J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, let me first pay my compliments to Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus, Senator Kempthorne, and Senator Reid. This is a very difficult piece of legislation. If you had asked me a week ago if I thought we would be able to get to conference and final passage before the August recess, I would not be very optimistic about it. In fact, I was prepared to take up the measure on radon in the VA-HUD appropriations bill for the fourth year in a row. I do not know how we managed to get it done. I am very grateful for its completion. For all of the rural communities of Nebraska--90 percent of our public water supply is in communities under 2,500 population--they all thank you. This bill probably saved our State millions of dollars over the next 10 years. All the consumers of drinking water will have safer drinking water as a consequence of this change, and we are very grateful to Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus, Senator Kempthorne, and Senator Reid. This is a very important piece of legislation. It is likely to have, I think, a unanimous vote here in the Senate at an age when people wonder whether or not Republicans and Democrats can work together. It is a significant improvement in our law. I am very grateful that we are enacting it. Chairman Chafee and Senator Baucus deserve our thanks and appreciation for their leadership on this issue. I also want to thank Senator Kempthorne for his personal commitment to resolving the tough issues involved in providing the public with safe drinking water and for his determination and willingness to take the time necessary to work out a compromise, and Senator Reid who, like me, comes from a rural State that has a lot to gain by the passage of this conference report. I know they have put their best into this legislation and I appreciate their efforts. One of the aspects of this bill that I have supported since the beginning of the debate 3 years ago, is that it gives States and communities more flexibility to meet safe drinking water standards. For example, the bill establishes a State revolving fund [SRF] to help finance drinking water systems. It authorizes the fund at $1 billion per year through 2003. The flexibility built into the bill allows States to transfer up to one third of the funds between the newly established safe drinking water SRF and the already existing Clean Water Act Revolving Fund. Furthermore, the bill allows for 30 percent of the State's revolving fund to be used as grants for disadvantaged communities. States deserve a chance to put their resources where they are most needed. Nowhere is this more clear than in dealing with the public health threat of radon. For the last 3 years, through the appropriations process, I have kept EPA from publishing a drinking water standard for radon. The reason I did this is because regulating radon in water does not make sense when the known health threat for radon is through inhalation, not ingestion. Ninety-five percent of the risk is from radon in soil, not water. This bill allows States to use a multimedia approach, that focuses on getting rid of radon in homes and schools that enters these facilities through the soil, instead of putting their limited resources into getting radon out of water. I have long believed that the way to solve this issue is through a multimedia approach. Under this bill, EPA will use a risk assessment completed by the National Academy of Science to promulgate a radon regulation. Once the maximum contaminant level [MCL] is established, if it reduces radon in water to a lower level than that in the air outside, EPA will promulgate an alternative maximum contaminant level which is equal to the amount of radon in air outside or approximately 3,000 picocuries per liter. States will be able to use that alternative MCL if they have a multimedia program which is approved by EPA. It is a win-win solution, allowing taxpayers to get the must public health protection for their money and ensuring the water is safe. This is a good approach and I'm glad that I can now stop going to the Appropriations Committee to ask for their assistance on the radon issue. One of the largest costs of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act is monitoring. States have to monitor contaminants in drinking water whether they exist in their water systems or not. All Nebraska communities have asked that the current system be revised to let them test for contaminants that exist in Nebraska. Current law allows for a waiver process. However, the process is expensive and time consuming, and the benefits accrue to the local systems while the costs are incurred by the States. I fought hard to see that these provisions be changed. This bill calls on EPA to revise current monitoring rules and it gives States the authority to give monitoring relief to small systems for a 3-year period if the systems don't have the contaminant. Additionally, States can adopt alternative monitoring requirements if they have a source water assessment program. Aside from radon and monitoring, standard setting posed a major problem. As we all know, in the 1986 amendments we decided to regulate 25 new contaminants every 3 years whether they were needed or not. This strict method of establishing standards caused some contaminants to be regulated without a sound scientific basis. I pushed for a change in that process. I believe that EPA needs to spend more time working with other public health agencies prior to considering a regulation. That is why, through the new contaminant selection process, EPA must consult with the Department of Health and Human Services, more specifically the Centers for Disease Control to determine which contaminants should be researched to see if they should be regulated. Once contaminants are thoroughly research--and this bill provides money to do just that--EPA must conduct a benefit-cost analysis prior to the promulgation of a regulation. That's the way decisions ought to be made. I've fought hard to see this provision implemented and I am confident that it will allow EPA to make the best choices for the protection of public health. Decisions that will allow a State or community's resources to be directed toward the greatest public health threat. I fully support this bill. I have worked hard to ensure that it provides the best public health protection possible, flexibility for States, and affordability for small systems. I applaud the work of the committee and I thank them for their willingness to allow me into the debate and negotiations. I want to stop here so this bill can be passed and sent on to the President for signature. I close again by applauding the heroic efforts of the chairman, the distinguished Senator Chafee from Rhode Island, Senator Baucus from Montana, Senator Kempthorne from Idaho, and Senator Reid from Nevada. I would also like to thank their staff, in particular Jimmie Powell, Steve Shimberg, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Mike Evans, Tom Sliter, Ann Klee and Greg Daines. It simply would not have been possible without their belief that water systems in our Nation need to be safe and that we need to change the way we regulate in order to accomplish that objective. I am very, very grateful. But, more importantly, the people of Nebraska are very grateful for your hard work, your diligence, and eventually your success.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President I would like to express my appreciation to the managers of the FY1997 Agriculture Appropriations bill, the Senior Senator from Mississippi Mr. Cochran and the Senior Senator from Arkansas Mr. Bumpers. Both Senators worked very hard to see that a well balanced bill came out of Conference. I would also like to note my appreciation that the conferees made a very wise decision to fully fund the Food Safety Inspection Service. Full funding for FSIS allows our food safety inspectors to do their job of protecting the nation's meat and poultry. I also rise to engage Mr. Bumpers in a colloquy regarding the importance of food safety research done by the Agricultural Research Service. Understanding the enormous role that research plays in agriculture, I believe it is important to note that by increasing funding for food safety research the conferees laid the groundwork for a safe food supply well into the next century.