J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr President, I would like to note the release of a recent publication that all members of Congress should read. This new publication was produced by the Clean Fuels Development Coalition and it includes a presentation of facts about ethanol-based ethers. As we attempt to deal with the water contamination problems resulting from leaking underground storage tanks, much of the debate is focusing on methanol-based ethers, i.e. MTBE. While MTBE has played an important role in reducing ozone throughout the U.S., the problems of water contamination have lead many to advocate limiting or even banning this product. During this debate a few of our colleagues have expressed confusion about the technical characteristics of ethanol-based ethers, like ETBE. Some have assumed that ethanol-based ethers have characteristics identical to MTBE. As both the Senate and House examine this issue, it is important to be aware of the significant differences between the two products. For example, ethanol is a renewable, biodegradable product. When converted into ether, ETBE has many favorable characteristics in terms of the way it reacts in soil, water, and air, when compared to MTBE. In the event ETBE escapes into the atmosphere or our water supplies, it can be cleaned up much more efficiently than MTBE. ETBE is far less persistent than MTBE and remediation technologies have shown to be very effective. Understanding the attributes of ETBE is also important at a time when every citizen is painfully aware of our dependence on imported petroleum and the relationship of supply and price. It may be possible to use ETBE in volumes up to 22 percent in gasoline. This addition of a clean, domestic fuel could significantly impact our gasoline supply situation, particularly in our most heavily populated and polluted urban areas. I have long been a supporter of ETBE and while there are a number of technical and market challenges remaining before this fuel reaches full commercialization, its promise is undeniable. The petroleum industry, environmental groups, ethanol producers, and the auto industry have long recognized the superior qualities of ETBE. For that promise to be realized we need to ensure that ETBE is not included in any ban or limitation of fuels that result from leaking underground storage tank problems. I commend the Clean Fuels Development Coalition for their continued support of this important fuel as well as my own state of Nebraska which has more than a decade of experience in ETBE development. Mr. President, at this time I would ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Clean Fuels Development Coalition fact book on ETBE be entered into the Congressional Record.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about inter-generational issues related to Federal budget spending. We will never have a better time to consider such issues as inter-generational equity than now during a time of large projected surpluses. These large projected surpluses provide us with a great deal more flexibility in choosing among priorities and in determining our legacy to future generations. Until recently, we were not so lucky. For more than thirty years, the budget projection reports from the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget were a source of growing despair for the American people. As each year went by, CBO and OMB would present worse news: larger deficits, larger national debt levels, and larger net interest payments. As the government's appetite for debt expanded, fewer and fewer dollars were available for private investment. In the beginning, experts explained that deficits were a good thing because they stimulated economic growth and created jobs. Over time, however, the voices of experts opposed to large deficits grew louder; they argued that deficits caused inflation, increased the cost of private capital, mortgaged away our future--just at the time when we needed to be preparing for the retirement of the large Baby Boom generation. As the opinions of the experts shifted, so did public opinion. During the 1980s and 1990s, the federal deficit became public enemy number one. Great efforts were made to understand it, to propose solutions to reduce it, and to explain how much better life would be without it. During election season, the air-waves were filled with promises and plans to get rid of the deficit and pay off the national debt. Editorial page writers reached deep into their creative reservoir to coin new phrases and create new metaphors to describe the problem. Books were published. Nonprofit organizations were created. Constitutional amendments were called for. There was even a new political party created on account of the deficit. In the 1990s--and at great political risk--we finally started taking action to control the size of the deficits and the growth of the national debt. I am proud to have participated in and voted for three budget acts--in 1990, 1993, and 1997--which have radically altered the fiscal condition of the Federal government and the debate about how the public's hard-earned tax dollars should be spent. The enactment of these three budget acts--particularly the 1993 and 1997 budget acts--coupled with impressive gains in private sector productivity and economic growth led to a remarkable reversal of our deficit and debt trends. Deficits started shrinking in 1994. We celebrated our first unified budget surplus of $70 billion in 1998. Over the next 10 years, if we maintain current spending and revenue policies, CBO projects an eye-popping unified budget surplus of $4.5 trillion. I am proud that we are able to celebrate the fruits of our fiscal restraint because we had the sheer will and political courage to put ourselves on a spending diet. Today, however, I want to call your attention to what could be called the ``unintended consequences'' of our fiscal responsibility. Not only have we allowed total Federal spending to dip below 20% of GDP levels not seen since the mid-1970s), but we are also on course to let spending drop to 15.6% of GDP by 2010. We have not seen spending levels this low since the 1950s. At the same time as total spending is declining as a percentage of GDP, the make up of our Federal spending is continuing to shift insignificant ways. An increasingly larger proportion of our spending is used for mandatory spending programs compared to discretionary spending programs. These numbers have important implications for the measurement of inter-generational equity. Now that we have constrained spending and eliminated our budget deficits, the budget debate has shifted to questions about how to spend the surplus: on debt reduction, on tax cuts, on new discretionary spending programs, on fixing Social Security, or on creating a new Medicare prescription drug benefit? I favor all of these things to varying degrees, as I suspect most of you do. The trick is to find the right balance among these initiatives. In finding the right balance, I believe one of the most important criterion in determining how to use these surpluses should be measuring inter-generational equity. Not only do we need to assess the amount of money we invest on our seniors versus our children, but we also need to assess the trends of mandatory versus discretionary spending. Let me start with my own assessment of Federal spending on children and seniors. Today, the Federal government spends substantially more on seniors over the age of 65 than it does on children under the age of 18. For example, in 2000, the Federal government spent roughly $17,000 per person on programs for the elderly, compared with only $2,500 per person on programs for children. This means that at the Federal level, we are spending seven times as much as people over the age of 65 as on children under the age of 18. Even when we consider that states are the primary funders of primary and secondary education, the