J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I cosponsor this important piece of legislation to help the very neediest of individuals obtain a college degree. One of the most important goals that we can accomplish as legislators is to ensure that every American who is willing to work hard can go to college and have a shot at the American Dream. Yet we know that the cost of a college education is rising rapidly, and that can be an inhibitor for potential students. By reauthorizing and reforming State Student Incentive Grants, the LEAP Act ensures that this important program continues to assist those students who otherwise may not be able to pursue higher education. Together with Pell grants they make it possible for low-income students to reach their potential and in turn become productive contributors in our increasingly knowledge-based economy. This legislation restores to the SSIG program its incentive nature by giving states a reason to increase their investment in it. Any funds appropriated over $35 million would require an increased state match of two new dollars for every federal dollar. In return greater flexibility will be provided for the use of these extra funds. They can be used to increase grant awards or for other worthy activities such as carrying out academic or merit scholarship programs or career education programs. Nebraska has been supportive of the SSIG program and has shown that support in its willingness to overmatch the federal contribution. However, with the decrease in appropriations from $50 million for fiscal year 1997 to $25 million for fiscal year 1998, the state will be able to assist approximately 500 fewer students. Seventy-one percent of Nebraska students who received an SSIG had a family income of $20,000 or less. By lending further support to the SSIG program we can ensure that these 500 students and thousands of students across the nation do not fall between the cracks. Mr. President, I am cosponsoring this bill today because it represents a good bipartisan effort to increase educational opportunities for those in greatest need of financial assistance. I look forward to moving it through Congress.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am proud today to join with several of my colleagues in support of S. 1638, ``The Healthy Kids Act'', the tobacco bill crafted by Senator Conrad and the Democratic Tobacco Task Force. As you have heard many of our colleagues say, 3000 kids start smoking every day. One third of those will prematurely die from a tobacco- related disease. In Nebraska alone, 38 out of 100 high school kids currently smoke cigarettes and over 35,000 kids currently under the age of 18 will die prematurely from tobacco-related diseases. This is simply unacceptable. And the job has fallen upon Congress to do something about it. Last summer, my colleagues and I were faced with the daunting task of putting together comprehensive tobacco legislation. Led by my very dedicated colleague Senator Conrad from North Dakota, the Democratic Tobacco Task Force worked hard for nearly eight months to draft a bill that put our children's health first. This is exactly what The HEALTHY Kids Act does. This bill puts the law on the side of our kids. Sometimes we pass laws and are unsure of their impact. This time we can be certain: If we pass this law it will save children's lives. Period. Experts say that the way to get kids to quit smoking is to raise prices on cigarettes. The HEALTHY Kids Act does this. This bill is projected to collect $78 billion in total revenue over the next five years. Among other things, this money will help improve our children's health care, child care, and education; fund important medical research; take care of the farmers that were left out of the settlement negotiations; and some money will even go towards reducing the deficit and saving social security--which could perhaps be the greatest gift we could ever think about giving our children. Mr. President, I close by saying that I look forward to working with Mr. Conrad and others on passing this important legislation that correctly puts our children first.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I cosponsor this important piece of legislation to help the very neediest of individuals obtain a college degree. One of the most important goals that we can accomplish as legislators is to ensure that every American who is willing to work hard can go to college and have a shot at the American Dream. Yet we know that the cost of a college education is rising rapidly, and that can be an inhibitor for potential students. By reauthorizing and reforming State Student Incentive Grants, the LEAP Act ensures that this important program continues to assist those students who otherwise may not be able to pursue higher education. Together with Pell grants they make it possible for low-income students to reach their potential and in turn become productive contributors in our increasingly knowledge-based economy. This legislation restores to the SSIG program its incentive nature by giving states a reason to increase their investment in it. Any funds appropriated over $35 million would require an increased state match of two new dollars for every federal dollar. In return greater flexibility will be provided for the use of these extra funds. They can be used to increase grant awards or for other worthy activities such as carrying out academic or merit scholarship programs or career education programs. Nebraska has been supportive of the SSIG program and has shown that support in its willingness to overmatch the federal contribution. However, with the decrease in appropriations from $50 million for fiscal year 1997 to $25 million for fiscal year 1998, the state will be able to assist approximately 500 fewer students. Seventy-one percent of Nebraska students who received an SSIG had a family income of $20,000 or less. By lending further support to the SSIG program we can ensure that these 500 students and thousands of students across the nation do not fall between the cracks. Mr. President, I am cosponsoring this bill today because it represents a good bipartisan effort to increase educational opportunities for those in greatest need of financial assistance. I look forward to moving it through Congress.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am proud today to join with several of my colleagues in support of S. 1638, ``The Healthy Kids Act'', the tobacco bill crafted by Senator Conrad and the Democratic Tobacco Task Force. As you have heard many of our colleagues say, 3000 kids start smoking every day. One third of those will prematurely die from a tobacco- related disease. In Nebraska alone, 38 out of 100 high school kids currently smoke cigarettes and over 35,000 kids currently under the age of 18 will die prematurely from tobacco-related diseases. This is simply unacceptable. And the job has fallen upon Congress to do something about it. Last summer, my colleagues and I were faced with the daunting task of putting together comprehensive tobacco legislation. Led by my very dedicated colleague Senator Conrad from North Dakota, the Democratic Tobacco Task Force worked hard for nearly eight months to draft a bill that put our children's health first. This is exactly what The HEALTHY Kids Act does. This bill puts the law on the side of our kids. Sometimes we pass laws and are unsure of their impact. This time we can be certain: If we pass this law it will save children's lives. Period. Experts say that the way to get kids to quit smoking is to raise prices on cigarettes. The HEALTHY Kids Act does this. This bill is projected to collect $78 billion in total revenue over the next five years. Among other things, this money will help improve our children's health care, child care, and education; fund important medical research; take care of the farmers that were left out of the settlement negotiations; and some money will even go towards reducing the deficit and saving social security--which could perhaps be the greatest gift we could ever think about giving our children. Mr. President, I close by saying that I look forward to working with Mr. Conrad and others on passing this important legislation that correctly puts our children first.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as if in morning business.