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Bumpers' support of this important issue. I would like to talk about several particular food safety research initiatives. I strongly support, along with the Conferees, three important components of pre-harvest and post-harvest food safety research proposed by the Agricultural Research Service. The Conferees made the right decision to fund research of methodologies for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) validation, host- pathogen relationships and rapid on-farm DNA-based diagnostic testing. ARS should emphasize research on the genetic basis for host-pathogen relationships. Scientists already know that exposure, infection, and contamination of live animals by certain bacteria and parasites can result in pathogens in our meat-based foods. Further research in this area will enable scientists to develop methods to identify and select animals that are resistant to foodborne pathogens. Along with studying the host-pathogen relationship, it is important that researchers develop rapid, specific, and sensitive DNA-based diagnostic tests that will allow identification of pathogens in live animals and their production environment. By developing technologies and techniques that make this identification possible, we will be able to prevent meat and poultry contamination problems in the early stages of production. It is also very important that ARS develop on-line methodologies for HACCP validation. HACCP involves the systematic identification and prevention of safety hazards in food production processes. I applaud the administration's decision to implement this program and once again would like to emphasize the importance of the Conferee's decision to fully fund the Food Safety Inspection Service so that the benefits of HACCP can be recognized. Does the Senator agree that the three research areas I just described are important to the agricultural community and as a result deserve the funding we allocated to that purpose?

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senate passage of H.R. 3103, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. I am proud to have been an original cosponsor of its predecessor, S. 1028, the Kennedy-Kassebaum proposal that was originally introduced in July of last year. Although I do not believe that this legislation is as strong as the bill that passed the Senate last April, these changes are still long overdue. As many as 25 million Americans will benefit from these modest yet meaningful reforms to the insurance market--as, for example, they move from job to job or lose employer-sponsored coverage as the result of corporate downsizing. This bill takes an incremental approach to health care reform by fixing the most egregious flaws in our employer-based health insurance system. I believe that we must move far beyond this bill, to comprehensive health care reform, in order to ensure that every American and legal resident knows that they have health insurance coverage. However, we must do what we can, now, to make the first needed changes to the American health care system. Right now, we can help the many Americans who are currently excluded from meaningful health coverage because they are subject to preexisting condition exclusions or are unable to purchase an individual policy. This bill will address these significant problems. This bill's great strength is that it will enable American workers to respond to our changing economy. Today, workers risk losing their existing coverage when they seek new skills or new opportunities. If they can find a replacement policy through a new employer or in the individual market, it may leave them under-insured. They can be subject to a preexisting condition exclusion that excludes a part of their body, or a significant health problem, from coverage, even though they have maintained insurance coverage for many years. Because of these constraints, many Americans don't dare switch employers or career- paths. This job-lock phenomenon, which has reportedly affected 25 percent of all Americans, would be eliminated by this bill. In addition, the portability and renewability protections in this bill will give more Americans the health coverage flexibility they need to survive in our changing economy. This bill takes a responsible approach to ensuring continued access to health care--in the individual market if necessary--for workers who are displaced by corporate downsizing and other lay-offs. Because our economy is fluid and unpredictable, we need to fix these flaws in our employer-based health insurance system. I believe that this is critically important legislation, but I also believe that this legislation could have been better. It should have included provisions requiring equitable treatment for mental health care--if not the parity provision originally championed by Senators Domenici and Wellstone, then the compromise proposal on benefit limits that Senator Domenici introduced today. I am also concerned that the portability provisions for group to individual coverage were weakened by the conference committee. I think that the original bill's guarantees for individuals who lose group coverage and seek insurance in the individual market took the right approach. Insurers should be required to offer a broad range of insurance policies to these customers. The conference agreement will allow insurance companies to offer only two policies--and even though the bill includes some requirements for these plans, I am concerned that insurers may be able to charge these individuals exorbitant rates. I also can't pretend that this proposal will fix all of the problems in the American health care system. Many Americans will benefit from this proposal. But many of the 40 million Americans who are currently uninsured will not be among them. I am particularly concerned that so many children continue to be uninsured. In a recent study, the GAO analyzed the recent decline in health insurance among children and concluded that this decline in coverage has been concentrated among low-income children. This report also noted that the proportion of children who are uninsured--14.2 percent, or 10 million children--is at the highest level since 1987. I believe that all children should have health insurance, and that this insurance should cover children's complete developmental needs. In addition, health insurance premiums will continue to be unaffordable for many, and the significant individual insurance market reforms will not affect people who are already uninsured. Our population will continue to age and Medicare and Medicaid spending will therefore continue to escalate. Overall health expenditures--Federal and State programs, private insurance and out-of-pocket spending which already consume more than 12 percent of GDP--will continue to grow. We need to recognize that these insurance reforms represent an important step, but only a first step. Until all Americans are guaranteed health coverage, we cannot claim to have fixed the health care crisis. We clearly failed 2 years ago. We need to ensure that every American, regardless of their ability to pay or the generosity of their employer, maintains a meaningful right to health care. We also need to ensure that every American bears their individual responsibility pay for their health care--to the extent possible--and the information they need to make informed decisions about the quality and price of their care. I applaud Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy for their determination and hard work on this bill. Their efforts, over a number of months, to bring this proposal up before the Senate, and their perseverance since the Senate passed this bill in April, have been remarkable. I believe that the compromises included in the conference report reflect the legislation's original intent to improve access to health insurance for millions of working Americans. We still have worked to do, but this bill is a meaningful first step.