J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Karen Davenport, a fellow in my office, be allowed privileges of the Senate floor during our debate and consideration of S. 1028.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to support the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, S. 1028. I believe it is a long-overdue change. As the Senator from Rhode Island and others have said already, it is regarded by some as very incremental. I regard it as one of those very important pieces of legislation. Earlier, we enacted a piece of legislation, ironically, that Senator Kassebaum actually took the lead on last year, which consolidated the job training programs and gave the States a lot more flexibility in designing their own programs. I said at the time that I thought this law was the second most important thing we could take up this year because we know, with certainty, that it is going to effect some 20 million people. It does not cost the taxpayers any money. It does make a change of the law, the Federal law and will alter the way the market works. But it is not the first time that we have interfered with the health care market. One of the most expensive interferences that we have with the health care market is that we allow health insurance to be deducted with offsets against FICA by employers, as well. It is a very important deduction, but it also must be seen by citizens as an interference with the market because it is for upper income people in particular. For people like myself, if I am buying private health insurance, it provides me with a substantial subsidy. It has been a very important way to allow people who otherwise would not be able to purchase health insurance to buy it. So it is not as if this kind of action is without precedent. There is no doubt that close to 21 million Americans will be positively affected by this. They will be able to purchase with their own money health insurance, and still in many cases it is going to be quite high. But nonetheless they are going to have an opportunity to buy it. They are not going to be denied the opportunity to purchase. It does not obliterate the high-risk pool States like Nebraska. We started one when I was Governor. It does not affect States that worked on this for years to try to provide some way to have all of us share a bit of the risk. This bill, as I see it, is designed to accommodate or rather radically change the economy where we are seeing a lot of downsizing, particularly in larger corporations. You have individuals that are covered by group policies from those corporations. They will find themselves very quickly running out of their benefits and having to purchase individual policies. And very often they find themselves faced with the inability to make the purchase. This law will basically say we are all going to share the risk of that in the marketplace so that these individuals can make the purchase. As has already been pointed out, nearly 25 percent of all working Americans who have private sector jobs have job lock as a result of the lack of portability and the lack of ability to be able to purchase with preexisting conditions. Nearly 3.8 million American workers lost their jobs in March. It is a rather substantial paradox that it has become a fact of life that even at a time when the economy continues to grow, even as we have a recovery underway, that we have layoffs that are close to the same number that were occurring during the last recession that we experienced in the early 1990's. Thus, this change in the law accommodates rather substantial change in our economy. One of the things that a lot of us who are older--I am 52--sometimes fail to recognize is that the cost of health care as it has gone up has changed the way people in the market, working people and particularly younger people, face health care expenditures. For example, when my babies were born 20 and 19 years ago I was able to pay cash for them. I did not insure against the risk of having a baby because it was a relatively modest amount of money. You paid for it out of pocket. It was not considered to be a big deal. Today you need to be insured because the normal delivery is expensive. But almost any extended stay in the hospital can put a young family in a great deal of financial distress. That is just one of many, many examples that one could cite; a very relevant example because it is a rather common experience. There are 4 million live births a year in the United States, and an awful lot of those births are in families that are uninsured. This will make it more likely that those families will have insurance and have coverage. It certainly will not get us to where I would like to see us; and, that is, at a point where every single American and legal resident knows with certainty that they have insurance. I hope this is a first step. I will support Senator Kassebaum's and Senator Kennedy's request to vote against all amendments. I believe that this bill needs to go across in an amendment-free fashion. I do not know if I ever stated what Senator Kassebaum is going to support. But I believe this bill is too important for me to be supporting, as Senator Jeffords earlier indicated, an amendment that I would under normal circumstances support. I will vote against that amendment because I believe the bill needs to be clean and clear. It came out of the Labor Committee with unanimous support. We have an opportunity to help 21 million Americans. I think it is very important, in spite of my respect for the Senator from Vermont and admiration for him personally, as well as my normal inclination to vote for that amendment. I believe an amendment-free strategy is the right one to adopt. Mr. President, one of the things that I think we need to do as we move toward universal coverage--and I hope that is the goal--we spend $400 billion a year in Federal direct spending in tax benefits for health care. We spend a sufficient amount. If we would change the way eligibility occurs, one of the things we have to do in order to be able to get there is we all have to face the true cost of health care and very often we do not. Somebody else is paying for it. The insurance company is paying for it--the Government. So we really do not worry about whether or not the bill is high or the bill is low. The more that we can face that cost directly and understand that, if we do not have the resources to pay for it--it is paid for out of an insurance pool, paid for with Medicaid or Medicare, somebody else is essentially paying our bills--the more that we can face that fact the more likely it is that we will move quickly to a point where, if you are an American or legal resident, you will know for certainty that you have health insurance. This morning June O'Neill, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, appeared before the Senate Budget Committee and laid down a rather stark warning; that is, even if the President's budget or the Republican budget were adopted, we still have not controlled the growth of entitlement programs. I say that to colleagues because I think once we get beyond the Presidential election we are going face in 1997 a really rather difficult fact. And I believe June O'Neill laid it out for us this morning; that is, we have commitments on the mandatory side that are going to make it difficult for us to fund education, to fund transportation, to fund defense, to fund space, to fund law enforcement, and to fund all sorts of other things that are going on. Unfortunately, very often that occurs because people believe that they have a right to something, that they have a benefit that actually is paid up, the money is all there, and it is set aside for them--no problems, do not worry about it--when in fact that is not the case. It gets back, it seems to me, to a problem that we have whether it is the tax deductibility, or whether it is Medicare part B. There is sort of a sense that somebody else is paying for it. Why should I have to worry about it? As a consequence, we just are not engaged personally as we ought to be in trying to control the cost of health care, and as a result, it seems to me, it is difficult for us to take the next step. So again I want to say how much I really appreciate very much and applaud the determination of the Senator from Kansas, and the Senator from Massachusetts. They and the Labor Committee voted this out unanimously, and 21 million Americans will be affected positively. Taxpayers will not be on the hook for this thing. It has been measured. It will cost no more than 2 percent in premiums across the country and with reasonable changes in the law given what is happening out in the marketplace. I hope this body will pass it as quickly as possible and get it on to the President for his signature. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to congratulate the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers Men's Basketball Team on their thrilling championship victory over St. Joseph's of Pennsylvania, 60 to 56, in the National Invitational Tournament, the Nation's oldest postseason tournament, at Madison Square Garden on March 28. With their victory, the men's basketball team joins an impressive list of championship seasons this school year for UNL that already includes national champions in football and women's volleyball. Coach Danny Nee and his players overcame considerable adversity this season, having entered the NIT with 10 losses in their last 11 games. But they defeated Colorado State, Washington State, Fresno State, and Tulane in route to the NIT final, and finished what could have been a disappointing season on a very successful note. Mr. President, this is UNL's first ever basketball championship and although some may consider the NIT a second-tier tournament, only two teams in men's NCAA Division One basketball can end their season on a winning note. And I am proud to say, one of them this year is my Alma Mater--the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. Congratulations to Coach Nee, senior guard and NIT MVP Erick Strickland, and the entire Cornhusker men's basketball team on a successful season and a terrific victory. Nebraska is, indeed, proud.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Yes. I ask for 10 minutes, to be charged against the Democratic leader's time.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first let me praise the conferees. Given the acrimony surrounding the debate, and given the lateness of the hour, it is entirely possible for conferees to look and produce nothing, or to produce a bill which the President would have had to veto. I appreciate very much--I know a great deal of movement had to occur in order to resolve many of the conflicts. I applaud them for having produced a piece of legislation that the President has indicated that he will sign and that he would like to revisit next year. Mr. President, I would like to go through some of the things I see are good in this bill. I do intend to vote against it, but there are a number of things that are quite good. First, in the area of conservation, one of the great success stories of farm programs over the past 60 years has been the tremendous improvement in conservation of soil and of water that has occurred on the private property in this country. Very often one of the political lines is used when describing the farm program as ``What a failure it has been.'' But one need only look at the snapshot of what this country looked like in the 1930's versus what it looks like in the 1990's. Indeed, you can go back to the 1980's and see considerable progress just in the last 10 years. It has been a great, often untold story, this success story in this country. This bill authorizes the CRP at 36.4 million acres through 2002. All conservation programs are going to become more responsive to State and local needs since the technical committees that control will be required to include agriculture producers as well as nongovernmental organizations, giving them an expanded role. This is no small item, Mr. President. It empowers people at the State level to come up with plans for the CRP that dovetails with their plans for conservation, their plans for tourism, their plans for water quality. We have tried that at the State level in Nebraska, and I can alert colleagues that groups that typically opposed one another have been able to reach agreement as a consequence of being given the power and control over making these kinds of decisions. There is simplified conservation planning in this legislation for farmers through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Farm Options. It is a tremendous improvement. I applaud the conferees for including it. It provides for pilot wetlands mitigation projects to give farmers flexibility in managing their frequently cropped wetlands that have been badly degraded. It makes many improvements to the law dealing with good-faith violations of conservation requirements and granting of variances from conservation requirements, stemming from ``abandonment'' of farmed wetlands and in defining ``agricultural land'' so the U.S. Department of Agriculture will be the agency responsible for delineating wetlands on pasture, rangelands and tree farms. Next, the Resource Conservation and Development Program, which has also been very successful in my State, is reauthorized through the year 2002. The next big thing I identify is something quite good, spoken at length by many other people, but we have retained permanent authority for farm programs. Thus, we are not phasing out the farm program, not only at the end of 7 years, but the door is open if this program turns out not to be successful, for us to revisit and perhaps change the law. Third, it increases planting flexibility, though we take a step backward from the 1990 farm bill in planting flexibility for farmers who want to plant fruits and vegetables. I am pleased the conferees adopted a provision I requested regarding alfalfa and other forages. For the first time, farmers and ranchers will not be penalized for harvesting alfalfa and other forages on their base or contract agencies. This will help farmers meet their conservation compliance requirements and may result in more conserving-use species being grown on environmentally sensitive land. I point out there was an alternative, called the Farm Security Act, providing tremendous flexibility and simplicity by reverting to the normal crop acreage system, what we, on the Democratic side, proposed and tried to get supported. It would have retained a market orientation but would have provided tremendous new simplicity and flexibility for the farmer. In addition, the rural development programs are improved. The creation of the Rural Community Advancement Program will give States more flexibility to address their individual needs, and the Fund for Rural America will provide additional resources for addressing needs in both rural development and in research. Next, on the negative side, now moving from the good to the bad, depending on your point of view, my point of view is that it is very bad to create a fixed payment system that is, in essence, ignorant of the market, ignorant of the farmer's revenue, and ignorant of whether the farmers even plant a crop. This decoupled program of so-called guaranteed payments is far from being market oriented. It is market ignorant. American taxpayers would not stand for our Government giving AFDC payments to a family making $100,000 a year, any more than they will stand for our Government giving producers a freedom-to-farm payment--up to $230,000, in fact--when that farmer has received record- breaking profits or when he decides not to plant at all. Next, it overpays farmers when revenue is high but leaves farmers without adequate protection during bad years when they need Federal support the most. Worse, the loan rate is capped for the 1995 levels. It can go down, but it can never go up. In a time when farm prices have increased and are projected to remain high for several years, these cap loan rates quickly become as outdated as the crop basis of previous farm bills. Wheat and feed grain farmers, the individual producers themselves, came and said, ``If you take these caps off, we will pay for it by taking reduced guaranteed payments,'' but the majority party refused to make this commonsense change. In 1996, the farm program was expected to