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I was very disappointed, many of my colleagues down here, a lot of us were disappointed that we were not able to get the ISTEA legislation passed last year. For me the ISTEA legislation is one of the most important things with which this Congress deals. It creates immediate jobs, employs people in my State, but much more importantly, it adds to the productive capacity out in the future. It contributes to our capacity to be competitive. It enables our families to do what they want to do when they take their leisure time. Our transportation system is enormously important, and it is one of the things we in America have to be proud of. It enables us to maintain our competitive edge and to be able to celebrate. I was encouraged earlier last year when the majority leader indicated that he was going to make this a priority and bring it up right away. I have great respect for Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Budget Committee, who is asking that this legislation be taken up after we get a budget resolution, but that means we will have to get another 6-month extension. That means there will be contract uncertainty out there in the country. That means we may not get this thing done until next year. All of us know there are bitter divisions about formulas, bitter divisions about how we are going to allocate our money: should it go out to the West, to the Northeast? All of these battles that typically do not break down by party line but by geographic line, all of those battles will have to be waged here in the Senate Chamber when the bill is brought up. If you delay it, not only do we risk not getting a 6- month extension, we risk not getting ISTEA passed until very late in the session, creating contract uncertainty, creating, it seems to me, problems none of us ought to be courting. So I hope that the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and the majority leader will bring this legislation up before this budget resolution, will schedule it for debate as quickly as possible. We need, on behalf of the American workers, on behalf of American businesses, to pass what arguably I think both Republicans and Democrats would say is apt to have the most immediate, positive impact in terms of our economy and in terms of jobs and productivity. I have a letter from one of Nebraska's significant engineering companies pointing out, quite correctly, that there is an urgency to this legislation. There are jobs hanging in the balance, there is productivity hanging in the balance, there is safety hanging in the balance. There are lot of things that need to be done that we are not going to be able to do if this piece of legislation is delayed. I voted yesterday to rename the National Airport in favor of Ronald Reagan. I am a Democrat. There were many of us who said, oh, my gosh, do we have to put a Republican name up on our airport? Ronald Reagan was one of the most important Presidents of this century. It was an important piece of legislation. But relative to ISTEA, it is not as important. When you size and scale these things in terms of the contribution they are going to make to keep our people safe, to give our kids a good education, to give Americans a shot at the American dream, ISTEA gives them that opportunity. ISTEA gives us jobs; it gives us a chance to maintain our competitive edge. I hope there is some reconsideration given. I hope that the advice that was offered earlier by the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, that this legislation be brought up sooner rather than later will be taken by the majority leader. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, there has been a lot of commentary before about the President's budget, and I would like to offer a little comment prior to talking about the proposals that I heard the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, make the other day having to do with the importance of ISTEA legislation. My own view is that there is an awful lot that Congress needs to be proud of at the moment. We sometimes make it worse with our actions. And when we help make things better, it seems to be important for us to take stock of what we have done and to acknowledge our accomplishments. I believe the last 7 years in the United States we have seen a dramatic transformation in the United States Congress from one of an expectation almost that the Japanese and other Asian nationals are going to overwhelm us. I remember very well in 1991 the debate was: Will the U.S. currency be devalued in the end? Could our automobile manufacturers survive? Could our computer manufacturers survive? There were a lot of people who reached the conclusion that we would not be able to do that, and what we ought to do is adopt the Japanese model, to have the Government much more involved in the decisionmaking businesses, with a much closer relationship, and industrial policy was quite popular at the time. We chose a different direction. We enacted in 1990, and in 1993 and again enacted in 1997, legislation that imposed fiscal discipline on the Federal Government. And as a consequence of that we are now finding ourselves debating what are we going to do about the surplus? We have reduced Government borrowing, and reduced Government borrowing just from the 1993 legislation by almost $800 billion; and that coupled with tremendous accomplishments in the private sector, businesses and employees working harder, producing more, being more competitive and especially paying attention to price and quality which is what the consumer increasingly is looking at before they will make a purchase. Our goods are selling. Our cars and computers are selling. Our software and food is selling. Our products are selling. People throughout the world, where they have an opportunity to buy our products are saying that ``Made in the U.S.A'' is good again. It wasn't that long ago when people were saying maybe it is not so good. So we need to congratulate ourselves. We have a surplus. The cost of the Federal Government is down to the lowest as a percentage of GDP than it has been in a long time. Crime is down in most major cities. There is a lot that we need to feel good about--not just as Members of Congress but as Americans for how it is that we have gotten to where we are today. Mr. President, I think, as is always the case in any competitive operation, that it must be pointed out that there is a need to take advantage--not to say it is terrific and we are on the top of the heap and become complacent. That is when you get in trouble. I understand that there is uncertainty when you are having to compete. But in part that uncertainty means we are doing a good job because we are not asking anybody to provide us with an absolute guarantee of success. We are saying that we are prepared to get in the market and do what we have to do to be successful. So I believe it is not the time in 1998 to say that it is terrific, and let's figure out how to spend the surplus, or let's figure out how to take an easy course of action. I think the President has outlined for us a tough course in setting Social Security as a top priority saying we have to have a discussion in 1998 about it besides in 1999 what we are going to do with the most expensive program that we have in Washington, DC, today. I applaud that. All of us need, as we look at the Congressional Budget Office numbers, to be alert. And the distinguished Senator from Tennessee and I are both on the Medicare commission, and I presume that Medicare commission, which I think is going to have our first meeting sometime in March relatively quickly, I hope. Our big concern should be the year 2010, the year 2030, and the CBO numbers that we are given. All of us need to understand that it only extends out 10 years. The next 10 years looks pretty good. Over the next 10 years not a single baby boomer will retire. They start to retire; 77 million of them start to retire in the year 2010. And from 2010 to 2030, the number of retirees will increase almost 25 million while the number of workers only goes up 5 million. That is a demographic problem--not caused by liberalism or conservatism. It is a demographic problem, and my guess is that this year it will impose some sort of children's health fee on tobacco. My guess is that the increased funding in NIH will go through. And my guess is that as a consequence of that and what other sorts of things there will be that the baby-boom generation is going to live even longer than what we are currently forecasting. And their demand for collective transfer payments both from Social Security and Medicare are apt to be larger than what we are currently estimating, not likely to be smaller. During that period of time--2010-2030--the percent of our budget that is allocated to mandatory spending, presuming that we allow net interest to go down, which is by no means certain, if we allow the debt to be paid down so the net interest can go down, even with that scenario, at the end of the baby boom generation 80 percent of the budget will go to mandatory spending. All one has to do is take today's budget of $1.7 trillion, subtract 80 percent, and ask yourself how you are going to defend the Nation with 20 percent, how you are going to build our roads, how you are going to maintain a law enforcement system, how you are going to do all the things that everyone wants to do with only 20 percent left. That is the dilemma, it seems to me, we are going to face. So I hope in this moment of exuberation and exhilaration we understand now is not the time to become complacent. Now is not the time for us to just come to the floor and try to tee up things that are relatively easy. We have to get the tough things done.