J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this budget may solve our short-term budget problems, but my concern remains that it does not do enough about the long-term budget problems we face. If we want to keep the budget in check over the long-haul, we need to adopt policies that will slow entitlement spending in a rational, equitable way. At present, we use the Consumer Price Index [CPI] to determine cost- of-living adjustments in our Federal tax and entitlement programs. There is wide, although not universal, agreement among leading economists, that the CPI overstates the cost-of-living and should be adjusted. Indeed the December 4, 1996 final report to the Senate Finance Committee from the Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index concluded that: The Commission's best estimate of the size of the upward bias looking forward is 1.1 percentage points per year. The range of plausible values is .8 to 1.6 points per year. Mr. President, we ought not to make the problems we face in funding our entitlement programs even worse by paying benefits based on an overstated cost of living. Spending on entitlement programs is already crowding out spending for the traditional discretionary functions of Government like clean air and water, a strong national defense, parks and recreation, education, our transportation system, research and development, and other infrastructure spending. If steps are not taken to reverse this trend, nearly all Federal revenues will be consumed by entitlement spending and interest on the debt shortly after the year 2000. By 2030, revenues may not even cover entitlement spending, much less interest on the debt or a single dollar of discretionary spending. This is an unsustainable trend. Adjusting the cost-of-living adjustments triggered by the CPI, by 1 percentage point, would produce nearly a trillion dollars in savings over 12 years and $46 billion in 2002 alone. To illustrate what just half of this amount--$23 billion--in domestic discretionary spending could fund, I have a list of programs and what they will cost in inflation-adjusted numbers in 2002. This entire list of programs could be funded by half of a 1 percentage point reduction in CPI, with money to spare. I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERREY. Expressed another way, $23 billion could fund nearly all of the Highway Trust Fund--$25.2 billion in 2002--or all of NIH-- $14.294 billion in 2002--and all of EPA--$7.398 billion in 2002. Mr. President, if we are making a mistake, we ought to correct it. Surely if it was almost universally believed that we were understating the cost-of-living, we would have already taken care of that problem. Although the time for making this change this year appears to have passed, I hope that the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee will continue their fine work to see that we correct this error sooner, rather than later.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, before I talk about the resolution itself, what it does, what it does not do, I do want to go back to 1993, as many of my colleagues have done, and discuss the Deficit-Reduction Act of 1993. Since I only have 10 minutes, I will not go into detail about the one that happened in 1990 under President Bush's watch. Both of those were very unpopular budget resolutions. I noticed when I went home, in both cases, there was substantial criticism from people who did not like various aspects of it. One of the unique things about this particular budget resolution compared to those is that I do not expect to find a similar sort of outcry against it. I think it tells us a lot about what is in this one as well as the progress that we have made toward reduction over the last 4 years. That resolution, Mr. President, that act, OBRA, 1993, brought the deficit down by 77 percent, a substantial reduction in the deficit. It occurred, it must be said, as a consequence of the economic recovery that had begun in 1992. It did not produce all of the growth by any measure. I do not argue that the economy turned around as a result of that Deficit-Reduction Act, but there is no question that we had demonstrated in 1993 that there was a connection between growth and deficit reduction, that it is possible for us to take action with our budget to produce good things out in the private sector. I would argue that the greatest victor in this Deficit-Reduction Act of 1997, the Deficit Elimination Act of 1997, the greatest victor is economic growth. Four percent real growth in the first quarter is what has really enabled us relatively easily to take the last step. There were a lot of terrible things that were said were going to happen as a result of the 1993 OBRA. People said it would result in lost jobs. We stood here on the floor and said, if we voted for OBRA 1993 there were going to be higher deficits and there was going to be higher national debt, so on and so on. About the only dire prediction that turned out to be true was that people who voted for it were not reelected because, as I said, it was very unpopular. It was very difficult deficit reduction, very substantial deficit reduction. We have evidence, in short, that if we are willing to cast a tough vote, if we are willing to reduce spending and reduce our deficit, that not only is there economic gain coming as a consequence, but that that political risk can pay off long term. We can stand and say that though we have asked people to take a bit less, there will be benefits coming as a consequence of this reduction in the rate of growth of spending that is contained in this budget resolution. So I stand here today to say, where do we go from here? And I have to confess, there is a part of me, Mr. President, that says, ``Well, now that we've gone from a Democratic majority to Republican majority,'' in part, if not in large part, as a result of the unpopularity of the 1993 Deficit-Reduction Act, ``maybe we ought to hold our breath on this side and let you all figure it out on the other side, let the distinguished occupant of the chair and the other guys on that side of the aisle, let you all address it and cast the tough votes this time around.'' I do not think that would be responsible of us, Mr. President. There is a lot I do not like in the budget resolution. There is a lot I did not like in 1993 and in 1990. But given the benefits that occur as a consequence, I do not think that it is good for the country for me to stand here in a petulant fashion and say I am not going to participate as a consequence of what happened politically in November 1994. I do believe that the budget resolution in front of us today will, on balance, produce economic growth, and I do believe that it will balance the budget in the year 2002, if Congress keeps its eye on the ball and keeps its attention focused on what is going on outside of these Halls, and that is to say what is going on in the private sector, and what is going on with our economy. If our tax, our regulatory, and spending policies produce economic growth, all the rest of it gets relatively easy, as we are learning indeed with OBRA 1997. We need to start thinking about economic growth. We need to start asking ourselves the question, what do we do, not only to produce the growth, but when is the growth good for us and when are we willing to step in and say the growth is not good? I mean, all of us, I suspect, universally would say, I do not care if it does produce jobs, I am not in favor of pornography, and I am not in favor of spoiling our environment, and I am not in favor of making our streets unsafe. There are lots of examples where we would step in and put a law in place even though it might prevent somebody freely from being able to produce jobs. We will say that those particular jobs are not good for us and thus we are going to put a law in place to prevent that activity from happening. There is a larger problem as well, Mr. President. I do think, though, growth lifts all boats, that a rising tide will tend to lift all boats. As we have seen with the dramatic narrowing of economic inequality and income inequality that has occurred in the last 4 years, that there is still going to be large sectors of our economy, large sectors of our population, individuals and their families that are going to be left out of the benefit of that growth. That is especially true if you take the position, as I do, that we ought to put in place laws that say the United States of America is going to lead the effort to lower trade barriers, that we believe that generally speaking we are better off competing in a global economy. In that global economy with technology, with immigration, with the welfare-to-work programs that are going on, people at the lower end of the wage scale are going to suffer. They are going to be under a lot of pressure. People making $5.15 an hour, $6, $7, $8, $9, $10 an hour are going to be under a great deal of pressure. They are going to be working more than one job. They are going to be paying child care. They are going to have lots of other problems they are going to face. It is important for us to pay attention to our capacity to give them the opportunity to get a good education, get retrained, go to college, if they choose to. We have to look at those sorts of things, and keep our eyes open to special problems that exist today that did not exist 30 years ago. Perhaps the most dramatic difference is that in the 1990's the amount of debt accumulated to go to college exceeds all the debt that was accumulated in the 1980's, 1970's, 1960's combined. By the end of the century $50 billion of new debt will be acquired by American youth who are trying to go to college; graduating today with an average of $10,000 debt, growing by some 14 percent a year. The President's response to try to direct some additional resources for education, I believe, is good. I also think it is important for us to try to come up with mechanisms and enable Americans, using the laws of the land, to acquire the wealth that they need to make those kinds of purchases not just for education, but for retirement as well. This balanced budget will produce, in short, economic growth. But I do not believe that this balanced budget will take us in every single instance in directions that we need to go. I think that we are still going to have problems with our schools. I think we still have problems with fighting the war on drugs. I think we still have problems in a number of other areas where our current policies are inadequate to the task. They are going to require us to reach down and look for different ways of doing things if we want to change our future. The three areas that I would like to address here this morning, Mr. President, where this law does not change our future adequately is the percentage of our budget that is going for entitlements versus discretionary, the amount of wealth that individuals have in order to be able to plan for their retirement, and, Mr. President, I also believe we need to look at the mix of people over the age of 65 versus under the age of 20. I still do not believe we adequately adjusted to the problem that we are going to face when that baby-boom generation begins to retire. I would like, Mr. President, just to run through a couple of charts here very quickly. You all probably have seen them before. It is what everybody wants to do--look at another chart here on the floor of the Senate. This is a line that shows the births in the United States from 1910 through 1920. I bring this to the floor because it is a demographic problem that we face, not a problem that was caused by Ronald Reagan or George McGovern or Phyllis Schlafly, or secular humanists. This is a problem that was created as a consequence of 77 million Americans who were born between the years of 1945 and 1965. And then the birthrate dropped for about 15 years afterward. Thus, what that has produced is a relatively small number of people who will be supporting a much larger number of people who will be retired out there in the future. This is a dramatic change, Mr. President, that Congress needs to factor into our thinking because this is our future. This is where we are going. As I said, I am confident 5 years from now, 1997, we will have a balanced budget, but we have not addressed this problem. This is the future for America: In 1997, 29 percent of our population is under the age of 20; 13 percent is over the age of 65; 79 million in one group, 34 million in the other group. In 2030--all the speeches we give about children, 4 million babies born in America this year, those babies will be 33 years of age in 2030, and all of us understand how quickly 33 years go by. In 2030, when those babies are now out there working, there will be 24 percent of our population, down from 29 percent, under the age of 20. The under-20 population will only have grown by 4 million. But the over-65 population, Mr. President, will have doubled, going from 34 million to 68 million. If you look at the number of workers per retirees, it is even more dramatic, a doubling of the population over the age of 65 and a 20 percent increase in the size of the American work force. Mr. President, we have simply got to address this problem. The only way for us to do it, in my judgment, is to look at the mix of our budget that is going to mandatory versus discretionary. In 1963, 30 percent of our budget went to mandatory spending, 70 percent went to discretionary spending. At the end of this budget resolution it will be exactly reversed, 70 percent mandatory, 30 percent discretionary. Mr. President, in about 10 or 12 years after that it will be 100 percent mandatory and 30 percent discretionary. A much bigger and more difficult problem for us to face as a Congress than balancing the budget is balancing the mix of mandatory and discretionary spending. It is not a mathematical formula, Mr. President. If we do not take action on this, people who will retire 15, 20 years from now--and again, this is a problem for the baby-boom generation; this is not a problem for the current generation. There are enough workers in the workplace today to support current retirees. But those people who will be retiring out in the future, Mr. President, they are not going to like that future as a consequence of the kinds of choices that will be forced upon them later, unless we take action earlier to accommodate. Mr. President, I would like to see this budget resolution changed. I am hopeful we can build some bipartisan consensus to change it. Senator Lieberman and I, Senator Breaux, and a number of others have been working on a proposal called Kids Save that would alter the child care credit in this resolution that would enable us to help working families acquire wealth. Unless you expect to hit the lottery, unless you expect to inherit the wealth, the only and the best and most reliable way to generate wealth is to save a little bit of money over a long period of time. Kids Save enables us to do that. It enables working families to have that wealth. If they want to use it for education, if they want to use it, preferably, for retirement, they will have it when they get there. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY. Pursuant to the previous unanimous-consent request, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes be taken off the resolution so I can speak.