cost very little. To be clear on this, in 1985 the farm program cost $26 billion; last year, $10 billion. This year was going to cost $6 billion; next year it is forecasted to be $3 billion as a consequence of prices being high. Farmers are getting a decent income from the market, and the taxpayers are benefiting from the greatly reduced cost of the farm bill. As much as I dislike many of the aspects of the 1990 farm bill, it is undeniable, from a taxpayer's perspective, that the 1990 farm bill was working. Our deficit will actually increase by $4.5 billion by the end of 1997 as a result of this bill. Yesterday, we heard the Secretary of Agriculture come before the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and present the President's budget for 1997 to Congress, and he had to say, ``We did not know what the farm bill would be, so we could not include the farm bill consideration.'' But his budget, assuming spending needs would be the same as they have been under the 1990 farm bill, shows that there is a $3 billion increase in the mandatory side of the farm program payments. So, please understand for those who will vote for this thing and issue the press release talking about how it will be cheaper in the first year, and the budget that we will debating this year, the budget will actually increase on the mandatory side by $3 billion. Increasing mandatory spending by $3 billion in 1997 can mean one of only two things, Mr. President: Either the deficit will increase, or discretionary spending will have to decrease. In the President's 1997 budget, budgetary authority for discretionary spending amounts to $13 billion. Budget authority for mandatory spending is $59 billion, including the nutrition programs. That $13 billion is a $200 million increase over last year. With inflation running about 2\1/2\ percent, that is an actual cut, Mr. President. With this $3 billion increase in the mandated side, unless we bust the budget or find an offset someplace else, we will have to take the discretionary programs down even further than is being recommended by the President. Next, Mr. President, our Nation's neediest people are shortchanged by this bill, since the Food Stamp Program is reauthorized for only 2 years. Only 2 years' authorization of food stamps, while farmers are supposedly guaranteed payments up to $230,000 for 7 years. Research is shortchanged as well, Mr. President, with programs being authorized only through 1997. This is a result of the House insistence that we should force ourselves to craft a new bill dealing with research within that time period. I agree our research program should be reexamined and updated. However, if the past 14 months is any indication of how quickly the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and Congress as a whole will act to reauthorize agriculture-related programs, the majority's insistence of only a 21-month authorization for research is not a very good idea. Less planting flexibility for farmers who grow fruits and vegetables is the next objection I have, Mr. President. Potatoes, in particular, is a crop grown increasingly in my State, and not only grown but also processed. So it is an important source of jobs. Under the 1990 farm bill, the current law, any farmer could plant potatoes as long as that farmer agreed to give up any Federal subsidy on the acres that were planted to potatoes. That is fair policy. Unfortunately, I was unable to persuade the majority that we should adopt the same policy of planting flexibility for potato growers under this bill. Instead, the conferees adopted a provision that will create an allocation system, a quota, Mr. President, for farmers who want to plant potatoes or other fruits and vegetables on contract areas. Instead of allowing any farmer to plant potatoes, if the farmer agrees to forego his Federal subsidy it limits potato production on contract acres to three situations: First, a region with a history of double planting; next, a planting history that includes potatoes; and farmers that can prove to the U.S. Government, the USDA, they have grown potatoes in the past, but that farmer is limited to planting no more than his average production of potatoes in the 1991-95 period. So in conclusion, we are saying freedom to farm, more flexibility, but you are not able to do what you are allowed under the old farm bill, which is, if you want to plant an alternative crop you are allowed to take a decreased payment off your normal base. I object to this arbitrary planting restriction, particularly since farmers of each of the three situations must also give up their guaranteed payment. Mr. President, the last time the Congress failed to enact a farm bill during the year it was due was in 1947. I point out, in 1990, when this bill was being debated, when the current law was being debated, in July 1990, there was a great debate over an amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, Senator Bentsen. What he said was, we are going to authorize the Secretary--any section of this farm bill is extended during that 5-year period to reauthorize the rest of the farm bill. Why? Because the Republicans at this time were quite concerned--there was a colloquy between the distinguished Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Kansas saying, we have to do this because July is too late. We waited far too long, Mr. President, this time around. 1947 was the last year when this happened. That year there was a Democrat in the White House and Republicans controlled the House and the Senate. In my judgment, we are going to have to do the same thing that the voters did in 1948 to break the current logjam we have on the farm bill and the appropriations bill if the American people's will is not going to continue to be frustrated. However, the conference committee--as I said at the beginning, I must revert to praise--the conference committee does a terrific job. They could have ended the day and passed nothing. They were up against a time line--self-imposed, in my judgment--as a result of not getting the work done. That having been said, it would have been very easy for them to have passed something the President could not have signed. I hope that the political changes in 1996 present us with an opportunity to revisit this bill on behalf of farmers who need income, on behalf of people in communities who depend upon that income for jobs, on behalf of the taxpayers who are going to pay for it, and, most important, on behalf of the American consumer. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to extend the water service contracts for irrigation projects in Nebraska and Kansas. Mr. President, a little over 50 years ago, Congress authorized construction of a set of water management projects as a part of the Flood Control Act of 1944. These projects were designed to provide control, conservation, and use of water resources throughout the Missouri River basin. Known as the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, the system has provided flood control, power generation and irrigation to over 3.7 million acres, as well as stream pollution abatement, sediment control, water supplies for cities and industry, enhancement of fish and wildlife, and recreation opportunities. Each of the projects had 40-year water service contracts for irrigation with the Bureau of Reclamation, in the Department of the Interior. These contracts are beginning to expire. In fact, three of those 40-year contracts will expire on December 31 of this year. Though the procedures for contract renewal were not spelled out, it is clear that contract renewal was considered when the original agreements were made. It is also clear that an immediate extension of the service contracts is necessary. Extending these contracts will give the Bureau of Reclamation the necessary time to complete the contract renewal process as well as provide us time to collect input to fully evaluate our options and maximize the benefits of the best option. The legislation I introduce today is straight-forward and simple: It would extend each of 10 water service contracts upon expiration for a period of 4 years. The terms of each contract would be the same as those originally negotiated. I am glad to be able to say that this legislation has the full and bipartisan support of each Senator from both of the affected States, Nebraska and Kansas. It has been a real pleasure to work with each of my cosponsors on an issue where we found such clear and easy agreement, both about what needed to be done and how to get there. So, on behalf of myself, the majority leader, Bob Dole, my friend and fellow Nebraskan Jim Exon, Nancy Kassebaum, and the thousands of Nebraskans, Kansans, and visitors who benefit from these projects, I introduce the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1996.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to extend the water service contracts for irrigation projects in Nebraska and Kansas. Mr. President, a little over 50 years ago, Congress authorized construction of a set of water management projects as a part of the Flood Control Act of 1944. These projects were designed to provide control, conservation, and use of water resources throughout the Missouri River basin. Known as the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, the system has provided flood control, power generation and irrigation to over 3.7 million acres, as well as stream pollution abatement, sediment control, water supplies for cities and industry, enhancement of fish and wildlife, and recreation opportunities. Each of the projects had 40-year water service contracts for irrigation with the Bureau of Reclamation, in the Department of the Interior. These contracts are beginning to expire. In fact, three of those 40-year contracts will expire on December 31 of this year. Though the procedures for contract renewal were not spelled out, it is clear that contract renewal was considered when the original agreements were made. It is also clear that an immediate extension of the service contracts is necessary. Extending these contracts will give the Bureau of Reclamation the necessary time to complete the contract renewal process as well as provide us time to collect input to fully evaluate our options and maximize the benefits of the best option. The legislation I introduce today is straight-forward and simple: It would extend each of 10 water service contracts upon expiration for a period of 4 years. The terms of each contract would be the same as those originally negotiated. I am glad to be able to say that this legislation has the full and bipartisan support of each Senator from both of the affected States, Nebraska and Kansas. It has been a real pleasure to work with each of my cosponsors on an issue where we found such clear and easy agreement, both about what needed to be done and how to get there. So, on behalf of myself, the majority leader, Bob Dole, my friend and fellow Nebraskan Jim Exon, Nancy Kassebaum, and the thousands of Nebraskans, Kansans, and visitors who benefit from these projects, I introduce the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1996.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Missouri in expressing opposition to the provision contained in the House bill which will restrict our ability to move forward in Vietnam. I believe both the Senate and the President have clearly expressed their opposition to this provision in the past. The inclusion of this provision in the fiscal year 1996 Commerce- State-Justice conference report was cited by the President as one of the reasons for his veto of that legislation. Furthermore the President has indicated that he intends to veto the Foreign Relations Authorization Act in part because of the inclusion of this provision that will limit his ability to further normalize relations with Vietnam. Specifically, he warns this provision ``could threaten the progress that has been made on POW/MIA issues * * *'' I strongly opposed this restriction last fall, and I will oppose it just as strongly in this conference.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I support this amendment which will provide $3,900,000 in supplemental funding to the Office of National Drug Control Policy to permit our new Drug Czar, General McCaffrey to increase staffing by some 80 full-time equivalent positions. During the debate on fiscal year 1996 funding for this Office, many of us were critical of the administration's dedication to reducing drug use in this country. Continued surveys show that drug use among our Nation's youth, particularly those aged 12-17, show increases for use across the spectrum of illegal drugs. The latest National Household Survey, released early this year, found that any drug use, and specifically, crack and cocaine use for 12 to 17-year-olds had increased above the previous year. In addition, the recent Pulse Check Survey found that the distribution of heroin and cocaine by the same dealers and in the same markets appear in more areas than ever before. Equally disturbing, Mr. President, is the fact that the number of hard-core drug users remains unchanged despite an investment of over $100 billion on the so-called ``War on Drugs'' since 1987. In 1987 we had 2.7 million hard-core drug users; in 1996, we still have 2.7 million hard-core drug users. The significance of these statistics, Mr. President, is that while hardcore drug represent less than 1 percent of the population in this country, they consume 66 percent of all illegal drugs and are responsible for 34-36 percent of all violent crime in this country. It very well could be that this is a given, that no matter what we do to reduce drug use in this country, we will always have 2.7 million hardcore users. However, I believe we have an obligation to see that we use the latest innovations in both the public and private arenas to reach this group, Mr. President, before we write them off. We have a new Drug Czar, who I believe, exemplifies the meaning of the word ``Czar''. He is a decorated war hero and general and someone who brings enormous credibility to this drug war. I have met with him, Mr. President, and he is very impressive. General McCaffrey has taken this job, not because he wanted it or sought it out, but because he recognizes the devastating effects drug abuse has on this country and he wants to personally dedicate himself to seeing that we do conduct an all-out effort, on every level, to rid this country from the scourge of drugs for the long term. He has asked for the resources he believes he needs to put together a strategy that will work. What we've done up to this point clearly is not working. He has asked for an additional $3.4 million to increase the number of full-time staff at ONDCP to 125. In addition, he has requested permission to detail 30 planners from the Department of Defense to ONDCP. Currently, ONDCP has 45 personnel who are responsible for overseeing the proper implementation of an annual $14.6 billion national drug control budget. The Office budget is currently $7.5 million. If this amendment is successful, it will bring the total budget for his office operations up to $11.4 million or less than 1 percent of the total annual amount spent on Federal drug control programs. Mr. President, General McCaffrey has the confidence of this Senator and Members on both sides of the aisle, to lead our anti-drug efforts. I think we have an obligation to give him an opportunity to show us what he can do. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Daschle- Harkin amendment. This amendment adds back $3.1 billion for vital education programs such as title I, Head Start, School-to-Work, and Education Technology. I have often said that children will do as we do and not as we say. If we want our children to value learning and discovery, we just value them as well and demonstrate by our actions here in the Senate that we are willing to invest in their education and their futures by providing the money necessary to ensure a quality learning experience for all our children. Recent polls show that education is a national priority among all Americans. These polls reflect what I have been hearing from Nebraskans--that Americans want their tax dollars to go to a strong education system--a system that will work for all its citizens. They are willing to spend more if they get more for their money. We must be willing to invest in education and spearhead a national commitment to achieve results in every school, rich and poor. As I examine the programs that will receive additional funding under this amendment, I am struck by the fact that these dollars will be providing opportunities for our young people to do exactly what we all as parents admonish them to do--prepare themselves to live meaningful and productive lives. Under this amendment, we add back money to Head Start to enable our youngest citizens to enter school prepared to learn; to title I to allow our economically disadvantaged youth the opportunities afforded more affluent students; to vocational, school- to-work and summer jobs for youth programs to train, and educate our young people for the future workplace; and to technology programs such as STAR schools to provide exciting resources for all our students regardless of geographical limitations. All of these programs are vital to my State of Nebraska, as they are in States throughout our country. I hear daily from Nebraskans who are concerned about the cuts to education being considered by Congress. They understand the serious budget considerations with which we are faced. However, they urge us to set our priorities in much the same way they prioritize their own budgets, and to secure our future by investing in our youth. To those who argue that money will not solve our schools' problems, I will counter that we should put real money on the line here, not just spare change. It is past time for us to stop wishing our schools get better and start doing something about it. We are losing too many of our young people of all economic backgrounds to drugs, despair, and underachievement. We must be willing to invest in education just as we have been willing to invest in our national defense when our Nation's security has been at stake, because in a very real sense, our national security is at stake here. Mr. President, as is so often the case when we are fighting for increased funding for discretionary programs such as these, it is becoming more and more difficult to secure the dollars necessary to make a difference. I am convinced that unless we are willing to commit to reforming our entitlement system, we will be unable to adequately fund vital education programs such as these. I urge my colleagues to support the Daschle-Harkin amendment. By doing so, we will demonstrate our commitment to our children and their future. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I support the Hollings-Daschle technology amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor. In particular, this amendment adds $32 million for the Telecommunications Information and Infrastructure Assistance Program [TIIAP] under the National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA], which I strongly support. When TIIAP was slated for elimination in the fiscal year 1996 Commerce-Justice-State-Judiciary appropriations bill (H.R. 2076), I offered an amendment with Senators Snowe, Daschle, Leahy, Lieberman and Jeffords that restored $18.9 million for this valuable program. The motion to table my amendment was defeated overwhelmingly by a bipartisan vote of 64 to 33, reversing a death sentence for a competitive, merit-based program that empowers people by linking rural and underserved communities to advanced telecommunications technologies. Mr. President, the Federal seed money from TIIAP is generating partnerships and matching investments that are helping communities in my State of Nebraska and across the Nation join the information revolution. In Beatrice, NE, which previously had no meaningful way to communicate electronically, a TIIAP grant is funding the Beatrice Connection. Beginning next month, the Beatrice Connection will link the entire community--its public schools, library, community college, city government, and residents--using a metropolitan area network [MAN] and wireless communications. In Lincoln, NE, TIIAP is empowering people through InterLinc, which provides dial-up, toll-free Internet access to low-income, ethnically diverse, and rural areas of Lincoln and its surrounding rural communities. InterLinc also provides on-line access to Government agencies, thus permitting citizens greater ease in using Government services. Information and communications are fast becoming the keys to economic success in this country and around the world. By the 21st century, these industries will represent close to one-sixth of the world economy. Yet according to a recent study, by the year 2000, 60 percent of jobs in this country will require skills held by only 20 percent of the population. Our kids will not be able to compete with a software programmer in New Delhi or Tokyo if they do not have access to computers and the Internet. Currently, however, many communities do not have access to advanced information or communications either at home, in the local school, or the local library. I receive numerous letters and telephone calls from Nebraskans, particularly from educators and health care practitioners, who want affordable access to Internet and other advanced telecommunications resources. According to NTIA, this lack of access is most pronounced in rural and inner city communities, which could spell disaster for the future of many youths. TIIAP is specifically designed to connect these communities to the kinds of information they need to find educational opportunities, job training, new employment, and better medical care. TIIAP grants are bridging information gaps for children from farming communities, who are downloading images of the planets and exchanging e-mail with space scientists. Emergency room doctors in remote rural areas are using computer networks and video imaging to consult with specialists in major medical centers to diagnose injuries and deliver life-saving care. And teachers are upgrading their skills by taking advanced courses through the Internet without leaving their school building. TIIAP provides seed money for everything from computer links to professional development to advanced software. Many innovative projects would never get off the ground without the assistance provided by this program. TIIAP represents the best Federal investment we can make in this area--it is oriented toward the future, it is highly competitive, and every Federal dollar is matched by one or more private dollars. Grants totaling $24.4 million in 1994 generated $40 million in matching funds to support projects in health care, education, economic development, infrastructure planning, and library services. Mr. President, the constant fight to fund TIIAP shows how difficult it is becoming to make investments in the United States as entitlement programs continue to grow and consume large portions of the Federal budget. I am committed to reforming entitlements precisely because, if we fail to do so, programs like TIIAP and others funded by the Hollings-Daschle amendment will become a memory. The amendment which I am cosponsoring today would fund 100 additional TIIAP awards in fiscal year 1996, connecting more schools, libraries, and public health facilities to telecommunications technology. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Hollings-Daschle amendment, to ensure that major portions of our country are not left out of the information age.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Chairman Specter to introduce legislation. We are embarking on a course to change the U.S. intelligence community, and this legislation is the chart upon which we will be marking that course. Over a year ago, Congress created a Presidential commission to evaluate the intelligence community's ability to respond to a rapidly changing world. Sadly, the commission's first chairman, the Honorable Les Aspin, passed away after he had ably established the Commission and they had started their work. We owe many debts of gratitude to Les Aspin, and this legislation is one more example of the fine work he did in the service of his country. Chairman Harold Brown and our former colleague, Vice Chairman Warren Rudman, quickly took the helm, and the Commission embarked on almost a year's evaluation of the U.S. Government's intelligence needs and the intelligence community's ability to meet those needs. We are especially grateful to our able colleagues, Senator John Warner and Senator Jim Exon, who played important and active roles in the Commission's work. Their broad base of experience coupled with the other Commission members' outstanding credentials permitted a wide variety of views and ideas to come together. There are no assumptions here. They looked wide and deep. They interviewed over 200 experts and received formal testimony from 84 witnesses. It was a remarkable effort which has produced a significant report. I do not concur with all their recommendations, and there are some areas in which they do not go as far as I would. I look on their report as a solid base upon which Congress and the administration can build. For me, one of the most important results of their evaluation is their reaffirmation of the need for intelligence. Intelligence contributes heavily to most of our national decisions about foreign policy, law enforcement, and military matters. I am convinced intelligence is the edge we must have in the face of stiff global competition for leadership, and as our Government fulfills its responsibility to protect Americans in an increasingly dangerous world. The Brown Commission clearly explains why this is so. The Brown Commission recognized the world today is very different from the world which existed while the Intelligence Community was growing up. Confronted with the overwhelming military threat of the Soviet Union, the intelligence community responded by organizing itself to examine every part of that military threat as best as it could. While some critics argue that the intelligence community missed the big ones--the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet economy-- there is no question the United States was ably informed on the Soviet Union's military threat. But that threat, while still capable of attacking us, is receding. Today, the threats, facing the United States do not initially present themselves as military threats--although if we fail to recognize them in time, we have to deploy our military when nothing else works. The erosion of nation-state power in many places, the rise of transnational movements and global crime, and the fierce economic competition we face, have together created a new set of threats that are not military soluble. Insight and predictive analysis is as important in charting the American course in this new world as it was in the old world of superpower military confrontation. We must make sure the intelligence community is optimally organized for this new world. That is why I urge consideration of the Brown Commission report, and why the Intelligence Committee will take up these and other reform proposals in the months ahead. The Brown Commission establishes three recurring themes about intelligence: The need to better integrate intelligence into the policy community; the need for intelligence agencies to operate as a community; the need to create greater efficiency. These themes are clearly discernible and they also are quite consistent with a large segment of the public's view on intelligence: Something is wrong. If everything was all right, we wouldn't have a heinous spy like Aldrich Ames; we wouldn't have missed the fall of the wall or the collapse of the Soviet Union; we wouldn't have a palace for an NRO headquarters building; we wouldn't have unspent billions of NRO dollars sitting around unused and waiting for a rainy day. I agree that we need to better integrate intelligence with policy, enhance the effectiveness of the community and improve its efficiency. The time for reorganization is upon us. The Brown Commission has made many important recommendations that address each of these themes. The Intelligence Committee will evaluate them closely. But I have already concluded that in some areas the Commission did not go far enough to ensure intelligence is integrated, effective, and efficient in a world continuing to evolve. In my view, the authorities of the Director of Central Intelligence need to be strengthened beyond what the Commission recommended, and the many agencies of the Intelligence Community need to be pulled into a closer relationship. There is no other way to make sure both the national and military customer get what they need, and there is also no other way to wring redundancy and excess cost out of the system. I do not want leave the impression that U.S. intelligence is broken. Something is wrong, but the Nation is well-served by the men and women of the intelligence agencies serving around the world. Their patriotism and technical competence is unquestioned. Moreover, the director of Central Intelligence, John Deutch, has brought outstanding leadership to the community. Working closely with Secretary Perry, he already has set a new course for intelligence. The corporate culture which allowed an Aldrich Ames to continue is being dismembered. Congressional notification of significant intelligence activities has never been more prompt and complete. We need to institutionalize these changes and the superb cooperative relationship that exists between Director Deutch and Secretary Perry. Intelligence must and will serve all of its customers with timely, comprehensive, and hard-hitting analysis. The Brown Commission's recommendations have provided us with the basis to make this happen. In conclusion, I want to thank Chairman Specter for his leadership on this issue. His close attention to the challenges facing the intelligence community and their solutions has created an environment where the committee can draft this legislation in a thoughtful, informed environment.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Chairman Specter to introduce legislation. We are embarking on a course to change the U.S. intelligence community, and this legislation is the chart upon which we will be marking that course. Over a year ago, Congress created a Presidential commission to evaluate the intelligence community's ability to respond to a rapidly changing world. Sadly, the commission's first chairman, the Honorable Les Aspin, passed away after he had ably established the Commission and they had started their work. We owe many debts of gratitude to Les Aspin, and this legislation is one more example of the fine work he did in the service of his country. Chairman Harold Brown and our former colleague, Vice Chairman Warren Rudman, quickly took the helm, and the Commission embarked on almost a year's evaluation of the U.S. Government's intelligence needs and the intelligence community's ability to meet those needs. We are especially grateful to our able colleagues, Senator John Warner and Senator Jim Exon, who played important and active roles in the Commission's work. Their broad base of experience coupled with the other Commission members' outstanding credentials permitted a wide variety of views and ideas to come together. There are no assumptions here. They looked wide and deep. They interviewed over 200 experts and received formal testimony from 84 witnesses. It was a remarkable effort which has produced a significant report. I do not concur with all their recommendations, and there are some areas in which they do not go as far as I would. I look on their report as a solid base upon which Congress and the administration can build. For me, one of the most important results of their evaluation is their reaffirmation of the need for intelligence. Intelligence contributes heavily to most of our national decisions about foreign policy, law enforcement, and military matters. I am convinced intelligence is the edge we must have in the face of stiff global competition for leadership, and as our Government fulfills its responsibility to protect Americans in an increasingly dangerous world. The Brown Commission clearly explains why this is so. The Brown Commission recognized the world today is very different from the world which existed while the Intelligence Community was growing up. Confronted with the overwhelming military threat of the Soviet Union, the intelligence community responded by organizing itself to examine every part of that military threat as best as it could. While some