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am honored to be an original cosponsor of Senator Dodd's important initiative to improve the affordability, availability and quality of child care in the United States. I believe that American families will welcome this legislation. We all know that high quality, affordable child care is an important concern to working families. The number of working mothers with preschool-age children has increased five-fold since 1947. More than ten million children of working mothers are in child care--and this number will increase as our strong economy enables welfare parents to find jobs. Child care belongs on the top of the national agenda. This legislation uses a number of strategies to improve child care for American families. Most families struggle to cope with the costs of child care. Under this legislation, low-income working families will benefit from increased subsidies for child care services through the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Families who have little or no tax liability will receive new assistance through refundability of the Dependent Care Tax Credit, while an adjusted sliding scale and indexed expense limits will enhance the tax credit for families with incomes below $60,000. This legislation also provides funds for significant quality improvements. Through block grant funds, States will be encouraged to invest in meaningful strategies that improve quality of care and enhance early childhood development, such as lower provider-to-child ratios, new training and education opportunities for child care providers, higher wages for child care workers, and greater enforcement of state licensing standards. In addition, new funding for school-age child care will encourage schools to create before- and after-school programs. Finally, Senator Dodd has structured this legislation to encourage a significant private sector role in child care improvements. By expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act, establishing competitive ``challenge grants'' for community-based child care improvements, and developing a new tax credit for employers that provide child care opportunities to their employees, this legislation recognizes the important role that community organizations and private businesses have to play in meeting American families' child care needs. I am pleased to support such an important investment in American families and America's children. We know how important a child's early years are to its later intellectual, emotional and physical development. All American families have great dreams for their children and seek the best care possible during these critical early years. And all families deserve a chance at the American dream. Through this legislation, Congress will be doing its part to help American families work towards a successful future.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am honored to be an original cosponsor of Senator Dodd's important initiative to improve the affordability, availability and quality of child care in the United States. I believe that American families will welcome this legislation. We all know that high quality, affordable child care is an important concern to working families. The number of working mothers with preschool-age children has increased five-fold since 1947. More than ten million children of working mothers are in child care--and this number will increase as our strong economy enables welfare parents to find jobs. Child care belongs on the top of the national agenda. This legislation uses a number of strategies to improve child care for American families. Most families struggle to cope with the costs of child care. Under this legislation, low-income working families will benefit from increased subsidies for child care services through the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Families who have little or no tax liability will receive new assistance through refundability of the Dependent Care Tax Credit, while an adjusted sliding scale and indexed expense limits will enhance the tax credit for families with incomes below $60,000. This legislation also provides funds for significant quality improvements. Through block grant funds, States will be encouraged to invest in meaningful strategies that improve quality of care and enhance early childhood development, such as lower provider-to-child ratios, new training and education opportunities for child care providers, higher wages for child care workers, and greater enforcement of state licensing standards. In addition, new funding for school-age child care will encourage schools to create before- and after-school programs. Finally, Senator Dodd has structured this legislation to encourage a significant private sector role in child care improvements. By expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act, establishing competitive ``challenge grants'' for community-based child care improvements, and developing a new tax credit for employers that provide child care opportunities to their employees, this legislation recognizes the important role that community organizations and private businesses have to play in meeting American families' child care needs. I am pleased to support such an important investment in American families and America's children. We know how important a child's early years are to its later intellectual, emotional and physical development. All American families have great dreams for their children and seek the best care possible during these critical early years. And all families deserve a chance at the American dream. Through this legislation, Congress will be doing its part to help American families work towards a successful future.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first, let me thank both the majority leader and the Democratic leader for resolving this. I thank, as well, Chairman Roth of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and others who have worked on this. Getting it done by the end of March means that, prior to the 15th of April, taxpayers will have substantially more power. I know that Senator Roth is looking at some additional things that he might add to the bill. Let me identify a few that are in this bill that, if we can get it passed before April 15, taxpayers will have. Under current law, the IRS can come out and try to collect money from a taxpayer that they think owes money and, if they make a mistake, tough luck, there is no sanction against them. Under this changed law, if the IRS goes out and does this and it is discovered that they are negligent, they can be responsible for $100,000 in punitive damages to be paid to the taxpayer. And if it is discovered that they were wrong, they have to pay the legal fees and other expenditures that the taxpayer would have been out. It puts the burden on the IRS to make certain that they don't send out a collection notice unless they are certain there is a collection there. Today, they have no negative sanctions at all. This will shift a substantial amount of power to the taxpayers, which I think is needed. Chairman Roth has used what is called section 6103 to look at some of the privacy problems, and he has some additional ideas he may want to add in this area. Just with what the House has passed and what we have in our bill right now, there is a substantial amount of new power that the taxpayer will have. We will make the taxpayer advocate more independent. Senator John Breaux and others--and I believe Chairman Roth supports it--will make the taxpayer advocate even more independent by removing them from the IRS. They do a relatively good job, but there is a conflict of interest and they have a difficult time being able to be a powerful advocate for the taxpayers. There are lots of other things that this piece of legislation does, and to be able to get it done by the 15th of April, I think taxpayers are going to like it a lot. Here are some more examples. We all know the code is complicated, and we all know that one of the cheapest ways to get an audience to their feet and to appreciate this is to propose some tax break, a deal that we favor. And everybody around here has one that they like. If we have a reconciliation bill or a tax bill we are going to move through this bill, this law would say that the IRS Commissioner has to be at the table when that is being discussed, and then to say this is what it is going to add to the taxpayer burden. It has been estimated now that it costs somewhere between $100 billion and $200 billion a year to comply with the code. This would put the Commissioner at the table and give the commissioner a sufficient amount of independence to say this is what it will cost, or that it requires an index and some measure of cost to the taxpayer. We heard Mr. Rossotti talk about his need for power. It's surprising how little management authority the Commissioner has, though you will not likely see that having an impact immediately. Long-term, there is no question that is going to have an impact. My guess is that most Members have heard complaints coming from citizens that they know have to go to a regional office to get an answer to a question or get a problem solved. That is because what IRS has done is increasingly centralized the decisionmaking process. And what Mr. Rossotti, correctly, is trying to do is decentralize that process, so you have human beings in offices at the local level helping to make decisions. The way he is proposing to do that is to end the stovepipe stricture that exists and create functional structures. He needs the law to be changed in order to have the management authority to get that done. So I thank the majority leader very much and the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for their determination to get this done. I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Roth. And before I leave the floor, I also want to thank Secretary Rubin. There was an awful lot of attention paid to a conflict that Congressman Portman, who was cochair of this effort, and I had having to do with an independent board for the IRS. We worked out those disagreements. Lost, unfortunately, in the process of debating that is another change we put in place, which was to require some consolidated oversight on Congress' side and the purpose of both is so that we can get to a point where you have a shared agreement, you have consensus between the executive and legislative branch about what you want the IRS to do. It is impossible to make technology decisions. The administration is asking for another $400 million for tax system modernization. Without this piece of legislation in place and Mr. Rossotti with the power and consolidated congressional oversight, I would vote no on that. This process began with Senator Shelby and I on the floor adding money for the creation of this commission. Congressman Lightfoot