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, many good and honorable Senators will vote for this bill today, and their votes and the signature of the President, in my judgment, in no way takes away from their good intentions to make this welfare system better. I do not intend to say or suggest that they are mean-spirited or they are heading in the wrong direction, or anything of the sort. I come to the floor intending to vote against this bill and would like to explain why. I think this piece of legislation in the context of our budget and the context of our economy will not make things better. Those who believe this new law will make life better for poor Americans who depend upon Government payments for family support, for food stamps, for supplemental security income, the earned-income tax credit, child nutrition, foster care, and the social service block grant, have offered at least three, as I have heard them, three principal arguments with which I strongly agree. First, I agree that our current welfare system has failed because it penalizes work and rewards behavior which is contrary to the core American values of family, personal responsibility and self-discipline. I agree that States need far more flexibility and authority in designing systems which are appropriate for their varying needs and circumstances. And I agree that deficit reduction will help low-income Americans by promoting growth and job creation. My decision to vote no on this piece of legislation is based upon disagreements, strong disagreements with some of the ideas I have heard promoted in favor of this legislation. First, I do not agree that income support all by itself promotes self-destructive dependency, lazy behavior, out-of-wedlock births, and many other things that I have heard offered on this floor. I have been dependent on a generous Government check from the taxpayers of this country for 27 years since I was injured in the war in Vietnam. That check has not made me lazy. I have not had one child out of wedlock. I am not dependent upon the Government. I am grateful to my country and willing to give it back in kind. My motivation predated the decision by a generous nation to say that if you are disabled in the war, we are going to provide you with monthly income support, and we are not going to torment you and constantly challenge you and require you to come in and justify your existence to a Government bureaucrat every single time we think that maybe we do not like what you are doing. I do not agree that increased welfare spending has caused many of the societal problems we face, nor do I agree with the corollary argument that is oftentimes made that we spend a disproportionate amount of our GDP on the poor. First, as to welfare causing problems, Mr. President, I would like to read just a few of the economic changes that have occurred in the last 30 years and ask my colleagues to consider what their impact could have been. Thirty years ago, most communities had laws that said that you could not open your business on Sunday. But as a consequence of a desire to do more business on Sunday, that seventh day that was reserved for the Sabbath, we now have in every community not only stores open on Sunday but open 24 hours a day. Guess who is working in those stores? Not those of us who make over $100,000 a year. We are shopping. We are playing golf. But it is those lower income families who are out there working. You could make a much better case, Mr. President, that that change in the law has been destructive of families, has been hurtful of communities. I do not make this argument, by the way, but there is no question there have been significant changes in this country as a result of changing our Sunday closing laws. And consider these economic facts. In 1945, 75 percent of the world's GNP was in the United States; in 1970, it was 50 percent; in 1992, it was 25 percent; in 1995, it was down to a fifth. In 1969, 9 of the 10 largest banks in the world were in the United States. Today, the top U.S. bank is No. 30. In the auto market, the U.S. share was 90 percent, today it is 55 percent. For manufacturing wages versus the rest of the world, we were No. 1 in 1969. In 1994 we are No. 5, after Japan, Germany, France, and Italy. We have shifted from a manufacturing to a service economy over the last 30 years, and a worker out there, who is not protected as a consequence of being a Member of Congress, a worker out there has to compete against all of those people in the world. He has to compete against people in India who are willing to work for 40 cents an hour, against people in China who are willing to work for 36 cents an hour, against many nations who are willing to pay their people who work 50 cents to a dollar an hour. This has put a tremendous pressure upon people who have lower wages. Mr. President, nearly 30 million people in the work force earn less than $7 an hour. Rather than merely focusing our attention on how to get people off of welfare, it is far more important for us to ask ourselves the question: In an age when we have an international economy, where we have that kind of pressure upon wages, where we have that kind of pressure on skills--and by the way, I would likely vote for this proposal if it had more money in there for education. We have title 1 students today who are not being taken care of. In Nebraska we have 30,000 students who qualify based upon their income, another 30,000 who qualify based upon math and science skills. We have 12,000 black students in the Omaha Public School System. Only 25 percent of those who graduate have a proficiency in mathematics. We are not fully funding Head Start. We do not say to all Americans, ``Don't worry about it, you will be able to go to college.'' In Nebraska, working families take out a second mortgage on their homes in order to be able to send their kids to the land grant college--a college that was supposed to make it possible for everybody to be able to go to school. If we had money for education in this legislation, if it was said we are going to do those things we know work--we know Head Start works, particularly title 1--at a cost of $800 per child per year. And to half of the people who need it, based upon their performance in math and reading, we say we do not have the money for you. When it comes time to build the next generation of attack fighter, we have the money for that. We have another $30 or $40 billion to build the Harrier, because we are afraid of God knows what. Actually, we are afraid of countries to whom we have sold F-16's. All of a sudden we are building a great fear of a new threat out there. We are not afraid, but we ought to be afraid, of what happens when our graduates from high school, in an international economy, cannot read, cannot write, cannot do multistat mathematics, cannot do the things that all of us know in an international economy they have to be able to do if they expect to earn the living that we would like to see all Americans be able to, in fact, earn. Another presumption I hear is we are spending too much on the poor. These programs we are addressing--I understand we have Medicaid and it is about $25 billion just for acute care for the poor. And we have some housing programs, some are low and moderate, some just for the poor. But just for these programs themselves we are going to spend 1.4 percent of the GDP. We have a $7 trillion GDP right now. These programs represent about $102 billion. We are not going to address Social Security, Medicare, or benefits that go to people like me who have substantial income but still receive a Government check. We are not going to do any of that. We are going to go after people who have low incomes and we are going to say: You are really the problem. We have to take our deficit toll upon you. Mr. President, 1.42 percent, going to 1.5 percent of the Nation's economy. By the way, for my colleagues, I believe there