Mr. KERREY

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

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this amendment addresses the need to keep the budget in balance over the long haul. The budget resolution we are considering today will bring us into balance by 2002. I support that budget resolution, that budget effort. But after that work is done, there is some additional work and very difficult work that we need to do. There are four sets of numbers that I want to bring to my colleagues' attention. The first set of numbers deals with where we are headed in terms of how much of the budget goes to discretionary spending and how much goes to mandatory spending, that is entitlements and interest on the debt. In 1963 our budget was approximately 70 percent discretionary, 30 percent mandatory spending. At the end of this budget agreement, it will be over 70 percent mandatory and less than 30 percent discretionary spending. And about 10 years beyond that it will be nearly 100 percent mandatory spending. What my amendment says is we ought to fix it at 70 percent, we ought to do what we can to fix it at 70 percent, that at some point we have to stop the movement toward this budget becoming 100 percent mandated spending. The second set of numbers, Mr. President, illustrates that this problem is not caused by liberals; it is not caused by conservatives. It is caused by a very difficult demographic fact, and that demographic fact is the baby boom generation: 77 million people born between the years 1945 and 1965. Third, today we have 133 million Americans who are working; they are supporting about 39 million beneficiaries in the Social Security program. In 2030, when a baby born today will be 33 years of age, there will be 163 million workers, a 20-percent increase, but there will be more than a doubling of number of people who will then be beneficiaries, 80 million. We need to address the difficult policy issues behind these numbers sooner rather than later. Let me give you my last set of numbers, Mr. President, and then I will be finished. I have heard lots of people come to the floor and talk about the need to take care of our children and make sure that we are investing in our children. In 1996, 29 percent of our population is under the age of 20. In 2030, 24 percent of our population will be under the age of 20. So again, in 33 years, a relatively short period of time, we are going to go from 79 million people under the age of 20 to 83 million people under the age of age 20. But in the over 65 category we will go from 13 percent to 20, from 34 million to 68 million, a doubling of that population. This amendment simply says to understand the growth of mandatory programs and get that growth under control, it is the sense of the Senate that we make every effort we can to hold mandatory spending below 70 percent of the Federal budget and that we make the structural reforms necessary to make that happen. I appreciate very much the Senator from Texas allowing me to do this, and I appreciate very much both the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from New Jersey agreeing to accept this as part of this budget resolution.

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

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I yield such time as desired to the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, along with my colleague, my good friend, Senator Chuck Hagel from my home State of Nebraska, we are offering the Vietnam Veterans Memorial resolution to remember this memorial, but also to remind Americans that the possibility for healing exists in this memorial. There are constant reminders that open the wounds of this war once again. As Senator Hagel mentioned, in today's paper we read that our first Ambassador to Vietnam since we left in 1975, Pete Petersen, is coming back to the United States of America and bringing with him the remains of men who were killed in that war, once again, opening up, for a variety of reasons, a wound that makes it difficult for people to go on with their lives. Mr. President, this wall does a remarkable thing. It does enable an individual to begin to heal from this particular war, or for other wars, as well. On this Memorial Day we ask the Senate and we ask the American people to take a moment to reflect and remember those who served in Vietnam during this Nation's longest conflict. I served in Vietnam with five of my Senator colleagues, Senator Chuck Robb, who was here a few moments ago, Senator John Kerry, Senator John McCain, Senator Max Cleland, and Senator Chuck Hagel, and although we may argue legislation from different sides of the aisle, we share a bond beyond politics and beyond party, as do veterans of all conflicts, and are firm in the belief that we are all Americans first and foremost. As we gather with friends and with family in observance of Memorial Day, I urge all Americans to take time to reflect upon the day's true meaning. Whether we attend a public observance, mark a grave, or simply bow our heads in quiet reflection, we should remember to honor those who, by serving, put their faith and trust in the ideals for which our Nation stands. Mr. President, my colleague from Nebraska and I offer this resolution and feel it especially fitting because this August the Vietnam Veterans Memorial will be 15 years old, almost as old as the conflict was long. On May 24, 1997, more than 22 years after the last known United States casualty, the Vietnam Moving Memorial will pay a visit to Omaha, NE. For thousands of Vietnam veterans and their families, this memorial serves as a place of reconciliation and remembrance. It invites people to come and remember the bravery and valor of their fallen friends, family, and colleagues, while serving as well, Mr. President, as a permanent tribute to those who gave their lives. Through this resolution, and in observation of this 15th anniversary, I hope the Senate will encourage all Americans to remember to honor the memory of the brave men and women who fought and died in service to our Nation during the Vietnam war, and indeed all conflicts. Mr. President, at the dedication of the Bunker Hill Memorial on June 17, 1825, Daniel Webster closed his speech with these words: Let our object be our country, our whole country and nothing but our country. And by the blessing of God may that country itself become a vast and splendid monument, not of oppression and terror, but of wisdom, peace, and of liberty, upon which the world may gaze with admiration, forever. We honor those who have come before us not just with the memory of their efforts, but by building upon the freedom and prosperity we enjoy because of their sacrifice. The men and women we pay tribute to during this and every Memorial Day deserve nothing less. Mr. President, as I have said, one doesn't have to look very far for reminders of the divisive nature of this war, and one doesn't have to look very far for inspiration that enables us to overcome the worst of these memories. Indeed, I had the pleasure of sitting with the Presiding Officer and listening to his presentation to a roomful of young heroes who had been recognized for their service, and recognized in particular for their service at the community level--young men and women who saw something in their community they didn't like, saw something in their community that they thought was wrong, and decided on their own to correct that wrong. I heard the Senator from Arkansas say that he heard a long time ago a young girl talking about what it meant to be famous; what it meant to acquire fame. She wanted in her lifetime to be a famous person. Then she came to Washington, DC, and while at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier realized that fame by no means is the only object of our lives, nor should be the only object of our lives; that one can be a hero without recognition; that one can serve God and other human beings as a consequence of just believing that something needs to be done without regard to whether or not it would be recognized in headlines, or radio commentary, or television broadcasts. It is the most eloquent demonstration of why we as human beings are special; that we have inside of us a soul, a spirit that recognizes that at some point the greatest thing we can do is to say that somebody is more important than we are, that something is out there more important than just taking care of ourselves. I believe strongly, Mr. President, that we are not free until in love, and recognize that until in love we are willing to give ourselves. And I hope that this remembrance of the Vietnam Memorial will not just inspire people to say that we have got to get over the Vietnam war itself but I hope it will allow Americans as individual men and women to see that now in this moment heroes are needed more than ever before. This Nation was terribly divided in the Vietnam war, with families turning against families, sons against fathers, and neighbors against neighbors. On this floor on August 7, 1964, the Senate, by a vote of 88 to 2, and the House unanimously, enacted what was called the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that resulted in a substantial buildup of forces, of increased drafting, of increased calls going out to young men saying, ``It is time for you to serve the cause of freedom.'' That cause deteriorated and divided this Nation in a terrible fashion, and caused Americans to say not only do we question the cause of freedom but cause us as well to say that we no longer believe our Government; we no longer trust that this is a Government of, by, and for the people. ``We feel as if we have been lied to. And the trust is broken, it has been snapped, it is permanent, and we are not going to put it back together.'' This wall, this remembrance, enables us to see that trust can be put back together, if we are willing to forgive; if we are willing to say that we forgive those with whom we disagreed; that we recognize our common bond. And on this Memorial Day not only do we pay tribute to those who have sacrificed for us, but we rededicate ourselves to the task of sacrificing for others. Mr. President, it is a pleasure and an honor for me to share cosponsorship with my friend and colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, and all the other Members of the Senate who have joined in this resolution. I appreciate their support. I call upon Americans not just to see this as another resolution but to see this as a Memorial Day, as an opportunity for us to rededicate ourselves to the cause of freedom. Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time controlled on H.R. 1122 on the Democratic side be changed to reflect that Senator Daschle or his designee controls the time.