J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be given an additional minute and the Senator from Georgia be given 5 minutes.

Mr. KERREY. An additional 5 minutes for the Senator from Georgia right now would not affect the 5 o'clock vote.

Mr. KERREY. I have a unanimous consent request for time for the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that conference report be temporarily set aside so we can have a voice vote on the intelligence conference report.

Mr. KERREY. I urge adoption of the conference report on intelligence.

Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I ask the Chair, what is the status?

Mr. KERREY. The Senate is currently on the conference report for tax extenders?

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to rectify some information entered into the Record during the debate on the Bankruptcy Reform Bill on November 5, 1999. A comprehensive bankruptcy study was cited during the course of debate. This study was conducted by Professors Marianne Culhane and Michaela White from Creighton University, an impressive institution of higher learning in my home State of Nebraska. When discussing this study, my colleague from Iowa referred to a GAO Report that reviewed four different bankruptcy studies, including the one written by Professors Culhane and White. It is my understanding some comments were made indicating that GAO challenged the methodology the Creighton professors used in conducting this study. After reviewing the GAO Report, that was not my understanding. In fact, the GAO Report specifically says, ``In our review, we found that the Creighton/ABI researchers prepared and analyzed their data in a careful, thorough manner.'' In order to clarify the record and any misperceptions about the GAO's findings, I ask unanimous consent the following ``Scope and Methodology'' section of GAO Report, number 99-103 ``Personal Bankruptcy: Analysis of Four Reports on Chapter 7 Debtors' Ability to Pay'', be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to give privately owned, over-the-road bus operators, the assistance they need to equip their buses with wheelchair lifts. These operators provide vital intercity bus services to millions of Americans who have access to no other form of public transportation, most particularly in rural areas. The legislation I am introducing today passed the Senate earlier this year as part of a larger tax bill and enjoyed bipartisan support. Indeed I am delighted that Senator Grassley has agreed to join me as a cosponsor of this bill. In keeping with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Department of Transportation (DOT) is requiring that a wheelchair lift be installed on every new over-the-road bus operating intercity bus service. In addition, comparable requirements are being imposed on over the road buses providing charter service. This largely unfunded mandate is estimated to cost the industry $25 million a year in acquisition and training costs alone. In some years, that $25 million figure is expected to exceed the entire profit for the industry. DOT's new requirement serves the important public purpose of ensuring that disabled persons in wheelchairs will have access to over-the-road buses. Yet the cost of this requirement poses a significant threat to the continuation of this service for millions of rural and low-income Americans. Over-the-road buses serve roughly 4,000 communities that have no other form of intercity public transportation. Additionally, with an average fare of $34, they are the only form of affordable transportation available for millions of passengers. The legislation we are introducing today provides over-the-road bus operators with a 50-percent tax credit for the unsubsidized costs of complying with the DOT requirement. This tax credit gives them the support that they need to ensure both that disabled people in wheelchairs have access to over-the-road bus service and that that service remains available to the millions of passengers who rely on that service. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to give privately owned, over-the-road bus operators, the assistance they need to equip their buses with wheelchair lifts. These operators provide vital intercity bus services to millions of Americans who have access to no other form of public transportation, most particularly in rural areas. The legislation I am introducing today passed the Senate earlier this year as part of a larger tax bill and enjoyed bipartisan support. Indeed I am delighted that Senator Grassley has agreed to join me as a cosponsor of this bill. In keeping with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Department of Transportation (DOT) is requiring that a wheelchair lift be installed on every new over-the-road bus operating intercity bus service. In addition, comparable requirements are being imposed on over the road buses providing charter service. This largely unfunded mandate is estimated to cost the industry $25 million a year in acquisition and training costs alone. In some years, that $25 million figure is expected to exceed the entire profit for the industry. DOT's new requirement serves the important public purpose of ensuring that disabled persons in wheelchairs will have access to over-the-road buses. Yet the cost of this requirement poses a significant threat to the continuation of this service for millions of rural and low-income Americans. Over-the-road buses serve roughly 4,000 communities that have no other form of intercity public transportation. Additionally, with an average fare of $34, they are the only form of affordable transportation available for millions of passengers. The legislation we are introducing today provides over-the-road bus operators with a 50-percent tax credit for the unsubsidized costs of complying with the DOT requirement. This tax credit gives them the support that they need to ensure both that disabled people in wheelchairs have access to over-the-road bus service and that that service remains available to the millions of passengers who rely on that service. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the bankruptcy bill. I have supported a number of amendments to it. I believe this bill does achieve a balance between society's interest of people paying their debts and preventing debtors from being permanently ruined. Senator Grassley and Senator Torricelli have made a good-faith effort to strike that balance. I am an original cosponsor of the bill. I supported some reasonable changes that will improve the bill. If those changes are adopted by a majority of the Senate, I intend to support final passage of what I consider to be a very important piece of legislation that will make certain people don't take undue advantage of the bankruptcy laws, especially those who can reasonably be expected to pay at least part of their debts. These individuals are not excused entirely. That is, in essence, what Senator Grassley and Senator Torricelli have attempted to do. I believe they have struck a fair balance and gotten that done. I understand this is the last legislative vehicle heading, hopefully, toward the President's signature. I want to speak about the methamphetamine amendment that has been offered that we will vote on relatively soon. Staff has advised me I should vote for it, that I should not be seen as being weak on fighting the battle against methamphetamines. I have come to the floor and I wish the author of this amendment were on the floor to ask him, why shouldn't I be angry that this amendment has been converted from a good piece of legislation that would provide additional resources, that would give additional resources to our DEA agents to enable law enforcement to fight in Nebraska the battle against methamphetamines? That is what we are trying to do. I have worked with almost every single sheriff, almost every single law enforcement officer--whether chief of police or the head of our highway patrol--trying to win this battle, and we are not winning it. We have the juvenile justice bill tied up in conference; why don't we pass it? Because we can't reach agreement on how to regulate gun ownership. It provides additional resources to win this battle, to enable us to say we are doing all we can to keep our kids safe against a drug that will destroy their lives. What do we have before the Senate? An amendment that has a school voucher proposal in it. I hear from my judges, from my law enforcement officers, that the net effect of the changes in the penalties on crack and powder cocaine, to increase the penalty to the mandatory minimum on powder cocaine, will be we divert more resources from fighting the battle on dealers and high-level drug usage to fighting the battle against those individuals using cocaine occasionally or on a one-time basis. We will be arresting and putting college kids in jail. That is what we will be doing. I am angry we have interfered with a good faith effort. The underlying provisions of this methamphetamine bill I find to be attractive with the urgency of this problem. In Nebraska, we started this 5 or 6 years ago when the problem of methamphetamine first came to light. We devoted more resources as part of the HIDTA--High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area--effort, part of the multiagency effort. Law enforcement people say they are starting to get this under control; they are making more arrests; they are putting people away. The tougher penalties in here I support because we need to have tougher penalties in place. They say they are getting the job done, but all of a sudden we are playing politics with it again. I favor the underlying methamphetamine effort that is in this amendment. But to attach a school voucher proposal to it and additional mandatory minimums that will redirect resources away from the real serious problems in my community is offensive to me personally. Not only will I vote against it, I intend to write a letter to every law enforcement officer in Nebraska and say to them, they also should be angry. We haven't passed the Juvenile Justice Act. We are not providing resources necessary to solve this problem, and we are playing politics, worst of all, trying to seek advantage, trying to put an amendment up that is difficult to vote against. It won't be difficult for me to vote against this amendment. I am sad that is what I have to do because we are playing politics rather than trying to actually provide our law enforcement officers with the resources they need to solve what has become in Nebraska one of my most difficult law enforcement problems to solve. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I join the distinguished Senator from Tennessee and the distinguished Senator from Louisiana in introducing this legislation. I want to emphasize something both Senators emphasized in an earlier press conference, and that is, the goal of this legislation has three parts: No. 1 is security, securing Medicare for beneficiaries today and beneficiaries in the future. It is a terribly important program, and the roughly 40 million Americans who currently benefit from this program need to know the law guarantees their benefits. This proposal actually secures their benefits even more than existing law. Some people will attack this proposal, but we have been very careful in drafting this legislation to accommodate the beneficiaries' concerns that their benefits under a competitive model might be lower. This legislation says their benefits cannot be less than what is currently available under existing law, and there is, I say to those who are concerned about rural communities, as I know the distinguished occupant of the Chair is, there is a provision in here that says if competition does not bring alternative plans, plans other than the fee-for-service offering of the Health Care Finance