is a relationship between our economy and what we can afford. I am an advocate of economic growth, I want our tax, regulatory, and spending policies to promote growth. Our wealth does determine how much we are able to give to those who are less fortunate, whose lives have been affected by some disaster or another, who are struggling to compete in this economy of ours. But, for gosh shakes, 1.5 percent is hardly what I would call an excessive tithe. Indeed, under this proposal instead of going from 1.42 and adding 8 hundredths of a percent, we are going to go from 1.42 to 1.38. You have not heard me come and say I think these cuts are draconian and people are going to be foraging in the street for food. But I do not think a generous Nation that has our children in the classroom saying we are ``one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,'' can look at this and say 1.4 percent of our GDP going to poor Americans is excessive and it is something we are not able to afford. In addition, I make over $100,000 a year. I have not heard anybody come down and say, ``Bob, this is what we think your contribution ought to be for deficit reduction.'' I have not heard anybody come to me and say, ``We think you ought to give up a little bit, too.'' I think concerns about equity when we are doing deficit reduction are legitimate and need to be surfaced. I hope, in the aftermath of this bill's passage and signing, we are able, in 1997, as we look at our budget, to adjust not just our entitlement programs, and those entitlement programs that are going to upper-income American, and say we are going to try to provide additional discretionary money for education and for low-income people so we can deal with many of the underlying problems that both the supporters and opponents of this legislation have addressed. I do not believe we can have a liberal democracy and a free enterprise system of capitalism, I do not believe we can say to our people you have to compete in a global society and we are going to try to keep the trade barriers as low as possible, I do not believe that any of that works unless we are willing to do those things that we know work. We are not doing them today. We are saying we are short for Titler 1, we are short for Head Start, we are short for college loans, short for all these other things. I think it will, indeed, come back to haunt us. We do know what we can do as a follow-on to this legislation. As I indicated, if there were more resources here for education, for training, for those things that would actually provide what I would consider to be a reasonable safety net in an international economy, I would likely support it. Let me give one final example. The previous occupant of the chair, Senator Inhofe, introduced a piece of legislation dealing with limbs for low-income working families. He identified a very important problem. The problem is this. We spent $1 billion for all prostheses in America, arms and legs. That is about a fourth of what we spend on antacids to cure our stress, half of what we spend to feed our dogs and cats--hardly what I call an excessive expenditure. But if you are a working family that does not have health insurance and have an income of $15,000 a year and your 10-year-old daughter loses her leg above the knee and you go to your prosthesist and find out the prosthese will cost $12,000, what do you do? You cannot afford it. So you consider trying to do the same sorts of things that are being done for Third World nations. Can we use used parts to try to assemble a limb and an arm for this 10-year-old child to be able to make life better? I mention this only because all the arguments about wanting to provide an incentive for work are not going to be effective unless we, as a follow-up to this legislation, not only provide in the appropriations process the money needed to educate our people, but also as a follow-up, we consider this fundamental question: What kind of safety net do we want to provide for the citizens of the world's strongest economy and the world's most successful democracy? I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY. I understand there is unanimous consent for Senator Hutchison, who is not here, to speak. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to explain my opposition to S. 1936. We can, and we must, seek a responsible and permanent solution to the important problem of high- level nuclear waste storage. In that light, I have supported, and will continue to support, a permanent geologic repository. What I do not support is designating the location of an interim storage site before we have determined the viability of the Yucca Mountain permanent repository. I have three major objections to that policy. First, it exerts a growing pressure to name Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository. The pressure to move nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain continues to increase. The premature decision to authorize the storage of tens of thousands of metric tons of nuclear waste at the site only adds to the pressure to push blindly down this course. The American people need to be confident that the final decisions regarding the permanent repository are based on sound science and not political expediency. The American people deserve a credible, deliberative policymaking process. They must have faith that the location of the permanent repository is based on a fair and balanced consideration of environmental, health and safety issues. Mandating the location of a interim site at this time undermines the public confidence in this process. My second concern is that the interim site may become the de facto permanent site. If for either scientific or political reasons, the work on the construction of the permanent repository stops, who will be motivated to move the waste from temporary storage in Nevada to a permanent repository in another State? The nuclear waste at the interim site will, at that point, be of concern to very few. Those who were responsible for generating that waste will have no moral, legal, or financial responsibility for that waste. I submit that the policy options available at that time will be rather limited. This brings me to my third, and most important, concern. If, despite the inertia at work, another site for a permanent repository were named, it would set up an unacceptable situation. We would have moved the waste from Yucca Mountain to another, yet to be named, location. Nebraska is a major corridor to Yucca Mountain. Under no circumstances will I vote for a bill that sets up the possibility of the Nation's nuclear waste passing though my State twice. Simply stated, it is unnecessary to subject the public to the risk and expense of transporting this waste twice. That summarizes the irony of S. 1936, regardless of what the final deposition of the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, we have errored. If Yucca Mountain is found to be a viable location, we have unnecessarily undermined the credibility of the scientific studies. If Yucca Mountain is not a viable site, we are given a no-win situation. We either allow the interim site to become the de facto permanent site or we once again move high-level nuclear waste to another location. Why does the Senate chose this road with no winning outcomes? Are we reacting to a crisis that does not exist? For years the operators of commercial nuclear power plants have stated that on-site storage was safe. All evidence supports this position, and I believe them. Current on-site storage is not a permanent solution, but by the same token, it does not present a crisis. The alternative to the no-win course outlined in S. 1936 is quite simple. We wait until the completion of the viability study at Yucca Mountain in 1998. At that time we can consider the policy options available based on sound science and hard evidence. We will not have locked ourselves into narrow policy options or have undermined the credibility of the process through premature decision making. The geologic repository will be designed to store high-level nuclear waste for 10,000 years. Yet, this body can not wait 2 years to base public policy decisions on sound science and a credible process.