John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I wanted to ask something of the majority leader. It is my understanding that the majority leader made it quite clear at the beginning of the week that there was an agenda that needed to be accomplished if indeed the Senate intended to not be here on Friday. It is my understanding that, at the pace we are moving, there is a clarity to the fact that unless this changes, we will be here until late Friday and all of Monday voting; is that accurate?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I have offered to section 107 of the Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. The amendment is intended to clarify that under that section preleasing activities are prohibited, just as they are in other sections of the bill that restrict oil and gas development in other waters. Section 107 now reads as follows: ``no funds provided in this title may be expended by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore leasing and related activities placed under restriction in the President's moratorium statement of June 12, 1998.'' This includes the areas of northern, central, and southern California, the North Atlantic, Washington, Oregon, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude and east of 86 degrees west longitude. I want to stress that it is my belief that section 107 prohibits preleasing activities because preleasing activities are, by their very nature, related activities. However, sections 108, 109 and 110 create moratoria on offshore leasing for the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Aleutian Basin and portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and these sections restrict preleasing, leasing, and related activities. I am concerned that the discrepancy between Section 107 and these other sections creates the potential for legal ambiguity that may put the areas listed in Section 107 at risk. Specifically, it may be argued that a set of activities exists preleasing activities that are prohibited under Sections 108, 109 and 110 but not prohibited under Section 107. The simple, straightforward amendment I have proposed adds preleasing to the list of prohibited activities in Section 107. It would clarify Congressional intent and serve as a preventative step against any challenge to the meaning of the prohibition. It would do no more than clarify that California, the North Atlantic, Washington, Oregon and portions of the eastern Gulf of Mexico have the same protections now provided to the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic and other areas in Sections 108, 109 and 110. In closing I want to briefly discuss one reason why this amendment and the clarification it would provide is important to Massachusetts and New England. That reason is Georges Bank a natural wonder critically important to our state's economy and environment. Georges Bank supports Atlantic cod, scallops, haddock, yellowtail flounder and other valuable commercial species. Endangered species including the right whale, humpback whale and sei whale rely on Georges Bank and the surrounding area for feeding and as a migratory pathway. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency charged with protecting marine resources, has warned that oil and gas exploration in Georges Bank threatens these commercial and endangered species. NOAA and others have pointed out that despite advances in drilling technology, exploration carries inherent risks from spills, other accidental releases, drilling muds, seepage and other sources. I strongly believe petroleum exploration in the unique and extremely valuable habitat of Georges Bank poses unnecessary economic and environmental risk. I want to thank Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Burns for working with me to secure the passage of this important amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I would like to take a few minutes to explain the historic importance of the Resolution I am putting forward with Senator Bond to change the name of the Senate Committee on Small Business to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. This is the first piece of legislation I am putting forward as the new Chairman of the Small Business Committee. I am pleased that it is a bipartisan Resolution, continuing the tradition of the Committee. I would like to thank Senator Bond for cosponsoring this Resolution, and the Majority Leader and Republican Leader for their cooperation and support in bringing it to the floor of the Senate so quickly. As many of my colleagues may know, the needs and circumstances of today's entrepreneurial companies differ from those of traditional small businesses. For instance, entrepreneurial companies are much more likely to depend on investment capital rather than loan capital. Additionally, although they represent less than five percent of all businesses, entrepreneurial companies create a substantial number of all new jobs and are responsible for developing a significant portion of technological innovations, both of which have substantial benefits for our economy. Taken together, an unshakable determination to grow and improved productivity lie at the heart of what distinguishes fast growth or entrepreneurial companies from more traditional, albeit successful, small businesses. Early on, it is often impossible to distinguish a small business from an entrepreneurial company. Only when a company starts to grow fast and make fundamental changes in a market do the differences come into play. Policies that support entrepreneurship become critical during this phase of the business cycle. Our public policies can only play a significant role during this critical phase if we understand the needs of entrepreneurial companies and are prepared to respond appropriately. I believe that adding ``Entrepreneurship'' to the Committee on Small Business's name will more accurately reflect the Committee's valuable role in helping to foster and promote economic development by including entrepreneurial companies and the spirit of entrepreneurship in the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this Resolution. Thank you.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, As Chairman of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, I rise today to submit a resolution regarding the policy of the United States at the upcoming 53rd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, IWC. I wish to thank the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Snowe, for co-sponsoring this resolution. I wish to also thank my colleagues Mr. Hollings, Mr. McCain, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Feingold for co-sponsoring as well. The IWC will meet in London from July 23-27th. Despite an IWC moratorium on commercial whaling since 1985, Japan and Norway have harvested over 1000 minke whales since the moratorium was put in place. Whales are already under enormous pressure world wide from collisions with ships, entanglement in fishing gear, coastal pollution, noise emanating from surface vessels and other sources. The need to conserve and protect these magnificent mammals is clear. The IWC was formed in 1946 in recognition of the fact that whales are highly migratory and that they do not belong to any one Nation. In 1982, the IWC agreed on an indefinite moratorium on all commercial whaling beginning in 1985. Unfortunately, Japan has been using a loophole that allows countries to issue themselves special permits for whaling under scientific purposes. The IWC Scientific Committee has not requested any of the information obtained by killing these whales and has stated that Japan's scientific whaling data is not required for management. Norway, on the other hand, objects to the moratorium on whaling and openly pursues a commercial fishery for whales. This resolution calls for the U.S. delegation to the IWC to remain firmly opposed to commercial whaling. In addition, this resolution calls for the U.S. to oppose the lethal taking of whales for scientific purposes unless such lethal taking is specifically authorized by the Scientific Committee of the Commission. The resolution calls for the U.S. delegation to support an end to the illegal trade of whale meat and to support the permanent protection of whale populations through the establishment of whale sanctuaries in which commercial whaling is prohibited. I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record a statement from the World Wildlife Fund, WWF, concerning the upcoming meeting of the IWC and the protection of whales.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to support the bipartisan McCain-Kennedy Patients Bill of Rights. It is legislation that is long overdue. Time and again, we have heard the 180 million Americans enrolled in managed care demand patient rights. Time and again, Members of this Senate have promised to provide them those rights. Finally, with the Patients Bill of Rights legislation before us, we stand ready to deliver. The McCain-Kennedy Patients Bill of Rights ensures Americans that they can receive the very health care they pay for. In exchange for their monthly premiums, patients deserve a guarantee that they can see their own doctor, visit a specialist, and go to the closest emergency room; a guarantee that their doctor can discuss the best options for treatment, not just the cheapest; and a guarantee that their doctor's orders will be followed by their HMO. The McCain-Kennedy bill guarantees all of those rights. When those rights are violated, and harm results from the delayed application or outright denial of treatment, the McCain-Kennedy bill guarantees patients that they can hold their health plan accountable. And, that is what all of the rights to access care hinge upon--the ability to hold a health plan liable if access to care is denied. We have spent days on the floor of the Senate debating the issue of liability. But, the argument here is simple. In this country, if the decision of an individual or corporation results in harm or death to a consumer, the decisionmaker is held accountable. That holds true for every individual, and for every company except an HMO. HMOs, businesses who make countless decisions daily that affect the health of millions of Americans, do not face this same accountability. The number of patients who are suffering as a result is staggering. Every day, 35,000 patients in managed care plans have necessary care delayed. Too many of these patients pay the ultimate price for the callousness displayed by these managed care plans. I would like to share the story of one woman from my state of Massachusetts who lost her life after being denied care by her HMO. Mrs. White was diagnosed with leukemia in October 1997, and was unable to find a bone marrow match for transplant. After 2 years of battling the disease she went into remission. She then learned that Massachusetts General Hospital was working with a newly-developed anti- rejection drug which would allow patients like herself, with less than perfectly-matched donors, to have bone marrow transplants. But, her HMO denied her care the day before she was due to be admitted to the hospital. Six months later, Mrs. White enrolled in a new health plan which covered the costs of the transplant. However, during the 6-month impasse, Mrs. White fell out of remission, and her body was less able to sustain the new bone marrow. She died 3 months after the procedure was performed. Real stories like these demonstrate why HMOs must be held accountable for their decisions. Real people like Mrs. White are the reasons why there are liability provisions in the McCain-Kennedy Patients Bill of Rights--liability protections that allow patients to sue their health plans in state court when an HMO's decision to withhold or limit care results in injury or death. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle seek to misconstrue that point. But, let's be clear: this bill establishes the right to sue an HMO as a protection for America's patients, not as a reward to America's trial lawyers. Opponents of the Kennedy-McCain Patients Bill of Rights have predicted that the liability language in the bill will cause a future flood of frivolous lawsuits against managed care companies. But recent history paints a very different picture. The President's home State of Texas enacted a patients bill of rights--which includes a provision to hold HMOs accountable--in 1997, albeit without the support of then-Governor Bush. Since that time, 17 lawsuits have been brought against managed care insurers in Texas. Let me repeat that--17 lawsuits in 4 years. That is a trickle, not a flood, of litigation. Mr. President, no one wants to encourage unnecessary lawsuits that increase the cost of providing health care. That is why the McCain- Kennedy bill sets out a comprehensive internal and external review process that seeks to remedy complaints before they reach a courtroom. Except in cases of irreparable harm or death, patients must exhaust this review process before pursuing a legal remedy. But we must establish a legal remedy. A right without legal recourse fails to exist. The liability provision in this legislation simply establishes a mechanism by which to enforce the very patient protections it provides. Managed care insurers can easily avoid any liability, as long as they act responsibly and ensure that their patients receive the quality medical care prescribed for them by their physicians. Let's be clear about another issue. As chairman of the Small Business Committee, I am well aware of the substantial challenges small businesses face in providing employee benefits while holding down costs. I understand the concerns small business owners have over the Kennedy-McCain bill's potential to expose them to liability for the sole, laudable initiative of offering health insurance coverage to their employees. But that is not the intent of this legislation. The McCain-Kennedy bill only holds accountable those employers who directly participate in the medical decisions governing an employee's care if harm or injury occurs. The logic here is simple. If employers act like HMOs, it is only fair that they be held to the same accountability standards. For employers who do not directly participate in these medical decision there should be no liability. I understand that many businesses remain weary of the safeguards against employer liability that are included in the Kennedy-McCain legislation. Negotiations are underway to strike a compromise and strengthen these safeguards so that we may arrive at a Patients Bill of Rights that we all can support. I join all of my colleagues in hoping that those negotiations bear fruit. Another attack on this Patients Bill of Rights legislation that we have heard--not just in this chamber but across the television airwaves--is that this bill will cause insurance premiums to increase dramatically. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the most recent estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation will cause premiums to increase an average of 4.2 percent a year. For the average employee, that equates to $1.19 per month in additional premiums, a small price to pay for meaningful patients rights extended in this bill. Many of my colleagues across the aisle argue that this minor increase will cause large numbers of Americans to become uninsured when, in fact, no evidence exists to support this. Nevertheless, I am encouraged by their concern for the uninsured in our country, the 43 million Americans--the 15 percent of our population--who have no health care coverage at all. I challenge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue the discourse on this critical issue and look forward to working towards extending health coverage to every American once we have passed this bipartisan Patients Bill of Rights. The McCain-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights legislation has widespread support from patients groups and health care providers--the two parties that we should really be focused on in this debate. To date, over 500 health care provider and patients' rights groups have endorsed our bill. An April 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 85 percent of Americans supported a comprehensive Patients' Bill of Rights that includes provisions to hold HMOs accountable. Mr. President, patients and health care providers have spoken loud and clear. They want expanded rights for patients now, rights that our legislation will provide. I urge all of my colleagues to pass the McCain-Kennedy Patients Bill of Rights.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment that I know my colleague from Massachusetts shares with me to pay special recognition and tribute, celebrating the career of one of New England's most beloved sports figures, Raymond Bourque, who announced his retirement today. Over the course of a 22-year career in the National Hockey League, this future-certain Hall-of-Famer set a standard for all athletes-- playing with a special kind of determination and grit and, above all, class that has been recognized by his fellow players and by sports fans all over this country and indeed the world. He came to us in Boston from Canada as a teenager to play for our beloved Boston Bruins, earning Rookie of the Year honors for that first year in 1979 to 1980. Many make a large splash with a lot of headlines in the first year, but Ray proved, even as he won Rookie of the Year, to be more marathon than sprint. Through perseverance and a deep dedication to his craft, he played his way into the hearts of sports fans across the region and throughout the league. For over 20 years, touching literally four different decades for those 20 years, he was the foundation on which the Boston Bruins built their teams and chased the dream of bringing the Stanley Cup back to Boston. Alas, that was not to happen. The statistics, however, of his chase speak for themselves: The highest scoring defenseman in league history; a 19-time All-Star; a five-time Norris Trophy winner as the league's best defenseman. But in many ways it was more than goals and assists and legendary defense that won him the tremendous admiration of Boston fans. It was his performance beyond the game itself. December 3, 1987, is a day that remains indelibly imprinted in the hearts and minds of Boston sports folklore. It is next to Fisk's homer, Havlicek's steal, and Orr's flying goal. That day Bruin Hall-of-Famer Phil Esposito's No. 7 was retired and raised to the rafters of the old Boston Garden. Ray Bourque also wore No. 7 and most believed he was going to continue to wear his number for the remainder of his career. That night, Ray touched generations of fans and nonfans by skating over to Esposito, removing his No. 7 jersey to reveal a new No. 77 that he was to wear for the rest of his illustrious career. He handed the No. 7 jersey to a stunned and emotional Esposito and said, ``This is yours, big fella. It never should have been mine.'' The Stanley Cup was the one thing that was missing during his years in Boston that continued to elude him and his teammates. In fact, Ray had the most games played without winning a Stanley cup--1,825. However, that distinction did not diminish him in the eyes of his fans or his teammates, the teammates who were proud to call him captain. It only made them all want to give him one last opportunity to prevail. With that in mind, Boston gave Ray his leave and he set his sights on that final goal--to win a Stanley Cup--only this time he set out to do it with the Colorado Avalanche. Even after Ray left the Bruins in the midst of the 2000 season in search of that goal, the Boston fans never left him. His new Colorado team immediately recognized his value as a leader and they awarded him the moniker of assistant captain upon his arrival. When he finally raised the cup over his head in triumph this past season, all of New England cheered for him. In fact, in an unprecedented show of support for another team's victory, over 15,000 Bourque and Boston fans joined in a celebration on Boston's City Hall Plaza when Ray brought home the Stanley Cup earlier this month. It belonged to Ray and to Boston for those moments as much as to Colorado and the Avalanche. Today we learned that Ray Bourque has laced up his skates as a professional in competition for the final time. He will retire and come home to Massachusetts to be with his wife, Christiane, and their three children, Melissa, Christopher, and Ryan. He will watch his eldest son, 15-year-old Christopher, as he plays hockey at a new school. It is both fair and appropriate to say that for all of his children, as well as all young children, you could not have a better role model, not just in hockey but in life. I have been privileged to share a number of charitable events with Ray Bourque. He is tireless in his contribution back to the community and in the leadership to help to build a better community. If Ray's career were only measured in numbers, he would be an automatic Hall-of-Famer. But when you take the full measure of the man, he has shown to be one of those few athletes who transcends sports. He could have played a couple of years more. He could have made millions of more dollars. But he chose to go out on top and to return to his family. He felt his family had made enough sacrifices for him, and it was time for him to be there for them. In Massachusetts, and fans everywhere, I think there is a special sense of gratitude for his success, for his happiness, and we are appreciative of all of his years with the Bruins and proud to have him back home in Massachusetts. We wish him and his family well.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY. Let me begin by thanking my colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, for his extraordinary leadership on this critical issue for our country with respect to the Patients' Bill of Rights. That is without any question the most important business before the country and the most important business before the Senate. I will return to the floor of the Senate either later today or tomorrow to share some thoughts with respect to that. (The remarks of Mr. Kerry are located in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak as in morning business on the time of the Republicans.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his leadership as a Governor. He did a superb job in the State of Delaware, leading in some of the reforms incorporated herein. We appreciate and respect that and thank him for his support and comments with respect to these amendments.