Administration, that the cost to the beneficiaries cannot exceed 12 percent of the national weighted average. That would make it very likely that in rural areas there will be no penalty; indeed, it is likely to be they will be paying less than they do under the current law. The second is that it is comprehensive and it offers comprehensive choice. There is a very important part of this legislation that, almost all by itself, is going to increase the satisfaction of citizens as they examine Medicare. That is, we establish a public board that has significant power not just over HCFA but over the plans that are offered in the marketplace. Right now, HCFA writes the rules for competing plans; obviously, a conflict of interest. We do not want to decrease the ability of HCFA to offer plans. We have written this so HCFA can offer its fee-for-service plan and be competitive, but we want this board to set the rules and conditions under which competitive plans come into the marketplace, although we have written in the legislation guarantees, as I indicated earlier, to make certain the program is secure. A public board is much more likely to give the public satisfaction than the current environment. All of us understand it is exceptionally difficult both to evaluate what is right and what is wrong when we are faced with a request from a provider or from a beneficiary, and it is even more difficult to get HCFA to change its rules mostly on account of HCFA knowing that if it changes a rule, for example, in Nebraska, it is going to be changing rules for all other 49 States as well and could add significant costs to the program. So HCFA ends up being very inflexible, I argue not through any fault of its own but through the fault of the way the law is written. The second objective of this legislation is that we provide comprehensive choice in a new legal environment, where the citizens will have more opportunity to make their case to a public board and the public board will have much greater expertise in making decisions about how to create a competitive environment that will enable HCFA to compete as well as private sector companies to come on line and offer more choice at lower cost to beneficiaries. The third thing is we say that a prescription benefit should and must be considered in a comprehensive solution with Medicare reform. We cannot separate it. You cannot take a prescription benefit for a Medicare beneficiary and separate it and create an entirely new program without considering the need for comprehensive change in the program. It is much more likely that we will satisfy concerns of taxpayers that we not end up with a program that has an open-ended cost to it and much more likely, especially with the structural change of the board, that the rules will be written so the marketplace cannot only develop affordable products, but develop creative products that we are apt to see increasingly being asked for by our health care delivery system. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I hope we are able to get a markup in the Senate Finance Committee next year. I hope this becomes the basis for bipartisan reform. All too often this is a subject matter that lends itself to demagoging on both sides. Mediscare has become a verb and a form of political art. Hopefully, as a consequence of it beginning in a bipartisan fashion, it will end up in a bipartisan fashion, and the rhetoric will be much more tame and much more honest as well.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would also like to take a minute to talk about a companion program to Medicare, and that is Social Security. A Social Security beneficiary will say Social Security and Medicare are in the same program, indeed, in the same act, in the same law. As far as the beneficiary is concerned, one program serves the needs of the other. The General Accounting Office today released a public report which evaluates five plans that have been presented to the people, five plans that the people should look to and evaluate to answer the question: Is this a plan I support? Let me list what those plans are. The first plan is the status quo, what I call in a nonpejorative fashion the do-nothing plan; the do- nothing plan calls for maintaining current law, waiting until manana, and fixing the program 10 years, 20 years from now. GAO evaluates the do-nothing plan, which, by the way, has 500 cosponsors at the moment in the House and the Senate. The GAO evaluated the plan that Senator Gregg, myself, Senator Grassley, Senator Breaux, and three others in the Senate have introduced. The bill number is S. 1383. The House companion bill to S. 1383 is H.R. 1793, a companion bill which has nine cosponsors. The GAO evaluated that bill as well. The GAO also evaluated S. 1831. That is the President's reform plan. It has been introduced in the Senate. The GAO also evaluated the Archer-Shaw proposal, though Chairman Archer and Representative Shaw have yet to introduce their reform plan in the form of a bill. They evaluated the details of the Archer-Shaw proposal that were provided to them. And finally, GAO evaluated Representative Kasich's proposal. I do not know what its number is or how many people are on it, but it is a specific piece of legislation that has been introduced. The GAO has done a very useful service, in my view, for a couple of reasons. Reason No. 1 is that GAO finally identifies the status quo as a plan. In other words, you cannot not be for something. If you are not on a bill, you are supporting the status quo, you are supporting existing law. There are serious consequences to supporting existing law. The GAO evaluated all five of these plans. Secondly, GAO outlined for the first time the eight financial and budgetary criteria by which these five proposals ought to be judged by the American public. In the report, they ask: First, does it reduce pressure of Social Security spending on the budget?

