John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today marks an important day in the history of national passenger rail transportation. Today is the thirtieth anniversary of the American National Passenger Rail Corporation, Amtrak. As we mark Amtrak's birthday, we need to understand that the demands on our national passenger rail system are changing. Amtrak can no longer be solely a link to a bygone era, when a long train ride was the only way to get from one city to another. The Amtrak of the next 30 years must be a faster, more competitive transportation option for the American traveler. A population that is more mobile than ever before but faces gridlock on our highways and capacity limitations in our skies demands this of Amtrak. Our Nation's passenger rail system has already begun to change in the Northeast Corridor, where in just four months, Amtrak has shuttled over 55,000 people between Washington and New York on four daily high-speed trains. This unexpectedly high ridership has helped Amtrak beat revenue estimates for the Northeast Corridor by four percent. Overall, ridership in the Northeast is up eight percent over last year. It is my hope that the Congress commemorates Amtrak's thirtieth birthday by passing legislation this year that allows Amtrak to continue to improve high-speed rail service in the Northeast Corridor and replicate that success in the Northeast. The High Speed Rail Investment Act is Amtrak's future. This legislation would allow Amtrak to sell $12 billion in tax-exempt bonds to finance the development of high-speed rail corridors throughout the country, and would allow for continued track improvements in the Northeast Corridor. Though Amtrak will raise $12 billion, the High Speed Rail Investment Act will cost taxpayers only about one-third of that amount. I am proud to be working closely with my colleagues Senators Biden and Hutchinson, as well our leaders, Senator Lott and Senator Daschle, to enact this legislation this year, and I am excited to see that the bill has 55 cosponsors and wide bipartisan support. On Amtrak's birthday, I hope each one of us will take a serious look at the importance of inter-city passenger rail to our Nation. Inter- city passenger rail is a critical link to our Nation's history, reminding us of how we used to travel this glorious country. And that's a link which many members of Congress have taken great pains to maintain in their states and districts. At the same time, in many places, such as the northeast, a modern inter-city passenger rail network is not a luxury, it is a necessity. Amtrak's challenge of late has been to satisfy both of these roles while trying to act like a profit-making company. This task has not been easy for a quasi- independent government agency that, for its whole life, has operated under many Congressionally-imposed burdens but has received sporadic and insufficient financial support from the federal government. I think we are all aware that Amtrak is subject to unique political pressures that private companies do not face. And I think we all know that those pressures, which often require the company to operate unprofitable routes, influence the company's bottom line in a negative way. But high speed rail has proven to be a financial success in the Northeast, and is projected to add $180 million annually to Amtrak's bottom line when all 20 Acela Express trainsets are in operation. High speed rail is a good investment for Amtrak, and it's a great investment for our nation's transportation infrastructure. It is time to bring Amtrak into the 21st century by creating an effective, truly inter-modal transportation network. Let's make high speed rail service an indispensable element of our transportation infrastructure--our overburdened highways and skyways require it and the traveling public demands it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I want to say a word about what President Bush said this morning with respect to Taiwan because if what the President said is, in fact, what he means, or if it is indeed the new policy of the United States, it has profound implications for our country. He made a far-reaching comment this morning on the American defense of Taiwan, a comment which suggests that without any consultation with Congress, without any prior notice to the Congress, a policy that has been in place for 30 years is now summarily being changed with implications that I believe are serious. When asked by Charles Gibson, on ABC's ``Good Morning America,'' whether the United States had an obligation to defend Taiwan if Taiwan were attacked by China, President Bush said: Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand that. Charles Gibson then asked: With the full force of the American military? President Bush responded: Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend theirself. For almost 30 years, through Republican and Democrat administrations alike, the cornerstone of our approach to policy toward China and Taiwan has been the so-called ``one China'' policy: There is but one China; Taiwan is a part of China, and the question of Taiwan's future must be settled peacefully. This policy was laid out in the 1972 Shanghai Communique issued by the United States and China at the end of President Nixon's historic visit. It was reaffirmed in subsequent bilateral communiques--in 1979, when the United States recognized the People's Republic of China and again in 1982 on the question of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. A consistent tenet of this policy is the U.S. expectation that the question of reunification of China and Taiwan will be settled peacefully. We have never stated what the United States would do if Beijing attempted to use force to reunify Taiwan with the mainland-- until today. We have not stated it in the course of Republican and Democrat administrations alike because we understood the danger of doing so. We have been deliberately vague about what the circumstances might be under which we would come to Taiwan's defense, not only to discourage Taiwan from drawing us in by declaring independence but also to deter a Chinese attack by keeping Beijing guessing as to what the response might be. Sometimes some people have talked about trying to reduce that ambiguity and simplify it and simply say, of course we would come to their