Mr. KERRY. I ask for an additional minute for my colleague. I apologize.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me begin by expressing not just my gratitude, but the gratitude of everybody in the Senate who understands the dynamics of this process, and to my senior colleague from Massachusetts; there is no stronger, more forceful, more committed advocate for the schools of our country than my colleague, Ted Kennedy. I think his work in leading this for weeks now on the floor will speak for itself in the end when we will pass a bill that this country will be proud of--providing, of course, that we ultimately provide the resources necessary to empower this framework to take hold. I salute my colleague for his leadership and thank him for what he has been doing. I also thank my friend from Florida for his gracious comments and for his strict adherence to the common understanding of Webster's Dictionary. These are two amendments which I have offered today with my good friend from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith. One deals with the quality and supply of our Nation's principals, and one deals with the provision of alternative educational opportunities for chronically violent and disruptive students. I am pleased to have Senator Carper, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and Senator Levin joining us as original cosponsors of the principals amendment. The fact is very straightforward. In the next year, we are going to be faced with a leadership crisis in our schools. Many of today's principals are reaching the age of retirement, and there is clear evidence that reveals a decline in the number of candidates for each opening. For example, by the end of this school year, more than 400 New York City principals will have retired. In Washington State, nearly 300 principals, or 15 percent of the total, left their jobs at the end of the last school year. The Dallas Morning News reported that Texas is about to face the greatest shortage of principals it has ever encountered, with some studies predicting a 50-percent turnover rate among the State's 8,500 principals and assistant principals within the next 10 years. Schools all over the country are faced with the question of who will replace these retiring principals, who will provide the critical leadership for our educational system. Qualified candidates are becoming increasingly hard to find. In the 1998 survey of school districts, half of the districts reported a shortage of qualified candidates. The attrition rate for elementary school principals now stands at 42 percent for the decade from 1988 to 1998, and it is expected to remain at least as high through this decade. Indeed, some predictions are it could reach as high as 60 percent as principals of the baby boom generation reach retirement age. This is happening at a time when the U.S. Department of Labor estimates that the need for principals in our country will grow with rising school enrollments through at least 2005. If we do not stem the flow of retirees and buoy up the number of aspiring principals, we will face a critical school leadership crisis, one that could debilitate any of the other reform efforts we are making today. Not only, however, is the supply of principals vital to the success of education reform, but obviously the quality of our principals is also critical. A good principal can create the climate that fosters excellence in teaching and learning while an ineffective one can quickly thwart the progress of the most dedicated reformers. I think any of us who has been to any school in this country, particularly when we walk into a blue ribbon school, we will acknowledge that if the school is working, if the school is particularly a blue ribbon school, that school has a blue ribbon principal. Every school in this country that works begins with the leadership in the school itself. Without a good leader, it is hard to instigate or sustain any meaningful change, and schools will not be transformed, restructured, or reconstituted absent that leadership. Education reform policies, such as the ones we hope will be instituted as a result of the BEST Act, are meaningless without strong leadership to implement them in school. Today we all know principals face a whole different set of challenges than their predecessors. One of the greatest challenges is providing a positive learning environment for a highly diverse student population. By the middle of the new century, more than half of the population will be made up of those whose families originated in Africa, Asia, or Latin America. Principals will certainly need to understand and be prepared to integrate into their schools a new generation of sophisticated technology which, in turn, will require them to place a high priority on staff development for teachers and for themselves. I do not believe it is possible to underestimate the impact technology will continue to have on teaching and administration. Increased responsibilities without increased support will continue to hamper school districts' abilities to attract qualified principals. It is another reason the resource issue is so critical ultimately to the success of the legislation we will pass. The amendment the Senator from Oregon and I are offering addresses this critical problem by giving States greater flexibility in the use of their title II dollars so that funding can be used to retain high- quality principals and improve principal quality. I point out that with respect to the second amendment we are offering, Senator Smith and I and others share a twofold concern. The quality of teaching and learning suffers significantly when one or two disruptive students or violent students monopolize a classroom and the attention of a teacher, and that violent and disruptive student is often in desperate need of services, supports, and greater levels of attention than are provided in the traditional classroom. We have a choice: We can either deal with the problems of these young people while they are in school, while we know where to find them, while we have them under our control, while we have the opportunity to provide them services, or we can wait for them to drop out or turn to the streets or encounter them later in the juvenile justice system of the country. The intent of this amendment is to ensure that our classrooms are safe, drug free, and that all students are provided with a meaningful opportunity to learn. The amendment we are offering amends the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program and expands its purpose to include the provision of alternative education opportunities. This amendment will allow the list of allowable Federal, State, and local uses of funds under the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program to include the option of providing alternative education, supports to chronically disruptive, drug abusing, and violent students. One option to ensure that classrooms and schools are safe and manageable has been to require removal of disruptive and dangerous students. Typically this is accomplished through expulsions and long- term suspensions. However, while expelling and suspending may make schools safer and more manageable, students' problems do not go away when they are removed from the classroom--the problems just go somewhere else. School districts across the country report experiencing significant increases in both the number of students expelled and the length of time they are excluded from their schools. The consensus among educators and others concerned with at-risk youth is that it is vital for expelled students to receive educational counseling or other services to help modify their behavior while they are away from school. Without such services, students generally return to school no better disciplined and no better able to manage their anger or peaceably resolve disputes. They will also have fallen behind in their education, and any underlying causes of their violent behavior may be unresolved. Research has shown a link between suspension/expulsion and later dropping out of school, with resulting personal and social costs. Alternative education works. My home State of Massachusetts has some excellent alternative education programs. The superintendent of the Boston Public Schools created an Alternative Education Task Force in Octeober, 1998. A recent report of this Task Force found that alternative education programs have helped to reduce the dropout rate both in Boston Public Schools and in other community-based programs. One Boston Public Schools alternative education program, the Community Academy, has been recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as one of the top nine exemplary programs in the country. The students enrolled in the Community Academy are from grades 6-12 and are referred by principals, guidance counselors, and parents. The Community Academy's small, highly structured and closely monitored program provides a setting where these students can receive the attention and services they need to get their lives on track and enable them to focus on learning. All students of Community Academy are monitored through intervention stragtegies by the program's staff, including case managers, clinicians, instructors, and parents. The school system in Springfield, MA, has established six alternative schools. And since they began their alternative sites, the dropout rate in Springfield has declined from 11.8 percent to 4.9 percent. The superintendent of the Springfield schools made a commitment that all students in Springfield will receive an education, including suspended or expelled students, he has stood by that commitment, and in Springfield they are seeing real results. An example of alternative education is Springfield Academy, Springfield, MA. The principal is Alex Gillat. Gertrude is a teenager who does not have contact with her parents and resides with her older sister and two younger siblings. While enrolled in a local high school, Gertrude had many difficulties both in and out of school and ultimately was expelled because she attacked another student with a hammer. Gertrude spent a little over a year at the Springfield Academy. I am very happy to report that Gertrude graduated last year and is currently enrolled in a university. She is supported in her studies by a number of scholarships. Daniev came from a family with a history of drug abuse. His father died of a heroin overdose and he too became a heavy user of drugs and alcohol. Chronically truant, Daniev one day witnessed a friend get killed as they walked along the railroad tracks in Springfield. After that incident, Daniev suffered post traumatic stress disorder. Around this time, Daniev was enrolled at Springfield Academy. With the aid of the staff, counselors, and a Navy recruiter, Daniev quit using drugs and alcohol, successfully completed high school, and is now enlisted in the Navy. Another example is Bridge Academy, Springfield, MA. The principal is Allen Menkell. Cyrus is a senior in high school and is literally on the cusp of graduation, but Cyrus almost didn't make it. In addition to problems with substance abuse, Cyrus' father passed away, and soon thereafter, his younger brother died of leukemia. Cyrus was about to drop out of his ``last chance school,'' but teachers at Bridge Academy rallied around him, and helped him to see how much he had accomplished. Cyrus will graduate this month, and may go on to community college. It is shocking to think where these young people would be without the opportunities that alternative schools like those in Springfield and Boston provided them with. But what is all too common is that these alternative learning environments do not exist. What is all too common is that these young people would not have anywhere to turn. I call attention to the fact that the superintendent of Boston Public Schools created an alternative education task force in October of 1998. A recent report of the task force found it has helped reduce the dropout rate both in the Boston public schools and in other community- based programs. One alternative program has been recognized by the Department of Education as one of the exemplary programs in the country. In addition, in Springfield, MA, they have established six alternative schools, and since they began their alternative sites, the dropout rate in Springfield has declined from 11.8 percent to 4.9 percent. An alternative education opportunity makes a difference--a difference to the child who needs it and a difference to the children who are often trapped in a classroom that will not work because of the disruptive student. I urge my colleagues to embrace both of these amendments as supportive of the intentions and goals of this legislation. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send two modifications to the desk.