Mr. KERREY. How much time did I have?

Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 2 additional minutes.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, there were eight other questions on the financial side. Question No. 2: Does it reduce the national debt? Question No. 3: Does it reduce the cost of Social Security as a percent of GDP? Question No. 4: Does it increase national savings? Question 5: Does it solve the 75-year actuarial solvency problem? In other words, can it keep the promise to all 270 million beneficiaries both eligible today and out into the future? Question No. 6: Does it create new, undisclosed contingent liabilities? Question No. 7: Does it increase payroll taxes or place an obligation on general revenues? And question No. 8: Are there safety valves to accommodate future growth in the program? These are the key financial questions. The GAO has laid out an evaluation of the five dominant plans that have been offered by Members of Congress to the public. In addition, GAO attempts to do an analysis of the administration and implementation issues in each plan. Finally, GAO attempts to evaluate whether or not equity--generational equity--and progressivity have been taken into account in each plan. Equity and progressivity are always important. Social Security is a very progressive program to beneficiaries. I hope that this GAO report gets a little bit of air time and a little bit of consideration by Members. I hope that particular attention will be paid to the do-nothing, status quo plan. There are consequences to the do-nothing plan. The current status quo plan dramatically increases debt and interest costs in the future. This large debt will have a major impact on the tax burdens and interest rates of future workers. GAO comments very unfavorably when it measures the status quo approach against its eight financial criteria. There are very negative consequences for both current beneficiaries and future beneficiaries and the American taxpayers for doing nothing. I urge my colleagues to take a closer look at this GAO report--and to really understand the cost tradeoffs between different approaches to Social Security reform. The battle cry all year long has been to save Social Security first. We created an elaborate lockbox mechanism so we could do it. My hope is that next year, with the assistance of GAO and this report, we will see an increasing number of Members who are enthusiastic about putting their names on specific legislation to reform Social Security. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will be done by 3:30. I intend to vote for this legislation. I congratulate the parents of the bill: Senator Gramm, Senator Sarbanes, and others, who worked very hard. This was not easy to do. I agree, it is Government at its best. I believe this is very much proconsumer. There is nothing more frustrating than trying to do a financial transaction and being told: I would like to be able to do it, but I can't. We have been limiting our individual capacity to develop our economy, to pursue the American dream, and do all other sorts of things that make America such a great country. I appreciate very much the effort made to make certain there is still good regulatory oversight. I have no doubt that safety and soundness considerations will be taken into account. I think the concerns that we are going to have a meltdown such as we had in 1929 are concerns that are dramatically overblown, given the strength both of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve in this legislation. So I appreciate very much the hard work and diligence of the chairman and the ranking member because I believe our economy and our people will benefit from it. I am grateful as well--I do not know if the Senator from Texas is-- that the unitary thrift provision is limited in this legislation. The Johnson-Kerrey amendment that passed on the floor might have been a bit difficult, but I think it is an important provision. I like the provisions for community reinvestment. I think it is a terrific compromise. My small banks have been asking for regulatory relief that provides it. I think the sunshine provisions are quite exciting. I look forward to seeing where this money and how this money is being spent. On the issue of privacy, you have improved current privacy protections, better than what we have under existing law. I must say, I had my own interest in privacy, and my concern about privacy increased as a consequence of examining this bill. I hope to participate in a bipartisan effort to give the American people the kind of privacy protections that American citizens both expect and deserve. Again, I congratulate and thank very much the chairman and ranking member. It is a very important piece of legislation. People were predicting you were not going to be able to get the job done. I hope you enjoyed the pizza that night when you stayed up very late to finish your work. I am grateful you went the extra mile. There is no doubt in my mind there is going to be a positive cause and effect between this bill being law and the health of the U.S. economy.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I would like to express my support for ``The Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 1999,'' which would provide this country with much needed campaign finance reform. Our Constitution lays out the requirements for someone running for office. In order to run for the Senate, the Constitution tells us that there are three requirements: you must be at least 30 years old; you must have been a U.S. citizen for nine years; and you must be a resident of the state you wish to represent. What the Constitution doesn't tell you about is a fourth requirement: you must have an awful lot of money, or at least know how to raise it. The Constitution doesn't tell you this because when the framers drafted the Constitution, they could not have imagined the ridiculously large amounts of time and money one must spend today if he or she wants to be elected