf War should dissuade other countries from putting a large armored force into the field against the United States. Large- scale conventional modernization can therefore safely be a lower priority for us. However, smaller, highly mobile, highly ready conventional forces will be a necessity. Ethnic conflict will continue to erupt on the peripheries of global integration. Because of America's unique power and because, as the performance of our NATO allies in Bosnia prior to our arrival there showed, other countries' militaries will not take forceful action without an American example, we will be called upon for future deployments much like the Bosnian mission. Certainly we cannot answer every call. But if a conflict threatens a wider war which would require an even greater American involvement, we must deploy to nip some conflicts in the bud. It is an obligation of leadership. If we do it right, others will imitate us and we will have to deploy less often. In designing our forces we should bear in mind the characteristics of the ideal deployable forces: highly capable (packing a strong punch), highly mobile, highly trained, well maintained, closely connected to national and theater intelligence, integrated with the command and control systems of the allies with whom we will operate, rapidly transportable to the theater of deployment, and supported by tailored logistics. These forces should operate in an environment in which we control the coasts and sea lanes in the vicinity and the airspace over the vicinity, for purposes of support, surveillance, and air strikes if necessary. Beyond regional deployments, we face non-national threats such as weapons proliferation, terrorism, and the casualties we continually suffer from drug trafficking. As with the Russian nuclear threat, the first line of defense against these threats is the best possible intelligence. We require military forces that can respond to the intelligence when policy makers so direct: agile, superbly trained and equipped special operations forces. Increasingly the military future belongs to the sophistication and stealth of the special operator, rather than the armored masses of the past. Maintaining such forces in all the services should be among our highest priority. Mr. President, a new threat has materialized in recent years, the threat of electronic attack against the communications systems and computer networks which are increasingly the fundamental infrastructure of our country. Recent Defense Department exercises have helped size the potential problem and the Administration has a number of agencies developing a response. As with every threat, intelligence plays a key role in warning against and countering this threat. In developing our defenses, we need units with great knowledge, the best equipment, technically sophisticated people, and speed in both decision and execution. Fortunately, these are American traits. In fact, those who contemplate attacking us in the realm of information operations are really attacking into one of our greatest national strengths. But we should not be over confident. We need to defend in cyberspace, and the forces authorized in this bill should do so. The Armed Services Committee was faced with a tight budget and difficult choices. I propose reviewing those choices with this criterion: how does this or that program help create or sustain the kind of military forces I have described, forces responsive to the threats and global realities we face? We simply cannot afford to allocate these scarce resources on the basis of other criteria. It is not enough to state a particular class of equipment is wearing out or should be replaced, we have always had that class of equipment, so we should get a new modern version. We must ask: how does that class of equipment respond to the threats we face and will face? It is not enough to state, the defense plant in my state will lack work if we do not buy a particular item. It is not enough to state, the military base in my state must continue to operate at or above its current level of manning, regardless of the national need. It is unfair to our service members and their families, it is unfair to taxpayers, but above all it is unfair to the nation we are pledged to defend, to force precious defense funds to be spent on a basing system which is reportedly over twenty percent larger than the nation requires. Mr. President, I will be looking closely at this legislation in terms of its contribution to the forces we require. It is far more agreeable to stay the course and stick with the traditional weapons and organizations and bases which helped win the Cold War. With an institution as large and complex as the Defense Department, change is also a lengthy process. But we must lead change and make the defense choices to align our forces with the world as it is and will be. Our fighting men and women deserve it and our country should expect it of us.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the country has recently lost to retirement its commander in chief of the United States Strategic Command, General Eugene E. Habiger, USAF, and his wife, Barbara. General Habiger has taken the United States and the U.S. Strategic Command into a new world environment. With the end of the Cold War, two rivals were uncertain how to proceed. Under General Habiger's leadership, the former Soviet Union and United States strategic forces have developed a trusting, confident understanding of the other's capabilities and operations. During his tenure, General Habiger's insightful leadership and visionary initiatives revolutionized the readiness and flexibility of the Nation's strategic deterrent force in support of the National Command Authorities and regional combatant commanders. He made major contributions to the national security of the United States by establishing parameters for future strategic forces; by leading a stable drawdown of nuclear forces; by fostering mutual understanding and cooperation with