J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, do I need to ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business?

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, due to an unavoidable delay in my travel, I missed yesterday's rollcall vote number 39. Had I been present, I would have voted against tabling that amendment.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will let the minority leader speak to that himself. He has just come to the floor. In his absence, I was making the point that you-all control the agenda on the floor. You decide what comes up. I heard the chairman of the Finance Committee say that nothing is a higher priority than the restructuring of the IRS. We worked for 5 days on the Ronald Reagan Airport. We debated human cloning for 4 days. You have to decide what you want to schedule and what you think is the most important priority. In regard to the IRS, this education legislation will make our Tax Code more complicated, no question about that. You can't deny that that's the case. Our Tax Code is going to get more complicated, not less complicated. Under current law, the Commissioner is not at the table. The Commissioner doesn't get the opportunity to express a view, whether that view is against what the President wants to do or against what the Congress wants to do, or to just tell us what it is going to cost the taxpayers to comply. The bill passed the House on November 4, and since that time 16 million Americans have been sent collection notices. In the bill passed on the floor in November, the Commissioner has a seat at the table to talk to us about the cost of compliance, talk to us on behalf of the taxpayer, what it is going to cost them to try to take advantage of some new tax loophole, new tax provision that we are writing into law. That is all I was saying, Mr. President. I am also saying that, as regards the IRS restructuring, forget all other deadlines. The American taxpayers have a deadline on the 15th of April. Let's conform our deadline to theirs. Again, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee has been a leader in this. He held excellent hearings on this and has been very straightforward in doing that. But the clock is ticking. Collection notices are going out. The IRS continues to operate. This bill was passed in the House by a vote of 426-4, including the vote of Speaker Gingrich, Majority Leader Armey, and every single Republican in the House of Representatives. It is a strong bill. The chairman has excellent ideas. Bring it to the floor and offer it as a managers' amendment so we can get it to conference and on to the President for signature--not for us, but for the taxpayers who are going to be subject to the power and abuse of the IRS as long as we allow the current law to continue. One additional thing. The Senator from Georgia held up a letter from, I guess, the NEA, National Education Association, talking about the distributional analysis. The cite I have been using is not from the NEA; it's from the Joint Committee on Taxation. It was the Joint Committee on Taxation that provided us with that analysis. We didn't have this analysis when we marked up the bill in the Finance Committee. Now we have the analysis. We have an analysis that shows what the distributional impact is going to be. I ask unanimous consent that this memorandum be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERREY. Five minutes.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I also rise in opposition to cloture. If you look out across America today and look at the growth in the economy and the economic success and the various reasons why we have that economic success, it is clear that one of the things we need to do is invest in our infrastructure. We just passed an ISTEA bill, $200 billion or so in investments in roads, bridges, in our transportation system to make it more productive. Our people are part of our infrastructure. What we are saying on this side is that, if you want to provide a tax break, we ought to also be doing something about our schools that are crumbling, about our class sizes that have grown too large. There is a lot more we can do than just this piece of legislation. That is all we are asking for. There is an opportunity to offer some constructive amendments that would substantially improve this piece of legislation. Otherwise, as many others have commented, the distributional analysis is lousy and it does precious little to help those who are in the greatest need. Mr. President, there is another reason that has not been mentioned on the floor that I want to talk about a bit. Our American taxpayers have a deadline called April 15 which is less than four weeks away. That is their deadline, their schedule. Under law they have to have their taxes paid. On the 4th of November last year the House, by a vote of 426-4, passed a piece of legislation that would restructure the IRS and give the Commissioner the authority to manage in a fashion that almost everybody says ought to be done. In addition to that, the House legislation gives taxpayers new power. If the IRS sends out a collection notice, you know with certainty that they better be certain that they are right; otherwise, they are going to have to pay your legal fees and other fees associated up to $100,000 of punitive damages. In addition, Mr. President, in the legislation passed by the House by 426-4 last November--which, if we had taken it up and passed it here, could be conferenced and down to the President for signature by the April 15 deadline. That should be our deadline. By the way, the American taxpayers don't have an Easter recess. They can't go home and say, ``I'll see you after the April 15 deadline.'' There are also new requirements in the IRS reform proposals that are on the table which calls for the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service to be present when we are passing new tax laws to speak out for the American taxpayer and say, this is what it will cost the taxpayer to comply. You have given a great speech about how this new tax break such and such and such and such, but this is what it will cost the American taxpayer to comply. Now, just listen to this new tax idea. Since 1986 this Congress has amended the tax law 60-odd times. When we continue to do it, talk about how complex the Tax Code is and why simplicity is needed, some of our greatest advocates of flat tax and simplicity are not wildly enthusiastic about something that will add substantial complexity to their tax returns. Let me walk through this education legislation, which allows for tax- free withdrawals from education accounts for room and board, uniforms, transportation expenses, or supplementary items and services, but only if these things are required or provided by the school. Now, this not only requires families to have a pretty sophisticated understanding of the law before they take their money out; it also appears that to be on the right side of the law, parents would need to be able to justify their expenditures with detailed records. Who is going to be checking those records? Will the IRS be asking taxpayers to submit bus fare receipts and clothing bills with tax returns? Mr. President, if they don't provide that information when they file, are we going to be asking for it in an audit situation? Don't forget that this K-12 provision sunsets in 2002. What does that mean? That means if we pass this legislation, we will have three separate rules governing the education savings account. This year, an account that can be used for higher education, but not K through 12; next year, through 2002, we have different rules allowing tax-free withdrawals from the account; and after that, K through 12 withdrawals could be made, but only from the contributions and earnings from 1999 to 2002. Now if you understand that, I am surprised, because I don't think your constituents will know. Will taxpayers know how much they take out is tax free? I doubt it. How will the IRS know? How will the IRS attempt to explain these new rules to taxpayers, and who will understand them? Mr. President, that is why the law should say that the Commissioner of the IRS is going to be at the table when we write a tax law, to give us an estimate of what it will cost. The majority leader of the House came before the IRS Commission, which I chaired, and said it costs taxpayers upwards of $200 billion to comply with the existing code-- with the existing code, Mr. President. And here we are again--probably on the way home to give speeches about the complexity of our code-- adding additional complexity. Mr. President, we are going in the wrong direction. This bill takes us in the wrong direction. We should schedule the IRS bill that passed the House. If we are not able to come up with a piece of legislation in the Senate, we need to bring the House bill to this floor, pass it, get it to the President for his signature, so that on the 15th of April the American taxpayers will have the power they deserve. Give the Commissioner the authority he needs. And, finally, get that Commissioner at the table when this Congress is taking up a new tax bill so on a piece of legislation like this we will have his estimate of what it will cost the American taxpayer to comply with some new idea that we have that we say is going to benefit the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first of all, the distinguished Senator from Georgia mentioned a filibuster. All we are asking for on this side of the aisle is a chance to do more. We look out in America and see crumbling schools and class sizes growing. We see a much bigger problem than you all see. So we are just asking for an opportunity to be able to offer amendments to this bill, and offer them in a normal, expeditious fashion.