and Congressman Hoyer, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Treasury, were involved in the House. It began because Senator Shelby and I saw that the General Accounting Office had said that nearly $3 billion of money had been wasted trying to modernize the information systems at the Internal Revenue Service. Unless you can get an environment where the legislative and executive branch say we agree on the plan, we support the plan, we support what we are trying to do-- everybody from the private sector and the public sector said, take another $100 million, or $400 million, or whatever you can, to put into technology and it is going to be more money down the rat hole. To get this done by the 15th of April gives us an opportunity to increase confidence that when we give the IRS the technology money they need to modernize their system, it is likely to be that they will do the right thing. I also predict, Mr. President, that there is a title in here that hasn't been given a lot of attention because it is not very controversial. I think that 10 years from now it may be seen as one of the most significant parts of this legislation, and that is powerful incentives to move to the electronic world, electronic filing, and the removal of the some of the disincentives in place right now to electronic filing. I don't want to talk about the information superhighway, but the air rates for electronic filing is less than 1 percent; for the paper world it is 22 percent. The cost to the taxpayer to run the IRS, as well as the cost of the taxpayer to comply is substantially higher in a paper world than an electronic one. Since the IRS deals with 100 million households on an annual basis, I also would forecast that if we can get the IRS into the electronic world so taxpayers will know with certainty what their bill is--for most families, it is one of the largest bills they have to pay. In Nebraska, for just the Federal obligation in taxes, the average individual contribution to Washington on an annual basis is $4,600 a year. So for most families, their tax obligation is one of the largest obligations or bills that they have to pay, and uncertainty about that can make it difficult for them to do financial planning. I forecast that the electronic filing section of this bill is going to be something that is going to benefit taxpayers in lots of ways, and I also believe that it is going to be the sort of thing we will have to do in lots of other areas of Government if we are going to get the unit cost of Government down and the efficiency of the operation of the people's Government up. So I appreciate very much knowing now with certainty that this bill will be brought to the floor prior to the 30th of March and, more importantly, prior to the 15th of April, because I think the American taxpayers have waited for this all too long.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Tom Osborne, the recently retired head coach of the Division I-A collegiate football co-national champions--my alma mater--the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. In 1973, Tom Osborne replaced a Nebraska legend, Coach Bob Devaney. As those of us who walk the halls of Congress can attest, succeeding a legend is no easy task. But Coach Osborne immediately proved himself worthy of the job in his rookie year with a sweet victory over UCLA. UCLA had ended the Huskers 32-game winning streak in the beginning of the 1972 season, and the significance of this victory was not lost on the coach or the fans. It was a fine start to a remarkable 25-year career that until this January had included two national championships. In this, his final season, Coach Osborne led UNL to a perfect record. His well drilled, well disciplined, well-conditioned team played every minute, of every quarter, of every game with pride and determination. The 13-0 Huskers played with the guts, grit and determination of a champion. They were rightfully honored as co-champions, along with an impressive University of Michigan squad, after thoroughly whipping the third ranked University of Tennessee and their talented quarterback Peyton Manning in the Orange Bowl, on January 2nd. A fitting location to end his prestigious career and win a piece of a third national championship. After the game, when asked about the co-championship possibility, Coach Osborne used the class and understatement he is famous for in his answer: ``We had 13 games on our schedule and we won 13 games.'' Can't argue with that! Ironic that he would end his career on the same Orange Bowl field that saw the germination of his coaching legend. It was on that same field in 1984 that Tom Osborne defied convention and risked the national championship by forgoing a virtually guaranteed game tying extra point and a lock on the national championship, by electing to attempt a more risky two-point conversion for an outright win and an outright national title. I will spare the details of the failed attempt, and say only this: Tom Osborne gained more respect in defeat, than many will ever achieve with victory. I am sure I speak for Nebraska fans as well as Michigan fans--and indeed all college football fans across the nation--when I say I would have loved to see the two teams play one more college football game this season. As a banner unfurled by a Nebraska fan at the Orange Bowl stated ``Anytime. Anywhere.'' Through his dedication to the University, his staff and his players, Coach Osborne has brought pride and joy to our state, our university and to all Nebraskans. His unique qualities as a coach and person are his unwavering faith and his dedication to the young men who play for him. It is fitting he will be remembered for the man he is, as much as for his abilities as a coach. Keith Jackson, ABC-TV's legendary football announcer recently told the Omaha World-Herald, ``He's a better man than he is a coach. His coaching speaks for itself. You can look up his numbers in the record books. Less obvious is the way he lives. He's a humanist. Tom Osborne always felt he could help people.'' Thank you, Tom Osborne, for all you have given the people of Nebraska. I salute you and applaud the 1997 University of Nebraska Football Huskers on a job well done.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I hope in the time remaining, all it will take is my friends on the Republican side simply not objecting to bringing this bill up, for us to act on it and get it to the President with his signature.

Mr. KERREY. I thank the Senator from Nevada, especially for his earlier work on the taxpayer bill of rights and taxpayer bill of rights II. Prior to the enactment of those laws, the taxpayer had almost no authority at all coming up against the IRS. With the enactment of those two bills, the taxpayer now has a substantial amount of power which was previously denied, and those who predicted there would be a big decline in collections --which, as you know, was the case--those predictions did not turn out to be true. This really gets right to the heart of it. This is not just an agency collecting money in order for us to be able to pay the bills, whatever it is we declare in law we are going to use taxpayer money to pay for. This really gets to the heart of Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If people don't trust that they are getting a fair shake with the tax laws, with those 8 out of 10 who voluntarily comply--actually 83 percent of the American taxpayers comply, down from 93 percent 10 years ago. To those 83 out of 100 who voluntarily comply, they need to know, are they going to get the information they need to pay their taxes; are they going to get a fair shake if there is a dispute; are they going to face an agency that has the capacity to be managed in a way that is comparable to what the private-sector financial institutions demonstrate on their behalf? The answer right now is no in all three cases. More people pay taxes than vote in this country and their dissatisfaction with this agency is broad, it is deep and it is urgent, not just for the sake of being able to say we have done all we can to get this agency running correctly, but it is essential for the sake of people's confidence in their Government that we enact these changes. I heard, again, the distinguished chairman of the committee, whose willingness to hold hearings on this subject has been terribly important to examine beyond the privacy veil some of the additional problems that go on with the IRS, say this is a watered-down piece of legislation. That is not true, Mr. President. It may be true in the eyes of people who are opposed to the bill. Indeed, of the four opponents of the legislation in the House--426 voted in favor of it, 4 voted against--the people who voted against it thought it went too far. He cited yesterday, and again today, editorials that were objecting not to the bill because it didn't do enough, but because it went too far. These are people who don't want change at all. That don't want any change in the way the IRS is run. They think it is run just fine. So for those of us who have heard our citizens say that they call the IRS up and they can't get an answer to what becomes one of the most important questions they have when they are doing financial planning-- which is, how much do I owe the Government? --for those citizens who find themselves in receipt of a notice of collection because they have been told that they haven't paid enough and find themselves wondering whether or not they are going to be able to withstand the IRS's assault on them, and for those who watch this agency continue to try to come into the electronic world and fail time after time