J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, it is not desirable, if the Senator from Virginia seeks to get additional support. I am saying that as long as he keeps the language the way it is right now, I can interpret this in a way that allows President Clinton to do so if he chooses. Again, I say to my good friends on that side that President Clinton hasn't indicated any desire to do so. Why would we want to draft this amendment so that it prevented an existing President from doing something that a new President could do if the existing President hasn't demonstrated any willingness to do so in the first place? It seems to me if Congress is saying we just do not trust this particular President, and we are not going to allow him to do that, it is a very bad signal. It signals to people that may have a bad intent toward the United States of America that they might be able to get away with things. They might be able to do things in this current environment as a consequence of Congress not willing to allow what normally the Commander in Chief would be allowed to do.

Mr. KERREY. First, I appreciate very much the statement of the Senator from Arizona. We have been together on a number of occasions before the intelligence committee and in the public environment talking about the threat of the missiles, especially from rogue states. I have enjoyed those associations very much. He is quite right; the systems are extremely complicated. We do talk about warheads and we ought to focus on the platforms. One of the problems is that it is very rare we have a chance to focus on any of these. It is debated too little, in my view. These are not bullets; these are very complicated systems. If you are the STRATCOM, you have a Presidential directive that tells you what you are supposed to do. Again, that is where it all begins, with a Presidential directive and a PPD 60 that was updated during the Clinton administration. You set forth talents. You are the CINC in charge of this. You have ICBMs, submarine launch ballistic missiles; you have your bombers at your disposal; and you are calculating whether they will be reliable, whether they are available, whether they will be able to do what that Presidential directive says you have to do. I am challenging the Presidential directive, the policy itself. As I understand it, I thought earlier we could have some flexibility in this amendment. I am uncomfortable tying this thing to quadrennial review. I don't want to speak for the administration. I am not on the Armed Services Committee so I haven't been there when they made the presentations, but I have, as a consequence of being provoked to do so, requested a briefing from STRATCOM that was given to General Shalikashvili in 1997 and was presented to the Armed Services Committee. I believe both the chairman and ranking member received that briefing, as well. I am satisfied that is a current analysis. I am satisfied that it needs relatively little attention. I don't agree with what the chairman has said, saying that the President has not been evaluating this over the last 7 years. He has arms control negotiators. In fact, he has resisted pressure from this side of the aisle to do the very thing I am talking about right now. He has been unwilling to do it; he has been unwilling to go lower, to do the thing that President Bush did in 1991. I am not certain, even if this section were stricken, that the President would take any action, but I am not willing to accept that there hasn't been a sufficient amount of review done on this, and I think it would be unwise, as I hear now, not only restricting President Clinton but restricting President-elect Bush or President-elect Gore. Earlier in a colloquy with the author of the amendment, it seemed there was some flexibility. But I hear the Senator from Arizona saying, no, there is not; it would have to be submitted concurrent with the quadrennial review, which is expected in December of 2001, and it may not be done 2001. It could take longer than December of 2001. We are saying that the current President and future Presidents could not, if they got an attractive offer from the Russians to accept the kind of modifications in ABM that permit a vigorous deployment of missile defense along the lines of what Governor Bush is talking about, this would prohibit Governor Bush from doing that unless we came in and changed the law again. I think we should not be tying the hands of the President in these kinds of negotiations. What current law does, as modified by the Senator from Virginia, is to untie it slightly, but as I understand it now and if the Senator from Virginia agrees regarding the explanation of the Senator from Arizona in an earlier evaluation, that could not be done, but only submitted concurrent with the submission of the quadrennial review.

Mr. KERREY. I yield.

Mr. KERREY. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. KERREY. Let me ask Senator Warner the question.

Mr. KERREY. In answering the question of the Senator from Michigan, that portion that was directed to me at least, first of all I say you are right. I think the question is, Do we need an additional review, more than we have already had, to support a President if the President decides to go at lower levels? That is what this amendment says. This amendment says we need additional review and it needs to be more thoughtful than we have had thus far. I am prepared to say, with the little I know--you know more than I on this subject--that we have had thoughtful and serous review done. What the amendment does is it ties the hands of a President, this President and the President-elect, if we have to wait for it to be submitted concurrently with the quadrennial review, and it weakens him as a consequence. It says to the people who are negotiating with him, if an offer is put on the table by this President that is different from what the current law allows, he cannot do it. He can't sit down and negotiate with President Putin to go to lower levels in exchange for a modification of ABM because the law prevents him from doing it. It weakens an incumbent President. That is exactly what it does. I think that is what it is intended to do. That is what it will successfully accomplish. I don't think--in fact, I know--from my experience of the Senator from Virginia that is precisely the opposite of the sort of thing he would want. He would avoid it. I am going to listen to the answer of the Senator from Virginia and then come back in the morning to hear even more. But in the spirit of bipartisanship, I understand the Senator from Virginia is going to be offering later, perhaps, an amendment that would provide some resources for the operation of a World War II memorial.