Mr. KERRY. I have no objection if the definition of ``brief'' is 4 or 5 minutes.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am concerned by some of the major distortions of fact that have occurred during today's debate. Some Senators have erroneously cited polling data to buoy their claims that a majority of Americans support school vouchers. A closer look at some recent trends show otherwise. I have heard some of my colleagues cite a National Education Association poll suggesting that 63 percent of Americans favor voucher programs. That is just plain wrong. In fact, that poll demonstrated that 63 percent of Americans favor public school choice--not voucher programs. There is a huge distinction there, and I am surprised that my colleagues are not a little more cautious in discussing these two very separate ideas. As we all know, public school choice allows students and parents the opportunity to participate in charter schools, magnet schools or even just another public school in the same district. Public school choice does not involve private schools at all. I should also point out that public school choice has been strongly endorsed in this bill, and I congratulate the many hands who helped shape this legislation to include a provision that support public school choice programs. In the 2000 election, two States overwhelmingly rejected referendums on funding voucher programs. Californians rejected vouchers by 71-29 percent, while Michigan voters rejected vouchers by 69-31. Since some of my colleagues raised race as an issue in this debate, I would also add that minorities in both States rejected vouchers in numbers that far exceed the aggregate State totals. Wolverine State African Americans, for example, voted against the voucher referendum by a margin of 3-1. The much-heralded Milwaukee voucher program has also recently come under scrutiny. Students participating in the public school's SAGE program--which includes smaller class sizes, rigorous curriculum and assessment, access to after school programs and increased professional development--have tested better than kids in voucher programs. So with those points made, I would like to address a couple of other arguments that have been made this morning. Even as proponents tell us that vouchers improve public schools, reality tells us otherwise. The Milwaukee and Cleveland voucher programs--which cost $29 million and $9 million, respectively--do not cover the complete cost of private school tuition for the relatively few students served by the programs. Private schools can also reduce their budgets by not offering health services, breakfast and lunch programs, counselors, or services to special needs students. For less than the cost of either voucher program, other programs, such as the Success for All program, could be implemented in city public schools, thereby benefiting all children in the school district. Voucher programs create the potential for discrimination. Awarding a voucher to a family does not guarantee that the student will be accepted into a private school. While Milwaukee schools may not discriminate against disabled students, there is no requirement that they provide special education services. Likewise, private schools are not required to provide needed services to low-English proficient students or chronically disruptive students. Finally, I take issue with colleagues who cry for accountability in our public schools, then blithely support voucher programs. I believe that our schools absolutely must be accountable for their students. But the enduring legacies of the Cleveland voucher experiment may well be bad budgeting and misspent funds rather than better results for students. A 1997 independent financial audit found that $1.9 million had been misspent, including $1.4 million paid to taxi companies transporting students to voucher schools. Since 1997, program officials have uncovered more than $400,000 in taxi fares were billed on days when the students in question were absent. Worse even than the taxi fiasco, in 1998, the program ran 41 percent over budget, forcing the State of Ohio to take $2.9 million from public school funds to cover the overruns. That is $3 million coming out of the State public school coffers to fund a program that, like today's amendment, was not supposed to ``take money out of the public schools.'' No one wants to improve schools in the poorest parts of America more than I do. But voucher programs are not the way to accomplish this very worthwhile goal. We simply do not have the resources to spend millions of dollars on a few students at the expense of the 90 percent of American children who attend public schools. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and instead to support greater investment in our public schools.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, yesterday President Bush, in the Rose Garden, conducted a ceremony in which he addressed the question of global warming and our environment. There are many issues on the table, obviously, as the President meets in Europe. I don't want to discuss those issues now because the President is abroad, and I think that would not be appropriate. However, it is appropriate, because the President spoke yesterday about the subject of global warming, and I think it is important to respond to his comments. Regrettably--I say this with an enormous sense of lost opportunity-- the President did not offer our Nation any specific policy as to how he now plans to address some of the basic fundamental, easily acceptable concepts with respect to global warming. The President did accept science at the beginning of his comments, but at the end of his comments again he raised questions about the science, which seems to be the good cop/bad cop aspect of the comments the administration is making with respect to this issue. The President essentially called for more study and said his administration is currently engaged in a review. Most who have been involved in this issue for 10 years or more and who have accepted the science understand there are a clear set of priorities that do not require a study that effective leadership could immediately move to put into place without an economic downside but with an enormous positive upside for our country and for the globe. More study is good. I am not suggesting there are not elements of this issue where we don't have an enormous amount of science to still develop. I will talk about that in a moment. In any system as complex as global climate change, there are uncertainties. Obviously, we have to continue research. However, we will find, I am confident, as the National Academy of Sciences warned last week, that the longer we go without taking the simple, clearly definable steps that there is consensus on among most people who have seriously studied this issue, the more we procrastinate, then the danger is even greater in the long term than we currently understand it to be. I think it is important to note, there is no way to study yourself out of this problem. Second, even as the President claims what they are doing is simply reviewing the bidding and making sort of a further analysis of what the options are, even as they claim that, the fact is the President is taking precipitous and potentially dangerous and clearly counterproductive steps that will have enormous long-term implications for America's ability to resolve the challenge of climate change. To underscore this point, the National Academy of Sciences, at the request of the White House, issued a report last week assessing our understanding of climate change. In addition to reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is underway and getting worse, the National Academy of Sciences made an extraordinarily relevant observation: National policy decisions made now and in the long-term future will influence the extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and ecosystems later in this century. Indeed, since the earliest days of the administration, the President has made a series of policy decisions that will profoundly impact our ability to protect the global environment, all the while purporting to be simply studying the issue. So it is really clear that while the President says they are going to study it, that he has asked for his Cabinet review, and while the President says there are certain unknowns that impact the choices we will make, the President is not neutral in the choices he is making which will have a long-term impact on the choices with which we are left with respect to this issue. Specifically, while the administration claims to be studying the issue, the President has repeatedly questioned the underlying science of climate change and attempted to reignite the debate over whether the threat is real. This was done despite the fact of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific panel founded at the behest of his own father; despite earlier assessments by the National Academy of Sciences; and despite some top government and university researchers in this Nation; and despite personal statements of concern from researchers around the country. Let me just refer to today's New York Times where there is an article that says, ``Warming Threat Requires Action Now, Scientists Say.'' I will just read very quickly: Indeed, to many experts embroiled in the climate debate, the question of how much warming is too much--which has been at the center of international climate negotiations for a decade--now constitutes a red herring. They say it is more important to start from the point of widest agreement--that rising concentrations of heat-trapping gases are warming the atmosphere, and that adding a lot more is probably a bad idea. The next step, they say, is to adopt policies that will soon flatten the rising arc on graphs of global emissions while also pursuing more research to clarify the risks. Many note that recent studies suggest a fairly high risk of significant ecological harm from a global temperature rise of less than 1 degree Fahrenheit and of substantial coastal flooding and agricultural disruption if temperatures rise more than 4 or 5 degrees in the new century. Global temperatures have risen 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last 50 years; since the last Ice Age, they have risen about 9 degrees. The risks are clear enough to justify some investments now in emissions controls, they say. They say that the general quandary is no different from the kind faced by town officials who must