to office. We need to change the law to give power back to working families, restore their faith in the process, and make democracy work. That's why I have been an avid supporter of the McCain-Feingold bill and the Shays-Meehan bill that recently passed the House, and that's why I am now a cosponsor of Senator Hagel's bill. Earlier this month, the Senate debated the McCain-Feingold bill. This year's version was a stripped down version of the McCain-Feingold bills we've debated, and I have supported, in years past. Although I prefer the more comprehensive House passed Shays-Meehan bill, I understood Senators McCain and Feingold's decision to purposefully strip down their bill. They knew the realities of the vote count in the Senate. We didn't have the votes to pass anything more comprehensive, so they introduced a ``barebones'' bill which essentially did one simple thing: ban soft money. Unfortunately, the bill was pulled from the floor after a vote showing McCain-Feingold still didn't have the votes to pass. The good news is we picked up one vote; the bad news is we still haven't passed a campaign finance reform bill. We made progress. That is why it is important to not let this issue die on the back burner. That is why I am joining in Senator Hagel's effort to keep this issue alive. Currently, soft money is uncapped and unregulated--corporations, unions and wealthy individuals can contribute unlimited amounts of soft money. Senator Hagel's bill would cap soft money at $60,000. Although I prefer a complete ban, it is clear the Senate is a few votes short of passing this ban. Senator Hagel's new approach just might be the compromise that can muster enough votes to pass the Senate. Let me be clear--while I prefer much more comprehensive reform of our campaign financing system--I do believe Senator Hagel's proposal is a step in the right direction. This bill, with its cap on soft money and tightening of disclosure requirements, would be a good beginning. The American people are frustrated with the millions of dollars they see poured into campaigns. They are frustrated with out tendency to talk instead of act. I am hopeful this bill can help make that happen. In fact I want to applaud my friend, Senator Hagel for his efforts, and urge our colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I would like to express my support for ``The Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 1999,'' which would provide this country with much needed campaign finance reform. Our Constitution lays out the requirements for someone running for office. In order to run for the Senate, the Constitution tells us that there are three requirements: you must be at least 30 years old; you must have been a U.S. citizen for nine years; and you must be a resident of the state you wish to represent. What the Constitution doesn't tell you about is a fourth requirement: you must have an awful lot of money, or at least know how to raise it. The Constitution doesn't tell you this because when the framers drafted the Constitution, they could not have imagined the ridiculously large amounts of time and money one must spend today if he or she wants to be elected to office. We need to change the law to give power back to working families, restore their faith in the process, and make democracy work. That's why I have been an avid supporter of the McCain-Feingold bill and the Shays-Meehan bill that recently passed the House, and that's why I am now a cosponsor of Senator Hagel's bill. Earlier this month, the Senate debated the McCain-Feingold bill. This year's version was a stripped down version of the McCain-Feingold bills we've debated, and I have supported, in years past. Although I prefer the more comprehensive House passed Shays-Meehan bill, I understood Senators McCain and Feingold's decision to purposefully strip down their bill. They knew the realities of the vote count in the Senate. We didn't have the votes to pass anything more comprehensive, so they introduced a ``barebones'' bill which essentially did one simple thing: ban soft money. Unfortunately, the bill was pulled from the floor after a vote showing McCain-Feingold still didn't have the votes to pass. The good news is we picked up one vote; the bad news is we still haven't passed a campaign finance reform bill. We made progress. That is why it is important to not let this issue die on the back burner. That is why I am joining in Senator Hagel's effort to keep this issue alive. Currently, soft money is uncapped and unregulated--corporations, unions and wealthy individuals can contribute unlimited amounts of soft money. Senator Hagel's bill would cap soft money at $60,000. Although I prefer a complete ban, it is clear the Senate is a few votes short of passing this ban. Senator Hagel's new approach just might be the compromise that can muster enough votes to pass the Senate. Let me be clear--while I prefer much more comprehensive reform of our campaign financing system--I do believe Senator Hagel's proposal is a step in the right direction. This bill, with its cap on soft money and tightening of disclosure requirements, would be a good beginning. The American people are frustrated with the millions of dollars they see poured into campaigns. They are frustrated with out tendency to talk instead of act. I am hopeful this bill can help make that happen. In fact I want to applaud my friend, Senator Hagel for his efforts, and urge our colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, let me thank President Clinton for provoking debate about Social Security and what we ought to be doing to extend the solvency of the program. I don't support the proposal he has made, but I suspect there are many people in this body who don't support the proposal that I have made either. At least the President has put on the table an idea, and it is an idea that enables us, if we take a bit of time, to see what is wrong with the funding of this program and why there is an urgent need to fix it. First, what the President does is exactly