Mr. KERREY. I would like to be added as a cosponsor of that.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of Senator Edwards' staff: Bob Morgan.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in support of this crop insurance conference report. As my colleagues from the Agriculture Committee are well aware, this legislation has been a work in progress for a good long time. The final package we reached with the House and that we bring to the floor today is a very good bill. Farmers in my home state of Nebraska are going to be very pleased with it, as are farmers of all types of crops all across the Nation. The major provisions of this bill reflect just what we heard when Senator Roberts and I asked farm and lending groups what they wanted in this legislation, nearly one and a half years ago. At that time, they asked for more affordable coverage, equity for revenue insurance, more new and innovative policies from the private sector and a better program for specialty crops. This bill includes all of those provisions. Although we've provided additional subsidies to buy crop insurance for the past two years, this bill makes them permanent law. And we go one step further by increasing subsidies even higher at the very highest levels of coverage--a provision that would have been especially helpful to farmers this year, as a broad stretch of the Midwest and South face severe drought. The final bill moves the Risk Management Agency in what I strongly feel is the right direction, toward being a regulator instead of competitor. We place new product development fully in the hands of the private sector, whether it be insurance companies, trade associations, or universities. It includes authority that will finally help provide independent advice to the FCIC Board of Directors and create an equal review process for all new policy submissions. The bill includes and builds upon ideas forwarded by our colleagues from Florida, Senators Graham and Mack, regarding new policy development for specialty crops. It includes an important provision first advocated by our Ag Committee colleagues, Senators Baucus and Craig, to remove the area yield trigger requirement from the Non-Insured Assistance Program. There are dozens of other equally important provisions in this bill that benefit each and every region of the country. While I am aware that the row-crop producing parts of the country will gain the most immediate benefits because of their long-standing participation in the crop insurance program, the potential for the program to work just as well along the coasts and in the south is given great weight under this legislation. Not every provision benefits every region; a few are specific only to one region or commodity. That is how we finally ended up with a bill with national appeal, and I am very proud of that effort. Let me say just a few words about the additional 2000 and 2001 spending added to the crop insurance bill. I am pleased that the Budget Committee included additional ag spending in the budget resolution this year, much as they did crop insurance funding last year, and of course Senators Conrad and Grassley are responsible for that and I thank them. My concerns--and the concerns of many Nebraskans--are well-known: distributing additional payments through the Freedom to Farm mechanism is unfair to many and the cause of a number of the problems rural communities are facing. These payments, based on planting decisions made in the 1970s and 1980s, disadvantage younger farmers and those who have traditionally rotated crops or tried to diversify--exactly contrary to what Freedom to Farm was supposed to accomplish. Some payments go to producers and landowners who are no longer producing the crop upon which their additional payment is based. Even worse, under this approach payments go to people who no longer farm at all. The complaint I hear most frequently is about the crops included in these payments versus those that are not. Freedom to Farm is destroying the alfalfa processing industry in Nebraska. As prices for other commodities have collapsed, more and more farmers are growing alfalfa-- a non-program crop. Yet they continue to benefit from these payments, even while long-time alfalfa producers receive nothing. Adding additional payments for oilseeds--even while most oilseed producers already receive Freedom to Farm payments and enjoy an artificially high support price--makes even less sense. Despite the great expectations surrounding this farm program, I contend that it creates greater market distortions than those supposed ``failed'' farm programs of the past. And meantime, we spend billions of dollars each year to keep it in place, while our rural communities are dying. Also attached to this bill is additional spending for 2001. This package represents a good-faith effort by Chairman Lugar and Chairman Combest to put together a package acceptable to the majority, and I do not envy their work. Although there are provisions in the package I do not support, there are many that I do. I commend them for structuring a package with national appeal and for giving consideration to a broad group of commodities and interests. Finally, let me offer my sincere thanks to a number of people for their work on this bill. Chairman Lugar and his staff have worked very hard on this legislation and made a tremendous effort to advance the often-diverse opinions of members of the Ag Committee. Thanks also to our ranking member, Senator Harkin, and to his staff, as well as to our minority leader, Senator Daschle, and his staff. They made this legislation possible. The coalition that joined Senator Roberts and me on this legislation way back in March of 1999 and worked together throughout deserves special recognition: Senators Harkin, Conrad, Daschle, Baucus, Johnson, Santorum, Roberts, Grassley, and Craig. Special mention must go to staff for each of these members, for working together tirelessly and in a completely bipartisan fashion. Let me also thank the Senate Legislative Counsel, especially Gary Endicott, for his work throughout this process, including too many nights and weekends. And finally, my deepest thanks to Senator Roberts and to Mike Seyfert of his staff for their perseverance and good humor for the last eighteen months. Their commitment to making this legislation bipartisan--right up to the closing hours--is a tribute to Kansas and the Senate.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will take a few seconds. Earlier in my statement I said very nice things, as they deserved, about the chairman, ranking member, and their staffs and every other staff member of the Agriculture Committee except for one. That was the person who wrote the statement I was reading earlier on the floor. So I want to just take a moment to thank Bev Paul for all the work she did on this piece of legislation. I appreciate very much Senator Harkin, you and Leader Daschle, trusting me enough to put me on the conference committee. I appreciate Bev's contribution to it.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to offer my support for passage of H. Con. Res. 302, a resolution proclaiming a National Moment of Remembrance. As we gather with family and friends in observance of Memorial Day, I urge all Americans to take time to reflect upon the day's true meaning. Whether we attend a public observance, mark a grave, or simply bow our heads in quiet reflection, all Americans should remember to honor those who by serving, put their faith and trust in the ideals for which our nation stands. The legislation we are about to pass will establish a National Moment of Remembrance at 3:00 local time on Memorial Day. At that time, I am hopeful all Americans will join together in recognition of those men and women who have died in military service of our nation. Finally, I thank my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, and Carmella LaSpada of No Greater Love for their efforts in making the National Moment of Remembrance a reality.