J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I know from my own State of Nebraska, when people campaign for the office of Governor--I suspect it is similar to Pennsylvania--the No. 1 question they have to answer is, What are you going to do to create jobs?

Mr. KERREY. Economic development is so important, no Governor is going to get away with shutting down a Job Corps center that is doing a good job.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Fifteen minutes.

Mr. KERREY. I rise today as an original cosponsor of S. 143, the Workforce Development Act. I should say at the outset I consider this to be one of the two or three most important pieces of legislation this body will consider this year. I want to, at the outset, commend the Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, for her hard work and willingness to reach out and include anyone who has an interest in work force development. I appreciate very much her openness, her diligence, her pursuit of the objectives. As a consequence of all those things, I believe it is likely this legislation will pass. Indeed, I believe that it is one of the, as I said, two or three most important measures which will produce something good at the local level. Whether or not people at the local level will actually see some benefit, with this piece of legislation, Mr. President, I believe strongly that they will. I also want to commend the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts somewhat carefully here. I introduced him not long ago, and the audience began to laugh as I did. So I have to be careful. I praise the Senator from Massachusetts. It was his request for a study 5 years ago--I believe it was from the GAO--that has provided the foundation for this bill, the foundation being that we have well over 100 different job training programs at the Federal level and the lack of coordination and the lack of accountability makes it difficult for us to be able to say in our States that we are doing all we can to solve the problem of inadequate skills in the work force. So, Mr. President, as to whether or not this particular legislation will solve a problem, will there be an effect from the cause of our passing this law, of changing this law that is beneficial in the United States, the answer has to be, in my judgment, enthusiastically and overwhelmingly yes. Last week, during our recess, there was a great deal of attention given to a census in the Department of Labor evaluation of the U.S. economy that indicated that, as a consequence of the economic growth that has occurred in the past few years, there is less poverty in America. That is quite good news. And it is an important piece of information for those of us who still believe it is one of our most important moral challenges to try to help those Americans who live in poverty and that we need to have economic growth in order to accomplish that. That economic growth will help those who are poor, and is an awfully important and good piece of news for us. But contained in that report as well, Mr. President, was an indication that there is not only an increased concentration of wealth and power, but there is a continuation of a trend toward a widening of incomes between those at the top end of the economic spectrum and those at the bottom end. This piece of legislation addresses one of the most important reasons why, when we see economic growth, we do not see an increase in prosperity in the middle class; we do not see a growing middle class. And the reason, Mr. President, is that the marketplace for today requires substantially more skills than it has in the past. It places a premium on it. Those with skills are secure. Their wages and salaries are being bid up, and those without skills are seeing their wages not being bid up. They are struggling out there. In addition, Mr. President, the way we have organized our job training programs is inadequate. Not only is there lack of accountability, but there are eligibility requirements that make it difficult for people to get into programs and difficult for Governors and business people to engage in the task of working with our schools. There are all sorts of institutional and structural barriers that exist at the local level that this piece of legislation addresses. So I say to those who, when they go home on recess and are faced with questions from citizens, ``What are you doing that is constructive? Are you passing or changing any laws that will [[Page S 14834]] improve the quality of life in our community?'' this is a piece of legislation that you can point to and say, ``Yes. This will help.'' If you change the law with S. 143, there is no doubt in my mind 10 years from now, as we examine the data as it relates to our economy, we will see people with greater skills and greater income as a consequence of this legislation. Importantly, I say parenthetically to my colleagues, there is another piece of legislation that would also enable us to say yes to people at the local level if they ask us if a law was going to benefit them. Interestingly, this one was also sponsored by Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy. It is S. 1028. I hope that this body will take it up this year. It is the Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995. Last year during the debate over health care there was almost unanimous agreement, almost unanimous from Republicans and Democrats, that the least we could do would be to change the law to end the practice of discriminating against people because of preexisting conditions and saying to them that they are not able to port their insurance from one job to another. The GAO has evaluated this piece of legislation. Twenty-five million Americans would benefit. Again, one of the most impressive tests of this piece of legislation, if S. 143, the Work Force