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to state my opposition to final passage of the Republican welfare reform legislation. I will vote against this legislation simply because although it portends welfare reform, it is about neither welfare nor reform. Let me be clear--I am certainly not against reforming our welfare system. Indeed, I have voted for welfare reform in the past because I agree that the current system is clearly broke and in dire need of repair. But if we are going to have reform it should be meaningful and not reform for reform's sake. For me, meaningful welfare reform means concentrating on preparing individuals to enter the work force. And by preparing individuals to enter the work force we must prepare them for all the challenges that lie ahead. It is important to note that the No. 1 reason people enroll for AFDC benefits is divorce or separation. No doubt, the American taxpayers who pay for this system and those who are recipients of welfare programs want and deserve a better system. However, reform without the thought of consequence will do more harm than good. Already 20 percent of our Nations children live in poverty, and undoubtedly this bill will add to that total--by the millions. And while AFDC caseload has decreased in Nebraska, child poverty continues to rise. Last year 3 percent of children in Nebraska were on AFDC, yet 11 percent of children lived in poverty. My friend, colleague and noted expert Senator Moynihan took to the floor last week to report that more than one million children will be thrown off the welfare roles should this legislation become law. He said, ``It is as if we are going to live only for this moment, and let the future be lost,'' Mr. President, surely what is before us is not true welfare reform. It is merely a way to cut the deficit on the backs of the neediest under the guise of welfare reform. Indeed, this legislation does have its work provisions. I offered an amendment accepted by both the Republican and Democratic leadership that would allow states to contract--on a demonstration basis--with community steering committees [CSC's] to develop innovative approaches to help welfare recipients move in to the workforce. The CSC's, created by the amendment, would be locally based and include educators, business representatives, social service providers and community leaders. The main charge of the CSC's would be to identify and develop job opportunities for welfare recipients, help recipients prepare for work through job training, and to help identify existing education and training resources within the community. As well, CSC's would focus on the needs of the entire family rather than just on the needs of adult recipients. This is the type of work provision that works--and I support--because it encourages individuals on welfare to move into the work force. It provides much needed resources so that once these individuals get into the work force, it works to ensure they stay in the work force. But this measure alone is not enough. To keep a job, individuals--especially parents--need other things. We need to make certain that every person who is moving into the ranks of the employed has high-quality, affordable child care; otherwise, they are not going to be able to be successful in the workplace. We need a system that gives individuals the opportunity to earn reasonable wage, and to have access to health care, education and training. These are the elements of a system that works and this is the kind of system we should be working toward. As a nation we need to focus our efforts on job creation, education and personal savings, as well as on meaningful reform to our entitlement programs. These elements, more than anything else, will help to ensure a brighter future for all working Americans. Mr. President, the legislation before us today endeavors to move welfare mothers into the work force, but it removes valuable resources that would help the individuals achieve the goal of employment because it lessens their access to child care and health insurance. There is a tremendous differential between the relative cost of child care for somebody who is in the ranks of the poor and people who are not poor. Above poverty, American families spend about 9 percent of their income for child care. Below poverty, it is almost 25 percent of their income. As well, as of 1993, 38 percent of working households under the poverty line are uninsured. While health care reform legislation that passed the Senate unanimously languishes, this legislation, regrettably, makes health care pressures even harder to bare. My Democratic colleagues offered an amendment that would have converted funding formulas to help States--like Nebraska--with larger proportions of children on poverty. This provision would have provided aid to States and individuals truly in need. The Senate voted this measure down, showing the true failings of this legislation--it denies aid to those who are truly in need. Other amendments designed to help children, but which failed, included an amendment that would have ensured health care and food stamps for children of legal immigrants, and an amendment that would have provided vouchers for children whose families have hit the 5-year term limit so that they may care for the children. But these important measures--which would have made the reform legislation more humane-- failed on party-line votes. Mr. President, the people of the state of Nebraska--indeed most Americans--are strongly in favor of welfare rules that give work a greater priority than benefits. But much of this legislation is being driven solely by the need to reduce the deficit and it has an ideological bent to it that says it has to be one way or the other. The impetus of this reform is not driven by a desire to say that the system is going to work better--it is sadly about matters of political expediency. By pushing mothers and an alarming amount of children off the welfare roles and further onto the fringe of society, this legislation will do more harm than good. From a taxpayer standpoint, a beneficiary standpoint, and a provider standpoint, we need a welfare system that operates in a more efficient, effective and hopefully humanitarian fashion. Unfortunately, this legislation does not offer the necessary reforms to bring us that system. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

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

Mr. KERREY. I yield the floor. fair act credit title

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the third amendment.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this third amendment is one of those sort of good Government amendments. I have spoken with the authorizing committee about this. They raise some concerns that I will attempt to address in a moment. This gives the U.S. Department of Agriculture the authority to conduct a voluntary buyout in order to meet its downsizing needs. No question, under this appropriations bill, the Department of Agriculture, particularly in FSA, is going to have to downsize and, equally important, Mr. President, no question, that is a desirable thing to do, given the substantial reduction in work that is likely to be required under the new farm program. So it is not that I am objecting to that downsizing, I am merely, with this amendment, trying to provide the Department with the authority to do buyouts which very often can save them substantial money and save the taxpayers substantial money in the process. I note there has been considerable attention to giving buyout authority to other agencies in the Federal Government, Treasury in particular. I am well aware of the work others have done in this area. As indicated, I have had discussions with the authorizing committee-- that is to say, the Committee on Governmental Affairs--in gaining acceptance for my amendment. Thus, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to amend my amendment before it comes to a vote tomorrow.