combined level of State and Federal spending still shows a dramatic contrast in spending on the old versus the young. At the state and Federal level, we are still spending 2.5 times the amount of money on people over the age of 65 as on children under the age of 18. Given these discomforting facts, it might seem logical that most of the current proposals for spending surplus dollars would be for investments in our children. Instead, this Congress has been proposing and voting to spend a major portion of the surpluses on the most politically organized voting bloc in the nation--those over the age of 65. In the Senate alone, we have either acted on, or are expected to act on, the following proposals which directly benefit seniors only: Eliminating the Social Security earnings test for workers over the age of 65 (10-year price tag: $23 billion) Allowing military retirees to opt out of Medicare and into TriCare or FEHBP (10-year price tag: $90 billion) Creating a new universal Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors (10-year price tag: $300 billion) Medicare provider ``give-backs'' package (10-year price tag: $40 billion) Increasing the Federal income tax exemption provided to Social Security beneficiaries (10-year price tag: $125 billion) If Congress actually enacted all of these popular provisions into law, spending for seniors over the next 10 years would increase by $578 billion--an amount equivalent to this year's entire discretionary spending budget. At the same time as we are proposing, voting in favor of, and enacting legislation to improve benefits and tax cuts for seniors, we will be lucky to get legislation passed that will spend only an additional $10 billion on children under the age of 18. Why? The answer is not simply because seniors are politically organized voters and children are not. We also have to look at how most programs for seniors are funded versus programs for children. As the members of the Senate are well aware, most programs for seniors are funded through mandatory/entitlement spending. Spending increases in these programs are not subject to the annual appropriations process and are protected by automatic cost-of-living-adjustments (COLA) each year. The spending programs that primarily benefit our children, on the other hand, are discretionary, which means they are subject to the annual appropriations process. There are no automatic spending increases when it comes to programs for our kids. Instead, most programs for kids are held victim to politics and spending caps. As a result, the proportion of Federal government spending on mandatory versus discretionary spending has undergone a dramatic shift. Back in 1965, the Federal government spent the equivalent of 6% of GDP on mandatory entitlement programs like Social Security and 12% of GDP on discretionary funding items like national defense, education, and public infrastructure. Put another way: 35 years ago, one-third of our budget funded entitlement programs and two-thirds of our budget funded discretionary spending programs. The situation has now reversed. Today, we spend about two-thirds of our budget on entitlement programs and net interest payments and only one-third of our budget on discretionary spending programs. I am particularly troubled by the decline in spending on discretionary spending initiatives. Although our tight discretionary spending budget caps were a useful tool in the past for eliminating deficits and lowering debt, they are not useful today in helping us assess the discretionary budget needs of the nation. Today, appropriated spending is contained through spending caps that are too tight for today's economic reality. We are left with a discretionary budget that bears little relationship to the needs of the nation and that leaves us little flexibility to solve some of the big problems that still need to be addressed: health care access for the uninsured, education, and research and development in the areas of science and technology. The downward pressure on discretionary spending will become worse during the retirement of the Baby Boom generation--when the needs of programs on the mandatory spending side will increase dramatically. The coming demographic shift towards more retirees and fewer workers is NOT a ``pig in a python'' problem as described by some commentators whose economics are usually better than their metaphors. The ratio of workers needed to support each beneficiary does not increase after the baby boomers have become eligible for benefits. It remains the same. In 10 years, the unprecedented demographic shift toward more retirees will begin. The number of seniors drawing on Medicare and Social Security will nearly double from 39 million to 77 million. The number of workers will grow only slightly from 137 to 145 million. Worse, if we continue to under-invest in the education and training of our youth, we will have no choice but to continue the terrible process of using H- 1B visas to solve the problem of a shortage of skilled labor. One of the least understood concepts regarding Social Security and Medicare is that neither is a contributory system with dedicated accounts for each individual. Both are inter-generational contracts. The generations in the work force agree to be taxed on behalf of eligible beneficiaries in exchange for the understanding that they will receive the same benefit when eligible. Both programs are forms of social insurance--not welfare--but both are also transfer payment programs. We tax one group of people and transfer the money to another. The proportion of spending on seniors--and the proportion of mandatory spending--will most surely increase as the baby boomers become eligible for transfer payments. Unless we want to raise taxes substantially or accrue massive amounts of debt, much of the squeeze will be felt by our discretionary spending programs. The spiral of under-investment in our children and in the future work force will continue. Our government will become more and more like an ATM machine. What should we do about this situation? I recommend a two step approach. Step one is to honestly assess whether can ``cut our way out of this problem''. Do you think public opinion will permit future Congresses to vote for reduction in the growth of Medicare, Social Security, and the long-term care portion of Medicaid? At the moment my answer is a resounding ``no''. Indeed, as I said earlier, we can currently heading the opposite direction. Step number two is to consider whether it is time for us to rewrite the social contract. The central question is this: Do the economic and social changes that have occurred since 1965 justify a different kind of safety net? I believe they do. I believe we need to rewrite and modernize the contract between Americans and the Federal government in regards to retirement income and health care. We should transform the Social Security program so that annual contributions lead all American workers--regardless of income--to accumulate wealth by participating in the growth of the American economy. Whether the investments are made in low risk instruments such as government bonds or in higher risk stock funds, it is a mathematical certainty that fifty years from now a generation of American workers could be heading towards retirement with the security that comes with the ownership of wealth--if we rewrite the contract to allow them to do so. Not only should we reform Social Security to allow workers to personally invest a portion of their payroll taxes, but we should also make sure those account contributions are progressive so that low and moderate income workers can save even more for their retirements. At the same time, it is important to make the traditional Social Security benefit formula even more progressive so that protections against poverty are even stronger for our low income seniors. Finally, it is important to change the law so that we