Development Act, passes, is it presents me with an opportunity to say to citizens in Nebraska, ``Here is a change in the law that will benefit us at the local level.'' So I praise, at the beginning, the distinguished Senator from Kansas and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for their work on this legislation and their work, as well, on S. 1028. I hope that both pieces of legislation will become law in this session. Mr. President, we recently considered welfare reform legislation on the floor of the Senate. I voted against that legislation because I believe, in fact, it will make things worse, not better. There were many differences of opinion on how to best accomplish the goal of revising a welfare system that has unquestionably grown unresponsive to those on welfare, as well as those who are trying to make welfare work. But the one point of agreement throughout the welfare debate was the need for work, for meaningful employment in the private sector, to take the place of welfare benefits. I believe this bill, the Workforce Development Act of 1995, will do more to free dependence upon public assistance than any other legislation we have considered this year. Job training and education are the foundations of meaningful employment, and meaningful employment is the foundation of a strong economy. A productive, employed work force translates into less reliance on welfare and, more importantly, leads to a strong self- reliant and globally competitive work force. This all translates into economic security for each American in the work force and for our Nation as a whole. If we are to have a well-prepared work force with the training and ability to enter the 21st century, it is essential that we act now, and it is essential that we pass this legislation. We need to continue to work to create high-paying jobs in this country with site-specific training. We must meet the needs of both the employee and the employer in the community in which they work and operate. Taxpayers spend $25 billion a year for job training. It is a price we pay for a duplicative system which is not measured and not terribly accountable. We have paid a price in frustration, as those involved in job training on the local and State levels can readily attest, and we have paid the price in underemployment and unemployment, as we have not focused our dollars on the needs of local communities with their specific needs and industries in mind. The current system of 90 separate job training programs, each clamoring to achieve the same goal, leaves those looking for training to hop from one location or program to another. In addition to being duplicative, these 90 programs are run from Washington, DC, rather than from the communities that understand what skills and training are both needed and effective at the local level. There are times when I believe it is constructive for the Federal Government to shift the responsibility and the power back to the local and the State level, and job training is a clear example. Those of us who have been Governors, both Republicans and Democrats, will say, I believe, that it is the States that have the best programs for developing jobs and for developing the training programs for those jobs. There are other incidents where I do not believe that is the case. I believe that the Federal Government ought to be responsible for figuring out how to make health insurance affordable for all Americans. It pleases me today that we have strong bipartisan support for Medicare. That was not always the case. There was a time when Republicans were critical of Medicare. This year, they are not only supportive of that Great Society program, but they want to preserve it for our children and grandchildren. The fundamental principle upon which Medicare rests is that some Americans, regardless of how hard they work and how hard they try, are not going to be able to purchase health insurance. That, it seems to me, should be a Federal program. I believe it would be a big mistake for this Congress to pass a law that would convert Medicare into a block grant program, but it is a great move forward for this Congress to change the law of block granting the responsibility of job training programs. The Workforce Development Act has as its goal the meaningful employment of every American capable of working. It takes two very important steps toward accomplishing the goal. First, the Workforce Development Act consolidates 90 job training programs into a single block grant to States. It does not just block grant to the States, it develops a coordinated work force development system. Our current job training system is not just duplicative, it is also confusing. Consolidation in the specific language of this bill does not just consolidate, it develops a system at the State and local level that will transform our job training system into a unified system of job training and training-related education. This bill will end the frustrating process of hopping from one location to another in search of employment services by providing for the establishment of a one-stop delivery system for job search, screening, referral and placement, as well as skill assessments. The one-stop centers contained in this legislation are unquestionably the foundation for the effort, but there is considerably a lot more that is done in this legislation that gives me confidence we are not just block granting and turning over to the States the responsibility; we are making sure that the taxpayers are getting their money's worth for this effort. Mr. President, this legislation does not just block grant to the States, it empowers people at the local level and it empowers people in the private sector. It unquestionably will change the environment for job training in America and give citizens who care about job training an opportunity