critics argue that the intelligence community missed the big ones--the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet economy-- there is no question the United States was ably informed on the Soviet Union's military threat. But that threat, while still capable of attacking us, is receding. Today, the threats, facing the United States do not initially present themselves as military threats--although if we fail to recognize them in time, we have to deploy our military when nothing else works. The erosion of nation-state power in many places, the rise of transnational movements and global crime, and the fierce economic competition we face, have together created a new set of threats that are not military soluble. Insight and predictive analysis is as important in charting the American course in this new world as it was in the old world of superpower military confrontation. We must make sure the intelligence community is optimally organized for this new world. That is why I urge consideration of the Brown Commission report, and why the Intelligence Committee will take up these and other reform proposals in the months ahead. The Brown Commission establishes three recurring themes about intelligence: The need to better integrate intelligence into the policy community; the need for intelligence agencies to operate as a community; the need to create greater efficiency. These themes are clearly discernible and they also are quite consistent with a large segment of the public's view on intelligence: Something is wrong. If everything was all right, we wouldn't have a heinous spy like Aldrich Ames; we wouldn't have missed the fall of the wall or the collapse of the Soviet Union; we wouldn't have a palace for an NRO headquarters building; we wouldn't have unspent billions of NRO dollars sitting around unused and waiting for a rainy day. I agree that we need to better integrate intelligence with policy, enhance the effectiveness of the community and improve its efficiency. The time for reorganization is upon us. The Brown Commission has made many important recommendations that address each of these themes. The Intelligence Committee will evaluate them closely. But I have already concluded that in some areas the Commission did not go far enough to ensure intelligence is integrated, effective, and efficient in a world continuing to evolve. In my view, the authorities of the Director of Central Intelligence need to be strengthened beyond what the Commission recommended, and the many agencies of the Intelligence Community need to be pulled into a closer relationship. There is no other way to make sure both the national and military customer get what they need, and there is also no other way to wring redundancy and excess cost out of the system. I do not want leave the impression that U.S. intelligence is broken. Something is wrong, but the Nation is well-served by the men and women of the intelligence agencies serving around the world. Their patriotism and technical competence is unquestioned. Moreover, the director of Central Intelligence, John Deutch, has brought outstanding leadership to the community. Working closely with Secretary Perry, he already has set a new course for intelligence. The corporate culture which allowed an Aldrich Ames to continue is being dismembered. Congressional notification of significant intelligence activities has never been more prompt and complete. We need to institutionalize these changes and the superb cooperative relationship that exists between Director Deutch and Secretary Perry. Intelligence must and will serve all of its customers with timely, comprehensive, and hard-hitting analysis. The Brown Commission's recommendations have provided us with the basis to make this happen. In conclusion, I want to thank Chairman Specter for his leadership on this issue. His close attention to the challenges facing the intelligence community and their solutions has created an environment where the committee can draft this legislation in a thoughtful, informed environment.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate today to express my opposition to the legislation currently under consideration. While the Helms-Burton legislation seeks to hasten the end of the Castro regime in Cuba--a goal that is shared by every Member of this body--I am concerned that it will in fact do more to damage our larger foreign policy goals than bring about a democratically elected government in Cuba. The shootdown by the Cuban military of two unarmed United States civilian aircraft engaged in humanitarian activities in international airspace is reprehensible. This clear violation of international law required a strong U.S. response--a response which was delivered by the Clinton administration immediately following the attack. Charter flights between the United States and Cuba were suspended, steps were taken to compensate the victims' families from Cuban assets frozen in the United States, and the United States led a successful campaign in the U.N. Security Council to strongly deplore the unprovoked attack on these unarmed aircraft. Mr. President, there is now great pressure for those of us in the Senate to voice our distaste for the Castro regime by passing the Helms-Burton legislation. I will vote against this bill, not because I am opposed to trying to tighten sanctions on Castro's Government, but because I believe that provisions of the Helms-Burton bill would have a detrimental effect on relations with our closest allies. Last fall, I voted in favor of the Senate version of this bill which, in my opinion, represented a bipartisan approach to strengthening economic sanctions on Cuba. The Senate bill included provisions which sought to include the international community in our efforts to ratchet down the pressure on the Castro regime while holding out the promise of United States assistance to a post-Castro Cuban Government striving to achieve democratic, free-market reforms in Cuba. I still support this approach, and believe our policy should continue to move in this direction. However, the bill that we have before us today includes provisions not in the version that passed the Senate. Titles III and IV of Helms-Burton will open the floodgates to new lawsuits in U.S. courts and will put us in an adversarial position in our relations with our allies throughout the world. Provisions of title III and IV which give United States citizens the right to sue foreign companies that operate in Cuba are viewed by our allies as an attempt by the United States to act unilaterally to dictate to them a Cuba policy. This will undoubtedly lead to resentment and resistance to future United States policy efforts in connection with Cuba. Rather than alienating our allies, our policies toward Cuba should seek to be inclusive. It is far too easy to vote in favor of Helms-Burton as an emotional response to Castro's unlawful shootdown of United States civilian aircraft, but to do so would ignore the negative impact this legislation will have on our foreign policy objectives both in Cuba and in a larger sense. Mr. President, it is my hope that we will be able to separate our current anger at the Castro Government from these proceedings. I say this not to minimize the gravity of Cuba's actions, nor would I necessarily rule out further action against Castro, but rather because I believe that the legislation before us will hurt our ability to exact change in Cuba. By straining our relations with our closest allies, it is my fear that we will further isolate ourselves from the international community on this issue, and that in the future we will be unable to work on a multilateral basis to bring about a democratic Cuba. I conclude, Mr. President, by urging my colleagues to fully consider their vote today in the larger context of how this legislation will affect U.S. foreign policy.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I thank the Chair. For years, the principal criticism of the farm program has been an inaccurate one, but it has been an effective one, that American farmers are being paid not to farm; converting acres is a payment not to farm; farmers are going to get paid for wetlands regulation, lots of other things. They are certainly not paid not to farm. In this program, the way it is written, the law basically says that the Government will calculate the number of acres that you are eligible for based on 4, 5 years of farming using Farm Service Office numbers. The Farm Service Office will then say, ``Here is what your yields are.'' Both of them, by the way, have built in inequities because that is another problem. The Government will say, ``Here is your number of acres, your yield, multiply your numbers and take 85 percent, then add all the acreage up and all those bushels up.'' It will take the total dollars available for that crop, divide it into the total bushels, and that is how many cents you will get. And you will get half your payment in June and half in September. The only three things you have to do to get the payment is the following: First, comply with the conservation requirements; second, comply with the wetlands requirements; and, third, promise not to plant more than 15 percent alfalfa and not to plant fruits and vegetables. Other than that, you do not have to promise to do anything. There will not be any question. Farmers may make a calculation, ``Maybe I would be smarter not to plant at all. I don't have to plant under this. I don't have to put a crop in and do anything other than take the Government money which they are offering.'' It is a very reasonable amendment, and it seems to me it is very much consistent with the arguments and representations and presentations that advocates of freedom to farm have been making all this day.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from South Dakota. I believe this conference report is substantially improved from both the House and the Senate bill. I voted against the bill when it left here, and I intend to support the conference report in its current form. I appreciate in particular the language that provides a more meaningful role for the Department of Justice. I, frankly, would have preferred the language which the Commerce Committee produced last year. I think that would have been better than the 14-part interconnection competitive checklist requirement that is in there. But I think that a meaningful role, including the substantial weight requirement for the Department of Justice, will make it more likely that we will see competition at the local level. I appreciate very much the concern of both the chairman and the ranking member, concern about including some good consumer protection provisions as well as the inclusion of interconnectivity language, incidental interLATA relief for the RBOC's to provide Internet and interactive distance learning services to K through 12 schools, and the so-called Snowe-Rockefeller-Exon-Kerrey, et al, language that will allow the K through 12 schools to be able to go either to the Public Service Commission or the FCC. They will now have the force of law to be able to argue for subsidized rates. I particularly appreciate as well, finally, the inclusion of the so- called farm team provisions in the conference report. Mr. President, when the request came for a unanimous consent on a time agreement, I asked for 15 minutes. I do not know if it will take that long given where I am right now in my comments. I will observe, as I did on a number of occasions during the debate earlier on the bill, that this is a very unusual piece of legislation in that the demand for it is not coming from the citizens; it is really coming from corporations, the whole range of corporations--I do not mean the RBOC's; I mean RBOC's, long-distance, cable, broadcast; all of them are in this business--that feel the current law, which does not allow them to do a variety of things, is too restrictive. And they say, if you change the law and allow us to do these things, you are going to generate a lot of new economic activity and create new jobs. We have heard all kinds of representations about all the good things that are going to happen. I am an advocate for embracing the future and changing the current law. So there is no question in my mind that the Communications Act needs to be changed. But I am very mindful and very aware that the demand for this change does not come from at least the citizens of Nebraska, whom I represent. I did not hear any question in my reelection campaign in 1994 coming from citizens saying, ``Well, Senator, how do you feel about the regulation of local telephone, long distance, and so forth, because I do not like the structure? I am unhappy with my phone, I am unhappy with my cable, or I am unhappy with my network service, whatever it is I am buying.'' Yes. They might complain sometimes about the rates and have concerns about that sort of thing, and a lot of concern about the content, pornography, violence, and so forth. But nobody was really coming to me asking for this change. This is Congress initiating change and saying it is going to be good for the people. It must be said, Mr. President, that that requires a substantial amount of courage at the beginning. It is not my intention to come here and say that Members who are enthusiastic about this change are under the influence of special interest money. That is not my point at all. I am not trying to say that any Member has been bought out or anything like that. The problem, though, when you once cross the line, is saying, OK, we are going to try to do something that is good for the people. It seems to me that you have to do, in an irrationally cold- blooded way, an analysis of what the impact is going to be. There are about 100 million households in the United States of America, and we have achieved, over the 60 years of this Communications Act, a remarkable degree of not just penetration, but of universal service. Ninety-four percent of all households today have a telephone. It may be significantly lower than that when the Communications Act was passed in 1934. But we did not do it by saying let us let the market run wild. We did it by monopoly, by creating a monopoly and giving monopoly rights in 1934. We changed it substantially by divestiture. But even with divestiture, we retained monopoly rights for local telephone service. We have accomplished a remarkable thing. Yes, there are market forces. There is lots of private capital. Most of these companies are private shareowner companies. But we have achieved not just universal service, but by all accounts the best telephone and telecommunications system in the world, an active, vibrant industry, competitive industry, and it is a great success story. So when we radically alter the landscape, as we are with this legislation, it seems to me appropriate to sort of ask ourselves: What is the consumer going to get out of it? I know the one thing that is going to happen is that the subsidy that has been in place for all these years at the local level in order to achieve universal service is going to begin to come off. Say I have a market. If I am going to be out there trying to compete with a long distance company, to compete with a cable company, whoever, at the local level, that subsidy is going to come off. Indeed, the regional Bell operating company in our region has already indicated they would like to increase the residential rate by a $2 State subscriber-line charge in order to provide lower costs for long distance. For those of us whose incomes are over $100,000, that sounds like a pretty good deal. We have a lot of long distance charges. But there are, I would surmise, a majority of Americans for whom long distance is still a bit of a luxury. They budget it. They watch it. They are careful about it. They do not have unlimited long distance service. They may not come out so good in that transaction. In fact, one of the things that is very often not understood in this whole debate about universal service is there still is a substantial means test on it. Ninety-nine percent of the households in America with incomes over $100,000, which includes all of us in Congress, have telephones. Only 75 percent with incomes under $5,000 have telephones, largely because of cost. They probably would say, ``I cannot afford it. I cannot afford to buy it. So I am not going to have a telephone connected to my house.'' There