can keep the promise to all 270 million current and future beneficiaries--and that will mean reforming the program to restore its solvency over the long-term. In addition to reforming Social Security, we should end the idea of being uninsured in this nation by rewriting our Federal laws so that eligibility for health insurance occurs simply as a result of being a citizen or a legal resident. We should fold existing programs--Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits, FEHBP, and the income tax deduction--into a single system. And we should subsidize the purchase of health insurance only for those who need assistance. Enacting a Federal law that guarantees health insurance does not mean we should have socialized medicine. Personally, I favor using the private markets as much as possible--although there will be situations in which only the government can provide health care efficiently. One final suggestion. With budget projections showing that total Federal spending will fall to 15.6% of GDP by 2010, I urge my colleague to consider setting a goal of putting aside a portion of the surpluses--perhaps an amount equivalent to one-half to one percent of GDP--for additional discretionary investments. Investments that will improve the lives of our children both in the near future and over the long term--investments in education, research and development, and science and technology. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I wish to join my colleagues, Senator Murkowski, Gorton, and Jeffords in introducing legislation that will help ensure that customers receive reliable and affordable electricity. The Electric Power Industry Tax Modernization Act is the culmination of months-long discussions between shareholder-owned utilities and publicly-owned utilities. Without the diligence and patience exhibited by these groups, it is doubtful that Congress could be in the position to act on this issue. Additionally, I would like to recognize the efforts of Senator Murkowski and Senator Gorton, whose efforts at getting these groups to sit down and discuss these issues was invaluable to the final agreement. Mr. President, this legislation will ensure that Nebraskans continue to benefit from the publicly-owned power they currently receive. Nebraska has 154 not-for-profit community-based public power systems. It is the only state which relies entirely on public power for electricity. This system has served my state well as Nebraskans enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in the nation. In closing, I would urge my colleagues to join this bipartisan effort to address the changes steaming from electrical restructuring. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Low Power Radio Act of 2000 with Senator McCain. Low power FM radio is an effort to bring more diversity to the airwaves. Though radio airwaves belong to the public, only a handful of people currently control what we hear on-air. Low power FM will expand that number by thousands, giving a voice to local governments, community groups, churches, and schools. I understand that there is some concern that these new low-power signals will interfere with existing full-power stations. I believe these fears are greatly exaggerated. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has decades-long experience dealing with FM-spectrum issues, and they have conducted extensive testing to ensure that these new stations will not cause interference. Should interference occur, however, I believe that full-power stations must have a process for alleviating the problem. The Low Power Radio Act allows any broadcaster or listener to file a formal complaint with the FCC. If the FCC determines that a low-power station is causing harmful interference, the low power station will be removed from the airwaves while a technical remedy is found. To discourage frivolous complaints, however, the FCC is authorized to assess reimbursement of costs associated with the proceeding as well as punitive damages onto any full-power station who files a complaint without any purpose other than to impede a low-power radio transmission. This initiative has undergone a considerable period of testing and public comment. Delaying implementation will only result in more conflicting engineering studies without guaranteeing that interference will not occur. I believe that it is time to let low power FM go forward. The Low Power Radio Act gives the FCC the authority to resolve harmful interference complaints on a case-by-case, common sense basis. It is a compromise that can work to the benefit of existing broadcasters, potential low power licensees, and all radio listeners.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I wish to join my colleagues, Senator Murkowski, Gorton, and Jeffords in introducing legislation that will help ensure that customers receive reliable and affordable electricity. The Electric Power Industry Tax Modernization Act is the culmination of months-long discussions between shareholder-owned utilities and publicly-owned utilities. Without the diligence and patience exhibited by these groups, it is doubtful that Congress could be in the position to act on this issue. Additionally, I would like to recognize the efforts of Senator Murkowski and Senator Gorton, whose efforts at getting these groups to sit down and discuss these issues was invaluable to the final agreement. Mr. President, this legislation will ensure that Nebraskans continue to benefit from the publicly-owned power they currently receive. Nebraska has 154 not-for-profit community-based public power systems. It is the only state which relies entirely on public power for electricity. This system has served my state well as Nebraskans enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in the nation. In closing, I would urge my colleagues to join this bipartisan effort to address the changes steaming from electrical restructuring. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Low Power Radio Act of 2000 with Senator McCain. Low power FM radio is an effort to bring more diversity to the airwaves. Though radio airwaves belong to the public, only a handful of people currently control what we hear on-air. Low power FM will expand that number by thousands, giving a voice to local governments, community groups, churches, and schools. I understand that there is some concern that these new low-power signals will interfere with existing full-power stations. I believe these fears are greatly exaggerated. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has decades-long experience dealing with FM-spectrum issues, and they have conducted extensive testing to ensure that these new stations will not cause interference. Should interference occur, however, I believe that full-power stations must have a process for alleviating the problem. The Low Power Radio Act allows any broadcaster or listener to file a formal complaint with the FCC. If the FCC determines that a low-power station is causing harmful interference, the low power station will be removed from the airwaves while a technical remedy is found. To discourage frivolous complaints, however, the FCC is authorized to assess reimbursement of costs associated with the proceeding as well as punitive damages onto any full-power station who files a complaint without any purpose other than to impede a low-power radio transmission. This initiative has undergone a considerable period of testing and public comment. Delaying implementation will only result in more conflicting engineering studies without guaranteeing that interference will not occur. I believe that it is time to let low power FM go forward. The Low Power Radio Act gives the FCC the authority to resolve harmful interference complaints on a case-by-case, common sense basis. It is a compromise that can work to the benefit of existing broadcasters, potential low power licensees, and all radio listeners.