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

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay this pending amendment aside and I ask immediate consideration of a third amendment.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this amendment establishes a separate appropriation for salaries and expenses for the Risk Management Agency inside the Farm Service Agency's account. I wish the administration of the Department of Agriculture had sent up a separation. I think it is clear to most of us who look at the new farm program that increasingly it is going to be the farmers managing their own risks that will determine how well they do in a market that is increasingly volatile. The risk management program, the combination of Government and, increasingly, private sector insurance, is going to determine whether or not a producer, a farmer, or small business person out there operating in the marketplace, is going to be successful. This establishes this risk management agency and sets up a separate account for it so we make sure the U.S. Department of Agriculture does allocate a sufficient amount of resources to do so. I pull $70 million out of the FSA to do that. I believe it is much more likely, as a consequence of doing this, that the risk management program is going to be executed in the fashion that both Republicans and Democrats desire. Again, as we look at this new age of farmers on their own establishing what the risk is and purchasing coverage for that risk, it is much more likely, if this agency is funded separately, that the market, the consumer out there, will determine what the nature of that product is going to be and that the agency itself will, as a consequence, be sufficiently funded. Mr. President, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have brought this problem to the attention of both the chairman, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, as well as the ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. This amendment would increase funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as well as for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, the first by $8.5 million, the second by $1.5 million. The increases are offset by a reduction in funding available for the Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Program. This is a user fee account within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. I understand there have been some problems. I understand the committee has asked the Department of Agriculture, under the FSIS, the Food Safety Inspection Service, to give the Congress an evaluation of its computer programs. I understand this has just occurred today. But we are now moving, the Department is moving from an old carcass-by- carcass system of evaluating product--which in many cases did not improve the safety of the meat coming out to the consumer because the inspection system was not able to apply good science to determine whether or not there were pathogens on the animals--we are moving from that old system to a new system called HACCP. HACCP is, to my mind, a vastly preferable system. But it will be very difficult in my judgment to do that if we underfund FSIS in the process. Let me say parenthetically, I believe across the board in those areas where Republicans and Democrats agree the Government function is important--and there are still some disagreements between Republicans and Democrats, or sometimes, as we have just heard, inside, even, each party; sometimes it does not break along party lines, with the Market Promotion Program as an example, the Sugar Program and so forth--but in many cases we have reached agreement: The FAA should be funded. FSIS is important to fund. That increases the quality of our product and the confidence of the consumer. It makes our economy more productive and, as a consequence, is a very important function of the Government. Very often we find ourselves in those areas as a result of an unwillingness to fund the program because we will not allocate money from other places. I will make the point again, typically it is not this kind of temporary reallocation, which is all this is, internal to USDA. Very often it is a problem of not being willing to either say we are going to raise taxes to pay for it, which very few people at this point want to do, or we are going to get it out of the growth of entitlements, or we are not going to build the F-18C, or some other thing, some other major program like that. If we do not fund FSIS this year and next year and the year after, as the appropriations accounts get smaller, I believe we are going to pay a big price for it. So I understand there may be some language that can be worked out in this particular reallocation out of concern for the very specific program I would like to fund, the field automation and information management project. I have a great deal of respect for the chairman and ranking member's concerns for that particular effort. The second thing that is being funded in here is a bit easier and a lot more straightforward. That is just a $1.5 additional million for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. A lot of us have expressed concern this year as the price of beef has gone down. Once again the concern is, is the market working? That is to say, has the concentration in the beef and the concentration of the pork industry reached a point where we no longer have competition, where we no longer have price discovery, where we no longer have a market that is working to the advantage of either the consumer or for the American economy? That question is a difficult one to answer. Last year there was an advisory committee that was put together. A couple of months ago they made their recommendations to us. The dominant recommendation, at least the recommendation at the top of the list, was we should just do more of what the Packer and Stockyards Act says the USDA should do. Even if we are able to get an additional $1.5 million, I must say a $24 or $25 million budget against the Packer and Stockyards budget, against a $120-billion industry, is not likely, even by some sort of commonsense evaluation, to provide this agency with enough money to get the job done. For all Members who have issued press releases expressing enthusiasm about this Commission's report, this panel report, this amendment would provide for: An industry structure performance surveillance of $550,000--it was in the concentration recommendations; $480,000 for a packer market competition study--that, again, was in the recommendation that was made; and a quarter of a million dollars for an electronic filing system, also in the Commission's recommendation. It is impossible for us to be able to go from saying ``we are concerned about whether or not the market is working'' to a point where, particularly for the smaller packers as well as the great number of feedlot operators and growers out there who say ``the market is not working,'' unless we fund this particular agency. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay that amendment aside and move immediately to the consideration of second amendment I have.