is a means test on these services. There is a means test as these dollar figures go up for the cost of local service. I think you are going to see people say, ``I cannot afford it any longer. I cannot afford to pay the price.'' Though we have some protection in the farm team universal service provisions, I think that we are going to have to be alert in the first instance that there are going to be households out there currently able to afford the fare who are going to find themselves saying, ``I cannot afford it any longer.'' I think, on the basis of policy, if the market does not get the job done, we as Members of Congress are going to have to ask ourselves a question: Well, what is it like if you are in a household without a telephone? How essential is it? How important, how valuable is it? One measure is going to be: Can I get out and talk to the people who may need to come to my household and haul me to the hospital if I have a heart attack or some other sort of health problem? But increasingly the question is going to be not only if I do not have the dial tone, but if I do not have the volume, the enhanced services, I may not be able to get as good an education as my neighbor, I may not be able to get as good a break with the economy, I may not be able to have a home-based company. One out of seven jobs in the State of Nebraska are self-employed today. We are seeing an increasing number of households that, in fact, are taking advantage of enhanced telecommunications services. I think we are going to have to be alert to that in the second instance. Many Americans are not going to be able to buy enhanced services. I think there is general agreement among Republicans and Democrats, before you ever get to the point of are we going to spend money, that this land of opportunity ought to be a land of opportunity for everybody. That opportunity does not necessarily fall equally as a consequence of your birth. The next thing, Mr. President, that I think we are going to have to be alert to is this question of the control of content. I have heard the concentration debate. I appreciate very much the language changes made in the legislation on media concentration. I think that we do have to worry about this even though there are all kinds of other choices out there. All of us know it is the networks that dominate this deal. If the networks decide they want to raise a stink about something, they will raise a stink about something and they will drive it into the household. If they decide they are not going to, as the distinguished majority leader said earlier about the sale of digital spectrum, they are not going to say anything about it. They are not going to talk about that ripoff. They are not going to talk about something that might have an impact upon them. This concentration issue is a very important issue, and we, it seems to me, are going to have to be alert to it and watch it very carefully in the aftermath of passing this conference report, and watch what happens to universal service. Is there change in rural America? Are there people who are genuinely not going to get service? We have accomplished a great thing in the United States of America with universal service. Second, we are going to have to watch very carefully as to whether or not people can afford to buy enhanced services. The laws of this land ought to provide equal opportunity for all Americans who are willing to make the effort. It ought to reward people who work hard and are determined through self-discipline to be a success. We need to be careful over this legislation and watch in the aftermath and see what the impact is going to be. Finally, whether it is in education or whether it is in health care or whether it is merely trying to find out what is going on in your country with the budget and other sorts of things, we are going to have to pay a great deal of attention to content. Content determines what an individual receives in their household. We do not want to follow this legislation sort of blindly in presuming it is going to in all cases do good. Again, I intend to vote for the conference report. I appreciate very much the efforts made by the distinguished chairman, the Senator from South Dakota, and the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from South Carolina. I think this conference report is substantially better than the bill that we earlier passed. I believe it will in the main be good for the economy, but there is a great deal of scrutiny that is going to have to occur in the aftermath of this legislation being enacted and signed by the President. Mr. President, the conference report before us is substantially better than the bill that this body considered last summer for competition and consumers, for a number of reasons. First, the House and Senate bills did not contain a meaningful role for the Department of Justice [DOJ] in safeguarding competition before local telephone companies are allowed to enter new markets. Under the conference report, the DOJ's opinion on regional Bell operating company [RDOC] entry will be accorded substantial weight by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] in its proceeding and will be included in the official record of decision. Neither bill had sufficient provisions to ensure that the local telephone market was open to competition before the RBOC's entered long distance. The conference report provides that before RBOC's can enter long distance, they must complete an interconnection checklist, have a facilities-based competitor and satisfy a public interest analysis at the FCC. They are required to offer long distance through a separate subsidiary for 3 years, which the FCC can extend for a longer period. The underlying legislation also would have preempted the States from using rate-of-return regulation and forced them to use price caps or alternative rate regulation. Under the conference report, States continue to regulate local phone rates as they choose. I strongly supported retention in the final bill of the Snowe- Rockefeller-Exon-Kerrey [SREK] provision--which was not included in the House bill--that will ensure that K-12 schools, libraries, and rural hospitals have access to advanced telecommunications services. SREK was retained in the conference report, and there are important provisions to help rural areas, health care providers, libraries, and citizens with disabilities. Both House and Senate bills permitted waiver of the cable-telco buyout provision. These were overly broad, and would have permitted an excessive number of in-region buyouts between telephone companies and cable operators. The conference report limits cable-telco mergers to communities with fewer than 35,000 inhabitants that are outside of urban areas according to the Census Bureau. Both bills also deregulated cable monopolies before there was effective competition. The conference report deregulates small cable systems only immediately, and does not deregulate enhanced basic programming for all cable systems until March 31, 1999. And both bills permitted excessive concentration in ownership of local TV and radio stations. The conference report retains the cross- ownership ban on newspaper/broadcast and cable/broadcast; retains limits prohibiting one person from owning two stations in one market; expands the limits on local radio stations but retains numeric limits on the number of stations in a market; dropped the provision allowing a loophole in the ownership attribution rules for TV stations; and expands the national limit on TV ownership to 35 percent national market reach, but drops the provision allowing waivers. ``meaningful role'' for doj Mr President, I would like to elaborate further on the role afforded the Department of Justice in the conference report. The final bill appropriately includes a strong role for the Justice Department in evaluating applications by regional bell operating companies to provide interLATA telecommunications. The Antitrust Division has unrivaled expertise in assessing marketplace effects, particularly so in telecommunications, where it has been deeply involved continuously for more than 20 years. During floor debate on S. 652, we worked hard to secure an independence role for the Antitrust Division in determining when and to what extent to remove the consent decrees's core restriction, the long distance or interLATA restriction. Independent DOJ role narrowly lost in the Senate, but conferees were persuaded to give DOJ a special, strong advisory role within FCC procedure, almost equivalent protection for competitive freedom. Thirty-six Senators cosigned a letter supporting this meaningful role. As I earlier indicated, the FCC is required by the conference report to consult with the Attorney General and give the Attorney General's evaluation substantial weight. In conjunction with this evaluation, the Attorney General may submit any comments and supporting materials under any standard she believes appropriate. Through its work in investigating the telecommunications industry and enforcing the MFJ, DOJ has important knowledge, evidence, and experience that will be of critical importance in evaluating proposed long-distance entry--which, as I indicated earlier, requires an FCC finding that such entry is in the public interest, and that a facilities-based competitor is present. On both of these issues, the DOJ's expertise in telecommunications and competitive issues generally should be of great value to the FCC. While the substantial-weight requirement does not preclude FCC departure from the Attorney General's recommendation if sufficiently indicated by other evidence on the record, this additional legal requirement means that the FCC's decision must be appropriately mindful of the Antitrust Division's special expertise in competition matters generally and in making predictive judgments regarding marketplace effects in particular. This requirement will ensure that DOJ's position is given serious substantive consideration on the merits--by the courts on appeal as well as by the FCC. DOJ also retains its full statutory authority to represent the interests of the United States before the courts on appeal. Moreover, even after entry occurs, there are important separate affiliate requirements--section 271--that will apply for at least 3 years. The conference report further contains an absolute savings clause for antitrust laws. No authority that is given to the FCC, and no authorization that is given to any private entity, will diminish in any way the full applicability of the antitrust laws. This is an important guarantee that competition, and the innovation that results from healthy market forces, will be the centerpiece of our telecommunications policy. In addition, telco-cable, broadcast and other media mergers are subject to full antitrust scrutiny, regardliess of how they are treated by the FCC. repeal of antitrust exemption Finally, the conference report repeals a provision (47 U.S.C. Sec. 221(a)) that exempts mergers between telephone companies from antitrust review--a provision left over from the 1920's, a bygone era when Federal telecommunications policy was actually to promote monopoly over competition. If not repealed, this provision could have taken on a new meaning under the bill, since the provision did not define telephone company. And, as a result of the walls brought down and the forces unleashed by the bill, it is not clear what will constitute a telephone company in the future--perhaps every firm that transmits information by any electronic means. Absent repeal of this provision, the entire communications industry might have merged into one vast monopoly without ever being subject to antitrust review. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I join with the chairman in strongly recommending that the Senate adopt this conference report on the fiscal year 1996 Intelligence Authorization Act. This bill continues the efforts of this committee to ensure that the intelligence community is making the changes necessary to adapt to today's world. As our troops enter Bosnia for their peacekeeping mission and policymakers work to ensure there continues to be a peace to keep, we are reminded once again of the importance of a flexible, efficient, and effective intelligence capability to support both national and military needs. It is a very different world from that which challenged the intelligence community during most of its post World War II existence. This conference report reflects the changing role and mission of intelligence. To ensure we can meet the growing demand for timely, actionable intelligence, for example, this bill shifts greater resources into the processing of intelligence, which has failed to keep pace with the collection of information. Similarly, as the threats from proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism, organized crime, and international narcotics trafficking take on ever greater importance, the committee has included budgetary recommendations to increase funding in these areas. The conference report includes all of the provisions contained in the Senate bill, although several of the provisions reflect some changes. In addition, the conference report includes a provision specifying that the Director of Central Intelligence can use up to $25 million for declassifying records over 25 years old, pursuant to a recent Executive order. The House bill had imposed a much tighter limit on the availability of funds for this purpose. The conferees agreed to a revised provision that will allow the DCI to begin this process in a manner that is more likely to produce timely results without compromising national security. This year has seen great controversy concerning the intelligence community. Some of the problems we are all familiar with include the CIA's relationship with assets in Guatemala who may have participated in or covered up murders, the continuing damage caused by Aldrich Ames' treachery, CIA's withholding from its customers the full details of source information on Soviet and Russian reports, and the National Reconnaissance office's accumulation of funds in forward funding accounts vastly in excess of what they require. These failures and mistakes remind us all of the need for vigilant oversight of intelligence activities, a responsibility which Chairman Specter and I and our colleagues on the committee take very seriously. These controversies also remind us that intelligence is becoming less of a secret business; there is a conscious process of declassification now ongoing, which is healthy; the actions of our Government should be as transparent as possible, consistent with protecting the lives of the Nation and our people. But there is also a tendency to attack necessary secrecy by means of leaks as if, with the demise of the Soviet Union, the need to protect sources and methods has evaporated and the leaking and publication of classified information is therefore harmless. Mr. President, terrorism, the spread of nuclear and chemical weapons in the world, the Russian and Chinese nuclear forces, international crime and drug trafficking, the intentions of factions in Bosnia to attack our troops--these are not harmless threats, and it is most harmful to reveal the American intelligence sources and techniques employed against those threats. In our oversight tasks we walk a fine line between correcting problems and deficiencies and telling the public as much as we can about the, on the one hand, and protecting necessary secrets, on the other. This has been a challenging year for the intelligence community. In the midst of significant downsizing, questions about its mission, and what seemed at times to be daily revelations of scandals, the intelligence professionals continued to collect, analyze, and disseminate information to meet the needs of policymakers and the military. All of us can take pride in the quality and dedication of the Americans serving their country in the intelligence community, and I hope the headlines of the moment will not dissuade dedicated, talented young patriots from seeking careers in intelligence. In the coming months the committee will be making decisions about legislation to ensure that the intelligence community is structured to maximize the effectiveness of the efforts of these hard working men and women. The bill before you today is a significant step in that direction and I urge your support.