Russia; and by shaping the process by which the United States maintains the long-term safety and reliability of its nuclear weapons stockpile. New tools and concepts developed under General Habiger's leadership ensured strategic forces remained safe, effective, ready and responsive to changing world needs. As stated in a letter from General Henry H. Shelton, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Habiger ``helped Americans more fully appreciate the important strategic mission, improved the relationship with Russia, and molded future leaders who will ably take the USSTRATCOM mission into the 21st Century.'' From the early days as a student pilot at Williams Air Force Base, Arizona, to commander of the 325th Bombardment Squadron, General Habiger was an outstanding aviator and leader. A command pilot with more than 5,000 flying hours, he flew combat missions in support of ARC LIGHT operations in Southeast Asia from October 1969 to April 1970. The general's varied and vast contributions to the nation's strategic defense and his many critical command positions helped secure peace through strength and make the U.S. Air Force the world's best. We also lose a tremendous supporter and friend in his wife, Barbara. Barbara's extraordinary voluntary contributions to the community of Omaha, Nebraska contributed to the well being of countless military and civilian families in the area. As an active member of the Salvation Army Advisory Board, her efforts touched thousands through dollars raised during the Tree of Lights and Bell Ringers programs. Her work with the Nebraska Council for Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention and the Western Heritage Museum helped ensure the effectiveness and success of these vital organizations. The Henry Doorly Zoo benefitted from Barbara's volunteerism, as she led efforts to help raise nearly one million dollars for the care and feeding of the zoo's animals. General and Mrs. Habiger leave the military after a distinguished 39 year career serving their nation. The people of the United States salute General and Mrs. Habiger and wish them well as they begin their lives after military service.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this conference report for the same reasons that I objected to the legislation when we debated it here on the Senate floor in March. But I do not take this vote lightly. How we educate our kids better is a serious issue. I know that in regard to the legislation proposed by Senator Coverdell, I have a different opinion than my Catholic schools friends in Nebraska, Jim Cunningham of the Nebraska Catholic Conference and Sister Pat Mulcahey, superintendent of the Omaha Archdiocese. But when it comes to the core issue of whether we want to provide a better education for America's young people, Jim, Sister Pat, and I are always on the same side: Yes, we do. First of all, let me say that I am deeply appreciative and respectful of the mission of parochial schools in Nebraska and throughout the nation. But I am also, and always have been, a strong supporter of public schools. I would support legislation that truly helped the vast majority of public school and parochial school parents improve educational opportunities for their children. I do not believe that this legislation accomplishes that goal. Granted, this legislation looks better than it did when it was originally passed in the Senate. But I believe it is still flawed. This education IRA bill for K-12 expenses will add significantly to the nearly $75 billion annually paid by taxpayers in an effort to comply with the tax code. It is also an example of how Congress passes tax law without considering the cost of administering this new tax law and its real impact on the American taxpayers it is supposed to help. Furthermore, it makes no real investment in those areas of education that are crucial to the success of our young people as they prepare to enter the workforce. In order to help more of our children achieve the American Dream, we have to equip them with the skills to do so. Technology programs, Title 1, and vocational education are where we need to focus our efforts. And so I would urge my colleagues, if we truly want to help America's children get a better education, let's invest in programs that produce results, and let's make sure all of our students have the opportunity to benefit from them.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will connect what I say here about this piece of legislation with Father's Day. I had the occasion, during our last recess, to take my 23-year-old son and my 21-year-old daughter to Omaha Beach. I was in the audience on the 6th of June, 1994, in Antelope Park in Lincoln, NE, where, among other people, I heard at that time the senior Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon, and many other speakers talk about that day on the 6th of June, 1944, when very young men crossed the English Channel in the early morning and, as they approached the beaches of Normandy in France--now quite quiet, now nowhere near as hostile as it was on that morning--the bullets from the German trenches rained down upon the beach. And the soldiers, as they approached the beach that morning, could hear the bullets raking the front of their landing craft. Those of us who have experienced bullets raking in any environment at all understand the courage that it took to lower those gates and leave those boats, knowing that it was highly likely that they were going to be shot and that it was even a higher probability, in those early landing craft, that they would die. On the occasion that I took my son and daughter, this year, to Omaha Beach, I pointed out the crosses there in this very quiet, reverential place--that each one of them is a story. Each one of them is a son. Each one of them was either a potential father or perhaps was a father themselves, leaving behind grieving sons and daughters who remember that extraordinary service. So, on Father's Day I am apt, I