after time, for all those and many more besides, this piece of legislation solves their problems. It solves their problems, Mr. President. I suspect that it is not likely that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to come down here and say, ``For gosh sakes, let's get this thing passed.'' I mean, on the House side it has the support of the Speaker, of Dick Armey, of Bill Archer. In fact, the percentage of Republicans supporting it in the House is 100 percent. The only people who opposed it are those who believe this legislation has gone too far, not that I did not go far enough. There are five titles, Mr. President, in this piece of legislation. It is again worth noting, for those who say, ``Well, can't we just hire a private-sector person, as we just did with Mr. Rossotti to run the IRS? Isn't that enough? Don't we just need to manage it a little better?'' you know, this is a nation of laws. The IRS doesn't exist because somebody decided to put it out there. It was created by the U.S. Congress. It operates as a consequence of what the law says, not just the Tax Code but the other laws that enabled that agency to be created in the first place. So it is a creature of law. It is the law that determines whether or not we are going to be able to get satisfaction for our citizens. So for those who are wondering why we are talking about the law here, we are talking about the law because the IRS was created by the law, and many things that people have come and asked for, the IRS can't do because the law does not allow it. So we have to change the law in order to be able to do the things that people have been coming to us saying needs to be done. Mr. President, title I is called the ``Executive Branch Governance And Senior Management of the Internal Revenue Service.'' It sounds innocuous enough. Indeed, most of the debate about this piece of legislation, regrettably, has been focused on the first half of title I, and that is the executive branch governance. There was resistance early to having a public board governing the IRS and have control and authority over the IRS. We finally persuaded the President that this was a good idea. This public board does have real authority to develop a strategic plan to make budget recommendations and make comment on the acceptability of the IRS Commissioner-- tremendous authority under the law. There are some people who would like to go further. As I said, most of the people that have looked at this, if they have any objection at all, they object to it going too far. They object and say that the President should not have agreed to it, that he should not have said yes to us in this regard. We felt that having a public board--in this case a 9-person public board--with authority over the developing and strategic plan was crucial in order to be able to develop some consensus between the Congress and the executive branch about what the IRS was going to do. What is the plan? If you don't have a plan, then it is going to be very, very difficult to have any kind of an implementation strategy. The distinguished chairman says they want to be able to go and look at audit information. I do not believe this board ought to be looking at returns, nor do I think it ought to be getting into the details of audits. Should it be able to look at the standards of audits? Absolutely. Indeed, in one of the other titles of this legislation we require the IRS to publish the standards of audits. If people say, ``Gosh, don't they already?'' I say, no. I say to citizens who are concerned about this, we had only one full study on the basis of audits, the way audits are conducted by the IRS, only one study by a woman at the University of Syracuse who got the information through a Freedom of Information Act request. And every time she publishes her report, which is highly critical of the IRS--saying that the audit is done on one basis in Arizona and a different basis in Nebraska, that their subjective determinations are rampant throughout, that there does not appear to be consistency from one State to another, that it depends on where you live as to whether or not you are going to be audited, all kinds of criticism of this audit-- every time she surfaces those criticisms, the IRS attacks her. ``Oh, no. You're wrong. You're just some flake up there at Syracuse. Don't trust the information.'' We have all heard that before. When you have an agency like the IRS, they are able to say they have the power. Since they have the information, they can just say the citizen is wrong. This law requires the IRS to publish the standards of their audits. Let us decide. Let the citizens decide. Let the people examine this information to determine whether or not there is an objective basis for the audit and whether or not the public supports it. Don't let the IRS sort of do it on their own because it leaves open the possibility that you get what we have right now, which is a very substantial lack of confidence from one State to the next as to whether or not the citizen, the taxpayer is getting a fair shake. Again, back to what I said before, this is the way the IRS strikes at the heart of citizen confidence in Government of, by, and for the people. We are not talking about reform in the EPA here or the USDA that touches a much smaller number of people or even the Federal Election Commission that touches only individuals who chose to run for office. This agency touches almost every single household. Every single American has some contact with the IRS on an annual basis. The second half of this title which is crucial--and this is one that if I ever come down here and offer my unanimous consent request, and the bill gets discharged, and we vote on it, my guess is it is going to go 100 to nothing, or close to it. And one of the reasons I believe that is the section in title I that deals with management of the Internal Revenue Service senior management. People are surprised when they hear that the Commissioner has no authority to hire, to fire, to bring on their own team. Now, we make certain that veteran preferences are maintained, that the Commissioner has to follow the employment regulations of the Federal Government, especially the civil rights regulations. But significantly, though, this strengthens the Commissioner's ability to be able to manage, to be able not only to use punitive penalties for those who are not doing a good job but put positive incentives in place. Mr. Rossotti is from the private sector who came and talked to the Senate Finance Committee, when we held his confirmation hearings, and told us all the wonderful things he was going to do to manage the agency. The law does not give him the authority to do it, does not enable him to do the things he wants to do. We said, you can hire 25 more people. We gave him the authority to hire 25 more people, the only thing is they won't have any authority. Those of us who have had the opportunity to serve our country in the Armed Services understands one of the first things we were taught is the difference between responsibility and authority; that I can delegate authority, but responsibility always stays with me. One of the worst situations you can have in life is to be given a lot of responsibility but no authority. And that is what he has. He has the responsibility--everybody comes to him and complains when the agency isn't being run right--but he does not have the authority under the law to manage the agency, either with penalties or with affirmative incentives in place to reward people for doing a good job, to reward people for their high-performance in meeting the objectives and performance standards that he has set out in this law to present to the board and to present to the Congress. Title II deals with electronic filing. I can see why some people who have been commenting on this bill, as if they have read it, ignore this particular section. It is kind of boring--electronic filing. Electronic filing does not sound like it is a very exciting piece of information. I tell you, for the American people who pay for this agency, $7.3 billion a year to run it, and for those who are filing tax returns out there, who spend $200 billion a year to complete the forms, electronic filing is a big deal. Why? It is a big deal, Mr. President, because we discovered --our restructuring commission that held 12 public hearings and thousands of meetings with employees and with former employees, as well as with all the people that help private-sector people, citizens to fill out their tax returns--we discovered that the error rate in the paper world is 25 percent and the error rate in electronic filing is less than 1 percent. And we change that in this law. We still have a provision in there that requires under law that you have to actually put a signature document with your electronic filing, even though when we went down and visited the service centers and we talked to service center employees about this signature document--this piece of paper that has to still be filed, it is a requirement of the Department of Justice. The truth is, if you sign in black, the copiers are not so good anymore and it will not stand up in a court of law as to whether it is the real signature or a copy. So these stacks of papers they have down there are not worth anything. It is still required under law, but it is a nuisance to the taxpayer. Even with that paper having to be filed, the error rate is less than 1 percent. Mr. President, when it comes to doing any piece of work, whether it is preparing your own or trying to make the tax collection agency run efficiently, an error is money. It costs the taxpayers twice. It costs them