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

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. First, Mr. President, in relation to an amendment that I introduced earlier that provided an additional $8.5 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Packers and Stockyards Administration, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I do not know if I will take 10 minutes or not, but it was called to my attention this morning when I got back in town that there was an opinion piece that appeared in the Washington Post yesterday, Sunday, written by Mr. Henry Aaron, a senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the Brookings Institution. The headline is ``The Myths of the Social Security Crisis.'' Henry Aaron, a distinguished fellow and economist, goes through one, two, three, four, five myths. I do not know how many of my colleagues or how many people that are concerned about this particular issue read this opinion piece, but I wanted to immediately--and I will come later to the floor to deal with some of the statements Mr. Aaron makes in detail--but wanted to immediately come to the floor and urge colleagues who have increasingly started looking at Social Security as an issue that we need to address currently, to hear the following. First, Mr. Aaron says myth one is that ``Social Security is in crisis.'' This essentially is a strawman argument, the fact that some people are saying it is in crisis. Destroy that argument, therefore, we do not need to do anything. Mr. President, I hope we do not have to deal with problems only when they are in crisis. I hope that, particularly with a program that promises retirement payments to people 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years from now--and understand that every beneficiary of Social Security for the next 70 years is alive today. They may be 5 years old, but they are future beneficiaries. And we need to, whether or not we have the resources or the will, to be able to pay their benefits. So the longer one delays, the more difficult the solution becomes. Mr. Aaron actually later on said one myth is that it is ``the third rail of American politics--touch it and you die.'' That is another myth he identifies. I do not actually think that is a myth. The last time we dealt with Social Security substantively was in 1983. We waited until we were almost out of money. Even then we almost did not do anything. Even then it took an independent panel to provide the Congress with protection. Mr. Aaron says we did it in 1983. The change that was made in 1983 is already under attack. The reason it was changed was the Deficit- Reduction Act. There was a substantial effort to eliminate that change. So I do not think that the fact that Congress has dealt finally with Social Security is a myth that destroys the myth that this is a third rail, we wait until it is in crisis. If we wait once again until it is in crisis, Mr. President, we are not going to see the same thing we had in 1983. Once the baby boomers have retired, and you look at the numbers that are required to pay out, it is a much different situation than we face today. It is not in crisis. I do not argue that Social Security is in crisis. I am not saying it is contributing to the deficit, which is another myth that is here. But one of the myths that is not on Mr. Aaron's list--and I have a great respect for Henry Aaron and his views--but one of the myths he does not identify that is the most troubling and difficult of all is that Americans who are beneficiaries today, No. 1, believe that the Social Security Program is a savings program, that all they are getting back is what they paid in. We have perpetrated that myth very often with television advertising saying: Your Social Security is safe. I will not let anybody touch your Social Security. It is the safest program that we have today. You do not really hear people standing up talking about radical change in the program or cutting current beneficiaries. But to listen to the organizations who are concerned about this program talk, when they do their direct mail pieces, you would think that every single day somebody is down here on the floor talking about changes in the program. The program enjoys broad support from the American people. And 85 percent of almost every generation supports Social Security as a program. It has reduced the rates of poverty substantially in this country of people over the age of 65. It has been, in general, a very, very good program. The myth, though, that it is a savings program encourages people to believe that their payroll tax is going into an account that is reserved for them that they own. It is not being reserved for them. Social Security was designed as a collective transfer program. It is social insurance because there are progressive payments made. The connection between what you receive is based upon your income, not based upon what you have contributed. It is very progressive. As a consequence, it has been a program that most, I think, look at as a good way to help, and particularly lower income retirees avoid the trauma of living in poverty at the very time when they are no longer able to produce and earn a living. But it is not savings. That is the most difficult myth of all. There is no account being held here for people that are paying into the program, which leads, Mr. President, to one of the most important reasons that people, like myself, have been arguing for reform. The first one is, as I said earlier, waiting until the end, as we typically do. Mr. Aaron is basically saying: Wait until there is a crisis. There is no crisis. Why act? Wait until there is a crisis, he is saying. Wait another 30 years until there is a crisis, and then act. That is foolishness to do that. The people who are going to pay the price for that are not current beneficiaries, people currently receiving payments. But it will be people under the age of 43 who will have to answer the question, ``Gee, wait a minute. Do I want, in order to preserve my benefits, my kids to pay that kind of payroll tax?'' Look at the kind of payroll tax that they are going to have to pay if you wait for 30 years, if some kind of adjustment is not made before then. One of the flaws, in my judgment, of the 1983 fix was it said that we are going to raise taxes higher than what is necessary for the first time in the 50-year history of the program. The 1983 fix said, we are going to raise taxes higher than what is necessary to prefund the benefits of the baby-boom generation. Then we immediately--rather than setting it aside to be used for the baby-boom generation--we immediately begin to use it to pay for current expenditures. Again, I am not arguing that Social Security contributes to the deficit. But I am prepared to argue that people who get paid by the hour, people whose wages are under $62,400 a year, which if you are looking for a definition of the