Mr. KERREY

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

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am here, along with Senator Baucus, as well as Senator Dorgan, Senator Breaux, and Senator Robb, to talk about rescission of the estate tax that we think needs to be addressed. I believe the estate tax is unfair. I worked with Senator Kyl of Arizona to write a bill to eliminate the estate tax, along with a stepped-up basis for capital gains which I think is reasonable. Unfortunately, there are two problems I have with the legislation. One is that I see many other provisions in the Tax Code that I also don't think are fair. I think the payroll tax is too high. If you ask me what the No. 1 item is in terms of eliminating, I would like to see the payroll tax reduced. I think it is too high. It is a barrier to savings. It especially falls very hard on those Americans to whom we are trying to give the most opportunity. I would like to see full deductibility of health insurance. There are a lot of things that I would like to see done. But I have to measure the cost of those against the budget itself to try to maintain the fiscal discipline we have had since 1993. As a consequence, I think what Senator Daschle has proposed as an alternative is reasonable. In addition to that, if we are going to help 2 percent of Americans, it is very important for us to pay attention and try to help the 98 percent of Americans who do not have any estate. Senator Baucus has a proposal that will do just that. The proposal that I want to talk about a bit is a proposal called KidSave that will similarly help 98 percent of the population of American citizens who head toward old age and have no estate beyond $650,000 that can be taxed under any circumstances, which is rather shocking when you consider how easy it is to accumulate $650,000. The proposal I have, and I have talked about it before--in fact, I worked with Republicans as well to refine and improve it--is called KidSave. It is based on a very simple mathematical certainty; that is, if you want to accumulate wealth, the most important variable is the length of time over which you save. KidSave opens an account, administered by the Social Security Administration, but very similar to what we have with the Thrift Savings Plan. It opens an account of $1,000 at birth. If you contribute $500 in the first 5 years, you have $3,500 at age 5; and over the next 55 years, that $3,500 is using compounding interest rates. The investment strategy is similar to the Thrift Savings Plan. Members have not only invested in it ourselves, we have employees invested in it. We become very excited about what it can do for individuals. For example, the C Fund we have available, over the last 12 years, has averaged an 18-percent compounded rate of return. It is lower if you pick a bond fund, lower than that if you pick a Treasury bond fund. The idea it is unsafe is an idea that doesn't make any sense to our employees who operate and live under that program. It gives them a chance to have something when they head towards retirement that provides them with real security--and that is wealth. Members will find, talking to people who are concerned about the estate tax, as I have--and I think the estate tax is unfair; you can't justify 55-percent taxation especially when you bring the stepped-up basis in--when we talk to people, it provides them with a sense of security. It is not Social Security, but the wealth that accumulates provides them with a sense of security. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I know the debate is not heading in that direction, unfortunately. We are basically going to have a series of amendments which will go to the President, and he will veto the darn thing and we have our political issues. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are concerned about the impact on 2 percent of the population, what Senator Baucus and Senator Dorgan and Senator Breaux and myself are trying to say is, let's express simultaneously a concern for that 98 percent of American people who are working and have no prospect right now of accumulating an estate in excess of $650,000. It is not a gamble. It is a mathematical certainty. If these accounts are opened early enough and continued over a course of a working life, every single individual in America could head towards retirement knowing that they, too, are going to have a sufficient estate to pass on to their heirs. Not only is it respectable, but it will give them security, as well. I understand there are concerns with KidSave. We worked with Republicans to try to improve it, try to make certain that it accommodates some ideological concerns. I am willing to continue doing that effort. If we are going to be concerned that 2 percent of the population would have to pay estate taxes on estates in excess of $650,000, I believe this Senate should be similarly concerned about 98 percent of the population that heads towards retirement in older age with estates that are under $650,000. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I appreciate that. When I talk of the estate tax, understanding there could be genuine differences of opinion--and the distinguished Senator from New York likes the estate tax. I look at it and I think it is unfair. I hear people say it only affects 2 percent of the population. I say 2 percent are getting the shaft. We ought to still try to help them, whether they are wealthy or not. I don't like the tax. What is more startling to me is 98 percent of the population do not have an estate over $650,000. Think about that, if $1,000 at birth, compounded at 10 percent, produces $650,000. I am not arguing that will happen over 60 years, but if you look at the Thrift Savings Plan, it has compounded at 18 percent in the C fund over the last 12 years. It is a remarkable rate of return. It is absolutely certain. If we want to help the 98 percent that don't have estates over $650,000, it is absolutely a mathematical certainty that we can do it. One cannot wait until 55. One cannot wait until 65. One cannot wait even until 45. Start early. The earliest possible moment is at birth. Open these accounts at birth and contribute early. One objection I heard on the other side is it ought to be an ``earned'' entitlement. We worked with heritage to make it earned entitlement. I am willing to do that. If you understand compounding interest rates, and if you are startled not by the fact that only 2 percent have estates over $650,000 but that 98 percent haven't reached $650,000--that is a startling number; it is not good. Inside of a liberal democracy in a free market system such as ours, it is not good because we have the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Not because the rich are doing anything bad. I am not saying they are at fault. What is happening relative to the wealth being generated in America, people without wealth are getting poorer. Raising the minimum wage and expanding the EATC--both of which I favor--do not address the problem of wealth. That is income. In order to address wealth, we have to do it in a different fashion. I hope during this estate tax debate we not only notice that only 2 percent have estates over $650,000, but 98 percent don't, and we begin in an urgent and serious fashion to address that problem.