what I just heard the Senator from Tennessee say; what the President would do through his proposal is give beneficiaries who are alive between 2035 and 2050-- beneficiaries who are, today, between the ages of 30 and 45--an additional $20 trillion claim on the income taxes of future working Americans. That is how the President's proposal would be funded. Under current law, we will need $6 trillion worth of income taxes to pay beneficiaries between 2014 and 2034--this is above and beyond the revenue beneficiaries can claim from the 12.4% payroll tax on all working Americans. Today, there are 44 million beneficiaries: 39 million are old-age beneficiaries, 6.5 million are disabled, and 7 million are survivors. These beneficiaries receive the proceeds of a 12.4-percent payroll tax on the wages of most working Americans. I suspect most Members of Congress didn't realize that back in 1983 we made a change in the law to assess a payroll tax that was larger than needed to pay the bills. Since then, those extra payroll tax dollars have been spent on other things. Between 2014 and 2034, we will have to pay back those borrowed Social Security payroll tax dollars with interest--and we will do so by either increasing income taxes, cutting other spending, or increasing our national debt. This year, for example, we will take in about $513 billion in revenue into the program--but we only need about $387 billion to cover expenditures. My guess is most Members of Congress didn't realize that the Treasury can only use these excess payroll tax dollars to buy special-issue Treasury bonds. Eventually, the Treasury has to reconvert those bond assets to cash--and it does so by using income tax dollars. Starting in 2014, Treasury will have to use income taxes and corporate income taxes to convert each and every single one of those bonds into cash that they will then use to pay beneficiaries--about $6 trillion worth. If that does not bother you that we have to use an additional $6 trillion to pay benefits between 2014 and 2034--money that could have been spent on important discretionary spending programs, then you probably like the President's proposal. If you want the Social Security program to become more and more a program that uses both payroll taxes in addition to individual and corporate income taxes, you probably like the President's proposal. The President's proposal allows you to avoid making the difficult choices necessary in reforming Social Security, such as either explicitly raising the payroll tax--and I haven't heard anybody actually support that, although some have supported increasing the wage base--or making benefit adjustments out in the future; or a third way, which the Senator from Tennessee and I and half a dozen others in this body have chosen to do, is to use a combination of benefit adjustments out in the future, holding harmless everybody currently over the age of 62, and establishing retirement savings accounts--designed in a progressive way. Our plan ensures that women and low income individuals will receive significantly larger benefits. That is the purpose of these savings accounts--to help all working Americans build wealth for themselves. Privatization is just an attempt to give, especially that lower-wage individual, more than just the promise of a transfer payment coming from Social Security taxes. Our goal is to make individuals less dependent on the government for their financial security at retirement. One of the most difficult and important things to understand in the Social Security debate is this idea of solvency. Solvency is an accountant's term. There are 270 million Americans today--nearly all of whom will be beneficiaries of the Social Security program at some point during their lifetimes. More than 44 million are eligible today. That means there are 230 million beneficiaries who will be eligible at some point in the future. That is the way to think about solvency--we have to make the program solvent for all retirees current and future. The idea is to keep the promise for every eventual beneficiary, whether you are 20 years old or 70 years old. Right now we cannot keep the promise to all 270 million Americans. There are approximately 145 million working Americans under the age of 45 to whom we cannot keep the promise of paying benefits. According to the Social Security Administration, these 145 million Americans will experience somewhere between a 25- and a 33-percent cut in benefits at some point during their retirement. So when we talk about solvency, it is a real human issue. There are 145 million Americans today to whom we are not going to be able to keep the promise we made back in the 1930s. That is why a large percentage of young people say they don't believe Social Security will be there. They are partly right--Social Security will be there, but in a much smaller form as a consequence of Congress simply not having enough revenue in the system to be able to cover the bills. What the President says is that he doesn't want to propose a payroll tax increase, or benefit reductions. He doesn't want to support the idea of individual wealth accounts. What he wants to do is give the Social Security beneficiaries out in the future a larger claim than they would have under current law on income taxes--on the wages of future working Americans. I believe we made a mistake in 1983; that diverting $6 trillion of individual and corporate income taxes into the Social Security program makes our tight discretionary budget problem even worse. The President's plan exacerbates this problem by saying what we should give an additional $20 trillion in income tax dollars to extend the solvency of the trust for another 20 years. I will reiterate what I said at the beginning. I still appreciate the President's contribution to the debate. He has provoked, for a short period of time at least, a real debate about what we are going to do to solve the problem of Social Security insolvency. I disagree with one element of his proposal because I think it takes a necessity and converts it into a virtue. I do hope, at least for a short period of time, we will discuss and debate Social Security reform. I hope we can discuss in a constructive fashion, what we are going to do to reform the program--rather than just talk about needing to fix Social Security. We need to discuss what we are going to do to finally change the law to keep the promise to all 270 million American beneficiaries.