middle class, you just as well said it there, because everybody over $62,400 does not pay that full 12.4 percent. You only pay it on the first $62,400. Anybody who is under $62,400, understand, you are shouldering more deficit reduction than those above because you are paying higher taxes on your payroll than needed to fund current benefits. I do make the argument that the program needs to be changed sooner rather than later because we want to avoid the crisis, because you want to look out in the future and say that, whether you are a beneficiary who is 20 or 30 or 40, regardless of your age, whatever promise we have on the table we ought to be able to fund it. I believe it was a mistake to change the law in 1983 to have this account building up to this huge amount, first, because we used it for deficit reduction, but, second, I do not think it makes any sense to say that we are only concerned about the beneficiaries over the next 35, 40 years. Whatever promise we have on the table we ought to be able to keep for everyone in perpetuity. Any insurance company has to do that, has to abide by that rule, and we should, as well. To do that, Mr. President, what you need to do is change the funds, so you build it up to a level that keeps it stable and then keeps it there in perpetuity. Whatever payroll taxes are needed, whatever benefits we are promising to pay to future beneficiaries, you should be able to look and have the actuaries run the numbers and say, you have a stable fund, it will be there forever; the benefits that you promised to somebody 20, 30, 40, years ago, you will be able to keep those promises just as you said. The implication given by Mr. Aaron, and I really do regret it, is that the financial managers in America are putting a lot of pressure on Congress to change this program so that it is privatized. First, Mr. Aaron, in this article, says one of the dirty little secrets about privatization is that it requires a tax increase, and nobody is making a proposal in partial privatization. That comes upfront with that. First, it does not require a tax increase in all cases; second, there is a proposal already. Senator Simpson and I introduced legislation that would allow Americans to take 2 percent of their payroll tax and use it, individualize their own wealth. It is fully funded. There is no tax increase in that. I intend to send a copy to Mr. Aaron so he can evaluate it and determine whether he likes the proposal, or the next time he criticizes Congress or a general audience for not having a specific proposal, at least he can offer one exception. Mr. President, I think the privatization argument itself is better framed, rather than, Are you for privatization or against it, better framed, Are you for the individualization of the account? By that I mean, under the proposal of Senator Simpson and myself, what we do is say there is still a collective payment, still a payment, although it is misdescribed by many people. We will promise to transfer from the wages of people who are working, a fixed payment, fixed tax on their wages, and transfer, in a very progressive way, to people who are retired. That will still be there. You will be eligible for early payment if you want it, or a regular payment, or a late payment.

Mr. KERREY. I end with 30 seconds, by merely saying the personal investment plan, as described by Senator Simpson and myself, is not privatization. It is fully funded. And it is, it seems to me, called for in a program which has not been changed fundamentally in 60 years. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment to strike the optional food stamp block grant. This bill provides States ample flexibility to develop their food assistance programs without a block grant structure. We should not place minimum national eligibility and benefit floors for this important food assistance safety net at risk in an effort to provide States with even more flexibility. Maintaining the national standards for food stamps is particularly important under this bill. Children and their families may lose cash assistance under the welfare block grant--even if parents are unable to find work. The National Food Stamp Program ensures that a basic food assistance safety net is still available to these families and prevents children from being at risk for unmet nutritional needs. If we are going to cut funding for cash assistance and block-grant the welfare program, we need to be very conscious of the changes we make to other safety-net programs that also serve poor Americans. Block grants will place both States and food stamp beneficiaries at risk. These block grants would not adjust for increases in unemployment or poverty, or unexpected increases in food prices. States would need to stretch their block grant dollars by providing fewer benefits to each enrollee under these circumstances--or they may be forced to cut eligibility. States do not need an optional food stamp block grant. This bill provides States with substantial new flexibility to design their food stamp programs. For example: States could largely develop their own food stamp benefit rules and they may integrate the food stamp eligibility process with welfare. Federal requirements for employment and training programs related to food stamp eligibility would be repealed--States could design these programs as they choose. States could convert food stamp benefits to wage subsidies. Federal rules that make electronic benefit systems difficult to implement would be repealed, while Federal requirements for food stamp applications, coordination with other safety-net programs, and other administrative rules would also be deleted. These are significant changes to the current Food Stamp Program. States will be better able to design and administer their programs using innovative approaches to promoting work and self-sufficiency for food stamp beneficiaries. We should not also establish a food stamp block grant, thereby eliminating the national floor for eligibility and benefits, thereby threatening low-income children and their families. I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska help me understand a part of the bill. Within the Formerly Used Defense Site Program you have added $25,000,000 for PCB and asbestos removal. We have a situation out at the University of Nebraska where the Department turned over some land and buildings to the university in the 1960's. The problem is that the buildings contained ammunition and are contaminated. We now need to tear them down. However, the cost of structural demolition and removal of the asbestos and contamination within these buildings is considerable. Is the purpose of this $25,000,000 for problems like we have at the University of Nebraska?

Mr. KERREY. I will work with the Department to help the University of Nebraska to demolish these structures and remove this asbestos. I thank the Senator from Alaska. eoa-type systems