first in an agency that is more inefficient than it ought to be, and it costs them a second time because it adds to the $200 billion. Some fraction of that $200 billion is there because it is inefficient, because it is difficult to get the information, because it takes longer than it otherwise would have. For those who sort of are trying to, in their own minds, scratch their head and figure out what I am talking about--which is not altogether easy sometimes--most of us in our billfolds, our purses will have a thing called an ATM card, a little piece of plastic that the private sector has developed. They developed it to make it easier to make financial transactions, to do business with your bank or financial institution. Lord knows, it is a lot easier. It is lots more convenient. It enables you to do things that otherwise you would have to actually physically go in while the bank was opened to get done. Well, you ask yourself, ``How come the IRS has not done that?'' The answer, Mr. President, again, is the law. There are insufficient incentives and there is no way to achieve consensus. We started this thing in 1995, 2 years ago, when Senator Shelby and I stood on the floor managing the Treasury-Postal bill. And we fought against the IRS because they had just been determined by the General Accounting Office to have wasted $4 billion in purchasing computers. We discovered in our restructuring commission these computers can't even talk to one another. You have a stove pipe organization, and one stove pipe doesn't talk to the other stove pipe, and it doesn't talk to the other stove pipe, and you can't get the information you need. It can take months and months and months to get information you need. Mr. President, time for the American taxpayer is money. And they pay for it twice. So this section in here, electronic filing. Again, I understand why it has been ignored by people who write editorial pieces, because it is not very glamorous. It is not, you know, a very hot issue. It is not the sort of thing that sort of gets the blood boiling. But it is the sort of thing that will save taxpayers an awful lot of time and an awful lot of money. Let me get to the third title. Those who say, ``Well, how about all those concerns we hear in the Finance Committee that taxpayers were raising?'' Title III deals with taxpayer protection and rights. I am willing to go further. Had this bill been brought to the floor a couple weeks ago, we could have, in fact, strengthened the Taxpayer Advocate Office. I am willing to make it more independent than it currently is even in this law, which gives the Taxpayer Advocate a lot more independence and a lot more power than they currently have. Hardly watered down, hardly insufficient, hardly minor if you are one of the taxpayers who get affected in here. We shift the burden of proof when you go to Tax Court--a big deal. Today the presumption is that the taxpayer is guilty. If you get a notice, if you are one of the 135,000 people every single day who received, in addition to other sorts of things in the mail, a little thing that says ``Internal Revenue Service,'' there isn't any feeling quite like that to wake you up in the morning. You get that little piece of notice in the mail and your hands shake. And you open it up, and it says, you owe $100, you owe $500, $1,000, whatever the number is. Under current law, the presumption is you are wrong; they are right. The burden is on you. You have to prove they are wrong, if you want to try to prove it. If you agree with them, fine, you send them a check. But if you say, ``My gosh, I did this myself. I had an accountant help me. I had somebody else help me. I didn't make any mistake. I don't owe any additional money,'' welcome to the club. Now it is for you to prove that you are right, they are wrong. We did not go as far as some would have liked to say, that you go immediately and shift the burden of proof so that the IRS has to prove you are wrong, because we felt that would punish and penalize the 83 out of 100 people who voluntarily comply who aren't receiving a notice; but we said, if you reach Tax Court, if you are unable to settle this thing and you reach Tax Court, it does shift now to the IRS. They have to prove that you are guilty, as is the case in every other court of law. This is not a minor change. Even though it was only several thousand people a year that end up in Tax Court, Mr. President, I will guarantee you, if you are one of those several thousand people, this is not a small change. This is a big change. And it will likely have a tremendous impact on your capacity to get a fair hearing before a U.S. Tax Court. In subtitle B of title III there are a number of things dealing with what is called proceedings by taxpayers. It expands the authority to award costs and fees. We earlier had a discussion yesterday of this. Today, you cannot get your attorney fees if you are found not to owe anything. Under this provision, the answer would be you would get attorney fees. You have the opportunity to be awarded up to $100,000 of civil damages if the IRS can be demonstrated to be negligent. Today, if the IRS is negligent or the IRS makes a mistake or the IRS is at fault, they don't have to worry about it. There is no penalty in place under the law to the IRS if they make a mistake. Under this law there would be. It changes their attitude. It puts them in the frame of mind of saying, ``My gosh, if I'm going to send a letter out to somebody and say they owe money, I better make sure they owe money, I better be reasonably certain I can make the case in Tax Court and better be reasonably certain, because if I'm demonstrated to be wrong, we could be out of some dough here. And if I'm negligent,'' which is very often the case, ``if I'm negligent, we're going to have to pay a price for it.'' We all understand that there needs to be some sort of negative sanction against behavior that could put people at risk. This law does that in a reasonable, responsible way, but certainly not in an insignificant way for those individuals out there--again, 135,000 every single working day--that are going to receive a notice of collection. This is not a small item for them. There is a title in here called ``Elimination of Interest Rates Differential on Overlapping Periods of Interest on Income Tax Overpayments and Underpayments.'' I will not go into this at length on the floor here this afternoon. Again this is not a small item. We have taxpayers out there saying, ``My gosh, I don't understand it. You have given me a bill, I am in dispute, and I have to settle early because if I don't there is a possibility I could end up with a huge penalty.'' In no court of law do you have that. In no court of law do you have a situation where a citizen says, ``I better make up my mind in a hurry here, otherwise I could end up with an enormous penalty. I could be penalized as a consequence of trying to make my case.'' Other titles here are ``Protections for Taxpayers Subject to Audit or Collection Activities,'' ``Privilege of confidentiality extended to taxpayer's dealing with nonattorneys authorized to practice before Internal Revenue Service,'' ``Expansion of authority to issue taxpayer assistance orders,'' ``Limitation on financial status audit techniques,'' ``Limitation authority to require production of computer source code,'' ``Procedures relating to extensions of statutes of limitation by agreement,'' or ``Offers-in-compromise,'' ``Notice of deficiency to specify deadlines for filing Tax Court petition,'' ``Refund or credit of overpayments before final determination,'' ``Threat of audit prohibited to coerce Tip Reporting Alternative Commitment Agreements.'' Mr. President, these are not small items. I would be surprised if there is a single Senate office that has not heard a taxpayer bring one, if not several, of these things to the attention of a Member. These are not small. These are not insignificant. These are changes that could shift and cause taxpayers to say, ``Finally, you are doing something that makes sense.'' The IRS cannot do it today. They are prohibited from doing these things. Again, we are a nation of laws, and once the laws are changed, the IRS will behave in the way the law directs. There is a subtitle, ``Disclosures to Taxpayers.'' What is the big deal? We had at least one witness before the Senate Finance Committee, a woman, who came and said she was surprised to discover that after her husband had divorced her and hit the road, she ended up being liable for his tax bill. We all heard it and said it was terrible, it shouldn't be the case. She was terrorized by the IRS. They put her and her new husband in jeopardy. She ended up getting divorced, Mr. President, over this because she was better off divorced. It is terrible. Change the law. Well, bring the bill up and vote on it. You want to wait until next year? You want to put these people at risk? You don't want to solve a problem you know you can solve by changing the law? I don't understand it. I simply don't understand it. I don't understand what benefit is gained by delaying. We have a bill that we can bring up today--today. All it would take is the majority leader persuading the Republicans on that side. Every single Democrat is ready to bring it up. As I say once it is here for a vote, my guess is it is unanimous. Once people start looking at the details of the bill and see what is in this bill itself, I don't think they will object to this. I don't think they will come down here and say, gee, these are small, these are insignificant, these aren't anything that is going to have an impact on people. Subtitle G is called ``Low Income