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, a few weeks ago the Senate convened a joint meeting between Democrats and Republicans to receive a classified nuclear briefing from the Department of Defense. The purpose of this bipartisan meeting was for the members of the Senate to get a better understanding of our strategic nuclear weapons policy. Our briefers, which included Admiral Richard Mies, Commander of STRATCOM, had been invited to the Senate to explain the details of the Single Integrated Operational Plan--or SIOP. The SIOP is the highly- classified nuclear blueprint of targets and targeting assignments for our strategic nuclear weapons arsenal, and is the driving force behind our strategic nuclear force levels. While the SIOP is a military document, it is based on guidance given to the Department of Defense by the President. As elected representatives of the people, and with a Constitutional role in determining national security policy, Congress should have an understanding of the principles underpinning our nuclear policy. Both the guidance provided by the President and the details of the SIOP are necessary for us to make informed national security decisions. With this in mind, we gathered in an interior room in the Capitol to get a full briefing on the SIOP. But when we asked the DoD briefers precise questions about the SIOP, we did not get the information we were seeking. The briefers were unable, or unwilling, to give us the kind of specific information about our nuclear forces and plans we need to make the decisions required as elected representatives of the people. In fact, when asked for detailed targeting information we were given three different answers. First, we were told that they did not bring that kind of information. Then, we were told there were people in the room who were not cleared to receive that kind of information. Finally, we were told that kind of information is only provided to the Senate leadership and members of the Armed Services Committee. Because members of the leadership and the Senate Armed Services Committee indicated they had never received such information, I can only surmise there must be a fourth answer. We find ourselves in an uncomfortable and counter-productive Catch- 22. Until we as civilians provide better guidance to our military leaders, we are unlikely to affect the kind of changes needed to update our nuclear policies to reflect the realities of the post-cold-war world. Yet, providing improved guidance is difficult when we are unable to learn the basic components of the SIOP. Given this, I followed up our meeting with a letter to Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle requesting that he schedule another briefing so that we could get the information our first briefers would not provide. While I still believe this briefing is needed, we need not wait for a briefing on the details of the SIOP to answer the question of how many nuclear weapons are needed to deter potential aggressors. In truth, it is important for citizens, armed only with common sense and open-source information, to reach sound conclusions about our nuclear posture and force levels. To illustrate, we should ask experts to describe the deterrent capability of a single Trident submarine--our most survivable and reliable delivery platform. Within an hour of receiving an order to launch, a Trident could deliver and detonate 192 nuclear weapons on their targets. The minimum size of the detonations would 100 kilotons; the maximum would be 300 kilotons. By comparison, the Hiroshima detonation that caused Japan to sue for unconditional peace in August 1945 was only 15 kilotons. In the open, we should assess what damage 192 of these weapons would cause and determine whether this would deter most, if not all of the threats we face. Mr. President, I have made no secret of my strongly-held belief that we can and we should make dramatic reductions in our strategic nuclear arsenals. I believe that by keeping such a large arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons we are decreasing rather than enhancing our security. By keeping such a large arsenal we are forcing the Russians to keep more weapons than they can safely control. By keeping such a large arsenal we are increasing the chance of accidental or unauthorized launch. By keeping such a large arsenal we are increasing the likelihood of the proliferation of these weapons. By keeping such a large arsenal we are encouraging nations like India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea to pursue a nuclear weapons option. And finally, by keeping such a large arsenal we are diverting budgetary resources away from our conventional forces--the forces that are vital to protecting our interests around the globe. In the near future, I will return to the Senate floor to discuss this issue further. I will return with non-classified information-- information that comes not from briefings in secret rooms, but information all citizens can access through a simple search on Yahoo-- in an attempt to better understand our nuclear policy and the changing definition of deterrence in the post-Cold War world. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERREY

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

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments. There is no question that should be a very big concern of the conferees because Senator Warner yesterday, when we were debating this issue, expressed his understanding that this would increase the requirement to build additional military hospitals and military health care facilities. This will shift the burden of paying for health care from Medicare over to the Defense budget. There is no question that is the case. I say to the Senator, I remember talking to my recruiter very well. I remember the day I sat in front of a Navy recruiter and he said to me: Join the Navy; see the world. He made all kinds of promises to me. I have not sued my Government because they did not give me a chance to see the world. I believe the Senator is right. There were some legitimate written promises made, and if there were legitimate written promises that were made, then we ought to make certain we keep those commitments. Sometimes it becomes much more a political rhetoric than it becomes reality. I do think, whether it is a veteran or whether it is some other American, one of the hardest things for us to do when somebody asks us for something is to say no. The Senator from Alaska has had to do that many times in his career in the Senate. ``I want some of the taxpayers' money to do something'' and the Senator