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, over the last several weeks, I have been meeting with colleagues about the need to aggressively pursue legislation to facilitate the creation of secure public networks for communication, commerce, education, research, telemedicine, and Government. There is an urgent need to enact legislation this year which can advance the creation of new networks and balance America's compelling interests in commerce and security. Secure networks are critical for the protection of personal privacy and the promotion of commerce on the Internet and other interactive computer systems. The Congress has been gridlocked for more than a year in a debate about the Nation's export policy for encryption software. I believe that meaningful compromise can be found on this issue which can clear the way for the consideration of broader legislation which fosters the creation of secure networks. If we are successful, a powerhouse of economic activity and opportunity can be unleashed. Senators Burns and Leahy as well as Congressman Goodlatte have introduced legislation which identifies a real problem with the current law on the export of encryption software. Thanks to their leadership, there is a growing consensus that reform is needed. In many ways, the introduction of their legislation has already motivated meaningful changes in the administration's policy on software exports. Yet, even with those changes, the underlying law needs to be changed and a broader agenda for secure networks needs to be adopted. What must happen in a relatively quick fashion is an agreement on a bipartisan, bicameral process to enact secure network legislation which includes a solution to the encryption export riddle. Our goal should be to enact legislation which the President can sign by October 1, 1997. The ability to use strong encryption is an important element in creating secure networks. Through encryption, messages are encoded and decoded. Encryption protects privacy and security. The American people need to know that their communications are safe and that the most private, confidential personal information can be confidentially communicated on computer networks. Encryption however, poses some very serious problems for law enforcement and national security which cannot be ignored. The challenge is to promote the use of encryption in a manner that does not unduly compromise national security or public safety and does not unnecessarily burden industry. What needs to be created is an electronic environment which gives users total confidence in the security of commercial transactions and personal communications. To do so, a largely private infrastructure must be developed to provide for authentication of messages, keys, and digital signatures and when necessary, the recovery of keys. As the largest purchaser of computer software and hardware, the Federal Government can create important incentives to help the market swiftly respond to this need. I see three big interests at stake--network commerce, network government, and network security. First, the need to facilitate commerce, both in advancing America's leading position as an exporter of software and in the promotion of commerce on the Internet, grows in importance every day. Second, there is the civic interest of Government. The American people should be able to have secure access to their Government, for the resolution of problems, the communication of ideas and access to services via electronic networks. Third, there is a security interest of law enforcement and national defense. Defensively, that interest is to protect citizens from foreign or criminal violations of privacy. Offensively, there needs to be a means fully consistent with our Constitution for discreet access to communications. That digital access should be no more or less expansive than exists in the nondigital world. Mr. President, there needs to be a commitment to a process for resolving a host of issues. First and foremost what is needed is a commitment by the leadership of this Congress to work together in good faith to find a resolution that can be signed into law by the President. I have proposed a discussion outline for compromise. If there can be agreement on principle and process, I am confident good faith negotiations between all interested parties can meet the ambitious goal of new legislation before the end of this session of Congress. This outline is meant to spark discussion and facilitate compromise on some very challenging issues. It is by no means etched in stone and I welcome suggestions for improvement and additions. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the Secure Public Networks Act discussion outline be printed in the Record. The material follows: The Secure Public Network Act Discussion Points Purpose To encourage and facilitate the creation of secure public networks for communication, commerce, education, research, tele-medicine and government.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Bob Devaney, the former athletic director and head football coach of the University of Nebraska, who passed away last Friday. It is impossible to overstate the impact that Bob Devaney had on the people of our State. And although he was born and raised in Saginaw, MI, he was the pride of all Nebraska. In 1962, he came from Wyoming and took the helm of a football team that finished 3-6-1 the year before. In his first year as head coach, he turned them into a 9-1 winner--the best record at Nebraska since 1905. By the time he left the head coaching job to become athletic director in 1972, he had won two national championships, boasted the winningest record in college football at the time, and built the third-largest city in the State--Memorial Stadium on a fall Saturday. He won eight Big Eight championships, six bowl games, and in 1982, a place in the College Football Hall of Fame. Numbers alone cannot measure Bob Devaney's achievement. He brought pride to Nebraska and taught us what it took and what it felt like to be No. 1. He taught our children how to dream beyond the boundaries of the rural communities and urban neighborhoods in which they live, and he taught us all that with commitment and determination, our dreams could become realities. But his most important legacy was that of sportsmanship. One of the many tributes to Bob Devaney in the wake of his death shared this story, and captures the greatness of the man: In one game in 1970, after Nebraska trailed Kansas by 20- 10, the Cornhuskers rallied for a 41-20 victory. ``You learned something today,'' Mr. Devaney told his players after the game. ``You learned you can come back. Remember that. That's the lesson of life.'' Bob Devaney taught all of us about the lessons of life. Bob was a source of inspiration, a great Nebraskan, and a friend to us all. Because of Bob Devaney, there is no place like Nebraska. He will be badly missed. Mr. President, I ask that Bob Reeves' tribute from the May 10 Lincoln Journal-Star and an editorial from the May 11 Omaha World-Herald be printed into the Record. The material follows: [From the Lincoln Journal-Star, May 10, 1997] Devaney an `Inspiration' to State (By Bob Reeves) Nebraska lost more than a great football coach when Bob Devaney died Friday. The state lost a born motivational expert who helped give the state a real sense of self-esteem, current and former state and university leaders said Friday. ``Bob Devaney was an inspiration to Nebraska,'' Gov. Ben Nelson said. ``He made pride in football and pride in Nebraska the same. He helped Nebraskans believe that we could be No. 1 in football and in anything we did. He will be missed personally, and by the people who knew and loved him.'' ``All of us who knew and worked for Bob Devaney feel a great sense of loss,'' said University of Nebraska-Lincoln head football coach Tom Osborne. ``It's an end of an era, so to speak. Bob always had great joy for the people who worked for him and was very supportive.'' James Moeser, UNL chancellor, said Devaney ``helped make the University of Nebraska synonymous with strength, a solid work ethic and people who strive to do their very best.'' Former Gov. Norbert Tiemann, who served from 1967 to 1971, described Devaney as ``a tremendous leader.'' Devaney ``turned the whole athletic program around (and) gave the state a sense of pride in itself,'' said Tiemann, who now lives in Dallas. ``I've got the greatest admiration for him, both from a professional and personal standpoint. It was a tremendous boost to the state's ego to have a winning football team.'' Those comments were echoed by former Gov. Frank Morrison, who served from 1961 through 1967. He was governor at the time then-chancellor Clifford Hardin hired Devaney to take over the football program. ``In many ways, he changed the psychological attitude of the state,'' Morrison said. ``The majority of people had an inferiority complex. It (Devaney's enthusiasm) was pervasive. He helped unify the state and improve our pride in Nebraska.'' Both Morrison and Tiemann talked about the positive impression Devaney made when he first arrived in the state from neighboring Wyoming. Tiemann was a banker in Wausa at the time and traveled throughout the state with a group introducing Devaney to various communities. ``Wherever we went, we didn't have to do much selling,'' because of Devaney's winning personality, Tiemann said. ``He made a great impression. He was a wonderful person to be around.'' He added that Devaney had such a likable personality that ``he could tell the dirtiest jokes in mixed company and get away with it. I could never do that.'' He also forged an intense loyalty from his players, said Morrison, who remained a close friend of Devaney's over the years. ``Johnny Rodgers (1972 Heisman Trophy winner) told me one time, `I would have died for Bob Devaney.' '' Woody Varner, who was president of the university from 1970-77, during Nebraska's first two national championships, said he knew Devaney when he was an assistant coach at Michigan State. ``He came (here) with real devotion to Nebraska,'' Varner said. ``He was always a fighter for Nebraska. He never swallowed the story that Nebraska was second-class in any respect. He wanted Nebraskans to feel proud of themselves and of the state.'' Varner added that what Devaney did for athletics helped build the reputation of the university. ``It was easier to recruit students and faculty,'' he said. ``The state of Nebraska held its head high, thanks to Bob Devaney.'' Don Bryant, UNL associate athletic director and former longtime sports information director, said, ``I have lost a dear, personal friend and it results in a feeling of numbness and shock to realize that Bob Devaney no longer is a force in Nebraska and intercollegiate athletics.'' Bryant said Devaney's coaching ability and administrative leadership ``raised the standards of excellence and the visions of highest expectations for all Nebraskans.'' Osborne said that besides being a great coach, Devaney was ``a great friend.'' ``He was the one who gave me a chance to be a graduate assistant, an assistant coach and a head coach at Nebraska,'' Osborne said. ``Most everything I know about coaching I learned from him. He was exceptional at handling players, always had a great sense of humor, and the players enjoyed playing for him because of the type of person he was. We will all miss him dearly.'' UNL Athletic Director Bill Byrne described Devaney as ``a giant in the world of college football, a dear friend and national leader.'' Devaney's leadership ``created a football dynasty and athletic program that is the best in America,'' he said. ``Our goal at Nebraska will be to continue the legacy created by Bob. We all will miss him very much.'' UNL sports historian Ben Rader described Devancy as ``a modern icon of success, in as much as his victories represented success for the entire state . . . He was also an example of a self-made man, who came from modest origins. Success is very difficult to measure in the world of bureaucracies, but an athletics or sports, it's very clear- cut.'' UNL volleyball coach Terry Pettit recalled that when Devancy came to Nebraska, he had two missions. ``First, he turned around an average football program and made it into the best in the nation. Then, as athletic director, he (took) a mediocre athletic department and built it into one of the best all-around athletic programs in the country.'' Petit credited Devaney with helping make Nebraska competitive in women's athletics. ``He gave me the resources and opportunity to succeed,'' Petiti said. ``He did have, and he will continue to have a lasting impact on the Nebraska athletic department and the entire state of Nebraska. His energy, enthusiasm and drive shaped our athletic department. For a lot of people, especially the coaches under him, he was a sort of father figure. We looked to him for guidance and support, and he always showed great loyalty to his staff.''