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I close by urging the Senate to move swiftly to pass a single fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill before we leave for the April recess. The safety and prosperity of the American people and our economy is too important to do less.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my strong concerns regarding the fiscal year 1998 emergency supplemental appropriation bill. I was extremely disappointed by last week's decision by the House Republican leadership to split the fiscal year 1998 emergency supplemental bill into two separate legislative pieces: one includes funding for defense and disaster relief and the other contains funds for the International Monetary Fund and payment of U.S. arrears to the United Nations. I was similarly disappointed that the Senate Appropriations Committee not only marked-up two separate pieces of legislation, but that funding for U.S. debts to the UN was not included at all. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the House and Senate legislative strategy involved in splitting the supplemental appropriations bill. I firmly believe that the Congress must act quickly to pass a single, emergency bill prior to the April recess. It is imperative that the Congress act immediately to supply the $18 billion requested by the administration for the IMF. I am pleased that the Senate Appropriations Committee voted yesterday on legislation that includes both the $14.5 billion to replenish the IMF's capital base and the $3.5 billion for the new arrangements to borrow, NAB, while encouraging necessary IMF reforms. The Asian financial crisis poses too great of a threat to the economic prosperity of the American people to allow it to become mired in non-related, political debates. As Secretary Rubin has stated, ``Financial instability, economic distress and depreciating currencies all have direct effects on the pace of our exports, the competitiveness of our companies, the growth of our economy and, ultimately, the well-being of American workers and farmers.'' To be clear, the growth and competitiveness of our economy is at stake. Mr. President, I am confident that the vast majority of our colleagues agree on the importance and the need to move forward with the IMF funding proposal. However, my fear is that while we are likely to see quick action on defense and disaster relief, a separate funding vehicle for the IMF is likely to get bogged down in non-related arguments. The American people have a right to ask: if there is agreement, why the delay? It appears that certain Members of Congress are prepared to hold funding for the IMF hostage to their desire to fight, yet again, the international family planning issue. Mr. President, I do not begrudge the concerns of my colleagues who feel strongly about the issue of international family planning. I recognize that disagreement exists. In my opinion, international family planning assistance is essential to health care in developing countries, resource and environmental management, and economic development. While I am confident that this is an issue that we will once again fight during consideration of the fiscal year 1999 foreign operations appropriations bill, I believe that it is extremely irresponsible to hold up IMF funding to debate this issue. Mr. President, the truth is I've actually begun to lose count of how many issues are being held hostage by proponents of the so-called Mexico City language. We now see reports that this issue will be attached to the conference report on State Department reauthorization, thus slowing up efforts to achieve much needed reforms in our foreign policy decisionmaking structure. Similarly, payment of our debts to the United Nations are also being held up over this same issue. At a time in which we are asking our allies to stand with us in opposition to Saddam Hussein, to force him to comply with the UNSCOM inspection regime, we refuse to pay our debts. It would be naive to think that this doesn't affect our ability to lead at the United Nations. It is time for real leadership in the Congress; it's time to move forward on this issue. I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to an editorial that appeared in the March 16 edition of the New York Times entitled ``Foreign Policy Held Hostage.'' This editorial clearly outlines the risks to our broader foreign policy goals when narrow interests are pursued indefinitely. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, let me first congratulate the senior Senator from New York. The only thing better than having the senior Senator from New York introducing this piece of legislation would be to have Franklin Delano Roosevelt himself out here introducing this bill. This does not just save Social Security, it transforms it into a much better program, as we have done through the history of Social Security. We have made it better as need requires. I am very much appreciative of your warnings through our public life of the things that you see happening. Very often we have not heeded your warnings and then afterward have come back and said, ``You were right 30 years ago,'' ``You were right 20 years ago.'' For the sake of future beneficiaries, I hope it doesn't take us that long this time around to realize you are right. Before the Senator leaves, I want to ask him a couple questions, because there are a couple things in this proposal--and I am going to speak about the wealth-generating nature of this piece of legislation. Indeed, most remarkably, there are an awful lot of Americans who do not distinguish the difference between wealth and income. I read in your hometown newspaper, the New York Times, from time to time about people talking about the gap between the rich and the poor, and they immediately go to income, as if wealth and income are the same thing. They obviously are not. I could have $500,000 a year in income, but if I spend it all, I have no wealth. Likewise, I can cite this marvelous story of Osceola McCardy from Hattiesburg, MS, who worked 63 or 64 years as a washerwoman, never made more than $10,000, discovered the magic of compounding interest rates. When she decided to retire at the age of 87, she called up Southern Mississippi University and said, ``I want to give you a gift.'' They presumed, no doubt, it was a doily or something that she made at home. It was a couple hundred thousand dollars cash. When the New York Times asked her how she generated a couple hundred thousand dollars cash on that low income, she said it was the magic of compounding interest rates. In addition to the wealth-generating appeal of this long-term-- enabling our citizens to acquire ownership and wealth and the virtue that comes from that, as well as the security that comes from owning a share of your country and having an interest in keeping inflation under control and all sorts of other things, and the capacity to be generous with your own wealth and leave some not only to your children but perhaps to some other thing that you care deeply about. I was struck, as I read, again, your hometown newspaper this morning, that there is some division in the Republican ranks as well as the Democratic ranks of what to do with this so-called surplus, which, as you have pointed out, is nothing more than an overlevy. We do not have a surplus; we are just taxing people who get paid by the hour more than is necessary to pay the Social Security bills. In addition to the pay- go and the wealth-generating part, perhaps the most important part of this proposal is that it represents an $800 billion tax cut over some--