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the group of people who organized the Million Mom March on Mother's Day. Three- quarters of a million people coming to Washington, DC, is rather impressive. I suspect even opponents of what they are trying to do are impressed with citizens' willingness to come to their Nation's Capital, especially in this case, declaring their intent to organize in a peaceful, law-abiding fashion to change the law. I wish them all the good luck in the world, and I appreciate very much the effort they have made and the success they had on Mother's Day. I also thank Senator Daschle for bringing the juvenile justice issue back before this body. All of us--at least I do in Nebraska--wrestle with this question of juvenile justice on almost a daily basis. Whenever I am back in the State, it quickly goes to the top of the list of things about which people are concerned. We have methamphetamine problems and other law enforcement problems, but juvenile justice is at the top of the list. This legislation would be relatively easy to pass were it not for this gun show amendment which I will address. It has tougher enforcement provisions, but it also provides resources to States, Governors, and community organizations so we can prevent crime from happening in the first place. It is almost without controversy that the compromise provisions we reached on the law enforcement side and the prevention side will work, and the communities are asking for that bill. What is holding it up is this gun show provision. I have come to the floor to talk about it. I listened carefully to the opposition to the original Lautenberg amendment, especially those who said there was too much paperwork, too much regulation. I played a role in it, I called Tom Nichols in Omaha, NE, who operates one of the largest gun dealerships in the Midwest to ask him if he would help me fashion something. Frankly, I worked with Mr. Nichols before trying to reduce the paperwork gun dealers face, which does not increase safety but increases paperwork without anything one can measure and say was beneficial. He agreed, understanding he would take a little heat for participating. I shipped him the Lautenberg amendment. He made modifications and changes. Senator Lautenberg offered that amendment the second time. Now, what we are talking about is something that, in my view, requires a minimal amount of regulations. As the Senator from New York said earlier, unlike most businesses, a gun dealer has a relatively small amount of regulation to face. It may feel like a lot if it is your business. I am licensed to sell alcoholic beverages in the State of Nebraska, and there is no restriction that someone can only come in once a year to inspect my premises, and if I destroy my records, it is only a misdemeanor. They can come in six times a day if they want to make certain I am obeying the law. We have a fairly light hand already in terms of regulation, given the transactions that are in place. The Lautenberg-Kerrey--if I can be so bold as to call it that-- amendment decreases in a significant way the paperwork that was required in the original amendment. If one looks at the statistics, there are a very high number of handguns that are purchased from dealers, about 3.5 million, and about 2 million that are purchased off the books. I am not saying all those are bought at gun shows, but there are 2,000 to 5,000 gun shows every year, so a pretty big fraction of those are purchased there. Like every licensed dealer, this is what the gun show dealer will have to do: They will have to register with ATF and pay a small fee. If someone objects to the size of the fee, let's debate that. They license themselves; they just register with ATF. Each vendor has to show proof of identification when they check into the gun show. All they verify is that the vendor is who he or she claims to be. The gun show promoter has to let people know every gun sold has to go through the NICS background check. That is a full 3-day background check. That is the extent of the regulation. We modified the original amendment and now have one that, in my view, will save lives. Will it save millions of lives? Probably not. Will it save hundreds of lives? Probably not. What value do we place on a human life? How do we value the number of lives that have already been saved by the Brady background checks themselves? The State of Nebraska is a State where hunting is almost a religion; it is a way of life. Kids in Nebraska are raised to handle guns in a safe fashion at a very early age, to handle long rifles, to handle shotguns, and even handguns at a very early age. These people are not the problem. I would not be here voting for something that is going to impose a regulatory requirement upon them if I did not believe strongly that it will save lives in other parts of the country. In my view, it will. That is what this is all about. Are we going to try to balance the needs of one group of people against the needs of another? The Senator from New York talked about that. That is exactly what we do. That is what the doctrine of relative rights says. I do have freedom of speech, unless my freedom of speech bumps up and endangers the life of somebody else. Oftentimes, that is the problem with guns. I agree with those who say we ought to enforce the laws. I agree that law enforcement needs to be given more power. But, I don't agree that enforcing the laws alone is the answer. We must also enact reasonable measures like this. This is a very reasonable change in the laws of the land. It imposes what I consider to be a very modest regulatory burden upon people who are organizing gun shows. It is hardly about any measurement of regulation. Go to any business in America where we regulate for safe drinking water or anything else. This is a relatively small burden for such an obvious benefit. I hope Senators will examine--I see the Senator from New Jersey is here--what I have been calling it the Lautenberg-Kerrey amendment. It imposes a very small burden upon people who are opening up gun shows and operating gun shows. I do not want to shut down the gun shows. This, obviously, does not shut them down; this allows them to continue to operate. In addition, there is another argument that the playing field needs to be leveled, that the regulatory playing field needs to be the same on every premise where guns are sold. Why should you give me an advantage? Why should you say if you want to be a licensed gun dealer, build a building, and hire and employ people to work in your local community, there is a set of regulations you have to go through. But if all you want to do is have a gun show once every 6 months or so, you do not have to go through the same kind of regulation. I appreciate very much that this has become a contentious debate, but frankly, when you look at what we are asking in the regulation, it perplexes me. This is holding up a very important piece of legislation. The Juvenile Justice Act is a piece of legislation, in my view, that will reduce crime and reduce violent crime and increase the likelihood that it will prevent them as well. It has been worked out. Republicans and Democrats came together. It was a very big vote. My guess is, it will probably be 100-0 without this one particular contentious provision. I hope Senators will examine what this so-called gun show provision does. It is not unreasonable regulation. It is reasonable regulation that, based upon the success of Brady, we can say will produce a benefit that is worth the price. That is what all of us, as we try to figure out whether or not we are going to support a particular regulation, regardless of who is being regulated, ought to examine. Is the cost of the regulation worth the benefit we get? In this case, I overwhelmingly, enthusiastically, and unfortunately painfully, because it is slowing down the enactment of a very good law, come to the conclusion that it will. I hope through the course of this debate, this will become clear. A majority in the country, 80 percent of the people, favor it when it is described specifically to them. It is not something that should be slowing down the Juvenile Justice Act. Indeed, we ought to see it as not only consistent with, but strengthening the Juvenile Justice Act and pass it with all due speed. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to correct an inequity in the tax code which can hurt homeowners who sell their homes at a loss. I am delighted to be joined by Senator Hatch in introducing this legislation. We all know someone who, for whatever reason, has wound up selling their home at a loss. In these situations, where the value of a home is less than the outstanding loan on that home, a mortgage lender will sometimes forgive all or part of the outstanding mortgage balance. Under current law, the amount forgiven is counted as taxable income to the seller. This doesn't make any sense, particularly since gains on a principal residence are tax exempt up to $500,000. The legislation we are introducing today will fix this problem by exempting taxpayers from including in ordinary income mortgage amounts forgiven by the lender on a principal residence, provided the proceeds of the home sale won't satisfy the qualified outstanding mortgage. The legislation we are introducing today is targeted to protect against any abuse and we expect the cost to be very low over a 10-year period. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to correct an inequity in the tax code which can hurt homeowners who sell their homes at a loss. I am delighted to be joined by Senator Hatch in introducing this legislation. We all know someone who, for whatever reason, has wound up selling their home at a loss. In these situations, where the value of a home is less than the outstanding loan on that home, a mortgage lender will sometimes forgive all or part of the outstanding mortgage balance. Under current law, the amount forgiven is counted as taxable income to the seller. This doesn't make any sense, particularly since gains on a principal residence are tax exempt up to $500,000. The legislation we are introducing today will fix this problem by exempting taxpayers from including in ordinary income mortgage amounts forgiven by the lender on a principal residence, provided the proceeds of the home sale won't satisfy the qualified outstanding mortgage. The legislation we are introducing today is targeted to protect against any abuse and we expect the cost to be very low over a 10-year period. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, in today's information age, the threat of electronic attack is more likely than a nuclear attack. Words such as ``cyber-terrorism'' and ``hackers'' have crept into everyday talk, no longer confined to the world of computer nerds and geeks. Despite being one of the most technologically-advanced countries in the world, United States technology is not capable of keeping intruders out and secrets in. Flaws have been found in the computer systems of the Pentagon, IRS, bank networks, utility companies, and telecommunications providers, among others, making all of them vulnerable to attack. The question, then, is what can we do as a country to protect both the government and industries from electronic attack? I believe we need to start early to equip more people with technological skills needed to build and maintain secure information technology networks. Today, along with my good friend Senator Roberts from Kansas, I am pleased to be introducing legislation that will do just that. The vehicle we use to achieve this is the highly reputable Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation, which currently awards scholarships to college juniors and seniors studying math and science. I doubt any of my colleagues would dispute the vast success of the Goldwater foundation. Nearly 20 percent of last year's Rhodes Scholars were Goldwater Scholars first; and in the last eleven years, Goldwater Scholars have won 19 Marshall, 6 Churchill, 9 Fulbright, 23 Hughes, 65 NSF and numerous other fellowships. Our bill is simple: We increase funding for the Goldwater foundation by 20 million dollars, taking it from 61 to 81 million dollars. That money will go for scholarships to a new category of students, those studying ``information protection technology''. By training these young people, we can set up our technological infrastructure so it becomes safe from intruders. Let me paint you a picture. Fifty years ago we suffered a devastating attack on Pearl Harbor. The siege lasted five hours. 2403 lives were lost, as were twenty ships and 188 aircraft. That attack catapulted the United States into World War II. As a country, however, we emerged from the war more powerful than we had been entering it. Along with the Soviet Union, the U.S. was deemed a ``superpower,'' and we have yet to give up that title. A devastating attack today would take a much different form and have much more catastrophic consequences. We are not likely to be attacked by airplanes and ships. Rather, it is far more likely that we will be attacked through our technology systems. The attack can occur in as little as ten seconds, and the effects can devastate our whole industrial and governmental infrastructure. A cyber-terrorist can wipe out all financial records, plunge aircraft from the air with no warning, corrupt our entire national defense system, and render telecommunications useless. And it can happen in just seconds, virtually undetected. And we were worried about Y2K. If this scenario frightens you, good. These threats are very real, and with our growing dependence on informational systems, as a country we become more vulnerable every day. One needs to look no further than the now infamous ``I love you'' computer virus that swept this world last week to get a glimpse at how quickly this can occur, and how devastating such an attack can be. The Pentagon, other government agencies, and many industries have set up departments to handle cyber-security, but we need to do everything we can to ensure that these departments can be staffed by knowledgeable information-protection experts. Without skilled staff, these departments are useless. The Information Protection Technology Scholarships will help ensure that the students in college have the opportunity to learn as much as possible about protecting technology. In turn, these students will repay the nation by putting their skills to work to make our technological infrastructure more secure. Twenty million dollars is not much to ask for to protect the entire United States from the possibility of wide-ranging cyber-terrorism. One final note. With such a shortage of qualified American workers, America's high tech industry is hiring people from other countries to come to the United States and fill these jobs. Highly trained immigrants enter this country under the H1-B visa program. Congress raised the cap on H1-B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 for FY '99, and it wasn't enough: we reached that cap by June last year. Later this month, the Senate is expected to consider another increase of H1-B visas to 195,000 per year for FY00, 01 and 02. I support this proposed increase; however, I firmly believe we must do everything in our power to grow our own labor force. That is why I intend to offer this bill as an amendment to S. 2045 when it is considered on the Senate floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, in today's information age, the threat of electronic attack is more likely than a nuclear attack. Words such as ``cyber-terrorism'' and ``hackers'' have crept into everyday talk, no longer confined to the world of computer nerds and geeks. Despite being one of the most technologically-advanced countries in the world, United States technology is not capable of keeping intruders out and secrets in. Flaws have been found in the computer systems of the Pentagon, IRS, bank networks, utility companies, and telecommunications providers, among others, making all of them vulnerable to attack. The question, then, is what can we do as a country to protect both the government and industries from electronic attack? I believe we need to start early to equip more people with technological skills needed to build and maintain secure information technology networks. Today, along with my good friend Senator Roberts from Kansas, I am pleased to be introducing legislation that will do just that. The vehicle we use to achieve this is the highly reputable Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation, which currently awards scholarships to college juniors and seniors studying math and science. I doubt any of my colleagues would dispute the vast success of the Goldwater foundation. Nearly 20 percent of last year's Rhodes Scholars were Goldwater Scholars first; and in the last eleven years, Goldwater Scholars have won 19 Marshall, 6 Churchill, 9 Fulbright, 23 Hughes, 65 NSF and numerous other fellowships. Our bill is simple: We increase funding for the Goldwater foundation by 20 million dollars, taking it from 61 to 81 million dollars. That money will go for scholarships to a new category of students, those studying ``information protection technology''. By training these young people, we can set up our technological infrastructure so it becomes safe from intruders. Let me paint you a picture. Fifty years ago we suffered a devastating attack on Pearl Harbor. The siege lasted five hours. 2403 lives were lost, as were twenty ships and 188 aircraft. That attack catapulted the United States into World War II. As a country, however, we emerged from the war more powerful than we had been entering it. Along with the Soviet Union, the U.S. was deemed a ``superpower,'' and we have yet to give up that title. A devastating attack today would take a much different form and have much more catastrophic consequences. We are not likely to be attacked by airplanes and ships. Rather, it is far more likely that we will be attacked through our technology systems. The attack can occur in as little as ten seconds, and the effects can devastate our whole industrial and governmental infrastructure. A cyber-terrorist can wipe out all financial records, plunge aircraft from the air with no warning, corrupt our entire national defense system, and render telecommunications useless. And it can happen in just seconds, virtually undetected. And we were worried about Y2K. If this scenario frightens you, good. These threats are very real, and with our growing dependence on informational systems, as a country we become more vulnerable every day. One needs to look no further than the now infamous ``I love you'' computer virus that swept this world last week to get a glimpse at how quickly this can occur, and how devastating such an attack can be. The Pentagon, other government agencies, and many industries have set up departments to handle cyber-security, but we need to do everything we can to ensure that these departments can be staffed by knowledgeable information-protection experts. Without skilled staff, these departments are useless. The Information Protection Technology Scholarships will help ensure that the students in college have the opportunity to learn as much as possible about protecting technology. In turn, these students will repay the nation by putting their skills to work to make our technological infrastructure more secure. Twenty million dollars is not much to ask for to protect the entire United States from the possibility of wide-ranging cyber-terrorism. One final note. With such a shortage of qualified American workers, America's high tech industry is hiring people from other countries to come to the United States and fill these jobs. Highly trained immigrants enter this country under the H1-B visa program. Congress raised the cap on H1-B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 for FY '99, and it wasn't enough: we reached that cap by June last year. Later this month, the Senate is expected to consider another increase of H1-B visas to 195,000 per year for FY00, 01 and 02. I support this proposed increase; however, I firmly believe we must do everything in our power to grow our own