Taxpayer Clinics.'' I say there are people who are working, people in the work force, people out there trying to figure out how to read the Tax Code. There must be something out there available to them. The answer is there is not. We are not spending a lot of money, but we are saying keep the playing field level, give people the opportunity to get their questions answered in the same way you can get a question answered if your income is high enough that you can hire an accountant to get the job done for you. Mr. President, these are not small items in this legislation. The next title in this bill is ``Congressional Accountability for the Internal Revenue Service.'' As I said earlier, as much praise as I got from the chairman after 3 days of hearings, we discovered for the first time in 21 years the subcommittee held a hearing. We had people criticize us. I guess every 21 years is too often. This is a requirement every 6 months for the Joint Tax Committee to meet and hold a hearing with this new public board. Why? Not just for oversight, but so we can get consensus on what the strategic plan is going to be. Every single private-sector person, every other government agency that talked to us about the technology investments, Mr. President--that is the key question. How do you make an investment in computers, and especially the software and operating system, for this 110,000-person agency that processes over 200 million returns a year? How do you do it when the processing occurs over a 150- or 180-day period? Every person that came to us said, unless you know where you are going, unless you have consensus on a strategic plan and understand the IRS currently has a board of directors that includes every single Member of Congress, 535 people on its board of directors--we heard witness after witness come to us and say the problem very often is not the IRS, but the Congress. You have to give better oversight, more consistent oversight so they know what they are supposed to do. Congress is giving permission. We are not saying there will be a blank check. Congress still retains the authority to cut, to do whatever it wants, in response to things it sees the IRS doing or not doing. Congress still retains the authority to authorize and appropriate money. We have to have a mechanism to improve the oversight that Congress gives the IRS. You say it is a small item. It is a big item. Mr. Rossotti will tell you it is a big item. There is one speed bump, and he is heading for Niagara Falls. When he will have 200 million returns filed, he hits one speed bump and he will come before six committees--three in the Senate and three in the House--to answer questions about what he did or didn't do and why he didn't solve the problems that he was supposed to solve. Mr. President, this piece of legislation has many other things, and I will probably have an opportunity to talk further about this. Members need to understand what is in the bill. You have heard complaints and concerns coming from citizens at home. This piece of legislation will solve an awful lot of those concerns. You will go home and your taxpayers will say to you, ``For gosh sakes, what did you gain by delay?'' I stand here and predict the statements didn't go far enough. We need to do more. My guess is all we are doing by waiting another 150 or whatever the days are, and we will pass a piece of legislation roughly the same. This is a very strong piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an IRS reform index that shows the cost of delay and shows the kind of support it has on the House side and the kind of support it has in the private sector.

Mr. KERREY. I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed immediately to H.R. 2676, the IRS Restructuring Act of 1997 by discharging this legislation from the Senate Finance Committee to which it was referred on Thursday; that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first of all, let me return the compliment. I have high praise for the chairman. He has done exceptional work on this issue, especially the 3 days of hearings which penetrated the section 6103 veil and issues that are protected under normal circumstances by privacy laws. Let me also respectfully disagree with his characterization of this as a watered-down bill, citing the Washington Post, the New York Times, et cetera. They are apt to object to many of the things that the distinguished Senator from Delaware wants to do as well. This piece of legislation has the full endorsement of America's accountants, America's enrolled agents, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Treasury Employees Union. It is by no means small reform. I intend this afternoon to go through the bill. It was sitting at the desk a couple of days ago. We could have taken this thing up a couple of weeks ago and had a full debate on it. We would have had plenty of opportunity to amend it, to improve it and to change it, but we didn't. I am going to go through this bill and let my colleagues decide on behalf of their taxpayers whether or not they want to change the law. It looks like we only have a day or two left, but all we have to do is bring it up here to the floor. All we have to do is have no objection raised, and we can pass this piece of legislation. I am going to show some of the new things this law would provide to the American taxpayers as they consider whether or not this piece of legislation is watered-down.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. That is correct. It does create a toll-free number and powerful new incentives to move to electronic filing.

Mr. KERREY. I asked the Senate to grant unanimous consent to proceed immediately to H.R. 2676, which is the IRS Restructuring Act of 1997 that was received from the House on Wednesday, that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. KERREY. That is correct. A taxpayer under this legislation, under this new law, would have the power to collect attorney's fees and to collect up to $100,000 if the IRS was held to be negligent.

Mr. KERREY. I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. KERREY. The Senator is right. You are absolutely right. The culture, though, is not going to change at the IRS until we give the IRS Commissioner the management authority the manager needs to be able to run the agency with performance that is based upon something other than these quotas that have been set up. Although it has been a relatively small number of instances where we identified them, it still--relatively small--it is one too many.

Mr. KERREY. This law would change it when it reached the tax court. In those cases where the taxpayer reached the tax court, the presumption would not be on the taxpayers to prove that they are innocent.

Mr. KERREY. That is correct.

Mr. KERREY. Indeed, the restructuring commission did a poll for $20,000.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the situation in Iraq regarding the U.N. inspection regime and the refusal of the Iraqi Government to accept American inspectors and thus delay the inspections. The Iraqi purpose is clear: to attack the unity and will of the world community, and especially the members of the Security Council, concerning sanctions to Iraq; to weaken the authority of the United Nations by dictating terms of compliance to U.N. Security Council resolutions; and most important, to conceal and retain and build up the chemical and biological weapons programs of the Iraqi military. Once again we are in a crisis with Iraq; not of our making but of theirs. The question being debated here and in the United Nations is: What should we do? The crisis began a week ago on October 29, 1997 when Saddam Hussein sought to evict from Iraq Americans who are assigned to international inspection teams sent by the United Nations to enforce a cease fire agreement signed by Iraq on April 6, 1991, following the January 17 to February 28 war to liberate Kuwait known as Desert Storm. In the agreement Iraq promised to pay Kuwait for war damages, to destroy all its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capacity, and to allow inspectors into their country to verify compliance. On April 11, 1991, the U.N. Security Council officially declared an end to the war and to continuing the sanctions originally imposed on August 6, 1990. The Security Council created the Special Commission, also known as UNSCOM, to carry out the inspection of Iraqi installations in order to verify the destruction of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capacity. UNSCOM--originally expected to be in operation for several months--has been in business for 6 years. During these past 6 years the UNSCOM inspectors have met with success. They reduced the Iraqi stockpile of weapons of mass destruction more than the war itself. Iraq has considerably less capability than it had when Desert Storm ended. That is the goods news. The bad news is that they retain sufficient capacity to pose a real and serious threat to the people of the United States. The nature of this residual threat can be seen in a letter sent to the United Nations on Wednesday by Richard Butler, an arms control expert who heads the UNSCOM. According to Mr. Butler the Iraqis could easily adapt laboratory or industrial equipment to resume making prohibited materials. In his letter he says: ``For example, it would take only a matter of hours to adapt fermenters to produce seed stocks of biological warfare agents. Furthermore, it appears that cameras may have been intentionally tampered with, lenses covered and lighting turned off in the facilities under monitoring.'' The idea of biological weapons in the hands of Iraq's