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds to conclude. When we debated the Balanced Budget Act last year, one of the big issues was the inheritance tax. Well, only 1.5 percent of Americans have estates over $600,000--1.5 percent. That means 98.5 percent have less. For all those who are enthusiastic about raising that threshold-- I voted for it and I thought the threshold ought to be raised--I call on them now, on behalf of the 98.5 percent whose estates are under $600,000, to embrace this proposal to help them with the means to acquire wealth and what I think Social Security should provide. Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, let me talk about the wealth-generating portion of this. We know this represents the largest tax decrease in the history of the country, somewhere between $300 billion or $400 billion over a 5-year period, an $800 billion tax cut overall, payroll taxes, a tax that for most Americans is the largest tax they pay. We know it establishes the solvency of the program for 75 years. We know it answers the question that lots of younger people have, which is, Is Social Security going to be there for me? We know it is fully paid for, that it is not only actuarially sound but fiscally sound as well. What is a new idea for people when they look at this program is, the potential to take Social Security and convert it, transform it into something in addition to survivors--I have to keep saying it because very often it gets missed--remains in place, disability remains in place, and the defined benefits program remains in place. But what we are doing is transforming it into something which, in addition to those three things, will now generate wealth--will generate wealth--for people. What happens in the process of discussing this is we begin to discover that this compounding interest rate formula that the Senator has referred to a couple of times as a real engine for wealth generation is a lot more powerful than we realized it was. Indeed, it is a mathematical certainty, if you have ever given a speech about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, which lots of folks on our side of the aisle do, they identify that as a problem in America. It is a mathematical certainty we can solve that problem. But you have to be willing to use compounding interest rates to do it, unless you want to give everybody a ticket, a guaranteed payoff, which is not likely. You can use the Social Security Program as a means to get the job done. I emphasize that because in the public press where this debate is going on, very often I get asked, ``Are you for privatization?'' That becomes the debate, privatization versus Social Security as a defined benefit program. I say, no, I am for taking a piece of this program and personalizing it. So the bull's-eye to me is wealth generation. The goal for me is in addition to establishing the solvency of Social Security for 75 years, in addition to a tax cut which you accomplish by making it a pay-as-you-go system, I want Americans, regardless of their income, whether they are making $5.15 an hour or $115 an hour, regardless of their income, I want them to know, if they are willing to go out and go to work, they are going to have a shot at the American dream of having ownership and acquiring wealth. I want them to be connected to the future by knowing if they are going to go to work, that with absolute certainty, they are going to have wealth at the end of it. Can you connect that with private pension reform and tax reform, as the Senator from Delaware has advocated for a number of years? The answer is yes. But you can also take Social Security and make it a source of wealth. Just at 2 percent, again, the median family income of $34,000 will generate close to $400,000 over a 45-year working life. In my legislation, I also allow people--in fact, I require the opening of a $1,000 account at birth and to contribute $500 a year to that account for the first 5 years. The Senator from Louisiana and I and the Senator from Connecticut had a program we offered last year called KidSave which would do that. It passed the Senate and was dropped in conference. But the goal here is not just savings. The goal is wealth. The goal is to say, if you are willing to go to work, there is a Federal law that will enable you to acquire over the course of your working life wealth and the independence and the security and all the other sorts of things that come with wealth. There are lots of benefits from that for the individual, and it ought to be obvious. When we debated the budget, I recall the other side of the aisle wanted as one of the top priorities----

Mr. KERREY. I also point out, Mr. President, since the Senator transitioned into that, that it would put it into actuarial balance for 75 years, there have been a lot of people talking about--well, let's take again this surplus, which is nothing more than an overlevy. Let's be clear, we have taxes higher than they need to be to pay the bills. We have had a lot of folks come down and talk about the gasoline tax. The gasoline tax is higher than is needed to pay all the bills. So we are struggling with this problem here; we have a cap on expenditures. The same thing is true with payroll taxes. They are higher than needed to pay the bills, but because we are using them for other purposes, it doesn't seem to bother us so much. In addition to that, some have been talking about using the surplus without doing what the distinguished Senator has done, which is to say we are going to make Social Security sound. One of the reasons that this is very often confusing is that people think that the only people who are beneficiaries are people who are currently eligible, which are the 37 million or so currently eligible. That is not true. Everybody effectively who is alive in America today is a beneficiary. They may not be eligible today, but that is a promise on the table for them. You can send in a form to the Social Security Administration and say, ``Hello. My name is Bob Kerrey. I am 54 years of age. What will my benefits be if I take retirement at age 65?'' if I decide I want to go out at 65. Or if I am 20 years old and just entering the work force, I can get the same thing. If you are 20 years old and you write to the Social Security Administration, they will say this is what is on the table, this is the promise that is currently on the table. Unfortunately, at the current level of benefits that are promised, the promise that is on the table we are not going to be able to keep. In fact, if you are under 35 today in America and you write to the Social Security Administration, they will say, ``This is the promise that is on the table, but unless changes are made, that benefit is not going to be available to you.'' I should interrupt myself and say, I very often hear people say Social Security isn't going to be there for you. As long as we have a payroll tax, it is going to be there. As long as there is a payroll tax in place, it is a program that is going to be very well established. I interrupt myself further to say, I find one of the most appealing things about your proposal, I say to the Senator from New York, is that you are saying the survivor benefit must stay intact, the disability benefit must stay intact, and we must keep a defined benefit program in place. All three of those conditions, as a part of an option to acquire wealth with a significant tax cut, it seems to me, make this proposal overwhelmingly attractive, especially for those who like fiscal responsibility. Yours is fiscally responsible. It is fully funded. There is no funny money here. There is no, ``Well, I'm going to take the surplus and use it for accounts, but I really haven't figured out how exactly I am going to pay for it.'' Yours is not only fully funded over the 10-year period, but it is fully funded for all beneficiaries for a 75-year period, which I find to be very, very attractive. For taxpayers who are concerned about not only today's Social Security Program but the Social Security Program 75 years from now, they have to find this proposal enormously attractive as a consequence of your condition, your valuated condition of saying you are not going to have any deficit financing here, you are not going to let Social Security go into deficit, and you want to make sure every promise we have on the table we will have in 75 years.

Mr. KERREY. Again in your hometown newspaper, it reported anyway-- perhaps it is not--division on the other side of the aisle. Senator Domenici has a $30 billion tax cut over 5 years. Someone on that side of the aisle wanted a $60 billion tax cut over 5 years. I ask the Senator, what does this represent over 5 years in terms of a tax cut? Do you have that number available, or is it $800 billion?

Mr. KERREY. I think one of the points we need to make to citizens who are watching this is that in the great tax debates that go around this Capitol, very often what we are talking about when we are talking about taxes is income taxes; people are debating taxes. For the median family of four--a husband, wife, and two children--they will pay about $2,700 in income taxes, a $34,000 median family. They will pay $5,400 in payroll taxes. So for them, the payroll tax is the largest tax. The income tax is a smaller tax and a smaller burden on them than the income tax is. So perhaps one of the reasons, when we debate tax cuts, that $60 billion over 5 years seems relatively large is that people have not paid attention, as they should, to the payroll tax. I just urge those who are wanting to give Americans a tax cut to look at this proposal seriously, because this is the biggest tax cut proposal anybody has put before this body that I have seen in recent memory. Does the Senator agree with that? Do you see this as a tax cut as well?

Mr. KERREY. Yes.