labor force. That is why I intend to offer this bill as an amendment to S. 2045 when it is considered on the Senate floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Domestic Carbon Storage Incentive Act of 2000 with Senators Brownback and Murkowski. Agriculture must play a major role in any climate change plan, since it is an important part of both the cause and the solution. While the facts about global warming are not all clear, what is clear is that global warming is occurring. What is also clear is that human activities are emitting increasingly large volumes of greenhouse gases, and that these gases are influencing global warming. Carbon sequestration, that is pulling carbon from the air into the soil, is an important part of fighting global warming, and agriculture is one of the largest and most economical carbon ``sinks.'' Farmers and ranchers can store additional carbon in the soil fairly easily, using best management practices such as no-till farming, increased production of high carbon-storing crops, and increased use of winter cover crops. Storing carbon in the soil is not only good for the environment, it is also advantageous for soil quality and agriculture production. I am pleased that farmers and ranchers are beginning to realize that carbon sequestration is a win-win situation. Agriculture is sometimes hesitant to adopt change, however, and it is important to provide producers with the opportunity to fully utilize carbon-storing techniques. This bill will give agriculture producers added financial incentive to adopt these best management practices. Unlike CRP, the land will not be a set-aside, but rather these practices will be used on land in production. This program will be completely voluntary, with farmers competing for entrance into the program by proposing specific plans to store more carbon in their land. The best plans will be awarded ten- year contracts with payments no greater than twenty dollars per acre each year. Some farmers have expressed concern about using these carbon-storing techniques on their land, however, because current studies only involve small experimental plots. This legislation will implement carbon sequestration practices on whole farms, both to gather more data on beneficial techniques and to set examples for other farmers to follow. While measuring carbon storage is a difficult task, the most direct means of determining soil carbon sequestration is to measure, over time, sequential changes in the soil. At a recent Senate Agriculture Subcommittee hearing, several scientists and policy-makers advocated a greater need for more research and more data. This program will provide actual data from different soil types across the nation, furthering our collective knowledge of causes and solutions to global warming. The Domestic Carbon Storage Incentive Act is an important step in moving agriculture's role in fighting climate change forward. Carbon sequestration will benefit everyone: farmers, ranchers, the environment, and society. This bill will serve a public good, valued far above the cost of the program. Congress has the opportunity to take action to combat global warming, and I hope that the Senate can begin to achieve this goal by acting on this sound legislation.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Domestic Carbon Storage Incentive Act of 2000 with Senators Brownback and Murkowski. Agriculture must play a major role in any climate change plan, since it is an important part of both the cause and the solution. While the facts about global warming are not all clear, what is clear is that global warming is occurring. What is also clear is that human activities are emitting increasingly large volumes of greenhouse gases, and that these gases are influencing global warming. Carbon sequestration, that is pulling carbon from the air into the soil, is an important part of fighting global warming, and agriculture is one of the largest and most economical carbon ``sinks.'' Farmers and ranchers can store additional carbon in the soil fairly easily, using best management practices such as no-till farming, increased production of high carbon-storing crops, and increased use of winter cover crops. Storing carbon in the soil is not only good for the environment, it is also advantageous for soil quality and agriculture production. I am pleased that farmers and ranchers are beginning to realize that carbon sequestration is a win-win situation. Agriculture is sometimes hesitant to adopt change, however, and it is important to provide producers with the opportunity to fully utilize carbon-storing techniques. This bill will give agriculture producers added financial incentive to adopt these best management practices. Unlike CRP, the land will not be a set-aside, but rather these practices will be used on land in production. This program will be completely voluntary, with farmers competing for entrance into the program by proposing specific plans to store more carbon in their land. The best plans will be awarded ten- year contracts with payments no greater than twenty dollars per acre each year. Some farmers have expressed concern about using these carbon-storing techniques on their land, however, because current studies only involve small experimental plots. This legislation will implement carbon sequestration practices on whole farms, both to gather more data on beneficial techniques and to set examples for other farmers to follow. While measuring carbon storage is a difficult task, the most direct means of determining soil carbon sequestration is to measure, over time, sequential changes in the soil. At a recent Senate Agriculture Subcommittee hearing, several scientists and policy-makers advocated a greater need for more research and more data. This program will provide actual data from different soil types across the nation, furthering our collective knowledge of causes and solutions to global warming. The Domestic Carbon Storage Incentive Act is an important step in moving agriculture's role in fighting climate change forward. Carbon sequestration will benefit everyone: farmers, ranchers, the environment, and society. This bill will serve a public good, valued far above the cost of the program. Congress has the opportunity to take action to combat global warming, and I hope that the Senate can begin to achieve this goal by acting on this sound legislation.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am joined by my esteemed colleagues Senator McCain and Senator Moynihan in introducing the Social Security Protection, Preservation, and Reform Commission Act of 1990''. I am honored to join these two distinguished colleagues in an effort to create a bipartisan and bicameral Congressional Commission to reform Social Security. I am pleased to join Senator McCain in a serious effort to provoke this body to move beyond demagoguery and toward action on the subject of Social Security reform. Senator McCain has had the unique benefit of spending the earlier part of this year talking to thousands of constituents from across America about their hopes and concerns during the course of his Presidential campaign. As Senator McCain has noted to me, a great majority of these people expressed particular concern for the future state of the Social Security program. Americans have intense feelings of patriotism where Social Security is concerned--and strongly support reworking and preserving this program for generations to come. My friend's commitment to an honest debate and a reform agenda has sparked the continued interest and attention of millions of Americans-- and his support of the Social Security reform cause makes the program's eventual reform all the more likely. I am also honored to be joining my dear friend Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in introducing this legislation. Senator Moynihan has perhaps the most distinguished record of accomplishment where Social Security is concerned of anyone in this body--perhaps even in this country. As a former member of the Greenspan Commission, which restored solvency to the Trust Funds in 1983, Senator Moynihan is a seasoned veteran of reform commissions--and we welcome his counsel on, and support of, this legislation. My dear friend's participation in the Greenspan Commission also reminds us of what can happen when Congress waits until the last possible moment to restore solvency to this important program. As my colleagues may remember, the 1983 Commission met to discuss reforms at a time when the program was in severe jeopardy--Social Security checks were at risk of not being sent out. Since the 1983 reforms were enacted, future insolvency has again plagued the program. Senator Moynihan has been leading the charge to ensure that Congress does not make the same mistake in waiting until 2037 to reform the program--he knows too well that fixing it now will alleviate great financial pain on future generations. I have been honored to co-sponsor two reform bills with Senator Moynihan--and I am honored to call him a friend. His wise leadership on this and other issues will be dearly missed when he retires at the close of this 106th Congress. I was skeptical at first about an effort to create a Congressional Commission to reform the Social Security program. But upon further consideration, I have reached the conclusion that a bicameral, bipartisan Congressional Commission is the only way to