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the Department of Justice has approved the merger of the Bell Atlantic and Nynex Corporations. While this is a matter within the discretion and jurisdiction of the Department, I rise to express my concern and disappointment with this decision. With this merger, two strong potential competitors with two vibrant, rich markets have combined. Bell Atlantic/Nynex will control more than 25 percent of all access lines in the United States and would serve 26 million customers. The merger is the second largest in U.S. history and the new company will rank among the 25 largest U.S. companies. A little more than a year ago, the Congress enacted landmark legislation to open telecommunications markets to competition, preserve and advance universal service and spur private investment in telecommunication infrastructure. Over the last year, the Federal Communications Commission has worked overtime to implement the new law. It has been a daunting task. While the FCC struggles with implementation of the new law, it is important to remember that a key part of that legislation did not rely on regulation, it relied on the marketplace. The idea was to unleash pent up competitive forces among and between telecommunications companies. This transaction replaces the urge to compete with the urge to merge. To unshackle the restraints of the modified final judgment which controlled the break up of AT&T, the Congress gave regional Bell operating companies instant access to long-distance markets outside of their local service regions and access to long-distance markets inside their regions when they opened their markets to local competition as measured by the bill's competitive checklist. In addition to responding to the lure of long-distance markets, regional Bell operating companies and other local exchange carriers were expected to covet each other's markets. The attraction of serving markets like New York City, Baltimore, and Washington, DC, with local and long distance products was to be a key catalyst for breaking down barriers to competition. Who knows better what is needed to compete for local exchange customers in a new market better than another local exchange company? With this transaction, local competition and long-distance competition is lost. In addition, potential internet, video and broad- band competition has disappeared. The promise of the new law was that competition, not consolidation would bring new services at lower prices to consumers. Where competition failed to advance service and restrain prices, universal service support would assure that telephone rates and services were comparable in rural and urban areas. When large telecommunications companies combine, they not only eliminate the potential of competition with each other in each other's markets, but they create a market power which may be capable of resisting competition from others. They also create the possibility of an unequal bargaining power when they compete with or deal with small, independent and new carriers. A strong role for the Department of Justice was my No. 1 cause when the full Senate considered the Telecommunications Act. I supported final passage of the law because the conference committee bolstered the Department's authority as compared to the Senate version of the bill. The legislation relied on the existing, strong antitrust powers of the Department of Justice. It also removed the FCC's ability to bypass Department of Justice antitrust review. As we measure progress against promise, it is vitally important that the Congress have sufficient information to assure that those powers are sufficient to promote competition, affordable prices and universal service. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to monitor the progress of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This bill instructs the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, in consultation with the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Justice, other executive branch agencies and State regulatory utility commissions to issue an annual report to the Congress on telecommunications services in America. The report would review available information and consider at a minimum the level of competition, the provision of universal service in telecommunications markets, mergers among telecommunications providers and their effect, employment in the American telecommunications industry and the affordability of residential rates for telecommunications services. The report will also make legislative and policy recommendations to the Congress and the President. Mr. President, I believe that if properly implemented, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 can deliver on its promises of competition, affordable rates, universal service, jobs, and investment. I am not prepared to recommend major change to the 1996 law, but I am prepared to argue for a higher level of competitive vigilance by this Congress and the executive branch.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, for most Americans a buck doesn't go very far. A dollar will not buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks, it will not buy a comic book at the 7-11, it will not buy a package of batteries at the True Value store, or even a gallon of gas at the Amoco station. But, at the FCC, a buck will buy a radio license to serve the city of St. Louis. On Friday, the FCC completed an auction of radio spectrum which should cause every American taxpayer to be concerned. This action yielded less than 1 percent of the amount anticipated. Rather than raising $1.8 billion as the Congress had expected, the FCC brought in only $13.6 million. Perhaps worse of all, several licenses were awarded to bidders for the incredible sum of $1. That's well below the bargain basement. Mike Mills of the Washington Post aptly observed that a sign should be put in front of the FCC auction headquarters advertising ``everything for a buck.'' One bidder won four licenses at a dollar a piece. Those licenses combined would allow services to reach 15 million people. Another bidder won the right to serve St. Louis, one of the largest cities in America for $1. It is as if we had returned to the days of license lotteries. That's one heck of a way to stretch a dollar. Radio spectrum is a national asset. It must be prudently managed. The taxpayers count on the Federal Communications Commission to allocate spectrum among and between various uses to assure that the public interest is served and to assure that those uses do not interfere with each other. In 1993, the Congress enacted legislation which revolutionized the way radio frequencies are allocated. After years of debate, the Congress took the step to authorized the Federal Communications Commission to use auctions to allocate licenses for radio spectrum. It was built on the premise that investors would pay for the right to offer new wireless communications services. Prior to 1993, licenses were awarded by lottery or by a comparative application process. In both cases, license winners would often sell their licenses soon after acquiring them to others for substantial sums. To cut out the middle man and give taxpayers a return from the valuable rights they were awarding, the Congress ordered the FCC to conduct auctions to award radio spectrum licenses. In general, this approach has worked very well. It has proven to be an efficient means of allocating scarce resources and it has reaped billions of dollars of deficit reduction for the American taxpayer. Unfortunately, something went wrong in this last auction. One problem was that the auction rules did not establish a minimum bid or a reserve price. That's how some lucky bidders won valuable licenses for a buck. Mr. President, I offer legislation today which will help ensure that taxpayers are protected in future FCC auctions. The importance of this legislation is heightened by the increasing congressional reliance on spectrum auctions in telecommunications and budget policy. The President's budget alone relies on $36 billion of revenues from spectrum auctions. The Reserve Price Act requires the FCC to set a minimum price for each unit auctioned. If no one bids the minimum, then what is not sold will be re-evaluated and placed in the next scheduled auction. With a reserve price system, taxpayers will be guaranteed that national assets are not sold for a song. The Chairman of the FCC reportedly said that the reason for the disappointing return from Friday's auction was the ``the Congress got to greedy'' with spectrum revenues. Perhaps, this auction was rushed. But with reserve prices, even a rushed auction would not have to be a disastrous auction. I urge my colleagues to review and support the Reserve Price Act. The American taxpayer deserves as much. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the Reserve Price Act and a copy of Mike Mills' Washington Post article entitled ``Latest License Action Disappoints FCC'' be inserted in the Record.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, for most Americans a buck doesn't go very far. A dollar will not buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks, it will not buy a comic book at the 7-11, it will not buy a package of batteries at the True Value store, or even a gallon of gas at the Amoco station. But, at the FCC, a buck will buy a radio license to serve the city of St. Louis. On Friday, the FCC completed an auction of radio spectrum which should cause every American taxpayer to be concerned. This action yielded less than 1 percent of the amount anticipated. Rather than raising $1.8 billion as the Congress had expected, the FCC brought in only $13.6 million. Perhaps worse of all, several licenses were awarded to bidders for the incredible sum of $1. That's well below the bargain basement. Mike Mills of the Washington Post aptly observed that a sign should be put in front of the FCC auction headquarters advertising ``everything for a buck.'' One bidder won four licenses at a dollar a piece. Those licenses combined would allow services to reach 15 million people. Another bidder won the right to serve St. Louis, one of the largest cities in America for $1. It is as if we had returned to the days of license lotteries. That's one heck of a way to stretch a dollar. Radio spectrum is a national asset. It must be prudently managed. The taxpayers count on the Federal Communications Commission to allocate spectrum among and between various uses to assure that the public interest is served and to assure that those uses do not interfere with each other. In 1993, the Congress enacted legislation which revolutionized the way radio frequencies are allocated. After years of debate, the Congress took the step to authorized the Federal Communications Commission to use auctions to allocate licenses for radio spectrum. It was built on the premise that investors would pay for the right to offer new wireless communications services. Prior to 1993, licenses were awarded by lottery or by a comparative application process. In both cases, license winners would often sell their licenses soon after acquiring them to others for substantial sums. To cut out the middle man and give taxpayers a return from the valuable rights they were awarding, the Congress ordered the FCC to conduct auctions to award radio spectrum licenses. In general, this approach has worked very well. It has proven to be an efficient means of allocating scarce resources and it has reaped billions of dollars of deficit reduction for the American taxpayer. Unfortunately, something went wrong in this last auction. One problem was that the auction rules did not establish a minimum bid or a reserve price. That's how some lucky bidders won valuable licenses for a buck. Mr. President, I offer legislation today which will help ensure that taxpayers are protected in future FCC auctions. The importance of this legislation is heightened by the increasing congressional reliance on spectrum auctions in telecommunications and budget policy. The President's budget alone relies on $36 billion of revenues from spectrum auctions. The Reserve Price Act requires the FCC to set a minimum price for each unit auctioned. If no one bids the minimum, then what is not sold will be re-evaluated and placed in the next scheduled auction. With a reserve price system, taxpayers will be guaranteed that national assets are not sold for a song. The Chairman of the FCC reportedly said that the reason for the disappointing return from Friday's auction was the ``the Congress got to greedy'' with spectrum revenues. Perhaps, this auction was rushed. But with reserve prices, even a rushed auction would not have to be a disastrous auction. I urge my colleagues to review and support the Reserve Price Act. The American taxpayer deserves as much. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the Reserve Price Act and a copy of Mike Mills' Washington Post article entitled ``Latest License Action Disappoints FCC'' be inserted in the Record.