Mr. KERREY. I appreciate that. I don't know how long the Senator is going to stay here, but I appreciate very much this proposal, because coming from the Senator from New York, it is, I think, much more likely to gather the attention of Americans who understand that this is a gentleman who is a strong defender of the Social Security Program; he understands its value. One out of seven Americans who get Social Security have Social Security as their only source of income. Without Social Security and Medicare, the rate of poverty over the age of 85 would be 54 percent. It is 12 percent today. It is a program that has transformed America as we know it and has made it a much better country, a much happier country. It can be changed; it can be changed in a way that will make the program even better, even more able to meet the needs of the American people. Mr. President, I want to talk about one real short-term aspect of this Social Security problem, and that is that there are an awful lot of people out there--and I went to the President's first event over at Georgetown where he announced the discussion he is going to have, a much-needed discussion, during the year about the Social Security Program. He was introduced by a young woman who was, I think, a third- year law school student or second-year law school student. She was quite eloquent in her introduction of the President. She said when she first went into the work force at the age of 14 or 15, she went home to her mother and said, ``Mom, who is this person FICA, and why are they taking so much money from me?'' She then did a little more research, and she said she discovered that FICA tax is taken from her and kept in an account for her; it is money that is saved up for her. And she hopes that through this discussion the money she contributes is going to be there for her when she retires. I give her full sympathy for not knowing what the program is. There are a lot of people who misunderstand Social Security and think of it as a savings program. I am constantly talking to people and I have to say, ``No, it is not a savings program. There is no account for you in Washington, DC, that is accumulating; there is no ownership here.'' If you die before 65, or 62, which is the early eligibility--if you die before 65 or 62, there is nothing there that transfers to heirs. There is no ownership of anything. It is a tax on wages. It is used for disability, it is used for survivors, and it is used for old age. If you are eligible under the classification of those three programs, you receive a benefit. The way that we accumulate the revenue for those benefits is that we put a tax on wages. The benefits are very progressive. One of the things I noted in the questions and answers that the Senator from New York was engaged in up at Harvard, and one of the things we have to explain to people, is the tax is regressive, the benefits are progressive. Social Security, in the main, is a very progressive program. You can't look at Social Security and say it is regressive only by examining the tax side. I ask if perhaps the Senator wants to comment on that. Does he hear that, as well--people talking about Social Security as a regressive program and has to offer his correction?

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Three minutes?

Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to commend my Democrat and Republican colleagues for their hard work in creating a transportation bill that will reduce traffic congestion, make our roads safer, and protect the U.S. environment. ISTEA, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, is one of the most important items on the legislative agenda of the 105th Congress. The American people deserve nothing less than a world-class transportation system that will facilitate economic growth and improve transportation safety. This bill achieves that goal in a fair manner and guarantees that America's transportation infrastructure will be vital well into the next century. ISTEA is an investment in people and in communities. The Nation's transportation systems move $6 trillion worth of goods every year. Behind every one of the products that makes up that $6 trillion stands a hard-working person pursuing the American dream. ISTEA will create jobs and add to the productive capacity of our workers and the economy by enabling businesses to market their products quickly and efficiently. The American people have challenged us to provide infrastructure that can meet the transportation needs of one of the strongest economies of the world. With this bill, we are meeting their challenge by providing them the sources necessary to create and maintain the transportation infrastructure that will keep America strong. One of my top transportation priorities has been improving safety on America's roads and highways. Mr. President, 41,000 Americans are killed every year in traffic accidents. We can reduce this horrifying number by concentrating our resources on high-risk roads and dangerous intersections. We know, for example, that rural two-lane roads account for more than half of all traffic and nearly three-quarters of traffic fatalities. Better engineering and planning can reduce the accidents that repeatedly occur on these dangerous roads. I introduced several amendments to address this very serious problem. The first amendment systematically makes safety a priority consideration in highway construction and maintenance programs. This language sends a strong message to Federal, State, and local transportation planners that they need to focus on enhancing safety. The second amendment establishes a two-lane highway safety program to begin systematic reconstruction of rural two-lane arterial highways that are not a part of the National Highway System. Mr. President, I intend to speak at greater length on this when the opportunity comes to offer this amendment. It has not yet been accepted. I understand that it can be controversial because of the need to shift money from one area to another. Given the numbers of traffic fatalities on these roads, there are literally lives hanging in the balance. We have created a strong Interstate and National Highway System. It is now time to take the next step in completing this by improving the dangerous two-lane arterial roads that carry traffic to the National Highways and Interstate Highway Systems. In addition, I authored two amendments to address the very serious problem of accidents at railway crossings. I am pleased to report the Senate accepted both of these amendments. These provisions focus attention on reducing accidents by making highway rail-crossing improvement projects eligible for funds through the Intelligent Transportation Systems Program and the Innovative Bridge Research Program. In 1996 alone, there were 4,257 highway-rail crossing collisions that resulted in 488 deaths and over 1,600 injuries. These incidents are mostly preventable if adequate safety precautions are taken. As the volume of rail traffic continues to increase, dedicating funds to these dangerous crossings will help ensure the number of accidents is reduced. The Senate took a strong step towards reducing these collisions by accepting these amendments, and I strongly encourage the House to place a similar emphasis on highway-rail crossing safety when they consider ISTEA in the coming weeks. Mr. President, I also appreciate very much the strong vote given on this floor to extending the ethanol credit. But mostly I applaud the leadership of Republicans and Democrats who understand the importance of ISTEA to the American economy and the American environment and to those hard-working Americans who are pursuing the American dream. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Omaha World-Herald dated February 26, 1998.