Saddam Hussein should strike fear in the hearts of every American. This man is dangerous to his own people, his neighbors, and to us. He is also clever. His latest ploy has produced more benefits for him than losses. Again, Mr. Butler is our guide. In his letter he says that, while we attempt to negotiate a right that was guaranteed under the peace agreement they signed, Iraq has been able to hide evidence and disable surveillance equipment. He specifically notes that we cannot monitor machinery that can balance missile guidance systems or equipment that could grow seed stocks of biological agents in a matter of hours. Mr. Butler calls our attention to two actions Iraq has taken during the week when inspectors were absent. First, significant pieces of equipment that had been under the view of video monitoring system have been moved out of range of cameras. Second, monitoring equipment has been tampered with in other areas. Even if inspections start again, Saddam Hussein has succeeded in making our work more difficult. We must reset and re-aim surveillance cameras. We must recheck the machinery or stocks of materials these cameras watch. And we should not be certain whether prohibited arms or components had been produced in crash programs and carried away to be hid. So, while we sit and wonder what we should do, Saddam Hussein sits and counts the ways he has benefited. A U.N. team sent by Secretary General Kofi Amnan has just returned with nothing to show for their efforts. The team leader, Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi of Algeria was quoted as saying the Iraqis were very nice. Well, why not be nice? After succeeding 2 weeks ago in defeating United States efforts to impose more intense sanctions at the Security Council, Iraq has now gotten the U.N. to send a special negotiating team to ask politely if Iraq will do what it promised to do 6 years ago when it was suing for peace. Mr. President, we cannot allow the situation in Iraq to continue to head in its current direction. Too much is at stake. American security and the security of our allies and interests hangs in the balance of our decision. For my part I have reached the conclusion that our policy of containment cannot succeed. We need an objective which will ensure our security. We need a goal which will guarantee the stability we seek for the region. As has always been the case, an outrageous act by Saddam Hussein has provoked a strong reaction in this country. Military responses are broadly discussed. Editorial pages talk of making sure our military response if a head shot at Saddam himself, as though assassination were a legal option for U.S. forces. At some point we may turn to a military response appropriate in scope and direction to achieve immediate and longer terms goals. A measured action, complete with the certainty of further response if necessary, may be what is called for in this situation. But I believe we need to ensure that our military actions, as well as our diplomatic and economic efforts, are part of an overall strategy toward Iraq which will attain a goal consistent with American ideals and interests. Today, the United States and the international community are considering whether the proper response to Saddam's actions is a limited military action targeting suspected facilities or continued talks aimed at a more diplomatic end to this impasse. These are tactical options which will enable the United States and the international community to continue to muddle through its current strategy of containment toward Iraq. While the containment of Saddam has brought limited success in disarming his military, this strategy has been ineffective in changing the behavior of the Iraqi Government and is in danger of becoming more ineffective with the passage of time. Some commentators state that the cohesion of the Persian Gulf coalition has naturally grown more tenuous as other nations rediscover the promise of Iraqi petrodollars. They believe that our former coalition partners will inevitably find Iraq's oil wealth so tempting as to overlook the risks involved in the reemergence of a military powerful Saddam. I believe this need not be the case, if United States can formulate a strategy with clear policy objectives instead of continuing with a strategy of simply reacting to the Iraqi dictator's latest violation. We need to change our goals, our strategy, and our tactics. I believe our policy toward Iraq should be open and direct--The United States seeks to remove the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. Nothing more, nothing less. Our frustration with Saddam is understandable. Six years ago we thought we had him. He failed utterly, ruined his country and two neighboring countries, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and by our political lights he should be gone. But by his politics, the politics of a terror rivaled in this century only by Stalin's, Saddam keeps his job and we are rightly frustrated. While Saddam rules, Iraq poses a threat to its neighbors and, by extension, to us. He still has SCUD missiles which could carry his chemical and biological agents to Israel, to Saudi Arabia, and to other nations in the region whose security is a vital American interest. He has ground forces which could invade Kuwait again or embroil any of his other contiguous neighbors in war. Those same forces threaten or oppress Iraq's Kurdish and Shiite minorities every day. If Saddam retains power and escapes from sanctions, the threat he will pose in a decade will be far greater. He will have intermediate range or even long range missiles to carry his deadly payloads, he may have developed a nuclear weapon, and he will again have many billions of dollars in oil income to modernize his Armed Forces. He will be a major threat to his country and in fact to the entire world. We simply cannot let it happen, and I am confident we will not. In considering how to respond to Saddam's latest outrage, President Clinton and the Congress need to take the long view, looking past the incident of the moment to determine the long-range outcome we want. Because we are the United States, and because we have already expended lives and treasure because of Iraq, I think our long-range goal should be ambitious. We know from Iraqi history that Iraq is predisposed to dictatorship. We also know the dictatorships from this unbalanced state will inevitably threaten their neighbors. So getting rid of Saddam is not good enough. We need to get rid of Iraqi dictatorship. Our long-range goal should be a democratic Iraq. Other countries may be tempted to do business deals with the Iraqi dictator and tactfully glance away from his abuse of his people. We Americans should settle for nothing less than democracy. An impossible, naive dream? I think not. The Iraqi people, despite the lobotomy Saddam has tried to give them, are a well-educated, skilled people. They know the horrors of dictatorship better than anyone else on Earth. When Iraqis tell me their heartfelt commitment to a democratic future for their country, I believe them. How do we turn this yearning for democracy into the reality of a free Iraq? Let me lay out a road map. First, we should maintain sanctions on Iraq and return to the inspection system which existed until October 29, when Saddam excluded American inspectors from the teams. If we have to use military force to get Iraqi compliance, fine. We should strive to have our coalition partners join us in this use because the power of the world community to bring an outlaw to heel is at issue here. If Iraq can thumb its nose at the Security Council today, some other rogue state will do the same tomorrow, and the system we and our allies have carefully built over 52 years will collapse. But even if some of our coalition partners don't join us, we should act militarily if Iraq won't back down. Second, we must convince our core European and Asian allies that democracy, not just the compliance of a dictator, is the right long- term goal for Iraq. We must show our allies the far greater benefits and reduced risks that will accrue to them as well as to us from a democratic Iraq. We must sign up our allies for the long term. Third, we must make the people of Iraq our allies, too. We must go beyond merely stating our support for democracy and instead put concrete encouragements on the table, solid indicators of Western commitment to Iraqi democracy. We should announce we will forgive Iraqi debt if a democratic regime takes power there and we should encourage our allies to do the same. We should state clearly the loan and foreign assistance preferences which a democratic Iraq would receive from United States and multinational institutions. We should discuss our preparations to supply immediate food and medical assistance to Iraq at the moment of Saddam's replacement by a regime which states its intention to hold free elections. And we should make sure, by means of Voice of America and commercial media, that every Iraqi knows about these encouragements to be democratic. Even before change comes, these steps will restore hope in Iraqi hearts. Fourth, we should openly and consistently state our goal of a free, democratic Iraq. To accept less and to say less is simply unworthy of our heritage. Let democracy, respect for human rights, and a free economy be our consistent mantra for Iraq, as it ought to be for every country, and some day, not far off, when Saddmam's prisons and graveyards and secret weapons sites are opened and the Iraqi people can tell the story of their suffering, we will be proud that we set a lofty goal. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.