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the Department of Justice has approved the merger of the Bell Atlantic and Nynex Corporations. While this is a matter within the discretion and jurisdiction of the Department, I rise to express my concern and disappointment with this decision. With this merger, two strong potential competitors with two vibrant, rich markets have combined. Bell Atlantic/Nynex will control more than 25 percent of all access lines in the United States and would serve 26 million customers. The merger is the second largest in U.S. history and the new company will rank among the 25 largest U.S. companies. A little more than a year ago, the Congress enacted landmark legislation to open telecommunications markets to competition, preserve and advance universal service and spur private investment in telecommunication infrastructure. Over the last year, the Federal Communications Commission has worked overtime to implement the new law. It has been a daunting task. While the FCC struggles with implementation of the new law, it is important to remember that a key part of that legislation did not rely on regulation, it relied on the marketplace. The idea was to unleash pent up competitive forces among and between telecommunications companies. This transaction replaces the urge to compete with the urge to merge. To unshackle the restraints of the modified final judgment which controlled the break up of AT&T, the Congress gave regional Bell operating companies instant access to long-distance markets outside of their local service regions and access to long-distance markets inside their regions when they opened their markets to local competition as measured by the bill's competitive checklist. In addition to responding to the lure of long-distance markets, regional Bell operating companies and other local exchange carriers were expected to covet each other's markets. The attraction of serving markets like New York City, Baltimore, and Washington, DC, with local and long distance products was to be a key catalyst for breaking down barriers to competition. Who knows better what is needed to compete for local exchange customers in a new market better than another local exchange company? With this transaction, local competition and long-distance competition is lost. In addition, potential internet, video and broad- band competition has disappeared. The promise of the new law was that competition, not consolidation would bring new services at lower prices to consumers. Where competition failed to advance service and restrain prices, universal service support would assure that telephone rates and services were comparable in rural and urban areas. When large telecommunications companies combine, they not only eliminate the potential of competition with each other in each other's markets, but they create a market power which may be capable of resisting competition from others. They also create the possibility of an unequal bargaining power when they compete with or deal with small, independent and new carriers. A strong role for the Department of Justice was my No. 1 cause when the full Senate considered the Telecommunications Act. I supported final passage of the law because the conference committee bolstered the Department's authority as compared to the Senate version of the bill. The legislation relied on the existing, strong antitrust powers of the Department of Justice. It also removed the FCC's ability to bypass Department of Justice antitrust review. As we measure progress against promise, it is vitally important that the Congress have sufficient information to assure that those powers are sufficient to promote competition, affordable prices and universal service. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to monitor the progress of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This bill instructs the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, in consultation with the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Justice, other executive branch agencies and State regulatory utility commissions to issue an annual report to the Congress on telecommunications services in America. The report would review available information and consider at a minimum the level of competition, the provision of universal service in telecommunications markets, mergers among telecommunications providers and their effect, employment in the American telecommunications industry and the affordability of residential rates for telecommunications services. The report will also make legislative and policy recommendations to the Congress and the President. Mr. President, I believe that if properly implemented, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 can deliver on its promises of competition, affordable rates, universal service, jobs, and investment. I am not prepared to recommend major change to the 1996 law, but I am prepared to argue for a higher level of competitive vigilance by this Congress and the executive branch.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of striking condition 33 from the resolution of ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Condition 33 would bar the United States from ratifying the convention until the President can certify with high confidence that we have the capability to detect, within 1 year of a violation, the illicit production or storage of a single metric ton of chemical agent. As the authors of this condition fully realize, this standard is unattainable and would effectively bar the United States from participation in the CWC forever. Mr. President, I do not come to the floor as the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee to say to my colleagues that this treaty is absolutely verifiable. The distinguished chairman of the committee indicated that Mr. Tenet, Acting Director of Central Intelligence, said it will be difficult to verify and quoted him as saying it would be easy to cheat. What he did not do, regrettably, is go on with the follow-on quote. The next sentence in his answer was, ``But, in the absence of the tools the convention gives us, it will be much harder for us to apprise you''--meaning the committee--``and apprise the military and policymakers of where we think we are in the world with regard to these developments.'' Let me be clear. The United States has made a decision that we are going to destroy our chemical weapons and try to lead the world in the elimination of chemical weapons. That is what this policy is all about. We didn't have this treaty presented to us. We made a conscious decision to eliminate our own chemical weapons and then try to develop a regimen that enables us to identify and detect as much as possible. Our Director of Central Intelligence, as well as our military, has indicated to us that this treaty will increase the identification that we are able to do and increase the likelihood that we will be able to end up with the result being that we have no chemical weapons in any military arsenal on this planet. No treaty is absolutely verifiable. Condition 33 make verification more difficult by setting a level of identification, we do not need to benefit from the convention. Far more important to our security are the improvements to our identification efforts we stand to gain under the CWC. Verification is a political decision made by policymakers. To make this decision, our intelligence agencies will need to provide evidence to support a conclusion made by policymakers. The benefits we will receive under the CWC come from our increased ability to identify whether a nation is developing, producing, and storing chemical weapons. Under the CWC's routine and challenge inspections, we will be better able to identify the storage and destruction of declared chemical weapon stocks. We will also be better able to identify a nation's attempt to develop the infrastructure to handle chemical weapons and any military training in the use of these weapons. U.S. intelligence officials have stated that the CWC will add to their monitoring tools to counter the chemical weapons threat. Data declarations will provide evidence of compliance or non-compliance, routine inspections make it more difficult and costly to use legitimate facilities to produce chemical weapons, and challenge inspections will give the United States the opportunity to seek further indications and evidence under the CWC. In addition, the CWC will help stymie chemical weapons development by non-signatory, rogue nations by restricting trade in key precursor chemicals to non-parties. Acquisition efforts for chemicals, technology, and equipment by non-signatories will provide tip-offs to pursue compliance concerns with parties who may be the source of the materials. These are real benefits to our identification efforts that will help ensure the safety of our troops and citizens. However, if we impose an impossible standard of verification and fail to ratify the CWC, we will lose these benefits. Further, condition 33 creates an arbitrary definition of what is a ``militarily significant'' amount of chemical weapons. This condition deems one metric ton of chemical weapons to be a threat to our military. But General Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has testified that ``a militarily significant quantity of chemical weapons is situationally dependent.'' It depends on the terrain, the weather, the number of troops, the type of chemicals used, how the chemicals are delivered, and the chemical weapons defensive system of the targeted forces. He stated that, ``The quantity is totally scenario dependent, and it would be difficult to cite a specific amount as militarily significant.'' During the Iran-Iraq war, both sides used tens of tons against each other without altering the course of the war. The Defense Department found that it would take several hundred to a thousand tons to seriously disrupt U.S. logistics in a war; and the United States's own stockpile of chemical weapons, which we are committed to destroy with or without the CWC, is about 30 thousand tons. One metric ton of chemical weapons, while still posing a horrible threat under some conditions, in no way is a militarily significant threat to our national security. Without the CWC, chemical weapons production and stockpile on a small or grant scale will still be an acceptable practice. Under the CWC, not only will this no longer be acceptable, but we will have additional tools in our arsenal to identify chemical weapons programs. Since we will have to monitor this threat whether or not we join the CWC, our security interests are improved under the treaty rather than without it. This condition must be removed from the resolution if the United States is to participate in the Chemical Weapons Convention. Therefore, Mr. President, I support striking condition 33 from Executive Resolution 75. Mr. President, and colleagues, I believe strongly that this particular condition, regardless of how you feel about the treaty, sets an unrealistic level of requirement for verification, and under no circumstances are we going to be able to verify a ton of chemical weapons under the evaluations of the military. We do not need to accept this kind of arbitrary standard. Mr. President, regardless of whether or not you are going to vote for or against this treaty in the end, I urge my colleagues to vote to strike condition 33.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Chemical Weapons Convention. While some of my colleagues may have other means of measuring this convention, I believe when we consider any arms control treaty, the main concern must be how it will affect our national security. I support this treaty because, on balance, our Nation's security will be vastly improved in a world where chemical weapons are outlawed than in a world where the possession of these horrible weapons remains an acceptable practice. I believe it is important for all in this Chamber and for the public at large to realize that today the United States is committed to destroying all of our chemical weapons. Under a law passed by Congress and signed by President Reagan in 1985, we will destroy all of our chemical weapons stockpile by the year 2004. Further, in 1991 President Bush committed the United States to banning chemical weapons and foreswore their use even in retaliation upon the Chemical Weapons Treaty entering into force. Many of those who have spoken out against this treaty imply that possession of chemical weapons is the only deterrent against a chemical weapons attack by an adversary. However, in the judgment of our political and military leaders, our Nation does not require chemical weapons to defend our Nation. In fact, the United States has already begun the process of destroying all our chemical weapons. Our Nation reserves the right to retaliate against a chemical weapons attack with overwhelming conventional force or any other means at our disposal. The United States can and will defend itself against any foe armed with a weapon of mass destruction. We do not need these ghastly weapons to ensure the safety of our military personnel and our Nation. Mr. President, I also believe it is important to note this treaty was negotiated and signed under two Republican Presidents and transmitted for ratification under a Democratic President. The Chemical Weapons Convention is an example of how U.S. foreign policy can be bipartisan and how both parties can act outside the shadow of political maneuvering when it is in the best interests of our Nation. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton realized the benefits we receive under a treaty banning the possession of chemical weapons could far outweigh any costs incurred by our industries and Nation. No treaty is perfect. As with other treaties, the Senate has included conditions to the resolution of ratification which I believe strengthen this accord. But opponents of the convention have added five conditions meant not to improve but to kill the treaty. These five provisions must be struck from the treaty if we are to receive the national security benefits the CWC offers our Nation. The opposition to this treaty centers on three questionable and contradictory points. First, opponents state that since this treaty is not absolutely verifiable, the U.S. Senate should not ratify it. Second, contradicting the first point, opponents state this treaty's verification regime, while not strict enough, nevertheless places too much of a burden on our chemical industry. And, third, opponents state that since rogue nations may either not join the Chemical Weapons Convention or will not comply with the treaty once they become signatories, this treaty does not further our national security interests. I believe they are wrong on all points. No treaty--be it an arms control treaty, a trade treaty, or a humanitarian treaty--is completely verifiable. If absolute verifiability is the marker, no treaty could attain that ideal and our Nation would never experience the varied benefits we now gain from treaties such as the SALT Treaties, the START Treaties, GATT, NAFTA, the Convention on Fishing, or the Convention on Literary and Artistic Copyrights. Absolute verification should not be the measure of the CWC or any other treaty. Instead of insisting on absolute verification, our Nation has realized the strength of a treaty lies in the enforcement of the treaty and the measure to be taken if a party violates a treaty. America's treaties work because our treaty partners know the full power of the United States lies behind the conventions and we do not hesitate to protect our national interests by enforcing their provisions. When considering ratification of an arms control treaty, the question must be whether on balance the verification system is strong enough to significantly increase our national security. It is a simple fact that the verification measures included in this treaty are the most stringent and most intrusive of any multilateral arms control agreement currently in place. While still not powerful enough to allow searches of every warehouse, laboratory, or garage in the world, the means to be employed under the CWC are the most thorough and most rational ever to be included in a multilateral international agreement. The Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations all realized the nature of chemical weapons and their production created the need for a stringent system to verify compliance with the CWC provisions. And yet, some safeguards and limitations on the verification system would have to be put in place in order to protect companies engaged in legitimate chemicals from unwarranted hardships. Under President Bush's direction, the proper balance was struck between the strength and rigors of a verification regime on one hand and the intrusiveness of that same system on our industry and Nation on the other. Under the Chemical Weapons Convention, measures are in place which will severely increase the likelihood an illicit producer of chemical weapons will be caught while ensuring that any company that produces or uses potentially dangerous chemicals will not be unnecessarily burdened. Mr. President, some opponents argue that the treaty has it wrong both ways--they claim it is not intrusive enough to be completely verifiable and also claim the costs incurred by industry are too great under the verification regime. While the nature of all treaties makes them correct on the former point, since no treaty can reasonably be considered absolutely verifiable, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, which represents hundreds of chemical companies, and hundreds of individual chemical companies on their own have expressed their support for this treaty. If the vast majority of companies that produce or use chemicals pronounce their support for this agreement, I do not believe we should claim the treaty is unduly burdensome on these companies. They know what is in their own interest and they have stated their support for the Chemical Weapons Convention. Opponents also argue that since rogue nations can be expected not to join in the CWC or will not comply with its provisions the United States should not endorse this treaty. This argument overlooks the fact that even if the Chemical Weapons Convention does not enter into force these same rogue nations can develop and produce chemical weapons. Without the CWC we will still face this same threat. Yet, if we ratify the CWC and are vigorous in its enforcement, the United States will have a much improved ability to identify clandestine chemical weapons programs. The nature of chemical weapons make it possible to produce them in facilities as small as a high school laboratory or even a garage. Because these weapons of mass destruction can be produced in small areas, the intelligence community today faces extreme difficulties in locating programs already underway in rogue nations. However, as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence noted in its September 1994 report on this issue, under the Chemical Weapons Convention, the United States Government will gain important new access to useful information, relevant to potential CWC threats to the United States, that would not otherwise be obtainable. As Acting Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told the Intelligence Committee on February 5 of this year, the CWC will give our intelligence community more information and more tools to use in our efforts to combat those who would use these horrible weapons. The Chemical Weapons Convention's regular inspection process and its ability to perform challenge inspections on short notice are very powerful means of catching parties breaking the treaty. The convention also includes varied reporting requirements on the production and use of toxic agents and precursor chemicals which may help the intelligence agencies to locate clandestine production of chemical weapons. If the Chemical Weapons Convention is ratified and we use it to our advantage, the intelligence community will have another important tool with which to fight the battle against these weapons. If we do not ratify the convention, we will forgo a better chance to win a battle we must fight whether or not this treaty is in effect. The CWC will help protect our citizens by increasing the likelihood that a potential cheater would be caught under its inspection processes. But the CWC helps our national security in other ways as well. Three years after entry into force, the Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits parties from exporting high risk precursor and toxic chemicals to countries not belonging to the CWC. This will further limit the ability of nonsignatory countries to acquire chemicals which could be turned into a lethal gas. Finally, the power of international law created by the CWC against the possession of chemical weapons will assist our own Nation's continuing efforts against this abominable class of weapons. Taken together, the benefits we gain from ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention far outweigh the minimal costs of implementing this treaty. The strict verification regime, increased opportunities for our intelligence agencies, the prohibition of exports to nonmember nations, and the force of international law complementing the United States' individual efforts will help protect our citizens and our national interests. We have already made the decision that possession and use of chemical weapons is not in the security interests of our Nation. We have determined the United States has the means and the will to protect our forces and our Nation without this type of weapon. It is time now to compel the other nations of the world to abide by these same rules. Mr. President, I have weighed the effects of the Chemical Weapons Convention on our national security and I believe our Nation is safer with this treaty than without it. It is my hope my colleagues will also realize that our national security interests lie in ratification, not in maintaining the status quo of a world where possession of chemical weapons remains acceptable under international law. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern over bills introduced last Thursday, February 27, 1997 by the Senators from Vermont and Montana. These bills, the Encrypted Communications Privacy Act of 1997 and the Promotion of Commerce On-Line in the Digital Era Act of 1997, deal with the complex and controversial issue of encryption and the export of encryption products. I too am concerned over our Nation's policy regarding encryption, but I believe rash action on this issue at this time by Congress would be inappropriate. I agree with both Senator Burns and Leahy that digital communications, the internet, and the global information infrastructure are already revolutionizing the way we live and work. I also believe there is a need to ensure the security of private, commercial, and Government messages and information sent over global communication links and stored in computer databases. The information revolution is underway and technology is progressing at exponential rates. Nevertheless, Mr. President, our Nation still has needs that must be addressed. The same digital information, communication links, and computer memory that allows for great advances in personal convenience and entertainment, in commercial productivity and competitiveness, and in Government services and efficiencies can also be abused by individuals with other designs and intentions. Our society has entrusted its elected leaders and public servants to protect its citizens from such activities. Therefore, I think it is imperative that we study thoroughly how this proposed legislation will affect our Government's ability to fulfill its responsibilities. The National security and the ability to effectively enforce our extraterritorial laws is at stake. The executive branch is the part of our Government responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws of this Nation. For the past several years the administration has been involved in a dialog with industry leaders in an attempt to promote the use of encryption and expand exports while also protecting the legitimate needs of our Government to gain access with properly executed search warrants to communications. This is not done for nefarious intentions, as some have claimed. The negotiations took place because our Government is charged with fulfilling its responsibility to protect the lives and livelihood of all its citizens. But our concern for access to encrypted data extends beyond our shores. Our Nation faces threats from nations, groups, and individuals overseas. The United States' ability to counter and thwart these threats will likely be hampered if encryption products are allowed to be exported worldwide with unlimited strength or without key recovery provisions. Mr. President, the administration has also been negotiating with other OECD nations regarding encryption policy. We are not the only nation which realizes the benefits and possible abuses of encryption products. Other nations are also considering how to ensure that their government needs and responsibilities are addressed in their encryption export and import policies. I do not believe our relations with other nations will be furthered if the administration's negotiations are undercut by unnecessary and potentially damaging congressional action. Further, the interests of our Nation's technology industry will not be advanced if other nations shut their borders to American encryption products. Today, many established software and hardware firms are successfully marketing encryption products with key recovery features here and abroad. The President has put forward a plan which in good faith attempts to balance our Nation's interests in commerce, security, and law enforcement. While other firms say the administration policy is untenable, these American companies are producing and selling advanced encryption products worldwide which meet both the needs of private commerce and industry, and the requirements of our Government. This suggests to me that the administration's policy not only can work, it is working. I believe Congress should let the administration's negotiations and policies on encryption go forward, to succeed or fail on their own merits. Mr. President, caution and careful study are in order.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I do not intend to support this constitutional amendment. During previous debates on this issue, I have said that I believe that an amendment dictating a balanced budget does not belong in our Constitution but that the path to balance belongs in our laws. I continue to believe that. And, I hope I am not being too optimistic when I say that I honestly believe we have an opportunity to set our budget on the path to balance this year through legislation and we have the chance to do so in a reasoned and bipartisan way. I believe it is important to balance the budget as a way to promote economic growth. And any effort to achieve a balanced budget must be done fairly and equitably. But I'm not convinced that the constitutional amendment before us will ensure a budget balanced fairly or a budget that will ensure economic growth. In particular, I do not think it is wise to require a three-fifths vote to waive this amendment in times of economic emergency. This gives entirely too much power to larger population States in the House and would hurt smaller States like my home State of Nebraska. In addition, the national security waiver provision in this amendment is too restrictive. And, I do not think it is a good idea to allow Congress to rely on estimates to determine whether or not the budget is in balance. As previous experience has shown us, when you lead with estimates, gimmicks are soon to follow. Still, even if we were voting on some other variation of this amendment, I'm not persuaded a constitutional amendment is the best way to mend our budget woes. I still believe that if we can succeed through a statute rather than through a constitututional amendment, we should leave the Constitution alone. All of this being said, I do not question the intentions of the authors of this amendment. Given our track record on living within our means, there are good arguments to be made for this amendment. I have long said that as 1 of the 535 Members of Congress we can, and should, get down to the work of crafting a reasoned, bipartisan balanced budget plan. But we have not managed to do so. We have not managed to muster the political will to tackle some of the tougher issues that stand in the way of a credible path to balance. We have not managed to talk in a meaningful way about how to control our entitlement spending and how to prevent that spending from consuming an ever-larger share of our Federal budget as time goes by. Absent change, a full 70 percent of the Federal budget will be consumed by mandatory spending and interest on the debt by the year 2000 and that percentage will continue to climb. That is a scary statistic. But I think, or at least I very much hope, that we are getting closer to having those conversations. Last year, I was part of the centrist coalition, a bipartisan group that included 11 Democrats and 11 Republicans. The coalition spent approximately 5 months putting together a balanced budget package which contained significant entitlement reform, a reasonable discretionary spending number and modest tax relief. The centrist package was offered as a substitute budget in May 1996 and received 46 votes in the Senate. As far as I am concerned, those 46 votes represent the start of a meaningful effort to balance the budget in a bipartisan, credible way. Regardless of how today's vote turns out, I hope we will not lose the will to move forward to balance the budget. If this amendment were to pass both Houses, I would hope that we would not use that passage as an excuse to delay balancing the budget while we wait to see if the amendment is ratified. And if this amendment fails, I hope that we-- particularly people like me who maintain that we can balance the budget without this amendment--will redouble our efforts to get the budget on the path to balance in this Congress.