judge how much road salt to buy based on uncertain long-term winter weather forecasts, or by countries deciding whether to invest in a missile defense system that might not ever have to shoot down a missile. ``It's silly to expect that we can resolve what the future is going to be,'' said Dr. Roger A. Pielke Jr., a mathematician and political scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. ``That's like trying to do economic policy by asking competing economists what level the stock market is going to be at 20 years from now.'' Yesterday, I was in Boston with a number of extraordinary scientists, among them the Nobel laureate who helped discover the ozone hole, Dr. Jim McCarthy, a professor of biology at Harvard University, and a member of the IPCC working group. He said, imagine yourself as a parent and somebody says to you as a parent: Look, there is a 50-percent chance that your child is going to get cancer from the water he or she has been drinking. But if your child takes this medicine, we know we can reduce the risk. If you don't take the medicine, perhaps your child is going to get the cancer. Most parents in this country will make the judgment immediately: I want the medicine for my child. That is exactly the kind of analogy we face today with respect to global warming. We are being told what the probabilities are, about what the consequences will be. We are being told if we take certain actions, we can mitigate it. And we know to a certainty if we do not take those actions, we run the risk that we could wind up with a completely irreversible equation. We are not talking about something you can suddenly jump in on at some stage later and necessarily remediate--unless, of course, there may be some extraordinary discovery about how you take out of the atmosphere what we are putting into it. But as of this moment, that remains the most perplexing and complex of solutions at which scientists are looking. It is far easier and far more attainable to take measures now to try to reduce the level of emissions that we put into the atmosphere and to premitigate, to take the opportunity to reduce and not even do the damage we will do in the first place. The reason this is particularly compelling is very simple. We know the progressive possibilities, and we recognize there is sort of a law of safety, if you will; sort of a prudent person principle that you would put in place in order to try to avoid a disaster that you may not have any capacity to undo at some point in the future. We may never know the exact rate of change or the specific impacts and precise human contribution until it is too late to do anything about it. The changes we are causing in the atmosphere, raising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to levels unseen in over 400,000 years, is simply unprecedented. Those who demand that we wait for absolute certainty, starting with the President, should explain how they will reverse the damage that we have caused, how our environment can be made whole again once we have polluted the atmosphere in such a substantial and fundamental way. Rather than asking us the question, how do you know what the damage will be, when you know that you will create damage, we should be asking them the question, how can you guarantee us that it will not cause the worst scenario that is being predicted. It seems to me the precautionary principle demands we take some kind of actions. Furthermore, while the administration claims to be only studying the issue, the President has actually reversed the campaign pledge and announced a newfound opposition to capping carbon pollution from power plants, which is the source of one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions. The idea of a four-pollutant power plant bill has been a bipartisan effort in the Congress. It has industry support. It remains one of our most promising proposals to move ahead in climate change. But it was rejected out of hand by the President only weeks after entering office. That is not a neutral position. That is not merely studying. That is taking a proactive negative position that has an impact on global climate change. Further, while the administration claims to be only studying the issue, the President declared the Kyoto Protocol on climate change to be dead, and still calls the agreement fatally flawed. That is not only studying the issue; that is not a neutral action. That has a profoundly negative impact on global efforts to try to deal with climate change. Whatever one thinks of the substance of the Kyoto Protocol, it is self-evident that the President's outright rejection of the protocol so quickly with little explanation and with little international consultation, and apparently little considered analysis, was a mistake. Is the protocol flawed? Yes. Is it fatally flawed? That depends entirely on the willingness of an administration to lead and to fix it. The President in his Rose Garden statement yesterday referred to the 95-0 vote of the Senate on the Byrd-Hagel amendment as a rationale to say the Senate, as a whole, doesn't believe in this treaty. I was the floor manager on our side for that amendment. I know precisely what the intent was, at least on our side of the aisle, in adopting that amendment. It wasn't that the treaty was so flawed that it couldn't ultimately be made whole and become the instrument which we could ratify with amendment, with further nurturing and with future leadership. We were suggesting that, indeed, it would be wrong to do it without the less developed nations also participating. The Clinton administration set out over the course of the last 2 years to work with these less developed nations to bring them into the process. That is the unfinished task of the Kyoto Protocol. But it should not allow somebody to define the protocol as automatically dead as a consequence of that kind of deficiency. In the 17 years I have been in the Congress, and the many years many others have been here longer, there have been countless numbers of treaties that have come to us that we have remedied, that we have put amendments to, and that we have gone back and renegotiated on in order to guarantee they meet our concerns. This protocol is the product of the work of 160 nations. It is a decade of work. It deserves better than to simply be cast aside by a unilateral action of the United States, particularly in view of the fact that it represents, ultimately, the format on which we are going to have to agree, which is an international agreement to have a mandatory goal which we are going to try to reach together in order to deal with this issue. While the administration claims to be only studying the issue, the President has proposed a budget to us that slashes Federal support for clean energy technologies, which are a vital component of any plan to mitigate climate change. The President's budget cuts funding in almost every efficiency program at the Department of Energy, including cuts to appliances, buildings, instruments, and transportation. It cuts support for renewable energy from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass by about 50 percent--a 50-percent cut. That is not a mere study. That is a negative action that will have a profound negative impact on the ability of our country to be a willing global leader in developing the technologies and in showing the world our seriousness of purpose in this endeavor. While the administration claims to be only studying the issue, the President issued an energy plan that by his own acknowledgment does not consider the threat of global climate change. It resurrects an energy policy better suited for the 1970s than the year 2000 and the new millennium. It does more to set limits on America's ability to innovate than it does to inspire the technological advances that can help our economy and our environment. By one estimate, the President's budget and efforts will increase our greenhouse gas pollution by as much as 35 percent. That is not a neutral, mere study. That is a negative action that will have profound long-term consequences. Let me read again the crucial observation by the National Academy of Sciences. They said: National policy decisions made now and in the longer term future will influence the extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and ecosystems later in the century. With all due respect, I think the President has acted and is acting on the issue of climate change in a counterproductive way. I urge him to take the time to reevaluate that budget and to assist us in setting this country on a course of leadership that will help us to prove our bona fides with respect to this issue. None of us who argue for action are going to suggest that we have all the answers to what is going to happen in the long run. We recognize there are complex environmental, economic, scientific, and diplomatic challenges. But I do know that we need American leadership in order to convince the people we have been working with for the last 10 years that we are, indeed, serious about this issue. One of the principal reasons we have been unable to bring the less developed countries into this process is because they do not trust us. They do not believe we are serious about this. In the meetings in Buenos Aires, and in the meetings in The Hague most recently, one could not just hear but you could feel the growing anger at the United States for the level of our emissions; and, then, of course, the lack of action that we have taken to try to deal with this challenge. I simply remind my colleagues that all of the prophecies of a damaging impact on our economy need to be measured against what a lot of big businesses in our country are already doing. British Petroleum will reduce voluntarily its emissions to 10 percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2010. Polaroid will cut its emissions to 20 percent below the 1994 levels by 2005. Johnson & Johnson will reduce its emissions to 7 percent below the 1990 levels by 2010. IBM will cut emissions by 4 percent each year until 2004 based on 1994 emissions. Shell International, DuPont, and others, have made similar commitments. But the predictions of economic calamity from entrenched polluters are simply not credible when you measure them against the accomplishment of these particular companies. The problem is that only a small universe of these companies have been willing to adopt any kind of voluntary effort. We applaud their leadership. That is the kind of good corporate