of participating and designing programs at the local level. Second, the responsibility for directing and operating these training programs is turned over to the State governments. This legislation encourages communities to work together to craft effective job-training programs. It requires the participation of those who have a stake in having a skilled labor force and who understand the needs of local labor markets. It provides flexibility to the States and local communities for the design and implementation of job training efforts. But, Mr. President, equally important to me, this legislation has monetary sanctions and, for the first time, establishes benchmarks and makes our job training programs accountable. States are not just given flexibility. In exchange for significant and desirable flexibility, they are also, for the first time, going to be held accountable for performance. They must develop a plan, and that plan is not only presented to the Federal Government but, more importantly, that plan is presented to the people in each of the individual States. This legislation provides for the continuance of our most successful vocational and job training efforts with less [[Page S 14835]] interference from the Federal Government. For example, the block grant is divided three ways: 25 percent of the grant must be allocated to education; 25 percent is allocated to training; and 50 percent is allocated in a flex fund account, funds which a State can use for any employment or education activity the State deems important and relevant to its specific needs. This legislation, in shifting of power and responsibility to the State and local level, puts heavy emphasis and focus upon education. It stipulates that a portion of the flex accounts should be used for school-to-work activities and that States, such as my State of Nebraska, that received implementation grants under the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, use a portion of their flex funds to continue their school-to-work programs under the terms of that act. This provides for the furtherance of exciting and innovative programs, such as school to work. The Workforce Development Act provides for a strong foundation for applied learning by allowing States to link academic knowledge to real world applications in their own communities, and by forging a comprehensive sensible system of job training and education, this bill enhances both the ability and opportunity for lifelong learning. But just as importantly, inside this flexibility, again, not only are the State and local governments engaged, but this piece of legislation empowers and gives an opportunity to the private sector, particularly private-sector employers, and most especially small businesses, to participate in designing the programs. This change in the law will, in fact, empower Americans in a fashion that will enable them to engage in what, in my judgment, is one of the most difficult problems and most tormenting problems that we face, which is, as I said earlier, this widening gap between the economic haves and the economic have-nots, the threat to the middle class of America, and the insecurity that Americans feel at almost all economic levels in the work force today. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. We are in the midst of, as all of us know, reform in many areas, including education and labor. Business leaders are constantly admonishing educators to make learning more relevant to the real world. I believe this bill is a giant step forward in that direction. By providing the means and the flexibility by which States and local communities can address their specific job training and education needs and by encouraging educators, industry, labor, and community leaders to forge the alliances necessary to make this happen, we can make the attainment of these skills and knowledge more relevant to the real world in which we live, work, and learn. Again, I praise and applaud and thank both the distinguished Senator from Kansas and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. They have worked long and hard on this legislation. I am pleased to be able to come to the floor today and join them in cosponsoring it, and I urge its quick and speedy adoption. I yield the floor. Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to endorse the views of my Chairman and Chairman Thurmond. Continued close collaboration between the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Service Committee can only result in the best possible intelligence for the military, together with greater efficiency. Although the two committees disagree on this jurisdictional issue, in fact the cooperative process worked quite well this year on JMIP. The Intelligence Committee studied the individual JMIP programs in the context of all intelligence activities and the Armed Services Committee looked at them in terms of the military's requirements. On the substance, the two committees are, as usual, in broad agreement. We disagree on one program. I think the merits of that argument are on the side of the Intelligence Committee, but I agree that the Armed Services Committee should have the last word on authorizing programs whose normal function is support to tactical operations. We have worked out a good solution for this year on JMIP, Next year's possible reorganization of the Intelligence Community could produce a whole new aggregation of intelligence programs. So I look forward to joining in a working group with the Armed Services Committee to determine how the Senate should authorize and oversee these programs so the needs of the policymaker and the tactical commander are fully addressed in the coming years. The Intelligence Committee has great experience and expertise in monitoring all the country's intelligence activities, and we offer them freely to the Senate without concern for turf or pride of authorship. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to describe a bill which has not attracted much attention this year, the intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 1996. This year the intelligence bill is not the venue for controversies over the foreign policy issues or levels of national security spending, but it is an important piece of legislation nonetheless. Much has been written about the Presidential Commission and congressional and private sector studies underway to redefine and reorganize the intelligence community. Few have noted that no matter what the outcome of all this discussion, the actual intelligence community, with its real and serious continuing requirements to keep our leaders informed and our military warned, must be budgeted and guided to do its job. This bill provides the budget authorization and the priorities our intelligence professionals need for the year ahead. The bill attempts to fix the imbalance between collection, which we have a great deal of, and processing, where we see shortfalls. The bill supports efforts to track the transnational targets, threats like terrorism, weapons proliferation, and narcotrafficking, which are directed against us from many countries. The bill acknowledges the indispensable role of intelligence in monitoring the arms control treaties we entered into, and it funds the systems which provide that intelligence. The bill supports innovative technologies and the leveraging of private sector achievements and market requirements for the benefit of intelligence. The bill supports research and development for the agencies whose mission depends on technology, and it addresses the growing imbalance between rising personnel costs and the shrinking availability of research funds. The intelligence authorization bill also closes some of the remaining loopholes noted in the aftermath of the Ames case. The Intelligence Committee wants to make sure Americans who commit espionage forfeit all the financial gains from their espionage and from their pretense of being loyal American officials. Consequently the bill would require forfeiture of a convicted spy's Thrift Savings Account, if the spy were a civil servant. The bill also provides for the innocent spouse of a convicted spy to keep some of his or her assets, provided he or she cooperates with the authorities regarding the espionage case. Access to personal financial data was a problem in the Ames case, so the bill would permit FBI to have access to consumer credit reports on a suspected spy earlier in the investigative process. CIA has been criticized for retaining Ames in the clandestine service long after his mediocrity was apparent. Although the great majority of intelligence personnel I meet are clearly talented people making a contribution to their country, the intelligence community's retention of the few people whose performance would get them fired in the private sector is a problem we need to fix. Consequently the bill asks the Director of Central Intelligence to implement an up-or-out policy across the intelligence community, similar to the policies of the State Department and the military. Such a provision would be one of the few positive outcomes of the Ames case. Not only would it strengthen personnel quality, it would also help the intelligence agencies manage their retention and overstrength problems. The bill supports counterintelligence programs because America has secrets worth protecting, and those secrets are threatened by foreign intelligence services and Americans who would sell those secrets to them. As former DCI Woolsey explained to the committee in our first hearing of this Congress, no one can guarantee that Ames was the last of his breed. Given human nature and the size of the intelligence community, it is likely we will see more espionage cases. We don't need witch hunts. We do need vigilance and deterrence. Many people presumed that the end of the cold war meant the end of spying and secrecy, and the Ames case led them to ask why the material being protected mattered any more. Of course, the costs of Ames' treachery in human lives alone is enough to justify his sentence. A life sentence for what he did is merciful, in my view. But there are additional reasons why our secrets are important, and must be protected. Simply put, our ability to monitor and predict threats to this country is essential to saving the lives of Americans. Whether intelligence brings the warning of a strategic attack or accidental missile launch, or an impending terrorist attack, or the decision of some foreign leader to develop a clandestine program of biological weapons, our national lives and our individual lives hinge, in part, on the capabilities of the intelligence community. I urge my colleagues to support the intelligence authorization bill. We buy many expensive things in the name of national security which are never used in combat. We buy some things the Pentagon doesn't even want. Their defenders justify them with theories. The contributions of intelligence are not theoretical. I can take any Member to CIA or the NSA or the NRO or over to the Joint Intelligence Center at the Pentagon and demonstrate how intelligence is being used today to inform and support U.S. policy and U.S. military operations. We read in the September 27 Washington Post how crucial intelligence is to NATO operations over Bosnia, and how the intelligence is getting to the warfighter so much faster than in the gulf war. The gulf war itself was a triumph of dominant battlefield awareness, to use the current catchphrase. General Schwartzkopf knew vastly more about the enemy and the situation than the Iraqis did about us, and we all saw on television the fruits of that superior intelligence. With these events