move beyond the polarizing partisanship and inflammatory rhetoric that stalls action on this important program. The Commission envisioned in our bill will include equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, including the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Ways and Means and Finance Committees, and the Commissioner of Social Security as a non-voting, ex-officio member. Our bill also creates an expedited process for consideration of the Commission's reform bill in the House and Senate. The process is similar to reconciliation protections for budget and tax measures--and will prevent Members from exercising delaying tactics. Our bill also sets out a number of reform objectives for the Commission to meet, such as maintaining benefits for current beneficiaries, restoring Trust Fund solvency for at least 75-years, and including some form of wealth creation component as part of the Social Security program. I am particularly interested in encouraging this Commission to include some form of individual account provision--with special attention given to making the accounts and the program itself more progressive for low and moderate income individuals. As a Democrat, one of my greatest concerns is the growing wealth gap between the rich and poor. The latest Statistics of Income Bulletin from the IRS shows that the combined net worth of the top 4,400,000 Americans was $6.7 trillion in 1995. In other words, the top 2.5% of our population held 27.4% of the nation's wealth in the mid-1990s. These statistics highlight why we should be concerned about the growing wealth gap. The ownership of wealth brings security to people's lives. The ownership of wealth opens up new opportunities. And the ownership of wealth transforms the way people view their futures. An individual with no financial assets--and no means to accumulate financial assets--cannot count on a secure retirement or ensure that his or her future health care needs will be met. Ownership of wealth is a much more reliable way of becoming financially secure in old age than promises by politicians to tax and transfer income. Ownership of wealth produces greater independence and happiness. The mal-distribution of wealth (the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer) is not healthy for a liberal democracy and a free market economy such as ours. Wealth ownership is the only path to true security--and we must work to enact laws that provide low and moderate income families the opportunities and the tools to acquire wealth. We will never reach a stage in which all Americans are full participants in the growth of the American economy, unless we enact comprehensive pension reforms that will improve savings opportunities for low income workers, and modernize and improve the Social Security program so that it becomes more than just a mechanism for transferring income. I look forward to a spirited and substantive debate on the subject of Social Security in the upcoming Presidential election. And I am hopeful that our Congressional Commission proposal can become the vehicle by which the next President can work with Congress to create a bipartisan consensus on Social Security reform.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am joined by my esteemed colleagues Senator McCain and Senator Moynihan in introducing the Social Security Protection, Preservation, and Reform Commission Act of 1990''. I am honored to join these two distinguished colleagues in an effort to create a bipartisan and bicameral Congressional Commission to reform Social Security. I am pleased to join Senator McCain in a serious effort to provoke this body to move beyond demagoguery and toward action on the subject of Social Security reform. Senator McCain has had the unique benefit of spending the earlier part of this year talking to thousands of constituents from across America about their hopes and concerns during the course of his Presidential campaign. As Senator McCain has noted to me, a great majority of these people expressed particular concern for the future state of the Social Security program. Americans have intense feelings of patriotism where Social Security is concerned--and strongly support reworking and preserving this program for generations to come. My friend's commitment to an honest debate and a reform agenda has sparked the continued interest and attention of millions of Americans-- and his support of the Social Security reform cause makes the program's eventual reform all the more likely. I am also honored to be joining my dear friend Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in introducing this legislation. Senator Moynihan has perhaps the most distinguished record of accomplishment where Social Security is concerned of anyone in this body--perhaps even in this country. As a former member of the Greenspan Commission, which restored solvency to the Trust Funds in 1983, Senator Moynihan is a seasoned veteran of reform commissions--and we welcome his counsel on, and support of, this legislation. My dear friend's participation in the Greenspan Commission also reminds us of what can happen when Congress waits until the last possible moment to restore solvency to this important program. As my colleagues may remember, the 1983 Commission met to discuss reforms at a time when the program was in severe jeopardy--Social Security checks were at risk of not being sent out. Since the 1983 reforms were enacted, future insolvency has again plagued the program. Senator Moynihan has been leading the charge to ensure that Congress does not make the same mistake in waiting until 2037 to reform the program--he knows too well that fixing it now will alleviate great financial pain on future generations. I have been honored to co-sponsor two reform bills with Senator Moynihan--and I am honored to call him a friend. His wise leadership on this and other issues will be dearly missed when he retires at the close of this 106th Congress. I was skeptical at first about an effort to create a Congressional Commission to reform the Social Security program. But upon further consideration, I have reached the conclusion that a bicameral, bipartisan Congressional Commission is the only way to move beyond the polarizing partisanship and inflammatory rhetoric that stalls action on this important program. The Commission envisioned in our bill will include equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, including the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Ways and Means and Finance Committees, and the Commissioner of Social Security as a non-voting, ex-officio member. Our bill also creates an expedited process for consideration of the Commission's reform bill in the House and Senate. The process is similar to reconciliation protections for budget and tax measures--and will prevent Members from exercising delaying tactics. Our bill also sets out a number of reform objectives for the Commission to meet, such as maintaining benefits for current beneficiaries, restoring Trust Fund solvency for at least 75-years, and including some form of wealth creation component as part of the Social Security program. I am particularly interested in encouraging this Commission to include some form of individual account provision--with special attention given to making the accounts and the program itself more progressive for low and moderate income individuals. As a Democrat, one of my greatest concerns is the growing wealth gap between the rich and poor. The latest Statistics of Income Bulletin from the IRS shows that the combined net worth of the top 4,400,000 Americans was $6.7 trillion in 1995. In other words, the top 2.5% of our population held 27.4% of the nation's wealth in the mid-1990s. These statistics highlight why we should be concerned about the growing wealth gap. The ownership of wealth brings security to people's lives. The ownership of wealth opens up new opportunities. And the ownership of wealth transforms the way people view their futures. An individual with no financial assets--and no means to accumulate financial assets--cannot count on a secure retirement or ensure that his or her future health care needs will be met. Ownership of wealth is a much more reliable way of becoming financially secure in old age than promises by politicians to tax and transfer income. Ownership of wealth produces greater independence and happiness. The mal-distribution of wealth (the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer) is not healthy for a liberal democracy and a free market economy such as ours. Wealth ownership is the only path to true security--and we must work to enact laws that provide low and moderate income families the opportunities and the tools to acquire wealth. We will never reach a stage in which all Americans are full participants in the growth of the American economy, unless we enact comprehensive pension reforms that will improve savings opportunities for low income workers, and modernize and improve the Social Security program so that it becomes more than just a mechanism for transferring income. I look forward to a spirited and substantive debate on the subject of Social Security in the upcoming Presidential election. And I am hopeful that our Congressional Commission proposal can become the vehicle by which the next President can work with Congress to create a bipartisan consensus on Social Security reform.