citizenship that makes an enormous difference. The lesson of the last 10 years is you have to have a mandatory structure and a mandatory goal. You can have all kinds of flexible mechanisms. You can use the marketplace in countless numbers of ways to encourage different kinds of behavior. Indeed, we should ask the corporate community to come to the table in ways that they haven't been invited previously and ask them to be part of helping us define the least cost, least intrusive, most efficient ways of dealing with this issue. But unless we set that kind of goal, we are not going to have the credibility to create the framework within which you bring the less developed nations into our fold. Our country has proven its remarkable capacity when challenged to be able to apply the entrepreneurial skill and the remarkable entrepreneurial spirit of our Nation to accomplishing almost any task. We did that in the measure of World War II when we needed to pursue the Manhattan project and developed the atom bomb itself. We have done it in countless other ways. It is when we unleash our technological capacity that we are at our best. But many times we have to excite the private capital movement to some of those areas by creating the incentives or by encouraging that capital to move those ways. When you slash your budget significantly in ways that reduces that technological organization, you send a counterproductive message to the capital markets which diminish the ability of that spirit to take hold. I believe we should summon our energy to the effort of challenging our country to, in a sense, view this as sort of a new mission to the Moon, that this should be our effort, that we are going to do the following in the following period of time. We can achieve that by cutting emissions at home. We can commit to drafting an international agreement that is based on these mandatory caps. We can find all kinds of ways to excite achievement to create hybrid cars, alternative fuels, renewable energy, and I think in the end that would be beneficial for all of us. While the protocol that was created in Kyoto is incomplete, it also represents a remarkable process because it created this mandatory structure. I think most of us would be willing to acknowledge that there is still room for compromise; that we could find the ways through the emissions trading and through the definition of the carbon sinks and other things to be able to come to a final solution with respect to it. But we have wasted the past decade in a political impasse, and we have failed to do what I think we know how to do best. If we do pursue what I just talked about--providing the economic incentives for the development and proliferation of solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen, and other clean technologies--then we can carry a new message to the rest of the world that takes away the regressive record of the last years and reasserts a kind of credibility that is important to the negotiating process. I might add, everyone should understand this is not just about global warming. People are always talking about the confrontation between the environment and the economy. But the fact is, we can create tens of thousands of jobs pursuing these alternatives. In addition to that, we would have wide-ranging domestic benefits, including reduced local air and water pollution, preventing respiratory and other illnesses. All you have to do is look at the incidence of child respiratory disease in our country, the increase in the incidence of asthma, including in adults, the remarkable increase in our hospital costs as a consequence of air pollution- and water pollution-carried diseases and illnesses. We would lessen our dependence on imported oil. We would lessen the pressure to exploit our own natural lands. We would create markets for farmers. We would grow jobs and exports in the energy sector. We would enhance our overall economic strength by strengthening our technological sector. And we would ultimately strengthen our national security as a consequence of these measures. Those are not small accomplishments, let alone what we would accomplish with respect to global warming. So we have a challenge in front of us. We need to recognize we have been going backwards. We are at 1980 levels in automobiles because of the loophole on SUVs. There are countless numbers of things we could do on building efficiencies in America, countless numbers of things we could do for various engines and air-conditioners, and other emitters of greenhouse gases, if we were to try to apply the technological capacity of our country to that endeavor. So my hope is this administration will recognize the energy study done 2 years ago which said that if we were to try to implement what we know we can do today--what IBM, Polaroid, and these other companies are doing today--we could, in fact, do so in a way that is completely neutral to our economy. We could have the upside of gains on addressing global warming while having the upside on our economy. We should begin with steps that benefit the environment and the economy and are technologically achievable today. We can and should increase the efficiency of automobiles, homes, buildings, appliances and manufacturing. The efficiency of the average American passenger vehicle has been declining since 1987 and is now at its lowest since 1980. That is unacceptable. Our cars and trucks could and should be increasingly more efficient not less efficient. Despite doubling auto efficiency since 1975, we are actually now backsliding. It is time to update national standards for vehicle efficiency. It is time to get more efficient gasoline, diesel, natural gas, hybrid and fuel cell vehicles off the drawing board and onto America's highways. We can do it. We are doing it. Hybrids, once considered exotic, are on the market today getting 50 miles to a gallon. We can improve the efficiency of resident and commercial buildings. I am a cosponsor of the Energy Efficient Buildings Incentives Act. It is a bipartisan proposal to provide tax incentives for efficiency improvements in new and existing buildings. Once implemented it would cut carbon emissions by over 50 million metric tons per year by 2010 and provide a direct economic savings that will exceed $40 billion. We can strengthen efficiency standards for clothes washers, refrigerators, heat pumps, air conditioners and other appliances. Standards issued in 1997 and earlier this year by the Department of Energy must be fully and effectively implemented. The net energy savings to the nation will be $27 billion by 2030. The environmental benefits include a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions equal to taking more than 14 million cars off the road. We must push the deployment of domestic, reliable and renewable energy from wind, solar, biomass and geothermal by creating markets and providing financial incentives. Today, California gets 12 percent of its energy from renewable energy while the rest of the country gets less than 2 percent of its electricity from renewable energy. We need to do a better job. Our nation has great potential for wind power--not only in states like North Dakota, South Dakota or Iowa but also in coastal states like Massachusetts. Planning is underway for an offshore wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts that will be generating as much as 400 megawatts of power--enough to power 400,000 homes. We have only begun to tap the potential of geothermal in Western states and biomass, which can produce energy from farm crops, forest products and waste. But to seize this potential we must create the markets and financial incentives that will draw investment, invention and entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, America is falling behind. One of the challenges in wind development is long delays in purchasing equipment from European suppliers who have the best technologies but also long delays because of rapidly growing demand. I believe American companies should be the technological leaders supplying American projects--instead it's European firms. We must create the market and the incentives for these technologies and let America's entrepreneurs meet the demand. Finally, we must look to the long term. If we are ever to convince the developing world that there is a better way, we must create that better way. To do so, we must invest in solving this problem with the same urgency that we have invested in space exploration, military technology and other national priorities. For too long our investments have been scatter shot and poorly coordinated--and lacked the intensity we need. We need a single effort, with strong leadership, that investigates how we meet this challenge and sets a path for a sustainable future. If we do this, if we act early and invest in the future, I am confident our investment will be rewarded. It will bolster our economy, make us more energy independent, protect the public health and strengthen our national security. Unlike today, America will be the leader in clean energy technologies and we will export them to the world. As America has throughout our history, we will lead in finding a global solution--and we will protect the global environment for generations to come. That is the challenge. I hope the Senate and House will show leadership in engaging in that effort. I thank the Chair and I thank everybody else in delaying a little bit. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask that we change that. I am not going to speak on the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the 5 minutes of the Senator from Minnesota come off Senator Kennedy's time, and that the time that I use be time as in morning business until we recess for the caucuses.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nevada be permitted to proceed, the Senator from Minnesota then be permitted to speak for 5 minutes, and then I be permitted to speak as in morning business, at which point the Senate would recess for the caucuses.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, that is correct. I ask the following, if it is possible. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nevada be permitted to proceed. Does he intend to use the full 15 minutes? Might the Senator from Nevada use less?

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, it is my understanding, then, that there is a prior agreement that a full 15 minutes will be used by the minority side, and then it will come back over here?