so fresh on our consciousness it is easy to forget that as essential as it is to support the military with intelligence, the priority customer for intelligence in peacetime must be the President and the policymakers around him. Who, more than the President, needs a clear understanding of our vulnerabilities and our opportunities? With the best intelligence, the President can shape a policy that addresses the weaknesses of our adversaries and the requirements of our allies. Intelligence is the key to effective policy, and effective policy ought to achieve its goal, most of the time, without the need to employ our Armed Forces in combat. In my view, preventing the war, getting what we want without the war, is far better than having the war. [[Page S 14790]] You can't do that without dominant knowledge. Once the President has formed the policy, intelligence can also help in its execution. To keep the U.N. Security Council solid in keeping sanctions against Iraq, Ambassador Albright last year showed U-2 photographs of Saddam Hussein's new palaces and continuing weapons programs to ten of her foreign colleagues on the Security Council. Similar images of the killing fields of Bosnia are pinpointing the atrocities there and will be useful as evidence in war crimes trials. United States showed the world North Korea's true purposes at the nuclear facility at Yong Byon. As these and many other daily cases show, intelligence is a national asset. It plays a national role every day, whether or not our military is engaged somewhere. There used to be a clear distinction between national and tactical intelligence, but the line is blurred today. Increasingly, the same agencies and collection systems that produce intelligence for the national policymaker also support the military, even at the tactical level. The same U-2 mission can bring back information on a Bosnian Serb air defense mission, intelligence for the local NATO, and simultaneously take pictures of refugee flows or mass graves that our policymakers and diplomats can use in their negotiating efforts. This growing dual capability of intelligence is often overlooked by those who associate intelligence exclusively with military operations. The annual authorization process is a time to ask how our intelligence efforts can maximize their contribution to the nation. There are new directions I believe intelligence must take. First, intelligence must get closer to its customers. The age of ivory-tower analysis is over. Intelligence managers have been much more responsive to customers in recent years, but more must be done. I would even consider physically moving teams of analysts right into the customers' offices. The intelligence community must also make maximum use of computer-based interactive communication with its customers. The analysts need to get into the customers' heads, so to speak. The challenge is to do so without taking on the policy biases of the customer, because the intelligence must not only be useful and responsive to the customer, it must also be absolutely honest. When the President's policy isn't working, or the efforts of the customer's organization are backfiring, the analyst must tell it like it is. Not all the bravery in national security takes place on the battlefield. Second, intelligence should be predictive, even risking that its predictions could occasionally be wrong. It should look to the margins of likely future events and trends and analyze the less likely events which would most endanger U.S. interests. As the devaluation of the Mexican peso demonstrated, the less likely events nonetheless sometimes happen, and they can have a deep impact on Americans. Third, intelligence must adapt to a world which has not only seen the end of Communism, but which is best suited for small, fast-moving, entrepreneurial organizations, a world which puts its greatest premium on knowledge, and a world in which the market, not the government, drives the improvement of technology. This new world brings Director Deutch many new tasks. He must develop his human collectors, planning ten or more years in advance for their peak usefulness, in the same way we acquire satellites. He must modify the personnel management culture that periodically moves people for its own internal bureaucratic purposes. Similarly, the managers of military intelligence personnel must find a place in their services for the handful of military personnel who have mastered foreign languages and cultures. We cannot have a first class HUMINT service without nurturing the people who serve in it, both civilian and military. The explosion of commercial technology presents big potential advantages to the intelligence community, and it fundamentally challenges traditional methods of procurement. The traditional way to procure intelligence technology is for the government to pay for the research, development, and testing, as well as for the finished product. Consequently, the collection systems and processing and dissemination equipment for the Intelligence community cost the Government a lot of money. The unit cost is also high because the intelligence community buys relatively few of the finished items. The Government tends to buy hundreds of something unique and pays millions for each one. The commercial world buys millions of something broadly available and pays hundreds for each one. The challenge is to find commercial applications for intelligence equipment, and thus reduce the government's acquisition cost. The Intelligence Committee has supported this approach for several years, starting with permitting U.S. Companies to offer one-meter space imagery and imaging systems to the commercial market. Another trailblazing effort is ongoing at David Sarnoff Laboratories in Princeton, NJ, where researchers have created image analysis equipment which