suspect as many of us who have served are--apt to reflect, not only upon my father, but also upon the fathers who are no longer with us as a consequence of their service, as a consequence of their heroism, as a consequence of their courage. And I, as an individual, am always more impressed with the courage and the heroism that is done, as the distinguished Senator from West Virginia was describing in his own father, without any expectation that there would be a television camera recording the act, or a newspaper reporter writing it down, or any glory whatsoever, necessarily, coming to that individual. The most important act of heroism is that act of heroism that occurs when nobody is observing what you do. That is when character is built. That is when the strength of, not just the individual, but the strength of the Nation, comes through as well. These young men who landed on that beach on the 6th of June, 1944, knew that they perhaps would die with no one there recording what it was that they had done. I am struck, not just on Father's Day, but on many other days as well, how blessed we are as a result of the sacrifices that our fathers made for us and our forefathers made for us. As I begin my comments on this piece of legislation, I can't help but connect with what the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the senior Senator, was talking about earlier about fathers and sacrifice and the nobility of character that is developed in that moment when you do what your father told you to do. You follow not just the straight and narrow path, but often the most difficult path. My own father's most important lesson to me was that the easy road is apt to be the wrong road; the easy course is apt to be the wrong course. It is that difficult path that we very often must choose. I am here on the floor to make that observation about this particular piece of legislation, Mr. President, S. 2057, 35 titles, 412 pages. I came here as a former Governor, as a former businessperson, and the longer that I am on the job of writing laws, the more impressed I am that there is a connection between these laws and our lives. It may be that some of these words in this piece of legislation I disagree with, and I may come to the floor and try to change some of these words, but none of us should doubt that these words are important, that they create an authorization in law that enables us to have an Army, a Marine Corps, a Navy, an Air Force, and a Coast Guard. It frames for us and authorizes for us what we will need to defend our Nation. One of the things that I hear very often when I am talking to the citizens of my State whom I represent is they will say to me, ``Well, Senator, what threats are there? The cold war is over. For gosh sakes, what threats are there today to the people of the United States of America that would justify this expenditure, not just of money but of lives?'' Understand, we are not just authorizing the creation of an Army, a Navy, a Marine Corps, an Air Force, and a Coast Guard, we are asking young men and women to come in and swear an oath to their country and defend the people and, if necessary, not only to risk their lives, but even to give their lives in a cause that we on this floor declared important, as we have done in Bosnia, as we have done throughout the world not just in this year but in past years. My answer is, unfortunately it was not readily apparent in the 1920s that there was a threat. Thus, Americans in the 1920s said, ``We have suffered enough in the Great War,'' the so-called war to end all wars. It was supposed to be the last war of mankind. We had a treaty at Versailles in 1919. It was believed that was all we had to do. So we came home and wrote laws in response to people saying, ``We've had enough.'' We wrote laws that downsized our military, that said there is no apparent threat in the 1920s, so we maintained just a skeleton force, if that. Mr. President, my father was a 6-year-old in Chicago in 1919, and little did he know that the move to demilitarize this Nation, the move to isolate this Nation, the move to say that we are going to take care of America first and only would result not just in his having to serve in the Army, and he was being prepared for the assault of Japan when Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were dropped and Japan surrendered, but his older brother, John, went to the Philippines expecting in 1941 to return happily a year later, but he was among those who were, on the 8th of December, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, he was among those who were on the island in the Philippines unprepared for an attack--unprepared--and, as a consequence, they not only suffered the Bataan death march, but suffered horribly over the next few years. It may not be that we see a threat of enormous dimensions today, but this piece of legislation, I hope, prepares us for the threat that we don't see, for the threat that may occur tomorrow. I hope that we understand as we write this piece of legislation that there are men and women who are serving us in our Armed Forces. I know that the Armed Services Committee has written in to make certain that they are not only given a sufficient amount of resources to train and prepare themselves, but that they are given adequate housing and that they are given adequate health care and that they are given other things as a consequence of us knowing and understanding that they are serving us and putting themselves at risk in service to us. Another area that I think we also need to understand is that there is diplomacy that occurs simultaneously with our authorizing and preparing our defenses. One very important piece of diplomacy will occur next week when our President, our Commander in Chief, travels to the People's Republic of China, the largest nation on Earth, the most populous nation on Earth, still a Communist nation, still, in my opinion, suffering as a result of not having what we have, and that is the blessings