Mr. KERRY. May I ask a question of the minority side?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I introduce today a resolution proposing a commemorative stamp honoring Dr. Edgar J. Helms and the 100th anniversary of the founding of Goodwill Industries. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my good friends Senators Lugar, Durbin, Kennedy, and Snowe. Next year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of Goodwill Industries. This non-profit organization was founded in Boston's South End by Dr. Edgar Helms who began Goodwill to provide ``Not a charity, But a Chance'' for those in need. Goodwill began by collection donated clothing and household goods and having them repaired by the disabled and the extremely poor. This work is still central to Goodwill's operations. For four decades, Dr. Helms labored to provide opportunities for those in need, telling his employees to ``be dissatisfied with [their] work until every handicapped and unfortunate person in [their communities had] an opportunity to develop to his fullest usefulness and to enjoy a maximum of abundant living.'' Today, Goodwill is an international movement, providing services for over 440,000 people each year in almost every state in the nation, as well as more than 50 countries. In 2000, more than 77,000 people found employment as a result of the assistance provided by Goodwill. Goodwill has been commended by every U.S. President since Truman, and the first full week of May is traditionally proclaimed ``Goodwill Industries Week.'' Dr. Helms's foundation remains an exceptional example of how capitalism and community activism can work together to improve life for all segments of society. In honor of the 100th anniversary of Goodwill in 2002 and of Dr. Helms's long-lasting contributions to the nation's poor and disabled, I am proud to offer this resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States Postal Service issue a commemorative Stamp honoring Dr. Edgar J. Helms.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as we near completion of debate over this tax bill, I want to commend the Chairman of Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and the Ranking Democrat, Senator Baucus, for their good faith efforts to craft a tax bill and move it through the Finance Committee, that is no easy task, and I have enormous respect for their hard work and the extent to which they each listened to members from both sides of the aisle. I am particularly grateful to see that the Finance Committee included a proposal advocated by myself, Senator Snowe, and Senator Lincoln which would extend the child tax credit to perhaps as many as an additional 16 million children. The legislation's new child credit refundability provision amounts to nearly $70 billion in expanded relief for working families with children. That is truly an accomplishment. Nevertheless, today we are considering more than a tax bill--and much more than a number of individual tax pieces. What we do here has consequence. Nothing happens in a policy vacuum, nothing happens that doesn't affect everything else we do for this economy, the choices we can and can not make for this country. This is more than just a tax bill. It is a blueprint for the next several years, and, as such, I am sorry to say it is a blueprint that jeopardizes the fiscal discipline that has been the foundation of the long-term economic growth our country has enjoyed in recent years. This tax cut is one of the great lost opportunities of the last twenty years in American politics. I want a broad-based tax cut that reaches every American and I want it done in a way that's fiscally responsible. I'm not alone. We could have had that, instead, we have a tax cut that's based on projections that won't hold up and which I fear will, as a consequence, bring us back to deficit economics again in this country. It didn't have to be this way. No business in America pays out dividends to shareholders based on ten year profit projections--neither should the government. As someone who worked hard to put the budget in the black, from Gramm-Rudman Hollings deficit reduction in 1986 when ``balanced budget'' was a dirty word for Democrats, to the tough vote in 1993, to the balanced budget in 1997, I can't stress enough how this vote takes the country in the wrong direction on the question of fiscal discipline. President Bush has said over and over, it's your money, not the government's money. It's also your debt. Under the tax cut that's about to be sent to the floor all it takes is one dip in the economy, one blip in surplus projections, and we've returned to the days of deficit economics, and that means higher interest rates on student loans, on car loans, and on mortgages. It means we slow the economy. That's not fiscally responsible policy-making, and it's a departure from the course of fiscal conservatism that brought us the growth and prosperity of the last eight years. We could have made a different choice. We could have had a one, a two, or a three year tax cut. We could have stimulated growth. If surpluses were here after that, we could have cut taxes again, and I've never seen a Congress that didn't like to cut taxes. But that's not what's happening here. Tax politics is trumping fiscal discipline and honest economic policy. We know the history here, and we know what a departure this represents. In 1993, the Senate cast a difficult vote to commit the Congress and the country to getting the deficit under control. This tax bill, if passed, could well be the vote that casts away that fiscal discipline. Last week, we voted on a budget resolution. That budget resolution is nonbinding. But it gives us a framework for understanding how all the different pieces--the tax bill, discretionary spending, Social Security, Medicare, and debt reduction, will fit together. In so doing, the budget resolution made certain assumptions, assumptions regarding the economy and assumptions regarding spending. First, the budget resolution is based on CBO's ten-year economic projections which are, overly optimistic and, by definition, hopelessly unreliable, as I will explain. Second, it assumes that nondefense spending will be held slightly below the rate of inflation for the next 10 years. We have not held spending to that level in decades. Third, it assumes that no additional funds will be needed for Social Security reform. I have yet to see a viable Social Security reform plan which did not need additional funds to address transitional costs. Fourth, although it did assume certain funds for Medicare, funding for a prescription drug benefit will have to compete with funding for overall Medicare reform. Finally, although it created a defense reserve fund, there was no money in the budget allocated for this purpose. It will have to compete with all other spending priorities. Clearly, each of these assumptions deserves close scrutiny because they are the foundation for the tax cut we are considering. A little over three years ago, in January of 1998, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the federal government would accumulate a 10-year unified surplus of $660 billion. While the January CBO report appeared only a few short months after the Asian financial crisis of 1997, its authors were careful to note that their ten-year projections were based not on cyclical effects, but rather on certain beliefs regarding the long-term prospects for the United States economy. The surplus estimates were driven by trends in underlying factors-- important issues such as the demographics of the labor force, the rate of national savings, and growth of productivity levels in output per worker. This January, once again, our Congressional Budget Office produced new estimates on what to expect over the next ten years. The economists projected the economy would grow at a rate of 2.4 percent in 2001, a full half a point higher than CBO had anticipated for 2001 in its budget outlook written only three years ago. Nevertheless, we find ourselves dealing with ten-year surplus projections not of $600 billion, but $5.6 trillion. From 1998 to 2001, the Congressional Budget Office increased its ten-year surplus projections by 5 trillion dollars. Allow me to repeat that statement. In three short years, the Congressional Budget Office has increased its ten-year surplus projections by 5 trillion dollars. It begs the question, what has led the Congressional Budget Office to increase surplus projections by such a tremendous amount over the last three years? Is it the result of deficit reduction measures? Absolutely not. Over the past three years, discretionary spending has grown by an average rate of well over 4 percent. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 slowed the growth of Medicare, but Social Security and Medicaid spending continue to increase. Today, the same economists that predicted a 10-year surplus of $600 billion in 1998 have changed their assumptions regarding the economy's ability to grow. They assume that productivity growth will continue at levels far exceeding levels attained from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s. They assume that productivity growth will be well above its average over the last 50 years. Yet, productivity levels already show signs of weakening. Productivity has dropped steadily since last summer. In the first quarter of this year, productivity recorded its first decline since 1995. A surplus projection centered on an assumption that productivity growth will hold at the levels achieved over the last five years is not a conservative projection, and it is certainly not the stone on which Congress should engrave the largest nominal tax cut it has ever contemplated and bet the future of the US economy. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office acknowledges as much in their report. Their economists go to great lengths to warn of the pitfalls and dangers of budget forecasting. The January report devotes 24 pages to this very topic. Under one specific scenario modeled by CBO, their economists examine what would happen if the economy reverted to pre- 1996 conditions, specifically, if: (1) productivity growth averages its historical rate of 1.5 percent, (2) Medicare and Medicaid spending grow a mere 1 percent faster than the baseline, and (3) increases in personal tax liabilities from phenomena such as recent capital gains realizations gradually fall to historical levels. In this instance, they estimate the budget surplus would fall from $5.6 trillion to $1.6 trillion. A full, four trillion dollars would be eliminated. That scenario is far from a ``doomsday'' scenario. It simply assumes that productivity growth falls to historic levels, Medicare and Medicaid spending increase 1 percent, and capital gains realizations fall to historic levels. And it reduces the surplus by four trillion dollars. Now I say to my colleagues, there is another piece of the surplus puzzle that just doesn't fit and that is the spending assumptions. Over the past 20 years, the difference in projected spending in the Congressional budget resolution for the next fiscal year and the actual amount of spending for the next fiscal year has averaged 3.3 percent. In other words, spending for fiscal year 2002 will probably be off by about 3.3 percent from the level anticipated in the budget resolution. Thus, with a $1.9 trillion budget, we're likely to be off by about $60 billion. And that's just next year. Looking at the out-years, spending assumptions can be wildly inaccurate. Medicare spending is rising again, it increased by 3 percent in 2000. According to CBO, ``Historically, Medicare's growth rate has varied widely, and such fluctuations are likely to continue.'' In 2000, Medicaid grew 2 percent faster than CBO projected. In addition, minor upturns in inflation can result in major spending increases because many mandatory program benefits, such as Social Security, are linked to the consumer price index. And we have yet to adequately address all of the problems the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created for Medicare. On the discretionary side, since the end of President Reagan's last term, domestic nondefense