Mr. KERREY

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

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, in the debate over tax cuts our attention is understandably drawn to the question of who pays those taxes and from this a debate commonly ensues over who should get the benefits of tax reductions. This argument leads us to consider the disparities of income and the need to make certain that our tax laws are not written so as to increase income inequality and hopefully to write our tax laws in order to give a boost to those whose wages are lower. Today, I rise to talk about a problem facing Americans that is related to but different from the income inequality. The problem I will address today is the growing gap between the richest Americans and the poorest. The latest Statistics of Income Bulletin from the IRS shows that the combined net worth of the top 4.4 million Americans was $6.7 trillion in 1995. In other words, the top 2.5 percent of our population held 27.4 percent of the Nation's wealth in the mid-1990s. No doubt this group of wealthy Americans feels very financially secure. But what about the other 97.5 percent of Americans? Is the security of wealth spread in a reasonably equitable way across all American households? The answer in my view, is a tragic and emphatic no. Although there is a perception that the recent rapid growth in the stock market has produced widespread economic gains among all income groups, a majority of households still do not own stock-based assets and, thus, have not participated in the growth of the 1990s economy. A complete picture is presented in the United States Federal Reserve's Survey on Consumer Finances. This report provides us with the following statistics: Since 1989, the share of net worth owned by the top 1 percent of American households has grown from 37.4 percent to 39.1 percent, while the share of net worth held by the bottom 40 percent of households has dropped from .9 percent to a statistically near insignificant .2 percent. Nearly 60 percent of the wealth held by families in the lowest 90 percent of the population is in the family home--not liquid assets that can be used as a source of income and security at retirement. Families in the lowest 90 percent of the population had only 3 percent of their assets in stocks and bonds. While an increasing number of Americans are purchasing stock-based equities--49 percent in 1999 vs. 40 percent in 1995--only 29 percent of households own stock worth more than $5,000, and the top 10 percent of households in the distribution hold 88.4 percent of the value of all stocks and mutual funds. In fact, the top 1 percent holds 51.4 percent of the value of all stocks and mutual funds--while the bottom 90 percent hold just 11.6 percent of the total value. These statistics show that the gains of the great 1990s stock market runup have not benefitted a majority of Americans. The gains have not narrowed the gap between the wealthiest in America and the poorest in America. In fact, the data analyzed in a study done by the preeminent wealth statistician, Mr. Ed Wolff, reveals that the wealthiest 10 percent of households enjoyed 85 percent of the stock market gains from 1989 until 1998. Why should we be so concerned about the growing wealth gap? I believe the answer is that the ownership of wealth brings security to people's lives and because the ownership of wealth opens up new opportunities and because the ownership of wealth transforms the way people view their futures. An individual with no financial assets--and no means to accumulate financial assets--cannot count on a secure retirement, cannot ensure that his or her future health care needs will be met, and cannot save effectively for important life milestones, such as the purchase of a first home or the funding of a child's college education. Americans clearly understand and desire the freedom and security that comes with wealth. We can point to the ongoing increase in participation rates in 401(k) plans as evidence that people are concerned about amassing wealth for a secure retirement. We can even point to the continued growing popularity of lotteries and game shows like ``Who Wants to Be A Millionaire'' as evidence that people value the security of wealth--especially wealth that is acquired quickly. The virtues of savings and wealth accumulation are clear. But if the virtues are so clear, why aren't more Americans voluntarily increasing their savings? Not a TV show goes by without an advertisement from a financial services company offering investment advice and investment products. Not a week goes by without a front page story about the Social Security funding ``crisis''--implicitly warning people to save for their own retirements. So why aren't more Americans saving? I have identified barriers that I believe continue to prevent a substantial portion of the American population from being able to save, to invest, and to accumulate wealth. Barrier No. 1 is education. No single factor is a greater predictor of income and wealth than education. Property educated and trained individuals can command a premium salary because they are in high demand and in short supply. Only one-third of households are headed by someone with a college degree. These households have a median before-tax income of $55,000 and a median net worth of $146,400. Households headed by a person with no high school diploma have a median income of $15,500 and a net worth of $20,000. In addition to disparate levels of educational attainment, there is a huge problem in America with a specific lack of investor education. Economics and Finance are not required courses in most school districts across the United States. As a result, too few people understand the magic of compounding interest rates and, as a consequence, wait too long to begin saving for their retirement. The second barrier is income. Of course, one of the fundamental rules of wealth accumulation is that you must have income that you can set aside in order to create substantial wealth. A quarter of families in the United States are bringing home between $10,000 and $25,000 a year. Forty percent of American households are bringing in less than $31,000 per year. After FICA taxes of $2,372 and $2,600 in Federal and State income taxes, a typical family of four has little left over for savings. Not only have low and moderate income Americans not shared in the growth of a booming stock market, but they have also not shared in the growth of weekly paychecks. According to the most recent Survey on Consumer Finances by the Federal Reserve Board, mean income grew between 1995 and 1998 only for families headed by individuals with at least some college education--mean incomes for all education groups in 1998 were lower than they had been in 1989. Median income only rose appreciably between 1989 and 1998 for those with a college degree. When you look at two of the lowest income groups, the story of income stagnation is quite grim. Nearly 13 percent of families earned less than $10,000 in 1998. The median salary of this group was $6,200--a real decline of 6 percent since 1989. Nearly one-quarter of families earned between $10,000 and $25,000 in 1998. Of these families, the median salary was $16,900--a real increase of only 2.4 percent since 1989. Clearly, the capacity of this group to save on its own is very limited. Barrier No. 3 is payroll taxes. The payroll tax may not seem like much of a barrier to Americans with income over $100,000, who only have to pay taxes on the first $76,200 of income, but to American families earning less than $25,000--40 percent of all households--it is a tremendous bite. The total payroll tax paid by an individual earning $25,000 per year and his employer is $3,825. This is several times greater than their income tax bill. For those who propose spending the Social Security tax surplus to enhance Social Security or Medicare benefits, it is worth noting that the lowest 40 percent of American earners pay more than 40 percent of the benefits for both Social Security and Part A Medicare. And those are the individuals must apt to be uninsured. Barrier No. 4 is the burden of debt. Consumer debt has a major impact on a household's ability to save. According to the latest SCF, households earning less than $25,000 annually bear the most significant burden of debt compared to their income. The median ratio of debt payments to income among those earning less than $10,000 is 20.3 percent; among those earning $10,000 to $25,000, the ratio is 17.8 percent. In fact, 32 percent of those making less than $10,000 pay more than 40 percent of their income in debt payments, an increase of 16 percent since 1995. About 20 percent of those making between $10,000 and $25,000 devote more than 40 percent of their income to debt payments. Finally, 15.1 percent of households with less than $10,000 of income had debt payments 60 days past due--a doubling since 1995--which not only reflects an inability to keep up with debt payments but also contributes to bad credit and an inability to purchase a future home, etc. The Federal Government's publicly-held debt also has an indirect impact on the ability of workers to save. As a major borrower, the Federal Government increases interest rates. Higher interest rates lower private capital formation, which in turn hampers growth in productivity and living standards. In addition, higher interest rates on government debt translate into higher interest rates on mortgages, student loans, and credit card debt. When individuals pay higher interest rates, fewer resources are available for saving and investing. With all of these barriers to wealth accumulation, what can we, as lawmakers, do to eliminate these barriers? I believe the answer is twofold. We must create new savings incentives for low and moderate income workers and we must create a mandatory savings mechanism for all workers. A number of legislation initiatives have been offered to help low and income workers save. For years, Senator Lieberman has championed an effort to expand Individual Development Accounts beyond a pilot program. IDAs are a way to encourage lower income folks to save for the purchase of a home, the establishment of a business, or education. President Clinton has offered an interesting plan to get low and moderate income families to participate in employer pension plans through a government savings match program. While Senators Graham and Grassley and Representatives Portman and Cardin have offered comprehensive pension reform proposals designed to expand pension coverage among low income workers. I, along with a bipartisan group of Senate and House Members, have introduced a Social Security reform plan that allows workers to put a portion of their FICA tax