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I offer my condolences to Ginny and the entire Chafee family for the loss of her husband, their father, and our friend, John Chafee. When a great person leaves us, we know we can't replace him and we know have suffered the loss in a very personal way. All of us feel that loss with John Chafee. It is not just the loss of a Senator, it is someone now who is missing in our lives, and we have to deal with that in the way human beings have to deal with losses of this kind. Also, when a great man leaves us, when great people leave us, oftentimes they will put on the television screen the date of birth and the date of passing, and they did that in this case with John Chafee: 1922-1999. He was 77 remarkable years, Mr. President. I had a conference in Omaha with young people recently on the question of how to save money. They were juniors and seniors. I have done this for 2 or 3 years in a row. Warren Buffett, a rather wealthy man, was our keynote speaker. He talked for a couple of minutes, and then he took questions. Two years ago, a young person said to him, ``Mr. Buffett, I mean no disrespect, but aren't most wealthy people jerks?'' Warren answered, ``No, that is not my experience. Wealth just allows you to be a little more of what you already were. If you start off a jerk and become wealthy, you can be a real big jerk and hire lawyers for $1,000 an hour and sue all your friends. On the contrary, if you start off a good person and you acquire wealth, you can be a really good person.'' That was John Chafee. John was born into wealth and privilege. At the age of 19, after the United States was drawn into World War II after being attacked by Japan, he volunteered, but not for any special duty; he was an enlisted man in the U.S. Marine Corps. Among other places, he had to fight in one of the bloodiest battles in Guadalcanal. Then he went back to college, and the Korean conflict broke out, and there was no question that had he chosen to, he could have figured out a way not to go. But he went in this time as an officer commanding a rifle company. I have had many occasions where I would say, ``I was so impressed, John, by what you did''; and, of course, all of us who knew him would know he would blush and change the subject. He did not want praise. He didn't want people to think he was anything special. He did this all as a consequence of the way he was. He didn't think he deserved any special attention at all. Again, taking my Warren Buffett experience, in talking to the young people, he didn't talk about wealth. He said: You are born with three things--intelligence, endurance, and the opportunity to build integrity. You have to decide how much intelligence and endurance you are going to use. You build integrity every single day with the choices you make. Sometimes you make good choices, and sometimes they are bad. I would scratch my head if somebody asked me to give them a choice John Chafee made that was bad, which produced inferior integrity. And I don't just mean the issues. I am impressed by what he did on the environment. He believed we needed to leave the world better than we found it. He knew we had to think beyond our lifetimes in order to do that. I was impressed by his courage on public safety. I never have and never would go as far as he did on gun control, but it took guts to do that. All of us who watched him do that had to admire that. On health, there were always other people--the disabled and people who were born with less than he was born with. He didn't just fight with them, and he knew it wasn't for political reasons. He cared about the lives of other people. So I was impressed with what he did on all the issues. But the thing that moved me the most and causes me to say that I will miss this man and I will note his absence is that I consider what the world is like without him, and I think it is less without him. So it was considerably more as a consequence of the choice he made to be kind, the choice he made to be considerate, the choice he made to respect other people. That is a choice we all have to make. Are you going to be kind? You are not born with an attitude of kindness. You have to choose it. You have to choose to be considerate and respectful. Again, I have been here for 10 years. I can't think of a single moment even when he was provoked that John Chafee ever said an unkind word about anybody. He would disagree. He would argue. I never heard him say an unkind word. That was a choice he made. It didn't come as a result of him being a man or a human being. It was a choice and a decision that he made. It was old school values, in my opinion. As a consequence of that, I find myself wondering what life is going to be like without John Chafee. I hope his wife and family understand what a big impact he made. John caused not just improvement in our laws, improvement of our country, and improvement of our world but improvement of our values. For those of us who fall short of the mark that John Chafee laid down with his behavior, there is an ideal of a goal that he set for ourselves. I hope as we debate and make decisions about how we are going to treat one another that we remember the way John Chafee treated us. I think if we remember that, it is likely that we will treat not just one another better but as a consequence of that treatment this will be a better place, and the country will be a better place, and the world will be a better place as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, does the Senator from Pennsylvania intend to stay on the floor for a while?