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to join my distinguished chairman, Senator Specter, in introducing this resolution to acknowledge the important role of the Central Intelligence Agency's statutory inspector general's office and noting the excellent work of Fred Hitz--the first CIA statutory IG who has recently celebrated his 5-year anniversary in this challenging position. There was, to say the least, some skepticism about the wisdom of creating the statutory IG office at the CIA. Indeed, no one should be surprised that there was little support in the Agency for the creation of a statutory inspector general office. But fortunately, Senator Specter and Senator Glenn and others convinced the Senate to support this idea, and the office was created. Yet even after enactment, there was still resistance to an independent fact-finder within the Agency, and some of its persists even today. The CIA has a proud but insular culture which tends to resist the scrutiny of an independent examiner. Also, because CIA operates in secret and undertakes--at the request and direction of policymakers-- activities which the United States must deny, the additional oversight of an independent IG is essential. To perform this oversight effectively and honestly means to occasionally render strong criticism. Those who are criticized are sometimes offended. Their response to criticism ranges from the stoic silence we associate with CIA, to both attributable and anonymous counter-criticism of Mr. Hitz. Mr. President, criticism of the IG by past and present CIA employees suggests to me that Mr. Hitz has been doing his job in the spirit Congress intended. I do not claim, nor would Mr. Hitz claim, that he has done his job perfectly. Few of us attain such a level of performance. I and some other members of the Intelligence Committee have not always agreed with his conclusions in particular investigations. But I would claim the CIA is a stronger, more effective organization today because he has been a strong, independent IG, as Congress envisioned. Congress' own oversight of intelligence activities would be much more difficult without the insights provided by an independent IG. At the same time, an independent IG must not contribute to a climate in which CIA is afraid to take risks when vital U.S. interests are at stake. An independent IG must not create an internal empire of inspectors which has the same chilling effect on creative action in Government that excessive regulation has on business. Like the congressional oversight committees, a good IG must ensure that the Agency acts in accordance with U.S. law and U.S. values without inhibiting the Agency's ability to act boldly. From what I see from the vantage point of the Intelligence Committee, Fred Hitz has been that kind of IG. I congratulate him on his completion of 5 years of service and I congratulate my colleagues who 5 years ago envisioned what we now agree is a very necessary job.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first, the Senator from Virginia just gave very eloquent testimony, not just to the U.S. abilities in the past to accomplish good things, but the risks contained in them. I did have a great honor to be able to travel with the Senator from Virginia earlier this year, to Zagreb and down to Split and down to Knin in the Krajina Valley where the Croatian forces had succeeded in driving, by some estimates, close to 200,000 military and civilian personnel from that valley. It was very clear to me that I was in the presence of a man who understood, not just that particular region as well as any, but understood the great value and importance of we Americans leading where we can and doing what is possible to make the world a safer and better place. I have many of the same misgivings the Senator from Virginia just expressed and I know that, in expressing opposition to the resolution and the deployment, in his own statement just now he wants this mission to be successful. He wants this operation, this NATO operation to be a success. I also must say----

Mr. KERREY. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. KERREY. I look forward to the travel. I learned a great deal in a relatively short period of time from the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia. I look forward to having a chance to travel and learn again. The goal of any policy, particularly a foreign policy, I presume and hope, is success. But, in a complex and confused conflict, such as this one, which has festered for centuries, success is extremely hard to define. The civil war in the former Yugoslavia is the consequence of a very confusing sequence of events that very few people understand fully. Yugoslavia itself was an intricate construct of religions and nationalities. Even the future consequences of U.S. inaction now are not immediately clear. Also, there has been considerable disinformation put out by all sides in the conflict, to justify the claims that all sides have to the status of being a victim. The international solution coming out of the Dayton agreement is not exactly simple either. A NATO force, including non-NATO units and even Russian units, is to separate the parties along a meandering 600-mile boundary line and then oversee the restoration of civilian government functions in Bosnia. Meanwhile, the European Community and international donors put together a financial program to rebuild Bosnia's infrastructure. The plan may or may not be brilliant, but it certainly is not simple. So it is not surprising, Mr. President, that well-informed citizens-- and I am thinking in my case of Nebraskans who I had the honor of visiting with this week to discuss this policy--do not fully understand the Bosnian case. As I indicated earlier, I had the opportunity to travel to the former Yugoslavia, have attended hours of briefings in the intelligence community, and have visited the National Military Joint Intelligence Center in the Pentagon the last two Fridays. I must say I do not fully understand this problem, either. Mr. President, I do understand that American leadership has already made it better. My response to those who despair of improving this tangled region is that from the moment of President Clinton's decision last summer to lead the way to a solution, the former Yugoslavia has become a more peaceful place. Bosnia is now a safer place for its inhabitants. Mr. President, it was only last summer that the only access to Bosnia's capital, Sarajevo, was over the dangerous Mount Igman road. Three American diplomats were killed in July on that road. The airport was closed. Sarajevo's very life was at risk from mortar attacks, from snipers, and from the cutoff of the energy and food on which life depends. Then came the United States commitment to lead, Ambassador Holbrooke's full-court press, and today Bosnians are safer as a consequence. C-130's now land at Sarajevo. Sarajevans' daily brushes with death are over, we pray forever. Energy and food deliveries are resuming, Mr. President. I am describing the indicators of success-- success we have already achieved. The distinguished Senator from Virginia earlier indicated, and I think quite properly, a test that all of us should apply to an operation, to a mission of this kind. That is, would we be able to go into the home of a family who had lost a loved one in a conflict and tell them what their loved one had accomplished? Was it worth their sacrifice? Mr. President, you would, I think, be hard pressed not to be able to go into the homes of the three diplomats who gave their lives to secure peace in Yugoslavia and not be able to say that, thanks to their bravery in July, being willing to run the risks associated with travel to Sarajevo at the time, that as a consequence of their bravery we now have peace in that city. There are many people who are planning trips there and lots of travel going on there. Mr. President, there has been a tremendous success accomplished already. Last August when I visited Yugoslavia, Sarajevo was judged so dangerous that the administration said that I and the delegation that I traveled with should not go there. We could not get to the capital of the country which is at the heart of this problem. Today, not only is Sarajevo accessible, but Tuzla, where our troops will be stationed, is accessible as well. Already, several congressional delegations have traveled there in the past few weeks to see for themselves the conditions our troops will face. That access is the fruit of policy success. But success in any enterprise, Mr. President, is temporary unless you are willing to secure it and to build on it. The Dayton agreement provides for military forces to enforce separation of the parties and to ensure compliance with the agreement. If all the parties comply with the agreement, success will be achieved and a peaceful, secure Bosnia will not just be a possibility but an odds-on likelihood. Mr. President, given what has happened in Bosnia and what could happen without the decisive impact of American leadership, I contend this would be a highly successful outcome, one in which all Americans could take great pride. Mr. President, much has been said--I have listened to many colleagues, and I have heard, particularly on talk radio, concern expressed--about President Clinton as Commander in Chief. First of all, let it be said that Mr. Clinton, our President, is the architect of this policy and he is the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. As the distinguished majority leader has correctly stated, we only have one President, one Commander in Chief. Our Armed Forces have a high level of good order and discipline. They recognize that fact. They will follow the orders the President gives them. They will proceed to the places named in his orders. When we do our constitutional duty of debating deployment such as this one, we should not say or do anything which might separate the Armed Forces from their properly constituted chain of command. A resolution of this body declaring support for the troops but opposition to the action the President has ordered the troops to take could have very negative consequences for the morale of the Armed Forces as well as for the outcome of the mission. A statement by one Senator such as I read in this morning's New York Times to the effect that this Senator has spoken to soldiers at a military installation and said, ``They're with me. They're mixed. They know I'm for them and I'm trying to keep them out,'' is not helpful. The troops are with their Commander in Chief and with no one else, regardless of the outcome of this debate. There is also a good deal of talk, as I said, on talk radio criticizing Bill Clinton's right to deploy American forces and his ability to command those deployed forces because he did not go to Vietnam. I will address this topic, Mr. President, head on. Having not served, I must say, can be a handicap for people serving as Commander in Chief of the military, no two ways about it. There are parts of a job you grow into, and I believe strongly that the President has really grown as a Commander in Chief. He inherited Somalia from the Bush administration, and as Commander in Chief of the Somalia operation, Bill Clinton has experienced the human tragedy of being the leader when United States casualties occur. He has not flinched from hard talks with the families of casualties that occurred on his watch. Those talks are a sobering and maturing experience for any commander, even a President. He is not naive or starry eyed about what he is ordering young Americans to do. There is another aspect of Presidential service that must be considered, particularly as we engage in this kind of debate. Bill Clinton may not have been in combat in Vietnam, but in a very real way he, like all his predecessors, is experiencing combat now. He is experiencing the daily danger which, unfortunately, is part of his job. His residence has been attacked twice. He suffered the loss of a friend and ally, Prime Minister Rabin. He knows firsthand every day the sense of an unknown but ever present threat to your life and the life of your family, which is an essential part of combat. In this sense, too, he has matured a lot. The job has that effect on people. In the final analysis, though, the most important tool that the President brings to being Commander in Chief is the fact that he is properly sworn. He is the duly elected President of the United States of America. Mr. President, that is all it takes. Every American soldier, every American sailor, every American airman and marine must understand it. As far as a national interest, Mr. President, it does fall to the President of the United States to define the Nation's vital interests and then act to defend them. Such interests are at issue in the former Yugoslavia. The most important one, in my judgment, is the stability of Europe. We have learned in this century that we ignore European instability at our peril. Twice we have made the mistake of thinking Europeans, with their money and sophistication and long experience as countries, could maintain their own stability. Twice we have had to send millions of our soldiers to fight in Europe to correct the mistake and to lead Europeans into stable, peaceful arrangements with each other. There may come a time when Europeans can do this all by themselves, but the Yugoslavian experience of the past 4 years shows that time is not yet here. At the end of World War II, America determined to shore up the stability and security of Europe. Former friend and foe alike were a shambles, communism was a growing force in European domestic politics, and the Soviet Union showed both the ability and the inclination to incorporate all the continent into his family of satellite states. To our farsighted leaders of the period, a crisis was apparent. They responded with a decisive commitment of American leadership. They organized an alliance of the United States, Canada, and 13 European countries, an alliance with a simple but breathtakingly open-ended commitment, an attack on any member was an attack on all. In other words, we would go to war to defend any NATO member. With the implementing vision of the first Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, the NATO alliance began a record of achievement that climaxed not a year later but 40 years later with the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of Soviet communism. Whenever we give speeches about what we are proud of in America's accomplishments since World War II, we brag, and very properly so, about our victory in the cold war and the U.S. leadership of NATO which made victory possible. Mr. President, our commitment in 1949 was not totally assured of success. Far from it. And our commitment was not accompanied by a congressional requirement for an exit strategy. In 1949 our leaders acted boldly to leverage American leadership into an alliance with a good chance of success. Today, with a new situation in Europe, we face a requirement to act again, boldly, to restore and maintain European stability. Again, NATO is the instrument of choice. If we do not act, instability will spread more broadly in a region in which major European powers have historic interests and have not shrunk from war to advance those interests. If we do not use NATO as our instrument, this alliance will not be available to continue its 40 year role as the guarantor of a peaceful, stable Europe. It was not so long ago that our major European allies were usually at each other's throats. NATO created a framework of defense cooperation in which shared interests outweighed rivalries. Today NATO expansion carries the potential to extend the same cooperation into Eastern Europe and I hope, eventually, Russia and other former Soviet States. I cannot think of a better way to lock-in the benefits of the end of the cold war. But without NATO as a vibrant, capable organization, it will not happen. NATO cannot be such an organization without U.S. leadership. Mr. President, stability in Europe and the continued viability of NATO are our vital interests, and they are at issue today in the Balkans. We have other lesser, but important interests there. We have an interest in a peaceful, stable, Russia which cooperates with us and with NATO on defense matters and with which we can share mutual confidence. The deployment