has had to repeatedly say no. It is not easy to do that. It is too easy for us to get caught up, when we talk about making sure we take care of our retirees, in the feeling that you just cannot say no. I argue that the answer is you can say no, and there are times you need to say no. If you do not say no, it is going to be difficult for us to keep our force modernized and weapons systems modernized and our people who are in the services well paid. Again, I say to my friend, the thing I fear--and I will say it directly--is we have a declining number of people who have been in the services in the Congress. I am very much aware it is easy to say: Gee, I have to do this; I wasn't in the service, I have to do this. I had to say I did not join the Navy because they promised me health care benefits, retirement benefits, and promised me I could go to school on the GI bill. That was not the contract. It was all there. People say: We owe you. No. I have a bigger debt to my country than my country has to me. It is a very important attitude for us to instill not just in our young people but retirees as well. We have to be very careful that in doing something we do not undercut the most important reason men and women come into the Armed Forces. We ought to praise them. We ought to recognize that and not forget it is still a very big reason people serve.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I want to take a minute, hopefully for the purpose of influencing the conferees on a vote that was taken yesterday--it passed overwhelmingly--having to do with military retiree benefits. There are two amendments, one offered by Senator Warner, one offered by Senator Johnson. I appreciate the intent of both amendments and I appreciate very much, as well, the concerns both Senators and everybody who voted for both of those amendments have for military retirees, especially as far as it might improve our capacity to recruit and retain people in the Armed Forces. I think it is a legitimate concern, and I appreciate very much that concern being expressed yesterday, especially being expressed with affirmative votes, although, as I said, I voted against both of those amendments. I did not, during the debate yesterday, offer the reasons I voted against it, and I want to do that now. Both amendments are essentially dealing with the same situation; that is, once you reach the age of 65, you go off the TRICARE system and you go onto Medicare, as most individuals do who work for other businesses as well who end up with health care. It is not unusual today for people to leave employment to go onto Medicare after their retirement from employment. But one amendment would allow people to buy into TRICARE; Senator Johnson's amendment would allow them to buy as well into the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program with a full taxpayer-paid subsidy; one was $4.5 billion a year, the other was about $5.5 billion a year. Senator Warner's, in order to be able to get it in the budget, has it sunsetting after 2 years. It only goes for 2 years. I presume if it becomes law, we will have to extend it every couple of years. There is a budget issue here that causes me to vote no. The budget issue has to do, first of all, with I think an inadequate amount of study given to who needs this and who does not need this. It was developed fairly quickly. It was offered fairly quickly. I think it should have been examined much more carefully, what the impact was going to be, what the real need is, what the real demand is out there; especially the second concern I have, which is that it adds to one of the biggest problems we have with our current budget, and that is the growing share of our budget that is going over to mandatory spending. The checkpoint for Senator Johnson's amendment was people who were enlisted prior to 1957. In 1957, over 70 percent of our budget was appropriated; 70 percent of our budget went to such things as the GI bill and other kinds of investments. I benefited enormously from those investments, not just as a veteran myself, but it was most important for my own parents' generation. That is what they were doing. They were endowing their future. They were really investing in their future as a consequence of those appropriations. This year, 66 percent of the budget is mandatory. This amendment that was put on the Defense authorization bill will make that problem worse. I could not in good faith vote for the amendment as a consequence of those two concerns, even though I recognize for some veterans, some employees, this is a problem. Also, I want to comment on some of the things that were said during the debate. I want to comment, especially from the point of view of myself because I am military retired. I am one of the retirees who would benefit from this change in the law. I am service-connected disabled as a result of an injury in the war in Vietnam, and I have been receiving a military retirement check since I left the Navy in 1969. I understand the recruiting difficulties. I understand we have to be competitive with the private sector. I understand we have a volunteer service today, and so forth. I think it has all been very well said. But focusing on money in this debate, we underestimate and underemphasize the importance of people joining our service because they are patriotic, because they love their country, because they want to serve their country in some meaningful way, because they believe service makes them better, they believe putting themselves on the line for somebody else isn't something that is just good for the other person, it is good for them as well. That was the benefit for me in my service. Though I appreciate very much people coming and saying my country owes me something, I reject that idea. My country owes me nothing. If the Congress of this Nation wants to provide me with retirement, wants to provide me with medical assistance--they provided me with the GI bill and COLAs all these years--they have given me enormous benefits. They gave me a hospital I could go to, to get my care. I appreciate all that. I am grateful for all that. It makes me more patriotic than I was before. But I do not believe as a consequence of my service that the people of the United States of America owe me anything. I want to make that point because I entered the service because it was my duty. I entered the service because I believed it was the right thing to do. I entered the service because I thought I was going to get something intangible out of it--and I did. I learned how to lead, learned how to take responsibility, learned how to do lots of things. And I learned as well what it is like to be injured, what it is like to be injured in a nation that takes care of its veterans, that provides care. I learned what it is to suffer a little bit and to feel compassion for other people as they go through their lives and suffer as a consequence of things that were unforeseen, unexpected, unanticipated, and