Mr. KERREY. I have to leave as well. I have come a couple times trying to engage in a colloquy on this piece of legislation. I thought now would be the time to take a few minutes to do so. I support a woman's right to choose. I voted yes on Medicaid funding. I think it is critical for me to support a woman's right to choose for those people who cannot afford it. I supported Federal employees' rights to use health insurance, and I supported rights of people in the armed services to reproductive services. I think I voted five times against your legislation or something to that extent, and a couple times to sustain the President's veto. I want people on both sides of the aisle to understand this procedure deeply troubles me. I am not certain how I am going to vote this time around. I indicated to people in Nebraska that I am listening to their concerns about this procedure. I state at the beginning this is a very difficult issue because very often we do not have a chance to debate and talk about it in a personal way, as in the way the Senator from Pennsylvania did last evening. I caught about the last 30 minutes of the presentation. It is a very moving and personal presentation the Senator makes, and oftentimes we just do not get that. We lock in our positions early on in our political careers and are told by our political consultants: You cannot change your position or modify your position in any way--especially in my case; I am coming up on an election--you are doing it for political reasons, so forth, your supporters get bitterly disappointed, on and on and all that political advice. I have, in my case, to ignore that. I find this to be very much about what kind of a country we want to be, and it is a very serious debate. I do not know that we have time, I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, today or right now to do it, but at some point, even when the Senator from California is down here, I want to talk about this question of medical necessity because for me it turns on that. If this procedure is not medically necessary, then your legislation is not an undue burden upon anyone who chooses to undergo an abortion. It is not an undue burden. If it is medically necessary, then it can be an undue burden. That is where it gets in a hurry for me as I consider this. I have talked to people in Nebraska about this, both for and against. It is very difficult for anybody, once they consider what this procedure is, to say: Gosh, that's good; it doesn't bother me; I am not concerned about it. Almost unanimously people say there is something about this that just does not seem right. I wonder if the Senator can talk for a bit--I do not want to drag him too long into this discussion--about this issue of medical necessity. I will announce ahead of time for the staff, for the Senator from California, I will give her an opportunity, as well, to describe why she believes this is medically necessary. I have heard the Senator from Pennsylvania say it is not. I appreciate very much an opportunity to hear directly from him.

Mr. KERREY. I appreciate that very much. Mr. President, I expect, after lunch, to come back. I hope there is an opportunity to engage in this kind of colloquy. I will give you an example. There was a woman who approached me and said: Senator, there are times when a woman gets an abortion where she would prefer not to. She has gone in for delivery--that is the situation this woman described to me. She went in to deliver a baby. She went in and delivered prematurely, and the doctor had to make a decision and chose, she thought, this procedure--I don't know precisely; I don't have the documentation on this--but thought the doctor chose this procedure and was worried that if this procedure was not available, the doctor might not have been able to save her life. I presume the Senator has a response to that. This is not a unique situation. In other words, this is not a woman who has chosen to have an abortion. She wanted to have the baby. She wanted to deliver the baby.