of Russian units to the I-FOR under United States command provides a potentially priceless opportunity to build such a relationship. Also, we have an interest in developing a better relationship with the Moslem world. Moslems have clearly been the underdog in the Yugoslav war, and American leadership to preserve and secure a Bosnia which is again safe for Moslems will have positive effect on United States relations with the Moslem world. It will show the truth of our national character, which is we seek justice and fairness and do not play ethnic favorites. draft a resolution to support success What we vote today matters. We should not hamstring our commanders with requirements that make success harder to attain. When we require the administration to supply armaments of the highest quality to one of the combatants, the highest quality being the best the United States has in its own arsenal, or when we pass a resolution which sets an artificial time limit on an operation which should only be bounded by accomplishment of the assigned task, we are placing handicaps on Admiral Smith's ability to accomplish the mission. I know none of us wants to do that. Once our troops are committed, all of us wants them to succeed. I must also add my concern about Congress declaring U.S. creditability to be a strategic interest. We may be issuing an open- ended invitation to Presidents present and future to make unilateral commitments and require Congress to support them on the fuzzy basis of credibility. The stability of Europe is reason enough for this operation, in my view. Mr. President, I have been to briefings at the Intelligence Committee and have spent the last two Friday afternoons at the National Military Joint Intelligence Center at the Pentagon, trying to learn all I can about this mission and the intelligence support our commanders will be getting. I am immensely proud to have a military that can do a mission like this--to go into difficult terrain in tough weather conditions and be able to provide its own support and security while being prepared to engage any or all of three contending armies. I am proud of the work our national and military intelligence communities have done and are doing to support our troops with the best intelligence available, and also support the NATO and foreign forces in the I-FOR. No one else in the world could do this, except the United States. We are doing it, as I said, to protect vital interests. We are doing it in a good cause. If all the parties to the Dayton agreement abide by it, our leadership will be brought peace to the Balkans. More importantly, we will have extended the guarantee of European stability to which we have been committed, in NATO, since 1949. If we lead with the vision of our post-war predecessors, we can achieve success in Bosnia. Mr. President, finally, let me point out what should be obvious. The success that has been achieved thus far has been a success of the President of the United States committed to achieve peace in the Balkans, but a success that has been put together by diplomats, by politicians, some elected and appointed leaders, not just of the United States but of all three of the nations in the Balkans. And if success is to be the end goal, and if we are to achieve that success, the military can only do part of it. In order for the military to be successful, we political leaders are going to have to do the hard work of making certain that all the parties adhere to the agreement that we expect them to sign in Paris tomorrow. I believe there is a good chance of success--of further and continued success--a chance of success that is worth the risk that we take, the risk of lives and the risk of capital in the Balkans. I hope that the debate about this resolution--a nonbinding resolution that does not necessarily impact the President--I hope that the President hears throughout all of this debate perhaps some criticism. But even critics have to grudgingly, I hope, acknowledge that there is peace in the Balkans, that you can fly to Sarajevo, that children and civilians in Sarajevo markets do not worry on Sundays--as they did when I was there on the 28th of August--that 120-millimeter rockets and mortars were going to rain down on them and take their lives. That fear is gone today. The fear of sniper attack is gone. If the standdown of forces occurs in the first 30 days and in the next 45 days and the next 180 days, if we can just stand down the forces, the United States of America will continue to be able to say that we are saving lives. There are people alive today in Sarajevo that would not have been alive were it not for leadership of the President of the United States and the people of the United States backing that President. I hope we understand and appreciate the great success that only the United States of America could achieve under the leadership of Bill Clinton. I hope this debate does not cloud that success, and I hope this debate does not prevent and make more difficult a continuation of our efforts to build upon that success. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I do not believe that we are going to get Americans to stop desecrating our flag as a consequence of amending our Constitution. I just do not believe it is going to happen. I see the distinguished Senator from Utah has a picture, a very disgusting picture of a young man, I believe, a young boy, perhaps, burning an American flag. Much of the desire to pass this constitutional amendment comes, in fact, from our observation that in some isolated instances, young people, angry about something, will desecrate a flag to make a point. Thus, we say, let us protect ourselves from these acts by amending the Constitution or passing a statute at the State level or passing, in this case, now in an amended form, a law at the Federal level saying that it is now against the law to desecrate the flag. The respect for the flag is something that is acquired. One makes a choice based upon an understanding of what the flag stands for, and that understanding does not come in some simple fashion. It does not come with a snap of our fingers: Amend the Constitution, pass a law, and thus, all of a sudden, young people all across the Nation--or adults, for that matter--will immediately acquire respect for the flag based upon knowing that they will be punished if they do not. That is basically the transaction here. We are saying, either respect the flag or we will punish you by invoking the law and perhaps fining you. I do not know, maybe there will be a jail sentence attached, some mandatory minimum perhaps that will be associated with the new criminal law of desecrating the flag. Let me be clear on this. Many people are very confused, because I heard some people say, ``It is against the law to desecrate the dollar bill. Why is it not against the law to desecrate the flag?'' It is against the law to desecrate our flag. You cannot go down to the Iwo Jima Memorial or Arlington or up on the hill where the Washington Monument stands and burn a flag that is owned by the people of the United States of America. This issue here, this concern here is with a flag that some individual owns. If the suspicion occurs, under this new constitutional amendment--I assume enabling legislation will occur as a consequence--that somebody, in their home, is desecrating their flag, it will now fall to the police or to the Federal law enforcement officials, I suspect, depending upon how the statute is written, to go into the home to make sure that individual is not desecrating his or her flag. That is the kind of response we are going to have our law enforcement people now charged with the responsibility of making. I understand. I have spoken many times with American Legion members in Nebraska who are very enthusiastic about this amendment, or Veterans of Foreign Wars members, or Disabled American Veterans members who are very concerned about the loss of respect. They are very concerned about the loss of character. Indeed, one of the most impressive things in community service right now, that has been over the course of my life, has been American Legion effort, and VFW and DAV effort, to provide programs for young people, to teach them the history of this country, to teach them about D-day, to teach them about what stands behind this flag, why this flag is so revered by those of us who have served underneath it. But we see in that moment, if it is Legion baseball or a VFW youth program, you see in that moment the kind of effort that is required to teach respect, for a young person to choose to acquire the character necessary to give the kind of reverence due the U.S. flag. I know this amendment, now that it has been modified, stands an even better chance of passing. But make no mistake, there is going to be a consequence to this vote. This is not one of those deals where you just vote on it and say, Now I have kept faith with the American Legion, the VFW, the DAV, that have been lobbying very hard on it. There will be a consequence. We are going to pass a law and afterward there will be a law enforcement response. We are going to have an opportunity to measure, have we protected our flag as a consequence of amending the Constitution? Is there more reverence and respect? Do the young people of America now say, ``Gee, now that Congress has amended the Constitution, passed a law, and provided an environment where it is going to be illegal for us to burn the flag, we are now going to respect the flag more''? I do not think so. We see an increase today of consumption of illegal drugs by 12- and 13- and 14- and 15-year-old youth who are using marijuana, who are using cocaine, who are using illegal drugs. We already have a law on the books where they will suffer tremendous consequences. There is a decline in character today with the youth of America for a whole range of reasons, but we are not going to reverse that decline by simply passing a constitutional amendment and issuing a press release saying that we respect the flag and all sorts of other glowing statements that we might make. I made a list of things that I would put down if I was trying to determine whether or not an individual had acquired, through effort, through work, through discipline, real character. It is not easy to do it. It is not just respect, reverence of the flag; it is respect and reverence for adults, the older people who have served, who put their lives at risk at Iwo Jima, who put their lives at risk at Normandy, who put their lives at risk at the Chosen Reservoir, who put their lives at risk at Khe Sanh, who put their lives at risk in Desert Storm, who put their lives at risk in Bosnia, who put their lives at risk every single day they wear the uniform of the United States of America and train to fly a plane and train to do the work that we ask them to do to protect us. There are 38,000 people today in South Korea, Americans serving this country, putting themselves at risk as the North Koreans continue to press. We need to teach our young people what it means to serve, and guide them in the acquisition of character and making the choices necessary to have character. To have character means that you are obedient to something higher than your own willful desire to satisfy short-term concerns. Obedience is not easy. It is not easy to be obedient to your parents. It is not easy to be obedient to your country--to answer the call, and say you are going to give yourself to some higher authority. It is much easier to say, ``Well, you know, freedom means to be willful. Freedom means to do whatever I want. It is not just burning a flag. If I want to consume marijuana, or consume cocaine, or do the opposite of what my parents tell me to do, that is what being free is all about. Freedom is not being obedient. That is to be a slave.'' Well, Mr. President, we need to teach young people that the pathway to freedom, in fact, is to be obedient to something other than your own desire to satisfy some short-term concern, physical or otherwise. To be an individual that acquires character means that you pay attention to what is going on around you. You do not daydream. To pay attention requires effort to note life around you--to note the passing not just of time. But your own life requires you to pay attention. We need to help our young people learn what is necessary to do that. Third, I put down on my list of things for an individual to acquire character is that will have to learn to be considerate about others-- not self-centered but considerate. What the flag burning issue is all about--what the desecration issue is all about--is do not necessarily offend somebody. Do not offend them, not just by burning a flag, but by disrespecting their property rights, or disrespecting their right to speak. Be considerate of other people. That is one of the things that one needs, if they are going to acquire character. But you need to be conscious of time, and aware of the gift of life. All of us in this Chamber are old enough to have either been with somebody who is dying, or seen somebody lose their life. And we know how precious life is as a consequence of that loss. We have been with a parent, with a loved one, and have sat with them as the life left them. We have sworn that moment that we would never forget how precious life is. And we committed ourselves, at least for a short period of time, to change our ways, to abolish and banish the habits that cause us to behave in ways that we do not like and are not proud of. One must acquire, in the words of Albert Schweitzer, ``a reverence for life''--a respect for life as opposed to being not just disrespectful but perhaps destructive as well; but all of these things, and more besides. I made a list this morning. There are others beside the elements of character that we are trying to teach our young people that cause us to be alarmed when we watch daytime television, that lead to our wanting to amend the Constitution to protect the one symbol, the one icon that tends to bind us together as a nation. All of us have had various experiences as a consequence of serving under that flag. If you force people to respect the flag by amending our Constitution, or by passing a law, you are not going to have people respect the flag more. That is not the pathway to produce less desecration of the flag-- something, by the way, that happens very little at all. It is not, in my judgment, a great threat to this country. What is a great threat to this country is when 40 percent of our youth do not know what the cold war was; when 50 percent do not know whether Adolf Hitler was an enemy in the Second World War; when a large percentage of people are unable to associate with any of the narrative of this country--any of the over 200 years of narrative of heroic adventures and life laid down for freedom that causes us in this moment to say, ``Well, let us try to establish once and for all that we will have character in this country by amending our Constitution.'' Mr. President, I again know there is great desire on the part of the Legion, the VFW, and DAV, and many other well-intended people who are concerned about the flag and want to protect the flag. To protect the flag takes us down a much different and a much more difficult road, one that I believe this country needs to follow. But I do not believe at all that we are going to increase the amount of respect that Americans have for their flag as a consequence of amending our Constitution. Indeed, I believe quite the opposite. For those who think it is a fairly easy free vote--vote for it, and walk away--there will be consequences. We are going to amend laws. We are going to have the spectacle of people being arrested in their home, the spectacle of law-abiding citizens now being faced with all kinds of new charges and accusations that they do not respect the flag sufficiently. Mr. President, I hope that there are 34 votes in this Senate to block this because I believe that the flag of the United States of America should not be politicized. And I believe it will--not by the well- intended Senators who are here today on the floor in support of this resolution, but by the actions that will occur as a consequence of this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes in opposition be yielded to me.