of liberty, of a government of, by and for the people. I hope that on this defense authorization bill we will not make it more difficult for the President to engage in diplomacy. I hope that we are able to restrain ourselves. I know that there is interest in China. I know there will be amendments that will come to the floor, but I hope that we will not make diplomacy more difficult, Mr. President. Diplomacy is the effort that we make to say that we are going to do all we can, not just to keep our defenses strong to prepare for a threat we may not see today, not just to keep our defenses strong so we discourage bad behavior, but diplomacy is an effort we make to prevent wars from happening in the first place. To that end, I would like to comment a bit on some diplomacy. On Wednesday of this week, the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, gave a speech about Asia, and especially she commented about the need to change our policies carefully towards the nation of Iran. I rise, indeed, to note two important events in the often troubled relationship between the United States and Iran. One of these events, Secretary of State Albright's speech to the Asia Society on Wednesday night, and the other event is the World Cup soccer match in France between the teams of the United States and Iran. This event on Sunday is a far smaller event, but it is, nonetheless, still important. First, the speech of Secretary Albright is an intellectual event, and the second, the soccer match between the United States and Iran, is a physical event. The first deals with the sweep of history, the sweep of culture and religion, and the second takes place in the here and now. Yet, both, in my judgment, are major departures in a complex and extremely difficult relationship. At the level of Governments, the United States and Iran have disliked and suspected each other for 19 years. At the human level, Americans and Iranians have expressed their resentments towards the other country as they almost unconsciously grow closer to each other at the same time. Mr. President, with each passing year, and especially with events such as the election of President Khatami and the warm reception accorded to the American wrestling team in Iran, the gulf between our antagonistic Government-to-Government relations, and the more positive relations between the Americans and Iranians are becoming more apparent. Secretary Albright took an important first step Wednesday night towards closing that gulf. The importance is by no means diminished by the initial negative response that was heard yesterday on Iran's state radio. Secretary Albright recognized Mr. Khatami as the choice of 70 percent of the Iranian voters, and that he embodies their desire for change for greater freedom, for a society based on the rule of law, for a more moderate foreign policy leading to an end of Iran's international isolation. She also noted that Mr. Khatami has started to change Iranian policies of long-term concern to us. At the same time, Secretary Albright noted considerable caution. She said Mr. Khatami does not control the entire Iranian Government, and that is perhaps the most notable observation for all of us who are trying to decide what to do, on the one hand, with Mr. Khatami's very moderate and positive statements and the continued behavior in the overall Government that appears to be in conflict. The intelligence services, the military, the Revolutionary Guards are outside the control of Mr. Khatami. They respond to Supreme Jurisconsult Khamenei and the more controversial leaders whose candidate was defeated by Khatami in last year's election. As a result, Iran's behavior is somewhat schizophrenic. For example, with regard to the Arab-Israel peace process, Mr. Khatami invited Yasser Arafat to Tehran and accepted Palestinian decisions to negotiate for peace. But Iran also continues to emit harsh anti-Israeli rhetoric, which does not advance the cause of peace. Khatami has condemned terrorism, but Iran continues to support anti- Israeli terrorist groups like Hezbollah and terrorizes Iranian exile opponents of the regime. Iran has made progress against illegal drugs and is beginning to reform its institutions. But allies of Khatami, such as the mayor of Tehran and the Interior Minister, are threatened with trials, which are forms of intimidation by the old guard. As Secretary of State Albright noted, Iran has welcomed large numbers of Afghan refugees. Iran has also improved its relations with its Arab neighbors in the Gulf. But its development of weapons of mass destruction must give these same neighbors considerable pause. In no way could today's Iran be called a force for stability in the region. Secretary Albright was clear that American concerns remain and that U.S. policy towards Iran will not change until Iranian policies, and the actions flowing from those policies, change first. But she also held out the possibility for better relations, which must be tantalizing to many of the Iranian majority who voted for Khatami. The possibility should be equally tantalizing to Americans who want peace, who want security, and who want democracy for all the states of the Middle East. But closure will not come easily, Mr. President, or quickly. I will never completely get over the Iranian holding of our Embassy staff hostage in Tehran for over a year, and I suspect many other Americans agree with me. The death sentence which Iran applies to a writer whose book offends them and who is thereby condemned to a life in hiding deeply offends me. Let me add that if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Iran was involved in the killing of 19 American airmen at Khobar Towers, the consequences for Iran will be severe and the possibility for better relations with us will be zero. Major changes in Iranian behavior must precede an improvement in relations between the United States and Iran, and Secretary Albright's measured tone this Wednesday reflects the administration's sober understanding of this reality. But she reminded Iran that our problem with them is not their culture or their religion, both of which we respect; the problem is Iranian actions. If those actions change, we will develop a roadmap for better relations over time. Meanwhile, at the human level of athletics, this coming Sunday in Lyons, France, or in universities across the United States, Iranians and Americans accept each other as individuals, compete fairly, and come to know each other as friends. We relearn how much more we have in common in our fundamental aspirations for our lives and our children's lives. If the Iranian Government chooses, our Governments can relate in the same way, and a key region will be safer. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. First of all, I come to the floor to offer some comments on S. 2057, a 412-page law that is before us. But I had the pleasure, as many others did on the floor, to listen to the statement of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia about not only West Virginia, but also on Father's Day. I want to offer my praise as well, not just for the Senator's statement, but for the Senator's service. The senior Senator from West Virginia has not only made the lives of the people of West Virginia better, but he has also made the lives of the people of America better and, for those of us who have had the opportunity to learn from him, we hope our service better as well. I am grateful for the advice and counsel and the assistance that the distinguished Senator has given me. But I am most grateful for those times when I had the opportunity to sit and listen to his views and his capacity to connect the strength and courage of individuals in the past to what we do here on this floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will not object, but I wish the proponent of the vote on cloture will vote for the cloture motion. We will then discover where the votes are. I am prepared to move to final passage. There is a lot in the bill I don't like. I agree with what the Senator from Arizona said earlier. I believe it important to enact legislation. There are a lot of lives at stake. I wish you would discover where the votes are by moving to cloture, but also supporting the cloture motion you are going to file.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I ask the majority leader, does the majority leader intend to vote for cloture?

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, consumers in Nebraska currently pay some of the lowest rates in the nation for their electric service. They receive power from 171 entities--more individual electric systems than any other state. Nebraska is also the only state in the nation which relies entirely on public power for its electric service. This structure has served Nebraskans well, and the legislation that Senators Gorton, Bumpers, Jeffords, and I are introducing today will ensure that consumers in my state continue to receive superior electric service as efforts to deregulate the electric industry move forward. Mr. President, the legislation we are introducing accomplishes three important goals: First, this bill enables public power systems to open their transmission lines to other power producers and to transfer control of their transmission facilities to an Independent System Operator without jeopardizing the status of their tax-exempt bonds. This will enable consumers throughout the country to receive electricity from their power producer of choice in an open access marketplace. Secondly, this bill enables public power systems to make non-tariff sales of lost ``load'' resulting from retail competition, without jeopardizing the ability of the utility to issue tax-exempt debt in the future. This will allow public utilities to continue to provide quality service to current customers and attract new customers in a deregulated environment. Finally, Mr. President, this legislation gives public power systems the option of terminating issuance of new tax-exempt debt for generation facilities, while grandfathering all existing debt. This provision will give public power systems the flexibility necessary to make business decisions about the future based on their financial status and the electricity demands in their individual service areas. Mr. President, I commend Senator Gorton for the time and energy that he has devoted to this issue. It is critical that Congress alleviate the burden which current private-use regulations place on the ability of public power systems to function in a deregulated environment. While Congress moves toward electricity deregulation, I will continue to fight for the consumers of my state to ensure that their best interests are not compromised. The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today is a realistic and workable solution to the private- use dilemma, and I encourage my colleagues to give it their full support.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, many of the things we do in the Senate require hypothetical analysis, shaky forecasts and hazy predictions. Indeed at times it could be said that we don't know what we're doing. Today Senator Moynihan and I are introducing a bill based on a mathematical certainty. Our bill would make every baby born in America wealthy. Guaranteed. This proposal, called KidSave, supplements S. 1792, the Social Security Solvency Act of 1998, which the Senator from New York introduced earlier this year and of which I am an original cosponsor. It would cut the payroll tax by $800 billion--the largest tax cut in American history, and the one most targeted to middle class families-- so individuals can harness the power of compounding interest rates to build wealth for retirement. One of the discoveries I have made in researching this idea is that the most important variable in compounding interest rates is time. The earlier you start, the more wealth you build. KidSave is based on that observation. It would use part of the savings created