simultaneously answers the needs of intelligence analysts looking for evidence of weapons on the ground and the needs of radiologists looking for evidence of tumors in mammograms. In both uses, this equipment saves lives. It also provides a model for the intelligence community on how to procure the latest equipment more cheaply. I have spoken about how our intelligence capability should adapt itself to the world of today. Under the leadership of one of the most capable executives and scientists in the country, this adaptation will proceed swiftly. I only wish the authority of the DCI over other agencies were stronger, so they could get the benefit of strong, centralized leadership. That is an issue for another day. My point today is the central, day-to-day importance of intelligence. The lives of individuals and at times our national life depends on its excellence, it is an essential function of government, and we are not about to block grant it to the states. That is why the intelligence authorization bill is an important piece of legislation.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, while I believe this bill is the best that can be achieved during this period of tight budgets and a changing world, there is one part of it that makes me uneasy. All of us were presented earlier this week with media stories that the National Reconnaissance Office once again has secretly kept large sums of money stashed away. Supposedly, DOD, CIA, and the Congress didn't know anything about $1 billion that had been ``hoarded'' away in carry- forward accounts. The committee has already held a hearing on this subject. Based on the information presented and on the tough questions asked by committee members, several things are quite clear. One, this is not a secret ``slush'' fund that no one knew anything about. In fact, these were funds maintained in accordance with the appropriate DOD manual. Moreover, DOD has known about the account since at least 1989 when the DOD Inspector General audited the NRO and agreed with the NRO's proposal on the size and method of accounting for these funds. Second, the Committee has been overseeing and not overlooking the NRO's budget. We are all very much aware of the debate about the NRO in which the previous Director of Central Intelligence and the Congress were engaged. I say we are aware of it because even though the NRO's activities are highly classified--and they should be for good reasons-- the news media carried the stories about the intensity of the debate between the Committee and the DIC. That debate has ended because we have a new DCI, and the Committee is moving ahead with its close scrutiny of the NRO. Third, the manager's amendment to the bill conforms our authorization level for the NRO's carry-forward accounts to the amount of the reductions in these accounts legislated by the Defense appropriations conference bill. The committee has done this so we can move ahead to a conference with our House counterparts. But, Mr. President, I want everyone to understand the implications of what is happening here. In the opinion of the Director of the Intelligence Community Management Staff, the cuts being taken against these accounts could have far-reaching effects on the country's ability to collect extremely valuable information involving our most vital interests. The National Reconnaissance Office collects sensitive information better than anyone else, anywhere else in the world. Let me repeat that: no one, anywhere--the Russians, the French, the Germans, the Japanese, even DOD--is better at this business than the NRO. If any of my colleagues believes I may be exaggerating about the importance and usefulness of this information, let me make a standing invitation to those of my colleagues who might have doubts. You can pick any day of any week, and we will go together to find out what the NRO has collected, and is collecting on that day. I can guarantee you, you will walk away from the experience with a far better appreciation of just how good our satellite systems are, and with a better understanding that the NRO's contributions are vital to our military and foreign policy successes. This year, when the NRO presented its Future Years Defense Plan to the Congress, it gave us a very aggressive plan. It provides for big savings by consolidating operations. It restructures our satellite constellations, moving them away from a Cold War focus and instead directing them against future problems. In order to execute that plan, the NRO says it needs all of the money contained in its request. The size of the cut contained in the Defense appropriations conference bill and mirrored in the manager's amendment offered with the Intelligence Authorization Bill probably means the plan cannot be executed unless the money is restored. So I just want my colleagues to know that if the NRO is correct, next year important satellite programs will be cut and others will be pushed far out into the future if a substantial amount of this money is not restored. It is very difficult to discuss--in an unclassified statement on the floor of the Senate--the enormous problem this cut could create. I could tell my colleagues that as result of these cuts, when they, or their successors, get a classified briefing in S-407 five years from now, there may not be any satellite images available to help explain the situation. But I don't know for certain if this is true. Nevertheless, I want to alert my colleagues to the potential repercussion this cut could have, if the money is not restored in subsequent years of the NRO's Future Years Defense Plan.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, one quick point, and then I will yield whatever time the Senator from Maine wants to take, and we will finish. There is already in this bill a continuation of this program with $3 million for salaries and expenses. This money provides restoration to the grants. I yield whatever time is left to the distinguished Senator from Maine.