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on Senate Joint Resolution 31, the proposed resolution that would present to the States the opportunity to amend the U.S. Constitution for the 20th time. It is a very straightforward, simple proposal that I believe is not necessary and would, indeed, create an environment that would produce, potentially, the opposite of that which we seek to produce, or at least, as I hear, proponents of this amendment are seeking to produce--and that is, that our people have at least one symbol that they respect, that we have a unifying symbol, which is our flag, and that the flag creates, as a consequence of our reverence for it, a sense of national purpose, at least in that one instance. This proposal, Mr. President, I believe, is well intended in that regard. If I were to identify the thing that troubles me the most about our country today, it is the question of whether or not we are developing the kind of personal character that is needed for the [[Page S 18273]] Nation to have the courage and the strength to respond to whatever may happen to us in the future. That kind of individual character development requires a considerable amount of effort and attention not just on the part of young people who are working to acquire it, but adults who are working to try to help them. I note, in particular, that this proposal is a top priority of the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars and the several other service organizations. In both the VFW and American Legion's cases, they have as a top priority as well working with young people to help them acquire the capacity to be good citizens, to respect their country, to respect their flag, to respect their role in a free and independent nation and the requirements that fall to us as individuals in a free and independent nation. The loss of respect for not just the flag but for many other things in our country today troubles not just members of the Legion but troubles almost anybody who is an observer of American life today. I know a couple of days ago, Senator Lieberman and Senator Nunn, along with former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett, made a public presentation of proposals to try to deal with the deterioration in the quality of presentations made on daytime broadcast television. I listened a couple weeks ago to Senator Nunn on the floor go through some things being broadcast on daytime television, and I had a feeling I was on a different planet. Most of us in this body probably do not watch much daytime television, and it was shocking to hear the sorts of things that were being not just discussed, but offered as being OK, offered as being acceptable, offered as being sort of a legitimate kind of behavior. This deterioration in the quality of our character is a great concern. I see it as a principal motivator behind what I consider, as I said, to be a well-intended proposal. Mr. President, one of the things I think citizens should understand as we consider this constitutional amendment is that our flag is already protected. You cannot burn or desecrate our flag. If it is a flag that I own personally, you cannot desecrate my flag. You certainly cannot desecrate a flag that you and I own. That is our flag. A flag flying over Iwo Jima, the flag that flies at half-mast today around the Washington Memorial, flags at cemeteries, flags that we own. That is our flag. You cannot desecrate that. It is a violation of current law to desecrate in any fashion, to approach in any fashion that would be desecration of our flag under current law. What this legislation proposes to do is say not only are we going to protect our flag, we are going to protect someone else's flag from us. If an individual in their home, for example, has a flag in their home and a law is passed, say, in the State of Nebraska, as I think it probably would be, saying that desecration of a flag is a violation of the law, someone could call up and report and say, ``Gee, I saw my neighbor do something with the flag in their home and I think it is a violation of law. I think what they were doing with their flag in the home is a violation of the law, and I think you should investigate and make sure they are not desecrating their own flag inside of their home.'' Mr. President, I genuinely believe this is going to set off and create the very sort of division and the very sort of problem that we seek to avoid. I think it is, again, a well-intended constitutional amendment, but I for one do not look forward to an opportunity where the people of this country are debating at the local level whether or not it is a desecration of our flag to have someone sewing the flag on their pants. It may end up being if you are driving down the highway going from, say, California to Florida, it may be legal to have a pair of pants with a flag on it in California; it may be illegal in Texas or Mississippi or vice versa. One may have to get from AAA information about what the various flag ordinances are from State to State. I think that will, rather than causing us to deepen our respect for the flag and using it as a symbol to inspire us--not just us as adults but to help us inspire our young people to consider the sacrifices that have been made under that rather glorious symbol--rather than inspiring us, it is apt to cause us to deteriorate into an argument that, frankly, I view as something that will produce a negative, not a constructive, result. This constitutional amendment does not protect our flag. Our flag is already protected. What this does is say it will extend the protection of our flag to the protection of somebody else's flag that they have in their home in any way, shape or form. It will set off a debate about whether or not the Government has the right to come in, and if it is somebody else's property, take action to protect all of us or what they might be doing with their flag. The next thing I say, Mr. President, if the flag was not revered, as it clearly is, if it did not set off such a strong emotional reaction, I think a majority of Americans who have experienced in some fashion people giving of themselves--if not giving of their lives--as a consequence of being inspired by that flag, if it was not already revered, if there really was a threat to our flag, you would see a substantial amount of instances out there where people were, as a part of expressing their anger with their country or as part of expressing their anger with something that their Congress is doing or that their Government has done to then, they would be setting the flags on fire. They are not. The reason they are not is that they know there is a taboo that you are breaking, that you are violating something holy, and if you are trying to score a point, if you are trying to persuade somebody of your point of view, the last thing you want to do is to take a flag that belongs to you and desecrate it in any fashion, or let it traipse along the ground, trample it in any way, disrespect the flag at all. Mr. President, again, I know if the answer is no to this constitutional amendment, that Members are going to have to explain to citizens at home or to organizations at home, why are you not simply allowing us to express the will of the people? Why do you not just let the Constitution be amended? The clearest answer I can give is that I genuinely believe that this constitutional amendment will produce less respect for the flag, not more respect for the flag. It will make the flag an object of political controversy. We ought to use the flag to educate our young people, rather than telling them that they have to respect the flag at birth without explaining why, without talking to them and giving them the evidence that many of us as adults already have that causes us to tear up and feel emotional around the flag, rather than taking the time and saying: This is what the cold war was. This is what we did in World War I. There were 50 million people under arms in World War I, and 8 million men died in World War I. This is what happened in World War II. This is what men and women of this country did in the Second World War. This is what our fighting people did, as well, in Korea, to stop the Communists from coming down from the North. This is what we did in Vietnam. Even as controversial and as difficult as it was, there was a movement, a desire to give the people of Vietnam freedom. Did it come off the tracks? Was it loused up? Yes. But people like myself who volunteered, who served, did so because we believed in freedom. That is what the flag does stand for. We should not require somebody to respect it by passing a law saying, If you violate the law, we will punish you. We should bring them into our presence and say: Understand what character is all about. You do not have character if your behavior is willful. You have character if your behavior is obedient--obedient to your parents, obedient to your church, to your synagogue, obedient to your country. That is what character requires us to do. If we simply pass a law and say you have to respect the flag, in my judgment, what we are going to do is turn the flag into a political instrument. We are going to diminish its value. We should use it as an object lesson when we are debating the budget, for example, when we are debating anything that requires us to put ourselves on the line, to take risks, to take a chance for freedom, to take a chance for someone else, to say: Rather than just taking care of myself, I am going to take care of somebody else. The description of the young people--and they were all in their late teens and early twenties, several hundred [[Page S 18274]] thousand men who landed on the beaches of Normandy 51 years ago--if you hear that story, and I had the chance last year to hear it told in detail by men now in their seventies who were on that landing, who went on that voyage, there was no guarantee. Indeed, many arguments were given that this thing was going to be a failure. People well informed, leaders with great knowledge believed that it would fail, that it would not be successful. The sea conditions that day were rough. They got sick on the voyage to France, and they were terrified of the prospect of being killed by German artillery and German weapons. They knew that their lives could end the minute they stepped off of that landing craft. They knew that was a possibility. That is what we should do when it comes to the flag. When it comes time for talking to our young people, teach them why they should respect the flag. The reason why is that these men who serve and women who serve our country today are saying, We are going to be obedient to this country. We are going to follow orders because we believe that there is a moral principle at stake here, and that principle is giving ourselves to someone else, sacrificing for someone else, paying attention, being considerate, being willing to do things that are good for somebody else, rather than simply trying to figure out how to stick it to them, how to make them look bad, how to make them feel bad as well. The flag will not be a symbol that inspires us if we require respect, if we say to our young people: Now, we just amended our Constitution. Now we have a law on the books. There was no law on the books in 1941 when this Nation was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. We did not require that of Americans, and say: Under penalty of the police coming into your home, if you desecrate our flag we are somehow going to take action against you. We knew what it meant to be patriotic. We knew that this Nation's freedom was at risk and this world's freedom was at stake and responded as a consequence. I have talked to many members of the Legion, the VFW, the DAV, the Vietnam veterans, American veterans, and many other veterans and citizens of Nebraska who say: Just let us amend our Constitution. Just let us pass a law. Let us do this. That is all we are asking, is for the opportunity to do it. I have to say I am not just sympathetic with that view, I believe I understand it. I understand what they are trying to do. They are concerned about the loss of respect. They are concerned about the loss of respect, not just for the flag--where, in fact, it may be one of the icons left in America where there is automatic respect--but the loss of respect for parents, the loss of respect for our leaders, the loss of respect for institutions, the loss of respect for one another; the unwillingness to be considerate, the unwillingness to be obedient, the deterioration in the value of serving someone else, of risking your life for someone else's freedom. I understand and believe it is a great challenge for this country to try to build character one person at a time, to say that we are going to reach to our youth and inspire them with a narrative of this country, the stories of this country. The sacrifice that led us to where we are today should cause anyone who pays attention to the history of the United States of America to say that our flag deserves the reverence that this constitutional amendment is attempting to give it with the force of law. It should be the force of our knowledge, the force of our conscience, the force of our willingness to give it back in kind that causes us to revere this flag, not the force of the police in our local community, not the force that we are afraid something bad is going to happen to us if we desecrate the U.S. flag. I hope when it comes time to vote that at least 34 Members of this body will vote against this constitutional amendment, not because we believe that the flag should not be revered, not because we are not concerned for the loss of respect for it and other institutions in this country, but for precisely the opposite reason. I hope this debate does not lead us down the road to converting the flag into a political object, which I deeply believe it will if we amend our Constitution. I hope we take some stock of ourselves, we read a recent assessment that was done about what our young people and our adults know about the history of this country, where we came from, how it was we got to where we are today. We see a daunting challenge ahead of us. Far too many Americans do not know how it is that we got to where we are today. Far too many Americans still believe that freedom is somehow free, that it is our birthright, and that we need do nothing to remain free. It is ours; we have a right to it; we can do whatever we want with it. We can act and behave in a willful fashion. We do not have to regard at all the feelings or lives not only of other people in our presence, but our future as well. I know the challenge that this constitutional amendment presents to colleagues is a rather substantial one. You fear you are going to be accused of not being in favor of protecting our flag if you vote against it. I hope, as I said, 34 Members will at least stand on this floor sometime next week when it comes up and say that because we respect this flag of ours, because we believe that it should be revered, because we believe that Americans should make the choice, the personal choice based upon a personal and active knowledge of what this flag represents, that they will say we do not need a law to cause us to behave in the fashion that we know is right. We do not need to amend our Constitution to get us to respect Old Glory. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I concur with distinguished Senators' analysis of the status of funding for the bias studies and with their beliefs about the importance of these studies. When we encouraged the judicial circuits to conduct gender bias studies, Congress acknowledged the importance and tradition of judicial self-examination on issues--such as this-- that are critical to the administration of justice. The Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which includes the State of Nebraska, voted unanimously to conduct a bias study. The council's vote does not reflect any doubt about the talent or integrity of any judge on that court, but rather reflects their commitment to the identification and elimination of bias where it exists, and their recognition of the importance of that task to preserving the integrity of our judicial system. As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce Justice, State and Judiciary, I fully support the use of Federal funds for the continuation of this effort to improve the justice system in the eighth circuit and other Federal circuits.