by S. 1792 to open a $1,000 account for every child at birth and contribute $500 a year to that account for the first five years. These KidSave accounts would be invested in broad funds administered by the Social Security Administration, and be similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to federal employees and to members of this body. As I said, Mr. President, this is a mathematical proposition. Even at modest rates of return, the long stretch of time over which this investment would be compounded means every baby born in America would have a shot at the American dream. At just 5.4 percent return, less than the historical rates of return for the market, these birth accounts alone would allow every American to supplement his or her retirement income by $235 a month in 1998 dollars, and still leave more than $100,000 behind to his or her heirs. These accounts would supplement those opened by the payroll tax cut proposed in S. 1792. This approach to retirement security is two- pronged. First, we shore up the solvency of Social Security so it continues to provide a reliable monthly check. But we also realize that check isn't enough to live on. The average Social Security check in Nebraska is $733 a month. Nationwide, sixteen percent of beneficiaries have no other source of income. Another 14 percent rely on Social Security for more than 90 percent of their income, and nearly two- thirds overall derive more than half their income from that small check. For many of them, it's not enough. Our proposal is based on the idea that retirees need both income and wealth, and experience bears that idea out. Today retirees with asset income have more than double the retirement income of those who don't. But this is about much more than money. Not only is this a guaranteed route to retirement security, it's also a mathematically certain solution to one of the toughest problems we face: The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. To understand this problem, we must understand the difference between income and wealth. Income, Mr. President, consists of the paychecks we use to pay our bills. Wealth is what an individual owns in assets like a home, mutual fund or pension. We've heard a lot recently about the gap between rich and poor in terms of income. The gap in wealth is even worse and, I would argue, more important. As our economy becomes more global and technology-intensive, it is disproportionately distributing its rewards to those who own a piece of our economy. Despite the growing importance of wealth, a stark gap has opened between those who have it and those who don't. The bottom 90 percent of Americans earn 60 percent of all income, but own less than 30 percent of net worth and less than 20 percent of financial assets. These Americans are being left behind as the economy apportions more and more of its rewards to owners of wealth. Social Security can be a vehicle for solving that problem. We believe wealth can transform Americans' attitudes about their future. Wealth enables higher living standards, but it also enables generosity and the optimism that comes with feeling secure about the future. Wealth can make every American an Oseola McCarty, the remarkable woman in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, who after more than seven decades of low-wage work as a washer woman donated $150,000 to the University of Southern Mississippi--wealth she had built by saving a little bit of money over a long period of time. Wealth can make every American like Al, a man who works as a printer for the U.S. Senate. His Thrift Savings Plan has boomed so much he is thinking of opening a savings account for his two-year-old boy. Wealth can give every American the opportunity to be like another man I recently met, whose firm was bought out but who became wealthier because he owned a piece of it. When I spoke with him, he didn't talk about his income. He said he had told his wife: ``Whatever else happens to us in life, we know the kids can go to college.'' Each of these Americans has something in common, Mr. President. They own a piece of their country. When the economy grows, they grow. They have a stake in low inflation. They want trade barriers lowered. They are on the front lines of a transformation from an ``us-vs.-them'' economy to one in which the attitude is: ``We're all in this together.'' And, Mr. President, that's an opportunity we can open today to every baby born in America. Guaranteed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, consumers in Nebraska currently pay some of the lowest rates in the nation for their electric service. They receive power from 171 entities--more individual electric systems than any other state. Nebraska is also the only state in the nation which relies entirely on public power for its electric service. This structure has served Nebraskans well, and the legislation that Senators Gorton, Bumpers, Jeffords, and I are introducing today will ensure that consumers in my state continue to receive superior electric service as efforts to deregulate the electric industry move forward. Mr. President, the legislation we are introducing accomplishes three important goals: First, this bill enables public power systems to open their transmission lines to other power producers and to transfer control of their transmission facilities to an Independent System Operator without jeopardizing the status of their tax-exempt bonds. This will enable consumers throughout the country to receive electricity from their power producer of choice in an open access marketplace. Secondly, this bill enables public power systems to make non-tariff sales of lost ``load'' resulting from retail competition, without jeopardizing the ability of the utility to issue tax-exempt debt in the future. This will allow public utilities to continue to provide quality service to current customers and attract new customers in a deregulated environment. Finally, Mr. President, this legislation gives public power