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I do not know if the Senator from Maine wants to speak on this amendment. I will be pleased to yield time. If I may take just an additional 30 seconds, there is not a need for an offset with this amendment. As a consequence of the Domenici amendment, an offset is not needed. That is what my modification did, was to strike it. His is a straightforward argument against this amendment. It can only be made on the basis the Senator from Texas used, that this is a program that Members do not want to fund and do not support. As I said, it has very strong support from a wide variety of community organizations that matched the Federal dollars, used the Federal dollars two to one. I think this program not only deserves to be supported, but has very strong support from the Republican leadership on the House side.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this particular program is a very small program. It has strong support from the Republican leadership in the House. There is $40 million in the bill on the House side. It does enable us to expand not only educational opportunities in telecommunications, but it empowers local communities to be able to create jobs and, as I said, create an understanding of how this telecommunications technology can be used in a variety of different ways. There are lots of organizations that have used it, educational institutions K-12, and universities. I hope my colleagues will be able to support the amendment. It has a very simple, straightforward purpose. It is consistent with the essential message we have been trying, I believe successfully, to use, which is we are trying to empower people at the local level, shifting power away from the Federal Government. I think it is a program, thus far at least, that has proven its merit, and it needs to be continued. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the modification basically was done as a consequence of really not needing an offset now, as I explained earlier, from the Domenici amendment. Staff informs me the $18.9 million we are adding back is available in the bill. This is a very straightforward amendment. This program, in 1994, had 90-some individual community organizations that filed applications. They match two for one. I ask unanimous consent a letter from many, many community-based organizations who have indicated they support this amendment, be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. KERREY. The unanimous consent request is to modify the amendment--I sent the modification to the desk--and to add Senator Daschle and Senator Jeffords as cosponsors.

Mr. KERREY. I send the modification to the desk.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a modification, I say to the Senator from Texas, to my amendment. Let me send a copy of it over to him. Essentially the modification enables me to strike the offset, as a consequence of the Domenici amendment. He was going to take an offset that I originally identified, and that was dropped. As a consequence of that, I no longer need an offset, I am told by staff on the Appropriations Committee. I also ask, as part of that unanimous consent, that Senator Daschle and Senator Jeffords be added as cosponsors.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask the manager of the bill, my amendment is the amendment after Senator Biden. I am willing to go immediately to it and ask unanimous consent that the Biden amendment be set aside for consideration.

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

Mr. KERREY. I object.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. KERREY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays and do it by voice vote.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk.

Mr. KERREY. The amendment I offer on behalf of myself, Senators Leahy, and Lieberman, is a very straightforward amendment. It restores $18.9 million to telecommunications and information and infrastructure assistance programs. This program has been highly successful with thousands of applications for this. It is a matching program to get at least 2 for 1 for every dollar that goes out. It is community-based. Community-based organizations across the country have used this program to increase the educational effort in the telecommunications effort. It has created jobs. It has created real advancement of understanding of how this telecommunications revolution can produce benefits at the local level. Mr. President, I understand that some of the objections have been raised to this program; talked about it being something that has not proven up. I urge my colleagues to look at not only the success we have but the backlog coming up. We have enjoyed a tremendous success with this program. It is not a program that is just throwing money out there. It is a program that requires a match from the community level. It is a program that empowers citizens at the local level to make decisions about how they want to increase jobs and education in their own communities. It has a fully funded offset. I hope that my colleagues will consider and support a program that will create jobs, and will create more empowerment for the American people at the local level. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I discussed with the distinguished Senator from Texas, the manager of the bill, and the Senator from New Mexico a unanimous-consent request I would like to offer; that I be allowed to set aside the pending business for 2 minutes, request the yeas and nays, and go back immediately to the business of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico?

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