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to support the confirmation of Rodney Slater to be the new Secretary of Transportation. Perhaps only the Secretary of Agriculture has as a profound effect on economy of my State as the Secretary of Transportation. As a large geography, small population State at the Nation's crossroads, Nebraska has a great deal at stake in America's transportation policy. Perhaps only the Secretary of Agriculture has as profound an effect on the economy of my State as the Secretary of Transportation. Coming from rural Arkansas, Rodney Slater understands the transportation problems of Nebraska and the Nation. He has demonstrated skill and vision as Administrator of the Federal Highways Administration. One of the most important bills the 105th Congress will consider is the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The new Secretary will lead the administration's efforts on this important bill. The Senate begins its work on the reauthorization of ISTEA with this confirmation. As the Senate debates the nomination of Rodney Slater to be Secretary of Transportation, I would like to take a few moments to discuss some of the transportation priorities I want our new Secretary and the Senate to consider. First, the new Surface Transportation law should promote a national transportation infrastructure which addresses rural and urban needs. That legislation must recognize that transportation investments in small population, crossroads States like Nebraska contribute to the productivity and efficiency of the entire nation. Second, ISTEA 2 should be truly intermodal by including an authorization for Amtrak, and assistance for communities dealing with an increasing density of rail traffic. The Congress has a tremendous opportunity to enhance safety where rails meet roads in America. Third, safety must remain the pre-eminent focus of transportation policy. In spite of long-term progress on the safety front, more than 41,000 Americans will die and more than 3 million Americans will be injured this year on the Nation's roads and highways. We can reduce that number by focusing much needed attention on two groups of drivers--Teenagers and repeat offenders. Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death among Americans ages 15-24. The reauthorization of ISTEA provides an opportunity to seriously address this problem. Fourth, in aviation, I applaud the Secretary-designate for his strong statement in support of the Essential Air Service Program. Air service is critical to the economic survival of many rural communities. Last year, the Congress solved the chronic funding problems of the Essential Air Service program. I am pleased that the Secretary-designate supports that action. Finally, Mr. President, I pledge to the new Secretary that I will continue to do everything I can to end the hemorrhage of the airways trust fund. The lapse of the aviation ticket tax is draining the trust fund at an astounding rate of $18-20 million a day. As a new member of the Finance Committee, I consider funding the Nation's investments in airport safety, security, and efficiency a top priority. I am proud that our committee yesterday took swift, bipartisan action on this important matter. Mr. President, with this confirmation, we begin work on the transportation policy for a new century. The Senate should not underestimate the importance of this task or the significance of this confirmation. Future employment, economic growth, international competitiveness, and national productivity are all at stake. I am confident that Rodney Slater understands the importance of his mission and I look forward to working with the new Secretary. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, on September 30, 1996, I introduced S. 2167, the Children's Health Insurance for Long-Term Development Act--the CHILD bill. In simple terms, this legislation will require private health plans to cover all necessary health and screening services for infants and children through age 3. But it has a broader purpose. It will close the gap between two entities that serve America's children, the health system and the school system, by addressing an important health risk that has implications for children's education achievements and later development. A significant body of research demonstrates that the first 3 years of life are critical to children's development--mentally, physically, and emotionally. In particular, during the first 3 years of life the human brain and central nervous system undergo their most rapid period of neurological development. This time period--the infant neurological risk exposure period--provides both a substantial risk and an important opportunity. If we can ensure that children receive the health care, parenting and environmental influences they need during their first 3 years, we can give our children a strong start in life. If, however, we neglect their physical and mental development during this crucial period, we have lost an important opportunity to promote learning and prevent damage to brain functioning. Obviously, there are many influences on a child's early development, such as parental influence and childrearing practices, comprehensive health care, environment, mental stimulation, and community support. As a Nation, we have an opportunity and an obligation to provide children with a safe, healthy, stimulating environment during their early years. This bill takes an important step toward this goal. First, this legislation identifies a critical period in children's development--the Infant Neurological Risk Exposure Period [INREP]. Brain and nervous system development during this period has a long- lasting impact on the child's life. I hope that by singling out this particular time-frame, this legislation will focus greater attention on improving health care and supportive services during infancy and early childhood. Second, this bill will require private health insurers to cover comprehensive preventive and curative services through age 3. These third-party payors will therefore be financially responsible for the care children need to be adequately monitored and treated through this important developmental period. I was startled to learn that 86 percent of children who are privately insured are not covered for comprehensive well-child care. Children who receive health coverage through the Medicaid Program are covered for a comprehensive array of well-child care, diagnostic assessments and treatment services through the EPSDT program, yet most children who are privately insured do not have similar coverage. Health screenings and periodic check-ups provide an important opportunity for physicians to ensure that a child's neurological development is progressing along normal patterns--and to intervene as appropriate if it is not. This comprehensive approach will also address other problems in pediatric health care, such as ensuring that children are completely covered for immunizations through this time period. This coverage will counter current immunization trends that leave 60 percent of children in most States with incomplete immunizations at age 2. I should also emphasize that this bill, by its very nature, cannot help children who are uninsured. We need to pursue further legislation that addresses this important problem. In a recent study on children's health insurance, the GAO noted that the proportion of children who are uninsured--14.2 percent, or 10 million children--is at the highest level since 1987. This decline in children's health insurance coverage has been concentrated among low-income children. Mr. President, all children should have health insurance that covers their complete developmental needs. We are the wealthiest, most powerful, and most advanced Nation on this planet. But it is discouraging that we still have so far to go when it comes to caring for our own children. My friend and respected colleague Senator John Kerry has offered one approach to this problem using sliding-scale subsidies; we should explore this option and others in order to ensure that America's infants and young children achieve their highest potential. My proposal represents the first step toward this important goal--the next step is health coverage for all children. Mr. President, I ask that the text of S. 2167 be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, on Monday I introduced S. 2167, the Children's Health Insurance for Long-Term Development Act--the CHILD bill. In simple terms, this legislation will require private health plans to cover all necessary health and screening services for infants and children through age 3. But it has a broader purpose. It will close the gap between two entities that serve America's children, the health system and the school system, by addressing an important health risk that has implications for children's educational achievements and later development. A significant body of research demonstrates that the first 3 years of life are critical to children's development--mentally, physically, and emotionally. In particular, during the first 3 years of life the human brain and central nervous system undergo their most rapid period of neurological development. This time period--the Infant Neurological Risk Exposure Period--provides both a substantial risk and an important opportunity. If we can ensure that children receive the health care, parenting, and environmental influences they need during their first 3 years, we can give our children a strong start in life. If, however, we neglect their physical and mental development during this crucial period, we have lost an important opportunity to promote learning and prevent damage to brain functioning. Obviously, there are many influences on a child's early development, such as parental influence and childrearing practices, comprehensive health care, environment, mental stimulation, and community support. As a nation, we have an opportunity and an obligation to provide children with a safe, healthy, stimulating environment during their early years. This bill takes an important step toward this goal. First, this legislation identifies a critical period in children's development--the Infant Neurological Risk Exposure Period [INREP]. Brain and nervous system development during this period has a long- lasting impact on the child's life. I hope that by singling out this particular timeframe, this legislation will focus greater attention on improving health care and supportive services during infancy and early childhood. Second, this bill will require private health insurers to cover comprehensive preventive and curative services through age 3. These third-party payors will therefore be financially responsible for the care children need to be adequately monitored and treated through this important developmental period. I was startled to learn that 86 percent of children who are privately insured are not covered for comprehensive well-child care. Children who receive health coverage through the Medicaid program are covered for a comprehensive array of well-child care, diagnostic assessments and treatment services through the EPSDT program, yet most children who are privately insured do not have similar coverage. Health screenings and periodic check-ups provide an important opportunity for physicians to ensure that a child's neurological development is progressing along normal patterns--and to intervene as appropriate if it is not. This comprehensive approach will also address other problems in pediatric health care, such as ensuring that children are completely covered for immunizations through this time period. This coverage will counter current immunization trends that leave 60 percent of children in most States with incomplete immunizations at age 2. I should also emphasize that this bill, by its very nature, cannot help children who are uninsured. We need to pursue further legislation that addresses this important problem. In a recent study on children's health insurance, the GAO noted that the proportion of children who are uninsured--14.2 percent, or 10 million children--is at the highest level since 1987. This decline in children's health insurance coverage has been concentrated among low-income children. Mr. President, all children should have health insurance that covers their complete developmental needs. We are the wealthiest, most powerful, and most advanced nation on this planet. But it is discouraging that we still have so far to go when it comes to caring for our own children. My friend and respected colleague Senator John Kerry has offered one approach to this problem using sliding-scale subsidies; we should explore this option and others in order to ensure that America's infants and young children achieve their highest potential. My proposal represents the first step towards this important goal--the next step is health coverage for all children.