systems the option of terminating issuance of new tax-exempt debt for generation facilities, while grandfathering all existing debt. This provision will give public power systems the flexibility necessary to make business decisions about the future based on their financial status and the electricity demands in their individual service areas. Mr. President, I commend Senator Gorton for the time and energy that he has devoted to this issue. It is critical that Congress alleviate the burden which current private-use regulations place on the ability of public power systems to function in a deregulated environment. While Congress moves toward electricity deregulation, I will continue to fight for the consumers of my state to ensure that their best interests are not compromised. The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today is a realistic and workable solution to the private- use dilemma, and I encourage my colleagues to give it their full support.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, many of the things we do in the Senate require hypothetical analysis, shaky forecasts and hazy predictions. Indeed at times it could be said that we don't know what we're doing. Today Senator Moynihan and I are introducing a bill based on a mathematical certainty. Our bill would make every baby born in America wealthy. Guaranteed. This proposal, called KidSave, supplements S. 1792, the Social Security Solvency Act of 1998, which the Senator from New York introduced earlier this year and of which I am an original cosponsor. It would cut the payroll tax by $800 billion--the largest tax cut in American history, and the one most targeted to middle class families-- so individuals can harness the power of compounding interest rates to build wealth for retirement. One of the discoveries I have made in researching this idea is that the most important variable in compounding interest rates is time. The earlier you start, the more wealth you build. KidSave is based on that observation. It would use part of the savings created by S. 1792 to open a $1,000 account for every child at birth and contribute $500 a year to that account for the first five years. These KidSave accounts would be invested in broad funds administered by the Social Security Administration, and be similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to federal employees and to members of this body. As I said, Mr. President, this is a mathematical proposition. Even at modest rates of return, the long stretch of time over which this investment would be compounded means every baby born in America would have a shot at the American dream. At just 5.4 percent return, less than the historical rates of return for the market, these birth accounts alone would allow every American to supplement his or her retirement income by $235 a month in 1998 dollars, and still leave more than $100,000 behind to his or her heirs. These accounts would supplement those opened by the payroll tax cut proposed in S. 1792. This approach to retirement security is two- pronged. First, we shore up the solvency of Social Security so it continues to provide a reliable monthly check. But we also realize that check isn't enough to live on. The average Social Security check in Nebraska is $733 a month. Nationwide, sixteen percent of beneficiaries have no other source of income. Another 14 percent rely on Social Security for more than 90 percent of their income, and nearly two- thirds overall derive more than half their income from that small check. For many of them, it's not enough. Our proposal is based on the idea that retirees need both income and wealth, and experience bears that idea out. Today retirees with asset income have more than double the retirement income of those who don't. But this is about much more than money. Not only is this a guaranteed route to retirement security, it's also a mathematically certain solution to one of the toughest problems we face: The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. To understand this problem, we must understand the difference between income and wealth. Income, Mr. President, consists of the paychecks we use to pay our bills. Wealth is what an individual owns in assets like a home, mutual fund or pension. We've heard a lot recently about the gap between rich and poor in terms of income. The gap in wealth is even worse and, I would argue, more important. As our economy becomes more global and technology-intensive, it is disproportionately distributing its rewards to those who own a piece of our economy. Despite the growing importance of wealth, a stark gap has opened between those who have it and those who don't. The bottom 90 percent of Americans earn 60 percent of all income, but own less than 30 percent of net worth and less than 20 percent of financial assets. These Americans are being left behind as the economy apportions more and more of its rewards to owners of wealth. Social Security can be a vehicle for solving that problem. We believe wealth can transform Americans' attitudes about their future. Wealth enables higher living standards, but it also enables generosity and the optimism that comes with feeling secure about the future. Wealth can make every American an Oseola McCarty, the remarkable woman in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, who after more than seven decades of low-wage work as a washer woman donated $150,000 to the University of Southern Mississippi--wealth she had built by saving a little bit of money over a long period of time. Wealth can make every American like Al, a man who works as a printer for the U.S. Senate. His Thrift Savings Plan has boomed so much he is thinking of opening a savings account for his two-year-old boy. Wealth can give every American the opportunity to be like another man I recently met, whose firm was bought out but who became wealthier because he owned a piece of it. When I spoke with him, he didn't talk about his income. He said he had told his wife: ``Whatever else happens to us in life, we know the kids can go to college.'' Each of these Americans has something in common, Mr. President. They own a piece of their country. When the economy grows, they grow. They have a stake in low inflation. They want trade barriers lowered. They are on the front lines of a transformation from an ``us-vs.