dollars into individual savings accounts. Our plan also calls for an additional government savings match program for low income workers. In addition, our plan calls for opening mandatory savings accounts at birth through the KidSave program. What would this plan do? Fifty years from now we would have a much different wealth distribution situation in America. Men and women who today have no chance of accumulating real wealth would accumulate the kind of wealth that provides them with meaningful financial security. A new generation of Americans would be heading toward their retirement years less dependent on government transfers for health or income. If this plan were enacted, it would immediately change Americans' attitude towards saving on account of informing tens of millions of the power of compounding interest rates. Sadly, critics of this proposal to help low income workers acquire assets and share in the growth of the American economy too often misdescribe the impact. The key line that is used in opposition is: ``I am against privatization of Social Security.'' This line will usually produce a round of applause with senior groups who would not be affected by any of the proposals. Even sadder, these critics are also the same ones who prefer to merely offer solutions that include transferring more income and thereby increasing dependency on the Government. I do not believe proposals that merely transfer more income will solve the problem of inequitable distribution of wealth. Ownership of wealth is a much more reliable way of becoming financially secure in old age than promises by politicians to tax and transfer income. Ownership of wealth produces greater independence and happiness. The mal-distribution of wealth, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, is not healthy for a liberal democracy and a free market economy such as ours. The costs of financing health and retirement income needs of the baby boom generation exceeds the tax paying capacity of the generations that follow them. So, Mr. President, after we have spent time debating the need to solve the problem of income inequality we need to turn to the matter of wealth inequality. And when we do we will quickly learn that we will not solve the problem of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer by beating up on the rich. We will solve the problem by lifting the poor out of poverty with programs that enable them to accumulate wealth in a variety of ways including modernizing and improving the Social Security program so that it becomes a means of saving money and a mechanism for transferring income. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, on April 25, 2000 the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Carhart v. Stenberg case. As a lifelong Nebraskan, I have received several requests to take a prominent public position with regard to this case, including a request that I file an amicus brief, also known as a ``friend of the court'' brief in this case. I am honored by these requests, but remain determined not to become officially involved in this case before the Supreme Court. I have come to believe that active involvement in matters before the courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, would be an ineffective use of the power of the Senate office which I hold in trust for all Nebraskans. However, I do not want my silence and absence from these amicus briefs to be mistaken for something that it is not. Because I have had several opportunities as a Nebraska Senator to debate this issue, and because this landmark case before the Supreme Court affects Nebraskans directly, I feel compelled to explain to Nebraskans my thoughts on this important issue. On September 24, 1999, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Nebraska district court decision that a Nebraska statute banning a medical procedure commonly known as ``partial-birth abortion'' is unconstitutional. The appellate court sustained the decision on the grounds that the Nebraska law creates an undue burden on women seeking abortions. It is my sincere belief that the Eight Circuit's decision should be sustained. In sum, the law adopted by the State of Nebraska (LB 23, June 9, 1997) is too vague to be enforced without placing an undue burden on a woman making this difficult choice. The Supreme Court should uphold the Eighth Circuit's decision because this law bans procedures commonly used for second trimester abortions and will affect any Nebraska doctor who performs either the D&E (dilation and evacuation) or D&X (dilation and extraction) procedure. This statute makes the act of performing legal medical procedures a Class III felony (up to 20 years in jail) and subjects a participating physician to the loss of his or her license. Each year, five thousand women in Nebraska, with the help and counsel of their loved ones, their doctors and their clergy, face the very difficult decision to end a pregnancy. None of us believe that they make their decision lightly. They are guided by their moral beliefs and by the previous decisions of the Supreme Court giving elected State and Federal officials a legal foundation upon which to effectuate, and in some cases limit, the scope of their choices. The central problem with the Nebraska law is that legislators made no attempt to abide by previous Court decisions. Called the ``Partial Birth Abortion Ban'' by its sponsors, the bill has been inaccurately characterized as ``banning certain late term abortions.'' In reality, the bill does not concern itself with late term abortions--neither curbing them nor banning them--which the Court gives lawmakers the capacity to do. Instead the bill seeks to ban a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy without reference to when that procedure is used. Moreover, it bans a medical intervention that is very difficult to define with the precision needed under law to give both doctors and those who enforce the law the guidance they need. Given this uncertainty, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that LB 23 was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, former Chief Judge Richard Arnold explained that it created an undue burden on women because, in many instances, it would ban the most common and safest procedure for second-trimester abortions. The Court pointed out that the term ``partial birth abortion'' has ``no fixed medical or legal content'' and that the Nebraska statute is too broad. Most second and third-term abortions occur in situations where a woman would have preferred, indeed desperately wanted, to carry the baby full term. The doctor made a recommendation based upon a threat to the life and health of the mother if the pregnancy were to continue. A law like Nebraska's would make doctors who perform this procedure liable for prosecution, with penalties that include loss of their license to practice medicine and time in jail. The threat of these penalties could result in physicians choosing not to treat women with a history of high-risk pregnancies. We are wrong to presume that women no longer die during child birth or abortion. Medical science has reduced but not eliminated the risk associated with either. We must not deny women their ability to freely choose to undergo an abortion, or the access to physician care necessary to ensure their safety. Freedom of choice in reproductive decision-making is a constitutional guarantee established by this Court with limitations. Nebraska's law fundamentally ignores the limitations allowed and not allowed by the Court's previous decisions. If it is sustained, it will imperil the safety and well-being of women throughout our state. We cannot allow misinformation to obscure the broad consensus in America that women must decide for themselves how best to live their lives. Moreover, it is equally important that no one be denied the safe and appropriate medical treatment necessary to make a reproductive decision which this law would do. It is my hope that this statement will help Nebraskans better understand my position on this very important matter.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the LOCAL TV Act of 2000. Last year, Congress passed a law allowing satellite providers to retransmit local signals into local markets, but we knew then that the large satellite providers had no plans to provide ``local into local'' into rural areas, completely ignoring Nebraska and 14 other states. At the time I strongly supported the inclusion of a $1.25 billion loan guarantee program to encourage companies to retransmit local signals in rural areas. Unfortunately, political wrangling left this important provision behind as we passed the bill. I am pleased that the Senate has fulfilled its promise to pass a loan guarantee program before April 1, 2000. The LOCAL TV Act of 2000 will provide $1.25 billion in loan guarantees to companies to bring local stations into currently unserved areas. Local stations are vital to a community, broadcasting local news, sports, weather, and emergency warnings. A small but significant portion of the U.S. population cannot receive local television signals from any means, while as much as half of the population must settle for New York or Los Angeles news (so- called distant network signals) via satellite. Nebraska has over 270,000 satellite viewers who cannot receive their local stations through their satellite dishes. This bill will provide the financial backing necessary to support companies to bring local television to all areas of America. ``Local into local'' has become another technology that urban areas are able to enjoy, while rural communities get left behind. The LOCAL TV Act will ensure that does not happen. I have great confidence in the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) which is charged with administrating this loan guarantee program. Many previous programs launched through RUS to help close the gap between urban and rural areas have proven successful. The public/private partnership between RUS and its borrowers has helped develop electric, telecommunications, and safe, clean drinking water in rural America. It has also fostered rural economic development across the nation. I believe the RUS will administer this program with the same expertise it has demonstrated in the past. Bridging the so-called ``Digital Divide'' remains one of my top priorities. It is absurd that some areas of the country cannot receive high speed internet access, local television programming, or other technologies, simply because they live too far from a big city. I will continue to work hard to bring the newest technologies into all regions of Nebraska. The LOCAL TV Act of 2000 is an important step in this direction, so I enthusiastically support this legislation.