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1668, a bill to require the President to inform Executive Branch employees it is legal for them to bring information to Congress regarding wrongdoing, even if the information has been classified by an Executive Branch official. Some of my colleagues may be surprised that the Intelligence Committee, which reported this bill after long discussion and study, finds such legislation necessary. Members are aware that the principle of a government employee's right to directly inform Congress has been in statute for eighty six years, and was reinforced in this decade by the Whistleblower Protection Act. What may be less well known is that the Whistleblower Protection Act specifically exempts the principal agencies of the Intelligence Community from the requirements of that law. In addition, successive administrations have held that where classified information of wrongdoing is concerned, Executive Branch officials will decide what portion of the information will be shared with Congress, and how, when, and with whom in Congress it will be shared. The Administration believes the control of classified information lies solely with the President and his designees. They base this belief on the President's role as Commander in Chief. In current practice, an employee of the Executive Branch with classified information about wrongdoing has the option of informing his or her superior, or the inspector general of the department or agency. The employee also has the option of making a report to the Attorney General. In my view, this is insufficient. Members, especially those who have served on the Armed Services Committee or the Intelligence Committee, can visualize cases in which the classified information of wrongdoing is so sensitive that an employee will fear to take any of the avenues now available. He or she may fear for their career if they inform their boss or their Inspector General prior to informing Congress. In some rare circumstances they might even fear for their safety. Yet today such employees have no other legal recourse. The ability of government employees to bring information to Congress should be our first concern in this matter. But we should also be concerned about the rights of Congress and the ability of Congress to do the job the Constitution requires. Congress also has important national security responsibilities. Congress, not the President, raises armies and maintains navies. Congress, not the President, calls out the militia. Congress, not the President, declares war. Congress therefore has the right to national security information, and in fact Congressional committees in the national security and foreign policy fields have been successfully working with and storing this information for many years. In addition, Congress' annual responsibility to authorize and appropriate funds for national security and foreign policy purposes, and its continuing responsibility to oversee how those funds are spent, gives Congress a need to know which justifies its access to information. For these reasons, the Administration's arguments for their exclusive control over classified information ring hollow. I should add that according to CIA Director Tenet, Congress does a better job keeping the secrets entrusted to it than does the Executive Branch. So an argument that Congress should not be trusted with sensitive information is baseless. Mr. President, I recognize the Administration argument is based on a requirement, as they see it, to defend Presidential prerogatives. In fact, the Clinton Administration has been more open in informing Congress on intelligence matters, including instances of wrongdoing, than any of its predecessors. Some Administration of the future might classify a report to deny Congress the facts, but not this one. So my support for this legislation is not based on concern about a particular Administration. It is based on my concern for the ability of government employees to inform Congress, and on the ability of Congress to play its role in keeping America safe. Given the responsibilities of Congress and its record in keeping classified information secure, there is no reason why whistleblower protection statutes should not also apply to classified information. In voting for this bill, my colleagues are voting for their own right to do their job. Mr. President, I yield such time as is necessary to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, for Americans government secrecy is a paradox. In a democracy, it's an unusual action for us to decide to keep something secret from the public, because it's their government. What we do is for the people. It's carried out in their name. So it's unusual to do the public's business in secret. There is only one legitimate reason for our government to keep something secret from its citizens: To keep America safe. As Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have been exposed to many things that, if made public, would threaten the security of our citizens and our nation. But I have also seen valuable information unnecessarily kept from the public view. Which is why I support this effort to change the way our government classifies and declassifies its information. Secrecy is the exception, not the rule, in these matters for a number of reasons. The first and foremost is that this is government of, by and for the people. The second stems from that old adage ``sunshine is the best disinfectant''. We do a better job in the open, where our ideas and actions are subject to the test of scrutiny, criticism and feedback, than we do in secret. And third, because information we gather belongs to the people, we should make sure information they can use--in their own lives, in their own businesses, and, most important, in making decisions as citizens in a democracy--is provided to them when we can make it available without compromising our safety. We make the unusual decision to keep things secret for a reason: Because those secrets help to keep Americans safe. Our government classifies information to help protect our citizens and preserve the security of our nation. When the Director of Central Intelligence goes to the President or to Congress to tell us of the threats our nation faces, he can do so because there are men and women around the globe risking their lives to provide our nation's leaders with the information they need to protect our country. Whether the intelligence deals with foreign leaders, terrorists, narcotics traffickers, or military troop movements, our government needs to keep certain information secret or our nation's security will suffer. Yet much of the information on foreign countries collected by our Intelligence Community can and should be shared with the American people. With the growth of open source information and widespread availability of information technology, the American public is also increasingly a consumer of intelligence. We live in a very complex world, with intertwining relationships between nations shaped by history and culture. It is difficult for policymakers--those of us who study foreign policy, who have access to classified information and analysis, and who receive detailed government briefings--to get the information we need for an informed view on foreign policy issues. Our citizens have an even more limited amount of information available to help them understand what occurs outside our nation's border. Which is why I believe the more information the American public has with which to understand foreign policy the better. Mr. President, we need to continue to protect ``sources and methods'', a term of art which refers to the people working to collect intelligence and the means by which they do so. Yet, when we acquire information whose release will not threaten sources and methods, or have information so dated that the people and means used to collect it are no longer in jeopardy, the government should release this information to the public. We must act this year to reverse a fifty year trend and reduce government secrecy, including intelligence secrecy. The classification system has been regulated by executive order for five decades, with new executive orders contradicting previous ones and producing new costs for all agencies involved. What is or is not a secret should not be subject to a change in political leadership. Congress should place in statute the concept of what is or is not classified information, and provide general standards for classifying and declassifying information. Mr. President, Congress bears some of the responsibility for the status of our nation's classification policy. The Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy was not able to find a single example of a congressional hearing on the issue of executive branch secrecy policy. At the very least, Congress needs to improve its oversight of this issue. As part of this effort, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is scheduled to hold a hearing on this issue later this year. Senators Moynihan and Helms have shown great leadership in addressing the issue of governmental secrecy. Their work on the Secrecy Commission has helped provide the Senate with the necessary context and analysis of government secrecy we need to address this issue. Their legislation S. 712, the Government Secrecy Act of 1997, goes a long way towards outlining a balanced government policy which protects the most sensitive information while allowing the public access to as much information as possible. In my discussions with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, I have learned that the Intelligence Community does have concerns with the current version of S. 712. The CIA's concerns include their desire that the originator of classified information be in charge of its declassification, and that the classification and declassification process not be subject to judicial review. I look forward to working with Senators Helms and Moynihan, with Director Tenet, and the Administration to develop legislative language which meets the twin goals of keeping America safe and ensuring our government responds to the needs of its citizens for information. Because the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency are responsible for the vast majority of information that requires classification, I believe the committees responsible for oversight of these entities--the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence--should have the opportunity to review S. 712. I hope that such a sequential referral can be arranged. Mr. President, we seek legislation that is in balance. We seek secrecy legislation which protects the safety of our citizens and the security of our nation, but also ensures that our government's policies, actions, and information will be as open as possible to its citizens. We must help keep America safe, while also assuring that our actions truly reflect those of a government of, by and for the people. I look forward to the challenge. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the world witnessed a diplomatic success in United Nation's Secretary General Kofi Annan's trip to Baghdad last weekend. We saw a successful conclusion to an episode that has been and probably will continue to be a very long drama of confrontation with Iraq. This success is not due solely to Mr. Annan's considerable powers of persuasion. Mr. Annan's mission was backed by force--by the real, credible potential for violent punishment from U.S. forces if a diplomatic solution was not achieved. He said this about his successful negotiations: ``You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up by firmness and force.'' It takes nothing away from Mr. Annan's success to note he shares star billing as a peacemaker with the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines of the United States. The smile of diplomacy combined with the force of the gun has produced an offer from Baghdad to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into sites previously denied to them by the Iraqi government. For the moment there is hope that air strikes to reduce Iraq's capacity to use weapons of mass destruction will not be needed. Gratefully, for now, we will not again be witnesses to the necessary violence of combat. The images of war, which increasingly shape and limit our national tolerance for war, will thankfully not supplant Seinfeld on our TV screens this week. And yet our gratitude for peace is not entirely satisfying. A sour taste remains in our mouths. We wonder again if Saddam Hussein has got the better of us. The question nags: Did we win a diplomatic battle but not the war? These feelings and this question flow from our national discussion of Iraq policy over the past several weeks, especially the growing realization that America should not deal with the Iraq problem episodically, but rather with finality, even if greater effort is required. This problem was eloquently stated last Wednesday at Ohio State University by a veteran. He said: I spent twenty years in the military; my oldest son spent twenty-five; my youngest son died in Vietnam; six months later, his first cousin died in Vietnam. We stood in the gap. If push comes to shove and Saddam will not back down, will not allow or keep his word, are we ready and willing to send the troops in? You see, I have no problem with asking any one of these guys in the Armed Forces to stand in the gap for me now, that we stood in the gap back then. . . . I think all of Congress wants to know. Are we willing to send troops in and finish the job, or are we going to do it [half-hearted] like we've done before? Mr. President, this veteran speaks for me. He gave the nation a clarion call to finish the job. It falls to us to determine what finishing the job means. We must do so with the understanding that wherever and however we stand in the gap, our stand and our actions will be globally public. All of us who are given power by the Constitution to declare war and raise armies must take note of how much is won or lost over the airwaves. We will not restrict the flow of images in the next war as we have in the past. The recently released CIA report on the Bay of Pigs thirty- six years after the report was written, represents the old way of making: war in secret. The new way is portable video cameras and satellite communications opening the battlefield to full view. And victory may hinge more on the impressions of the battle conveyed through the media than on the effect of the combatants themselves. Even if the struggle is only diplomatic, it is no less public and global, and the impression made on the public who witness the struggle through the media is at least as important as the diplomatic outcome. Television images are powerful and effect all who watch. Two and one- half billion people watched Princess Diana's funeral. Perhaps as many watched the war of words between the U.S. and Iraq. I am concerned that to date, we may be losing this battle of the airwaves. A ruthless dictator who has starved and brutalized and robbed his people for over twenty years actually appears in some media to be more interested in the welfare of his people than do we. To win, we must have an objective that is clear, will justify war's violence if war comes, and will enable us to rally world opinion. We need a mission that puts us in the gap not just to reduce a threat but to liberate a people and make a whole region secure and prosperous. We need a cause which will unite moral leaders like Nelson Mandela, and Vaclav Havel with other political and military leaders. We need an objective which will permanently remove the threat the Iraqi dictatorship poses to the United States, to our allies, to our interests, to its neighbors, and to its own people. The containment of Iraq--although it has been a success--cannot be such a cause. Containment reduced the Iraqi military threat and introduced UNSCOM inspections, which are our principal means of limiting Saddam's production of weapons of mass destruction. But the ultimate failure of containment is signaled by the word ``reduce'' as a policy goal. With biological weapons, reduction or limitation are not sufficient. We need to be sure such weapons are eliminated from Saddam's arsenal. To ``reduce'' is not enough. Let me say a word about the fear that has been aroused over the potential of biological weapons, both Iraqi weapons and possibly such weapons in the hands of terrorists in this country. Fear is a natural reaction, but fear is also the great debilitator. Fear keeps us from taking necessary action. We must manage our fears, we must keep fear from paralyzing us, and we must realistically measure the threat posed by these weapons. If we are to truly stand in the gap with regard to Iraq, we must do something hard: we must have a broader perspective than just altering our fear of biological weapons. We must transcend that fear and convert it into a hope for freedom. A democratic Iraq is certainly in our interest, an Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction is certainly in our interest, but it is above all for the sake of the Iraqis that we must replace Saddam. A review of what Saddam has done to his people underscores the need to remove him. After over 20 years of Saddam, it is hard to recall that Iraq was once the heart of the Fertile Crescent, a country blessed with oil resources, rich agricultural potential, and a vibrant middle class. Through a disastrous war with Iran and then the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam mortgaged and then caused the destruction of much of Iraq's oil capacity. Through static economic policies, he marginalized a middle class which has since been almost wiped out by the effect of sanctions, which is to say, by the effect of Saddam's behavior. Per capita income in Iraq has dropped from $2,900 in 1989 to $60 today, in currency terms. The dinar, which was worth three dollars in 1989, is now at the rate of 1,500 to one dollar. Iraqis have seen their salaries drop to five dollars a month, and their pensions evaporate. We are also familiar with the starvation and the permanent health crisis he imposes on his people while he builds palaces and other grandiose monuments to himself. Saddam's policies have killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Iraqis and thousands of Kuwaiti citizens, many of whom are still unaccounted for. His reign of terror continues to kill, including between 500 and 1,200 prisoners murdered in his prisons last December. His weapons of mass destruction, with which we are too familiar, were tested on living human beings, according to British press reports. In sum, if there is a dictator in the world who needs to be removed, it is Saddam Hussein. Force, either our own or that of dissident Iraqis, will be required to remove this regime. But in my view, Desert Storm is not the model. A much better example of the marriage of military force with diplomacy, a success story in the making, is the U.S. deployment to Bosnia. An initial agreement was reached at Dayton as a result of the use of U.S. military force. Then our troops led an allied force into the country and provided, and continue to provide, the overarching security and stability beneath which a traumatized people regain the confidence to govern themselves democratically and live civilly with each other. The lesson of Bosnia is that force persuaded diplomacy, which has in turn given the