unavoidable. I have talked to a lot of colleagues on the floor during this debate. They said: Oh, gosh, we can't say no to our veterans, can't say no to our military retirees. There are times we can. I believe, especially when we think about the budget impact that these amendments are going to have, there are times when we should. I do not believe we should fall into the trap of believing that men and women will not still join the Armed Forces of the United States of America because they love this country and they want to serve. Yes, we need to have good pensions. Yes, we need to make certain they are not getting food stamps. Yes, we need to take care of them when they are in. But let them serve as a consequence of feeling loyal, feeling good about their country, and wanting to put themselves on the line. Let service, all by itself, be one of the motivating factors, be one of the reasons that men and women do it. And be grateful for that and reward it, applaud it, pay attention to it. I wish, in fact, people in Hollywood as they make decisions about what they are going to put on television, what they are going to put in movie theaters, told more of the stories of the men and women who are serving today not because they are being paid well, not because there are health care benefits promised, not because of a retirement program waiting for them, but because they love their country, because they feel a patriotic desire to serve the United States of America, serve the people of the United States of America and the cause of freedom for which we stand. It is not a cliche; it is a real thing. I am concerned, concerned with some of the debate I heard yesterday, that only the pecuniary interests were involved; that all we had to do was get the pay high enough, retirement benefits high enough, health care benefits high enough, and we would solve all of our problems. We will not solve all of our problems if that is what we do. If we do not recognize that one of the reasons people serve is that they love their country, A, we will find ourselves falling short of recruitment and retention objectives, but, in addition to that, we will not know when the correct time is to say to that man or woman who served their country: We have to make certain we have enough money in our budget to invest in our children and their future as well. We cannot, as we are doing, simply put more and more money in people over the age of 65. I love them. They have served their country. They are the greatest generation ever. But this action comes on top of eliminating the earnings test, which was a $22 billion proposal over 10. I voted for that. There were 100 of us on this floor who voted for that. It was a reasonable thing to do. But if you look at the diminishing amount of money we invest every single year through our appropriations accounts, and you look at that trend continuing to go further and further down, it gets harder and harder to say we are endowing our future the way our parents endowed the future for us. Mr. President, I did not want anybody to suffer the illusion that I do not care about our military retirees. I do. There were good fiscal reasons why not to support the amendment, but I hope as we go into conference we do not get lulled into thinking the only thing we have to do to recruit and retain people in our Armed Forces is to provide some pecuniary reimbursement that enables them to feel they are getting rewarded in some way that is competitive with what they can get in the marketplace. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, one year ago I came to the floor of the United States Senate to introduce legislation designed to improve the environmental quality and public use and appreciation of the Missouri River. The Missouri River Valley Improvement Act of 1999, sought to also mark the upcoming bicentennial anniversary of the Lewis and Clark expeditions of this great river. At that time I asked my colleagues who represent the states and communities along the Missouri River to look closely at the bill and join me as cosponsors in support of the legislation. Through the hard work of state officials, river organizations and citizens throughout the Missouri River basin, many important improvements have been made to this bill. I believe these improvements strengthens our commitment to protecting the Missouri River. I am pleased, therefore, to introduce today, along with my Colleague's Senator Daschle, Senator Bond, Senator Johnson, Senator Brownback and Senator Roberts, the Missouri River Valley Improvement Act of 2000. This legislation maintains the commitment made in last year's bill to aid native river fish and wildlife, reduce flood loss, and enhance recreation and tourism throughout the basin. Additionally, this bill provides authorities for the revitalization of historic riverfronts, similar to the ongoing `Back to the River' revitalization project currently underway in my home state of Nebraska. The new legislation also recognizes the commitment Congress made last year to habitat restoration efforts along the Missouri River by authorizing resources for these projects. I am proud of the bipartisan support garnered for this legislation. This bill demonstrates that common ground exists when it comes to strengthening the health of the Missouri River. Those who use the river whether it be for recreational, commercial, or environmental purposes recognize the benefits of preserving this National treasure. Protecting native habitat along the Missouri River and enhancing environmental understanding through riverfront restoration and scientific monitoring is a legacy we should all want to leave our children and grandchildren. Mr. President, it is my hope that this bill becomes part of the growing recognition that the environmental revitalization of the Missouri River is in all of our interests. The Missouri River Valley Improvement Act of 2000 will help to restore and improve our access and enjoyment of the river, and will provide vital economic, recreational and education opportunities for everyone who lives along and visits this great river, the Crown Jewel of the Midwest.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I quite agree with that.

Mr. KERREY. The Senator is correct. It is one reason additional review is not necessary. It is offered in good faith, but it is certainly not necessary to make this determination.

Mr. KERREY. I am pleased to do that. The first question is, Did the Congress do the right thing in 1998 and 1999, and would we be doing the right thing today or in the future to have a statute that imposes upon a President a floor, a limitation, under which that President cannot go as a consequence of our deciding that should only occur as we described in this law? We did it in 1998 and again in 1999 and we are proposing to do it again this year.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first of all, is our time being charged to the two of us? Is that how this is being worked?