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, although I am thoroughly disappointed in the process we endured to reach agreement on the fiscal year 1997 omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 4278--I am pleased with the content of the bill. It is a huge package, so I am sure we will not know its full impact until weeks--possibly months--into this fiscal year. It would be difficult to put a package like this together without there being some disappointment in the final product. However, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I worked hard to see that many programs that are important to Nebraskans and this Nation were addressed. Let me highlight some of these programs. Commerce-Justice-State I have long supported the National Telecommunication Administration's Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program. Last year I led the effort on the floor to include $21.5 million for TIIAP and I'm pleased to see that amount in fiscal year 1997 funding. This is especially important when considering the Senate Commerce- Justice-State Subcommittee began the process with zero funding for this important program. People sometimes ask why we need this program when there is so much going on in the telecommunications industry. We need it to help our rural areas share fully in the promise of networking and telecommunications. We need it to help our nonprofit sector participate. We need it to encourage the imaginative and sometime high- risk demonstrations of what can be done with the technology. We have included $174.5 million for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Program and $560 million for the Byrne Memorial Grant Program which is important and insightful. If we can stop juveniles from turning to crime, I believe we have a chance at decreasing the need for courthouses, incarceration, and prison construction. The potential benefit is well worth the investment. Interior I am pleased to see that the bill includes funding for one of my top priorities, Back to the River. This project is a collaborative effort to create a recreational, ecological, and cultural corridor along the Missouri River in the Omaha/Council Bluffs region. The project encompasses 64 river miles and has been ongoing for the last 2 years. It has the support of several public and private agencies. The Back to the River project will benefit Nebraska and the Nation by providing habitat restoration, floodplain management, recreation and river access, economic benefits, cultural resources and environmental education. The National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service have both been involved in this project. The omnibus bill funds the National Endowment for the Humanities at the current level, which is higher than either the House or Senate number in the original Interior appropriations bill. NEH programs provide vital support to scholarship, education, and public programs in history, literature, and other aspects of the humanities. Support for our State humanities councils is particularly important because it is these generally small offices in each State that expand access to the humanities and that allows for a focus on local history, local literature, and local culture. They serve the very important function of helping us understand who and what we are. The bill also funds the National Endowment for the Arts at its current level. NEA programs support our many performing arts' companies throughout the United States and our museums and also help fund the State arts councils. In both instances I wish we had been able to provide additional funding but there will be an opportunity to revisit these programs next year. Labor-HHS I am pleased about the increase in funding over the House and Senate levels for educational technology. I share some of the conferees' concerns over the educational technology program and believe that increased efforts must be undertaken to insure that technology advances learning and curriculum goals and that we understand how technology contributes to improved student performance. Over the years, we have come to understand that students' learning patterns may vary widely; technology offers us the opportunity to consider and to respond to the various ways in which an individual learns. Of vital importance to Nebraska is the Impact Aid Program. Our commitment to militarily impacted and Native American districts is a Federal obligation; in fact, by shirking our responsibility to these districts, we create yet another unfunded Federal mandate. For fiscal year 1997, we were able to increase funding by $37 million over fiscal year 1996 to $730 million for Impact Aid districts, including additional funding for our heavily impacted, section F districts, such as Bellevue. Equally important, this year's appropriations bill includes increased funding for the title I and Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs, both of which have proven to be successful programs here in Nebraska for the benefit of our students. Title I for disadvantaged students receives a $470 million increase over fiscal year 1996 which brings the total for fiscal year 1997 to $7.7 billion. This will enable us to serve nearly a half million more children. Safe and Drug Free Schools--a program for which I have heard many accolades from Nebraska educators and administrators--receives an additional $90 million over 1996 funding, for a total of $556 million. Increasingly, concern exists among both students and their parents regarding escalating college costs. We are providing increased funding which will allow 3.8 million students to receive aid while also increasing the maximum award level to $2,700, a $230 increase. For fiscal year 1997, a total of $7.6 billion will be available for student financial assistance--$1.3 billion above the previous year's appropriations. Job training efforts will also benefit from increased funding levels. I am especially pleased to see Summer Youth Employment and Training funded at $871 million. This program provides vital funding for youth summer jobs. I am also pleased to see that the Health Careers Opportunity Program was funded at $26.8 million--an increase of nearly $3 million over fiscal year 1996. This award goes to medical schools and other medical professional training programs that recruit and train minority and disadvantaged students. Treasury-Postal We were able to include funding, which the House had rescinded, for the National Archives for an on-line, interactive data base available via the World Wide Web. It provides unprecedented access to the National Archives' vast holdings. The National Archives holds a rich and priceless resource that, until now, has had limited access for a relatively small number of people. I feel strongly that information held by government at all levels should become more accessible and usable by the average American citizen. The treasures maintained by the National Archives should be accessible to all Americans--not just researchers who reside near College Park, MD, or those individuals who can afford a trip to Washington, DC or those who are fortunate to have a Federal archives facility located in their State. The increase of methamphetamine use in the Midwest is a serious problem. I am pleased to see that this bill includes $8 million to designate the Midwest States of Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, South Dakota, and Kansas as a high-intensity drug trafficking area [HIDTA]. This designation will provide added law enforcement resources to these Midwest States and will allow law enforcement officials in these states to conduct a coordinated tracking and enforcement effort. Mr. President, let me restate my disappointment in the process that accompanied this spending bill. I firmly believe that every program and project that is funded with taxpayer dollars deserves the full scrutiny of all Americans, and should not be conducted in back-room negotiations. Two of the bills included in this package--those funding the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education and the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State--were never considered on the Senate floor. Further, funding legislation for the Department of the Treasury and the Postal Service as well as the Department of Interior were partially considered, but never finished. Indeed, Members of this body--from both sides of the aisle--were denied the opportunity to offer pertinent, important amendments to these funding bills or to be heard simply because the process of debate and discussion was brought to an abrupt end and replaced with back-room negotiations. Mr. President, this is not the way policy should be made. Last year we needed to pass several continuing resolutions--temporary funding measures--before we finally came to an agreement on spending levels for fiscal year 1996. We did not finish our appropriations work until April of this year. And that came after having to shut the Government down three times, which resulted in the additional expenditure of taxpayer dollars. When faced with explaining why the Government spends hard-earned taxpayer dollars on any program or project, I believe that it must be able to pass the coffee shop test. That is to say, it must be defendable in a coffee shop in Fremont, North Platte, or O'Neill, NE, or any small town in the United States. After all it is their money we are spending. So at the very least, we as elected officials owe it to the people we represent to openly debate the merits of Government spending on the Senate floor. I thought the Republican leadership had learned the lesson last year that getting our work done as legislators and representatives was the most important matter--not individual or political glory. And while this year we are not in the same situation of having a temporary funding measure--and a Government shutdown has been avoided--things are not that much different. I truly believe the American people have been shortchanged again. Yes, I am glad the task is complete. And I am pleased, for the most part, with what I know is included in this funding legislation. But, Mr. President, I am concerned that the process--and perhaps this institution--has been slightly diminished. Diminished because the appearance and the reality is that our duty as legislators--and the interests of the American people--took a backseat to the interests of campaigning for reelection. During a time when we face an increasingly skeptical electorate, we can ill afford to continue this trend.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, in May 1995, it was my distinct pleasure to join the fine, distinguished Senator from Wyoming, the Honorable Alan K. Simpson, to introduce the Kerrey-Simpson Retirement Reform bills. The intent of this series of eight bills has two important goals: Put Social Security and other Federal retirement programs on the path to long term fiscal health; and renew America's commitment to national savings. Today, I rise with Senator Simpson to reintroduce two of these bills, S.824 and S.825, for the purpose of offering technical changes. Specifically, it was our original intent to permit contributors to a personal investment plan to pass the balance of such plan to their surviving spouse upon their death, except if the surviving spouse agrees in writing that such balance should be transferred to a designated beneficiary, such as child or sibling. Our intent was to provide the contributor with the greatest amount of flexibility in his/ her estate planning, while at the same time recognizing the vulnerability of a surviving spouse. The second technical correction would require that in the event of the contributor's death where there is no surviving spouse and there has been no designation of a beneficiary of the proceeds of the personal investment plan, the proceeds should revert to the deceased's estate, not to the Social Security trust fund. It was our original intent to allow contributors to retain ownership of their personal investment plan, even after death. The third technical correction would permit financial institutions-- in addition to banks--to administer personal investment plans. It was our original intent to permit personal investment plans to be administered by the identical institutions permitted to administer individual retirement accounts. Finally, technical corrections are made to S.825 to adjust certain dates in the formula for determining benefits to our original intent. As these changes are technical in nature, we have been assured by the actuaries of the Social Security Administration that such changes should have no effect on the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. Finally, I would like to add what a joy and pleasure it has been to work with my good friend from Wyoming. His leadership and candidness on this issue will be sorely missed. But more importantly, Mr. President, the character and leadership of Alan K. Simpson as a Senator, colleague, and friend will be equally difficult to replace in the U.S. Senate. I wish him all the best in whatever his fine future holds, and I expect he will continue to fight the good fight on this matter of critical importance to our Nation's fiscal future.