people of Bosnia a chance for a lasting peace. Iraq, with its devastated middle class and ethnic divisions, may need the same kind of long-term application of potential force, once Saddam's regime has passed. It took hope, at the worst moments of the Yugoslav war, when Sarajevo was a deadly obstacle course for its citizens, to dream of a peaceful Bosnia, and it took courage to make the commitments which are now slowly bringing that dream into reality. In the same way, we must get past our pessimism about Iraq and the Middle East, summon our hope, and dream the successful outcome of our policy: a democratic Iraq. Imagine its characteristics: a democratic Iraq would be at peace with its neighbors. It would have no weapons of mass destruction. A democratic Iraq would enjoy the benefits of its agricultural and oil wealth and would share them equitably across their society. A democratic Iraq would be a tolerant society, in sharp contrast to some of its neighbors. It would not oppress its minorities. Its Kurdish population, secure and free in northern Iraq, would not be a base for an insurgency against Turkey. A democratic Iraq would be a powerful example to the rising oil states of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan, a proof to them that a government can use oil revenue for something other than hiring police and buying weapons. There is a dissonant sound to the words ``Iraq'' and ``democracy'' side by side, but this dream, aided by a sound American strategy, can become real. I know of no genetic coding that predisposes the Iraqis, or any people, to dictatorship. In November, I laid out a road map which included the following steps and I repeat them today. First, we must convince our core European and Asian allies that democracy, not just the temporary compliance of a dictator, is the right long-term goal for Iraq. We must use the facts about Saddam's brutality to convince our allies to support a transition to democracy in Iraq, and to convince them the security and economic opportunity that would flow out of a new, democratic Iraq is worth more than the money owed our allies by Saddam's regime. In other words, we must convince our allies to forgive the debts of a post-Saddam Iraq. Beyond debt forgiveness, we should clearly state the loan and foreign assistance preferences which a democratic Iraq would receive from U.S. and multinational lending agencies. Second, we should fill Iraqi airwaves, by means of Voice of America and commercial means, with the horrific truth about Saddam's regime. The Iraqi people must learn that we know what Saddam has done to them, and that weapons of mass destruction are not our sole concern. Two recent news stories exemplify the kind of information we should be putting in every Iraqi home. The first, from the Los Angeles Times for February 9, describes the murder of up to 1,200 prisoners in Iraq's main prison. The second, from the January 18 Sunday Times of London, relates in detail how Saddam's government tested biological weapons on human beings. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent both these these articles be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. KERREY. Third, we should openly and consistently state our goal of a free, democratic Iraq, even if we have to state it repeatedly for years. To accept less and say less is simply unworthy of our heritage. Mr. President, there are additional steps which are essential if we are to achieve our goal: We should announce our intention to see Saddam Hussein indicted and tried for war crimes and genocide. As some commentators have suggested, the United States should form an umbrella organization of pro-democracy Iraqi exile groups and support them with money and military supplies. When the exile group seizes significant Iraqi territory, the United States should recognize it as Iraq's government and make frozen Iraqi government funds available to it. The UN has already decided to expand the amount of oil Iraq can sell in exchange for food and medicine. We should work with the UN to facilitate greater amounts of life's necessities getting into the hands of the Iraq people. Over the long term, we should consider the usefulness of sanctions in overthrowing Saddam. The debilitating effect of sanctions on ordinary Iraqis may actually help keep Saddam in power. Our policies should serve the strategy of removing this dictator from office and creating the democratic Iraq and peaceful Middle East which is our goal. Mr. President, I am laying out what could be a long road for the United States. But when you compare today's situation with tomorrow's possibilities, it is a road worth taking. It is a road worthy of our heritage as liberators and as a free people. Mr. Annan carefully selected these familiar words to describe the U.N.'s success this week: ``We the peoples of the world can do anything if united.'' We have dreamed the possibility. Now it is time for us to make it real. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 9, 1998] Freed Inmate Tells of Mass Executions at Iraqi Prison (By John Daniszewski) Amman, Jordan--Ammar Shehab Dein shudders at the memory of the ``meals'' served up at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad. A ``meal'' is what guards there called the Iraqi prison's periodic mass executions. ``We have a meal tomorrow,'' they would taunt the terrified inmates. During the last 20 days in December, said Shehab Dein, there were at least three ``meals'' in his section alone. Each time, an officer would stand in front of the two-story cellblock and read off the names of those who were to die. The doomed men would then have their hands tied behind their backs and be led away--crying, shouting, ``Allahu Akbar'' (God is great) and, in some cases, cursing the name of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Later, other inmates would be ordered into the execution chamber to clean up. As it was described to Shehab Dein, the chamber was ``primitive,'' ropes suspended over 12 wells. Bound prisoners would be put into a noose and then pushed to their deaths, he said. Doctors were present mainly to determine if the prisoners were dead. Shehab Dein, a 27-year-old Jordanian trader who was imprisoned last year, is not only a rare survivor of the Iraqi leader's death row. In interviews with The Times, he is also the first released inmate of Abu Ghraib prison to publicly corroborate and add detail to accounts that emerged at the end of 1997 of a series of executions of hundreds or even thousands of political prisoners and common criminals in Iraq. At the time, U.S. State Department spokesman James Foley called the reports of mass execution ``horrific'' and said they would constitute ``a gross violation of human rights'' if true. Shehab Dein's statements were supported by a second released inmate, a 31-year-old Jordanian businessman who said he was badly tortured shortly after his 1995 arrest and that he fears being identified by name. ``The last weeks before Ramadan, we heard [that] about 500 people were killed. . . . We used to hear them [executions] every day,'' the businessman said. Both men were interviewed in Amman days after their Jan. 21 release in a surprise amnesty, announced by Hussein, for all Jordanian prisoners. (Hussein declared a further amnesty Thursday for all nationals of other Arab countries, apparently in a goodwill gesture hours after he met with the secretary-general of the Arab League.) According to Iraqi opposition sources in Jordan, Britain and the United States, Hussein's regime executed 800 to 1,200 inmates at the Abu Ghraib and the Radwaniyah prisons, both near Baghdad, in a cleaning out that began Nov. 20 and lasted into December. After the State Department raised the issue Jan. 1, the Iraqi Information Ministry angrily denied the accusations, calling them another example of the ``hostile propaganda'' of Iraq's opponents. With the world focused on Iraq's standoff with the United States and the United Nations over access to disputed sites by arms inspectors, the allegations have elicited relatively little attention. But the experiences of the two Jordanians, who went to Iraq voluntarily for business and say they once were sympathetic to Hussein, nevertheless are a reminder of the unpredictable brutality inside Iraq. ``If I had a choice between dying and going back to Iraq, I would prefer to die,'' said the businessman, who declined to discuss details of his torture except to say: ``Execution was something I wanted.'' Since mid-December, opposition groups have been circulating accounts of the executions, which they said were ordered Nov. 19 by Hussein's powerful younger son, Qusai, and underscore his preeminent role in the spheres of ``security and repression,'' in the words of one opposition newsletter. The Iraqi National Congress, a U.S.