outlays have increased at a rate of 6 percent a year, those are our investments in education, the environment, transportation, children and other priorities. Much of that increase was balanced by declining defense expenditures. That's about to change. Does anyone really believe that a budget resolution which assumes that discretionary spending will rise at the rate of inflation over the next ten years is honest budgeting? Judging by the votes during Senate floor consideration of the budget resolution, it's not about to begin today. Now let's take a look at what happens to the surplus if we make a much more realistic assumption about spending. For example, maybe we will lower nondefense spending growth from the 6 percent averaged since the end of Reagan's term to 5 percent. Let's give ourselves the benefit of the doubt and assume that the defense build-up leads to increases in defense of only 5 percent per year. Thus, discretionary spending increases 5 percent a year over the next 10 years. In effect, with lost interest savings, we would wipe out more than $1.1 trillion of the projected surplus. So first we have a potential situation in which our 10-year surplus, due to faulty economic assumptions, has fallen from $5.6 trillion to $1.6 trillion. When we then figure in honest and realistic projections regarding spending growth, our actual 10-year surplus has now been reduced from 5.6 trillion to $500 billion. We have wiped out all of the Medicare surplus and we have wiped out about 80 percent of the Social Security surplus, and we still have not calculated the cost of the tax cut or Social Security reform. Now combine that scenario with the tax cut before us. We are about to enact a $1.35 trillion tax cut and at the same time, we have done nothing to deal with fundamental issues resulting from mandatory spending and the retirement of the Baby Boom generation. Moreover, there exists the very real possibility that we will return to the days of deficit spending and ballooning federal debt. And while it may make a nice sound bite to say that if we don't send the surplus back to the American people in a tax cut, Congress will waste it, no one can make that argument with a straight face unless they are willing to set forth a real plan to deal with the fundamental issues facing Social Security and Medicare. Our President has yet to submit a Social Security or Medicare reform plan and I don't see one on the schedule in the Ways and Means Committee or the Finance Committee. Social Security's trustees reported in March that Social Security's tax income will fall short of Social Security's benefit payments beginning in 2016. Medicare's tax income will fall short of Medicare spending the same year. Social Security and Medicare's problems are related to the aging of the labor force. In the not-to-distant future, there will be too few workers in the workforce to maintain Social Security and Medicare as pay-as-you-go programs. These are not small problems. In the case of Social Security, Congress will have to either reduce Social Security benefits, raise Social Security taxes, or find a third alternative. Individual accounts, partial privatization, or investment of Social Security funds in the stock market, even under the best of circumstances, regardless of how they are structured, will require use of large-scale additional funds to ensure that current and near retirees will not be penalized. But under the scenario I have outlined, there would be no General Treasury funds available and Social Security surpluses over the next ten years would be eliminated. The same issues apply to Medicare. The Congressional budget resolution sets aside $300 billion in a Medicare Reserve Fund. However, that $300 billion is needed just to finance a decent prescription drug benefit. In addition, there will be substantial costs associated with reforming Medicare. This year's Trustees' Report showed that health care costs per capita will rise. But as I have demonstrated, the tax cut would place Medicare surpluses in jeopardy. Dealing with the Social Security and Medicare's financial problems sooner rather than later minimizes the pain for beneficiaries and workers by allowing the government to address transitional costs before the problem reaches the breaking point. Congress should be acting in a fiscally responsible way by addressing Social Security and Medicare's long-term problems while we have the opportunity, while the Federal government is operating under surpluses and not deficits. Turning to the actual tax cut before us, regardless of how you feel about the bill's specific provisions, one glaring problem flows from the fact that most of the bill's provisions will not take effect for several years. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the cost of the bill in 2011 will exceed the cost of the tax bill in the first three years combined. By the time we reach 2011, the cost of the Chairman's proposed tax cut will approach nearly $200 billion per year. The most obvious example is the bill's estate tax relief provisions. Over the next five years, the bill would provide a total of $36 billion in estate tax relief. However, the bill does not actually repeal the estate tax until the year 2011, and, therefore, the revenue hit resulting from repeal of the estate tax will not actually occur until 2012, so its impact does not even appear in the revenue tables. Thus, the bill repeals the estate tax in the same year that the Baby Boom generation will begin retire. Is that fiscal responsibility? The stark reality is that the cost of the tax cut will arrive just when we are least able to afford it. The same problem applies throughout the legislation. To make matters worse, because many of the bill's provisions will not take effect until the second five years, the costs of the tax bill escalates at a time when surplus estimates are the most unreliable, towards the end. And by back-loading the bill, we are ensuring that the costs of the tax cut will rise just when surpluses are most unreliable and our fiscal problems related to the aging of the population are truly emerging. Finally, I say to my colleague, by passing this tax cut, we are effectively ensuring that the Federal debt will stop falling and start rising again. Under the Congressional Budget Office's January baseline, Federal debt, i.e., debt held by the public as well as debt owed to Federal trust funds such as Social Security and Medicare, will fall in each of the next five years. However, under the budget resolution Congress passed last week, Federal debt would soon be on the rise again. Even if you accept their assumptions about spending and the economy, after five years, Federal debt will be $600 billion higher than the CBO baseline. Over the full ten years of the budget resolution, Federal debt would increase by over $1 trillion, from $5.6 trillion in 2001 to $6.7 trillion in 2011. And by using unrealistic economic and spending assumptions, as I have shown, they are ensuring that debt held by the public will rise. From 1969 to 1997, debt held by the public increased every year. Over the past three years, we reversed that trend. From 1997 through 2000, the Federal government retired $360 billion of debt held by the public. In the early 1990s, by enacting a real deficit reduction program, we were able to completely change the course of interest rates, inflation, and the economy. Reducing publicly held debt means the government is buying back bonds, thereby freeing capital in private sector financial markets. As Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan noted in Congressional testimony earlier this year, ``a declining level of Federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment.'' Paying down publicly held debt results in lower interest rates and lower inflation. The result is lower home mortgage rates and lower auto loan rates for every American. Paying down debt has also helped finance a high level of private sector investment at a time when personal savings rates are declining. By buying back bonds, more capital is available in domestic markets. It is that simple. But under the tax cut we have before us today, the ability to reduce publicly held debt will be strained. Their numbers make unrealistic assumptions about the economy and unrealistic assumptions about spending. While only time will tell, I fear we are moving down the wrong path, one that reverses the progress made over the last eight years. I acknowledge that the Chairman and Ranking Member have made great strides to ensure that their bill will benefit a broad spectrum of Americans. I particularly appreciate the fact that they included a $70 billion provision that Senators Snowe, Lincoln and I requested which will ensure that an additional 16 million children benefit from the expanded child credit. Nevertheless, for all of the reasons I have outlined, I believe the evidence is clear, the long-term consequences of the proposed tax reduction will set back our economy and our nation. I want tax relief, but I don't believe in doing it at the expense of fiscal discipline. And that is why I would urge my colleagues to vote against this agreement, we can and should do better.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my congratulations to a fine Coast Guard officer, Commander Thomas K. Richey, who is retiring this month after more than 20 years of dedicated service to this country. Commander Richey served as a Legislative Fellow in my personal office from 1996 to 1998. During that time he was responsible for maritime, transportation and environmental issues that fell under the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. In 1998 he accompanied me to Kyoto, Japan during the negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol for controlling greenhouse gases. Throughout his long and distinguished career Commander Richey has demonstrated superb managerial and leadership skills. Tom has served in a variety of demanding billets including Operations Officer of Coast Guard Group Mobile, Alabama, Commanding Officer of Coast Guard Station Atlantic City, New Jersey and Deputy Program Manager for acquisition of Cutter and station boats. Along the way Tom has been awarded five Coast Guard Commendation Medals with Operational Distinguishing Device and one Coast Guard Achievement Medal with the ``O'' device and numerous other team and unit commendations. When Tom left my personal office in 1998 he became the Commandant's Liaison to the United States Senate. This is a top billet reserved for only the finest the service has to offer. His performance in both my personal office and the Senate has been outstanding. As many of my colleagues know, Tom was always quick to respond to any of our questions or concerns and was an invaluable tool in helping us respond to our constituents whenever a Coast Guard issue arose. I am grateful for having had the opportunity to work so closely with Tom. I offer again my congratulations to Commander Richey and his lovely wife Maureen who reside in Maryland with their two children Patricia and Tommy. I expect great things of this outstanding officer in the future. Mr. President, I yield the balance of my time to my colleagues, Senators Breaux and DeWine who wish to express their appreciation as well to Commander Richey for his dedicated service to this country.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, all of us know that in this bill there is an alternative minimum tax problem. What my amendment seeks to do is address that problem to the best of our ability by providing an exemption to all taxpayers at the income level of $100,000 or less from being put into the alternative minimum tax. Today, there are 1.3 million Americans in the alternative minimum tax who paid it last year. Because of this bill and the lack of indexing for inflation, the result will be that almost 17 million Americans will pay about $40 billion by the year 2010 as a consequence of being pushed into a new bracket. So we are telling people they are going to get a tax cut, but in effect they are not because there is a serious alternative minimum tax problem. I ask colleagues to help make it a fair tax bill for all Americans.