-them'' economy to one in which the attitude is: ``We're all in this together.'' And, Mr. President, that's an opportunity we can open today to every baby born in America. Guaranteed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today, I want to speak on an issue of critical importance to my state of Nebraska. Whenever I travel back to the Good Life, what Nebraskans call their home, the one issue that always percolates to the top of any conversation is the lack of affordable housing, and this issue can dominate any spirited civic dialogue in our smaller communities throughout the state. Talking with city officials, economic development groups, community planners, chambers of commerce representatives, and any of the town people who are deeply concerned about the prospects of their community, it is apparent to me, as sure as the Nebraska summer sky is blue, that more needs to be done to make sure communities have the necessary tools to produce affordable housing and create more home ownership opportunities. Home ownership should not be a far away dream, it should be a choice for many more Americans. Owning a home, some say, is not a right or privilege. I say owning a home is part of the American dream and should be a reachable goal for more Americans. There are great examples of home ownership programs throughout this country, and I would like to share with you some of the exciting and innovative ideas people are trying in Nebraska. Since 1990 the Lincoln Housing Authority (LHA) has enabled over 200 families to achieve their goal of owning a home through an innovative Home Ownership Program. LHA makes loans to qualified clients up to a maximum of $3,750. And each year the buyer remains in the home and is in compliance, 20% of the loan will be forgiven. LHA also has an exciting project called Lease-Purchase Program which is a joint venture with the Lincoln Public Schools. Students who are in residential construction trade classes build one single family home a year. When the home is completed, the house is placed under a lease- purchase agreement with the understanding the tenants will purchase the house at the end of the five year lease period. LHA, through innovation and unique partnerships, has made a huge difference in communities throughout Lincoln, where families who once thought home ownership was impossible, not see it as something that can be achieved. The Holy Name Housing Corproation, along with South Omaha Affordable Housing, have implemented a 32 single family rental project called the Crown Project. The project, financed by low income tax credits, Community Development Block Grant funds, and private financing, is an incubator for home ownership. These new single family homes located in North and South Omaha neighborhoods are rented to tenants committed to home ownership. This is an exciting project for members of these neighborhoods and an excellent example of what efficient partnerships can produce. Another fine example of what Nebraskans are doing is the example of the Kearney Housing Authority (KHA) and how they are seeking prudent partnerships that fill a need for the community of Kearney. KHA, along with the University of Nebraska at Kearney's Construction and Technology Department and the Platte Valley State Bank and Trust, is able to provide homeownership opportunities to families at income levels who otherwise could not afford it. What KHA did was bring in the Platte Valley State Bank and Trust-- with their financial expertise and competitive interest rates--and the University--who served as the contractor and the providers of excellent hands-on education for its students--to form a most qualified partnership. KHA served as ``the owner'' and saw the project from beginning to the end, which resulted in a huge success story, as families were given the chance to own a home for the first time, while the Kearney community received commitments from families who wanted to invest in Kearney. As Americans are discussing this week how to improve home ownership opportunities and make it a reality for many more in their communities, I want to focus on rural Nebraska and how we need to make home ownership and affordable housing a reality for towns throughout Nebraska. In 1996, a series of seven Nebraska regional focus groups comprised of community representatives and development professionals were asked ``What are the most important things to focus on in the next 12-24 months in your community?'' The top four priorities were leadership development, regional collaboration, technology, and housing. Housing is a fundamental community need. It enhances or erodes a community's image and its appeal to business, industry, and, most importantly, the people who live there or may want to live there. Housing is a fundamental human need. Without decent, safe and affordable places to live, people lack a resource that enables them to pursue a quality of life that many others possess. As some communities in Nebraska have seen former residents and new folks moving to their town, they find that their town does not have the housing supply to satisfy this new demand. Also, attracted by our state's economic development efforts, businesses are seriously considering rural Nebraska, but become hesitant about locating there when it is evident there is a lack of housing for the workers they aim to employ. To ensure that job opportunities are not lost in our communities, to encourage population growth and to improve the quality of life for many Nebraskans, the serious lack of available and affordable housing must be addressed. Housing must be viewed as a component of every community's economic development future.