-backed anti-Hussein group, has compiled lists identifying 160 of the victims. It said one brother of an executed Iraqi Kurd had to comb through 12 cold-storage rooms containing 30 bodies apiece before he was able to find his sibling and claim the remains. The opposition Iraqi Communist Party, meanwhile, said that 109 of its followers apparently were killed in one day. Decreed at a time when Iraq appeared to have driven a wedge between the United States and other U.N. Security Council members, the executions may have been ordered to celebrate this diplomatic ``triumph on the part of Saddam Hussein,'' speculated the Iraqi Broadcast Corp., the oppositions' radio station in northern Iraq. Neither Shehab Dein nor the businessman actually saw any hangings, but both stated without hesitation that hundreds of their fellow inmates died. Shehab Dein's younger brother, Jihad, and that when he visited his brother in prison in December, he saw other families collapse in sobs and wails upon learning that loved ones had been executed. He was once told that he should leave the prison because a round of executions was about to take place, he said. Shehab Dein, who lived with his family in Iraq for most of the past six years, was arrested Sept. 9 and sent to Abu Ghraib on Dec. 10 after being condemned to death for allegedly buying up cheap construction equipment in Iraq to be dismantled and smuggled out for sale abroad. Although Shehab Dein and his five brothers buy and sell heavy machinery, he denies being a smuggler and blames his arrest on a false accusation from a business rival who stood to get a significant chunk of Shehab Dein's assets as a reward from the Iraqi regime. As soon as he arrived at Abu Ghraib after three months in a cell in Baghdad's Public Security Department, Shehab Dein said, he was told by fellow inmates about the mass executions that had been taking place. ``Between November and December, they used to take 50 people, 80 people a day,'' he said. ``It was not something normal.'' From Dec. 10 until Dec. 30, when executions were stopped in observance of the start of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month, Shehab Dein said, he saw or heard a total of 56 men dragged away--27, 15 and 14 at a time. None ever returned to his section, which housed more than 1,000 people who had been sentenced to death for various crimes, ranging from corruption to theft to murder. He said he believes that prisoners from other sections, including political prisoners and those containing people sentenced in long prison terms but not death, were being executed daily. Among those killed, he said, was a friend he had made earlier at the Public Security Department cells, a likable would-be counterfeiter whom he knew as ``Eyad the Palestinian.'' Eyad's name was among those called out one morning, and he was led out with his hands tied behind his back. ``They allowed him to say goodbye to his friends,'' Shehab Dein said quietly. ``Eyad came to me right away because I was the only other Palestinian. He said, `Forgive me if I have done anything wrong, and give charity in my name if you have the chance.' ``I cannot describe to you the feeling--someone saying that to you. What I thought was, how dear he was to me, and I was helpless to give him any consolation,'' he said. Shehab Dein said prison conditions were appalling. He was in a 5-foot-square cell with three other condemned men. They took turns sleeping. But that was ``paradise'' compared with other cells of the same dimensions packed with seven or eight prisoners. He said he was sentenced to die based on a confession he never made and upon the written testimony of two ``witnesses'' whom he had never met and who were not even present at his trial. Iraq executed four Jordanian students Dec. 9 for smuggling, despite repeated entreaties from Jordan's King Hussein that they be spared. Shehab Dein, who had been condemned Dec. 7, said he believed that he surely would be the next to die. But he got a reprieve when Saddam Hussein suddenly ordered all Jordanians in his prison let go, apparently to mollify Jordanian anger. ``I thought I was dead,'' Shehab Dein murmured, recalling the moment he learned that he would escape the noose. ``But I was reborn.''

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the McCain- Feingold bill, which will provide this country with much needed campaign finance reform. The Constitution lays out the requirements for someone wanting to run for office. In order to run for Senate, the Constitution tells us that there are 3 requirements: First, you need to be a U.S. Citizen for 9 years. Second, you need to be at least 30 years old. Third, you need to live in the state whose office you're running for. Three simple requirements, right? Wrong. What the Constitution doesn't tell you is that there is a fourth requirement. You must have an awful lot of money, or at least know how to raise a lot of money. The Constitution doesn't tell you this because when the framers sat down to draft the Constitution, they could not possibly have imagined the ridiculously large amounts of time and money one must spend today if a person wants to be elected to office. For example, if you want to run for Senate in my home state of Nebraska, population 1.6 million, it will cost you several million dollars. This means that candidates must raise over $10,000 every week for 6 years to cover the cost of the average Senate campaign. We need to stop using partisan procedural stalling tactics and get serious about fixing our campaign financing laws. We need to change the law to give power back to working families, restore their faith in the process, and make democracy work again. That's why I rise in support of the bipartisan bill offered by Senators McCain and Feingold. This bill would be a strong first step toward making democracy work. It seeks to solve the problem of soft money (money raised in an election, but is outside of federal campaign finance rules), not just with the political parties, but with the special interest groups who run attack ads, who are completely unregulated by the system, and whose contributors are undisclosed. It would require better disclosure, and give more power to the F.E.C. It would create incentives to keep wealthy individuals from trying to buy a Senate seat. This is not a perfect bill, especially in the stripped-down form in which it has ultimately reached the floor. I feel that it could be improved in ways which would make it easier for average Americans to run, win and serve, and which would make incumbent senators a lot less comfortable. I feel especially strong about the need to toughen our system of election law enforcement, so that the politicians who break the law end up paying the price. But my colleagues and I can't make an effort to improve this bill if the other party continues with their stalling tactics and prevent us from debating it. Mr. President, Americans are frustrated. It is time to get serious about this debate. I know it, you know it, and the American people want it. As I've said before, in a Harris Poll last March, 83 percent of Americans said they thought that special interest groups had more power than the voters. Seventy-six percent said that Congress is largely owned by special interest groups. Our lack of action on this issue reinforces the view that Americans have of their Government. The American people are frustrated by our delay. They are frustrated with the political process that appears to respond to those with economic power and which, all too often, ignores the needs of working men and women. They are frustrated with the rising cost of campaigns, with a political system which closes the door to people of average means who also want to serve their country in the U.S. Congress. They are frustrated with the millions of dollars they see go into our campaigns. They are frustrated with our tendency to talk instead of act. Mr. President, it is time for us to show the American people, not with words but with action. With a single vote today, Senators can act to allow this issue to move front and center on the political stage. With this bipartisan bill, we can show the American people that we mean what se say when we talk. Last week in the Omaha World Herald, there was an op-ed piece written by Deanna Frisk, the President of Nebraska's League of Women Voters. In laying out her reasons why all Americans would benefit from fixing our campaign finance laws, Ms. Frisk said: Campaign finance reform is about creating the kind of democracy we want to have: a democracy where citizens come first, a democracy that is open to new faces, a democracy that can respond with fresh ideas to the problems confronting our country. Mr. President, I couldn't agree more. As members of the Senate, we are in a unique position to make our government work better for the American people. Let's give every 30 year old, U.S. Citizen who wants to serve his state as a Member of the Senate a fighting chance. Let's get rid of that unofficial requirement that says don't bother running for office if you don't have lots of time and money to invest. Let's make the wealthy candidate who can afford to dump loads of his own money into a campaign the exception, not the norm like it is today. Let's give the American people what they want. Let's end this partisan bickering and pass the McCain-Feingold bill.