Mr. KERREY. I do not think it is going to be persuasive to the Senator from Virginia, but this is the statement of policy on the Senate defense authorization bill: The administration appreciates the bill's endorsement of our plan to reduce the Trident submarine force from 18 to 14 boats, while maintaining a survivable, effective START I- capable force. However, we prefer repealing the general provision that maintains the prohibition, first enacted in the FY 1998 Defense Authorization Act, against obligating funds to retire or dismantle any other strategic nuclear delivery systems below specified levels. . . . And on and on and on. So the President has signed it, but the President does not support this policy. Again, I do not suppose that is going to be persuasive to my colleague, but he used an argument against repealing this provision that said the President supports it, or he signed the bill which implies that he supports the provision. I personally believe the Congress should be making the decision. The Senator's argument, with great passion, that he does not like infringing upon the prerogatives of the President--I have heard him many times down here arguing, oftentimes against Members of his own party, against efforts to do that. So I am surprised, in fact, especially now that the Russian Duma has ratified START II, that we want to continue this policy. I think it is not good. So that is question No. 1. You have heard very eloquent argument on the other side. Question No. 1 is: Does Congress want to do that under any circumstances with or without a review? The second question we are now going to be asked, as a consequence of the second-degree amendment, is: Do we want to delay action? Do we want to restrict the action in accordance with the second-degree amendment which basically says we have to have a nuclear force structure review and that review is submitted concurrently with the quadrennial review which is expected December of 2001? I believe it is time for the people's representatives, elected by the people, to be having a debate about what kind of force structure we want to maintain. And it is counterproductive, it is difficult for us to reach the right decision, if we once again farm it off and say we want somebody else to figure it out. It is the civilians who send instructions to the CINC at STRATCOM. It is PDD-60 that determines what the Single Integrated Operating Plan, the SIOP, is. The targets are selected as a consequence of civilian instructions, not the other way around. It is we who have to decide, Do we have enough? Do we have too much? Or is it right? It is we who have to bring commonsense analysis to the debate and answer the question: Given the current status, given what we expect out in the future, do we have enough? We have the statements of General Shalikashvili in 1995, as he evaluated this, that seem to indicate that lower levels are safe. But even there, General Shalikashvili is following civilian instructions. I understand this amendment provides people an opportunity to sort of vote for this thing and we are going to have a normal review. It may in fact carry the day. It is a very complicated argument, and it may in fact be that the second-degree amendment passes. I hope not, because it is time for this Congress to take back the responsibility for targeting and answer the question: Do we have enough, do we have too little, or do we have the numbers quite right? I urge Members to look at what we now have in the public realm, data that indicates what that targeting is. We have an analysis, public analysis now, of what happens when we have 2,500 strategic warheads after we subtract that fraction that may not be available to us for a variety of reasons. Understanding we are not shooting bullets here, these are very complicated systems, and you cannot, with 100-percent reliability, predict that they are going to arrive on target in the manner that has been described. So they are very complicated systems. It requires modernization; it requires constant analysis. The men and women at STRATCOM and others who have that responsibility are highly skilled, and they work on that problem all the time. This is why I think the review is not a good idea. It pushes away from us one more time the problem of just considering what these nuclear weapons can do instead of asking ourselves, with a commonsense analysis--because, again, the targeting begins with civilian instructions. It is the Presidential directive that determines what the targeting is. We have modified the targeting, certainly, to accommodate some of the changes that have occurred as a result of the end of the cold war. But I believe if you look at these things and say, oh, my gosh, what will those do, you will reach a commonsense conclusion that we have more than is necessary in order to keep the people of the United States of America safe. That is the mission of this defense authorization bill, whether we are debating the pay for our military, whether we are debating our force structure, or readiness, whatever it is. We ought to authorize and we ought to appropriate such funds as necessary to keep the people of the United States of America and our interests and our allies safe. That is what our mission is. But, again, on the question of the need for review, what is needed is for Congress to review it, for Congress to answer the question. We have, under what is called the minimal deterrent level, the 2,500 warheads: We have 500 100- to 300-kiloton weapons that will land on war-supporting installations in Russia, 160 on leadership, 500 on conventional forces, 1,100 on nuclear targets. I urge, rather than doing a review, what we need to do is bring out a map of Russia and take a look and answer the question, What do 2,260 nuclear detonations of a minimum of 100 kilotons do to Russia? Remember, the war in the Pacific ended in 1945 as a consequence of two 15-kiloton detonations. I stipulated earlier my uncle died in the Philippines and my father was a part of the occupation force rather than invasion. I have a vested interest in declaring that I think Truman did the right thing. But those were two 15-kiloton detonations. We are talking about 2,260 detonations in excess of 100 kilotons. We do not need a review by professionals. The people's representatives need to do an analysis of this, and I urge my colleagues to do that kind of analysis. Imagine those kinds of detonations and ask yourself, Do we have enough? Connected with that, do an analysis yourself, both of the command and control capability of Russia and of their ability to do warnings, because if they have mistakes made at either command and control or warning--and their capacity to do early warning not only is declining but it is declining enough so the President, in one of the few successes he had, in addition to getting an agreement to eliminate weapons-grade plutonium, got an agreement to do a joint warning center in Moscow because the analysis says their capacity to do accurate warning is declining. What does that mean? It means if they get a false alarm, they are going to launch because their instructions are to launch on warning. So what we are doing is, as a consequence of maintaining higher levels pending more reviews, et cetera, et cetera, we are forcing the Russians to maintain a level higher than they are able to maintain, putting us at risk. It increases the risk today. That is how the end of the cold war has changed things. Russia cannot maintain 6,000 strategic weapons. They have been begging us for years. Indeed, one of the things I said yesterday, one of the paradoxes of this whole debate, is I am not sure this administration would take action. (Mr. WARNER assumed the chair.)

Mr. KERREY. I am pleased to.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the answer to that is a question back to the Senator from Virginia. If the President is asking for these levels, why would he insist on a prohibition of his going lower? Why is he so concerned he is going to go lower, if the President is asking for these levels? Why does he need this provision?

Mr. KERREY. The question the Senator from Virginia asked me was, Why did the President send up an authorization request for current levels if he was thinking about going lower? That is a good question. I am not certain the President would use his authority. The question that provokes is, Why, if the President is asking for existing levels, are this Senator from Virginia and others so concerned that he might go lower? Why do we have this prohibition on any President? It is an unnecessary and unwarranted interference, and it makes the people of the United States of America an awful lot less safe, given what is going on in Russia today.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. KERREY. Go ahead.

Mr. KERREY. May I ask the Senator a question? Do you think that Congress made a mistake not having a similar provision in place so we could have prevented President Bush from taking his action in 1991?