defense. But if you do that, you invite a set of consequences that might carry with it its own set of dangers, and you may lose control of the capacity to make a determination about what has happened and what the circumstances really are to which you need to respond. President Bush's comments this morning on ``Good Morning America'' suggest that the administration has decided to abandon the so-called strategic ambiguity. If so, the President has made a major policy change with absolutely no consultation with the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Intelligence Committee, or the leadership of the Congress. In my view, it is a policy change that serves neither our interests nor Taiwan's. Any situation which results in the use of force across the Taiwan Strait is unlikely to be simply black and white, as clear as can be. The Tonkin Gulf is a classic example of that. To this day, people debate over whether or not there really was an attack on the Maddox and the Turner Joy, and whether or not there was an appropriate response under those circumstances. The scenarios which could lead to the use of force and the conditions under which the United States might respond are simply too variable to lend themselves to a simple, clear declaration such as the declaration made by the President this morning. For example, if China attacked in response to what it sees as a Taiwanese provocation, would we then respond? Apparently so, according to President Bush. Or if Taiwan declared independence, and China responded militarily, would we then come to Taiwan's defense? Have we given Taiwan a card it wanted all along, which is the capacity to know that no matter what it does, the United States would, in fact, be there to defend it? The answer to that question is the reason that we have carried this ambiguity through President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, the President's father, and President Clinton. In a subsequent interview on CNN, the President reiterated that we maintain the ``one China'' policy, and he hopes Taiwan will not declare independence. But he remained vague as to what we would do if Taiwan did declare independence and China attacked. To remove the strategic ambiguity runs the risk of decreasing Taiwan's security rather than increasing it and of eliminating the flexibility that we will need to determine how to respond in any given situation. Notwithstanding President Bush's efforts to clarify that the United States does not want Taiwan to declare independence, the new policy has the automatic impact, if it is in place, and if it is the declaration that was made, of emboldening Taiwan and, frankly, reducing our control over events. Although I have argued that we need to inject more clarity into our engagement with China, I personally believe that on this question our interests and Taiwan's are better served by the ambiguity that has existed and would be better served by maintaining it. It not only deters a Chinese attack, but it discourages Taiwan from misreading what the United States might do. President Bush has said that the United States has an obligation to defend Taiwan. Certainly we want to help Taiwan preserve its thriving democracy and robust, growing economy. I have said previously that I think this is enough of a message to the Chinese, that no American President could stand idly by and watch while that democracy that has been gained is set back, by force or otherwise. Nevertheless, we need to press both Taipei and Beijing to reinvigorate the cross-strait dialogue, without any misinterpretations about our role. So let us be clear: The Taiwan Relations Act does not commit the United States to come to the defense of Taiwan in the event of an attack. The Taiwan Relations Act commits us to provide Taiwan with the necessary military equipment to meet its legitimate self-defense needs. The arms package that the Bush administration just approved for Taiwan, I believe, is the right mix and the right measure, and it will significantly increase the Taiwanese defensive capacities. I support that package. It may be the case that we would send American forces ultimately to Taiwan's defense if there were an attack, but that decision should not be made by an American President in advance during a television interview. A decision of this magnitude, which holds the potential for risking the lives of American military men and women, should be made in response to the circumstances at the moment, on the ground, in the air, and, most importantly, in consultation with the Congress of the United States in the due performance of its responsibilities with respect to the engagement of our forces overseas. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I want to share a couple of thoughts regarding some reports that have appeared in the media in the last few hours regarding our colleague, Senator Bob Kerrey. Some reports have been written during the last 24 hours about an incident that took place in Vietnam in February 1969, several weeks prior to Senator Kerrey receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor for the secret mission on which he served. I read a couple of those reports. I want to express my personal concern about the approach of the media to this issue, and express my personal support for Senator Bob Kerrey, particularly for the nature and the circumstances of the mission which has been written about. It is my hope that the media is not going to engage in some kind of 32-year-later binge because there is a difference of memory about a particularly confusing night in the delta in a free fire zone under circumstances which most of us who served in Vietnam understood were the daily fare of life in Vietnam at that point in time. I served in the very same area that Bob Kerrey did. I served there at the very same time that he did. I remember those free fire zones. I remember our feelings then and the great confusion many people felt about the ambiguities we were automatically presented with then by a military doctrine that suggested that certain areas were wholly and totally ``enemy territory,'' but nevertheless to the naked eye we could often perceive life as we knew it in Vietnam being carried on in those areas. Inevitably, there were older citizens, women, children, and others who were often, as a matter of strategy by the Viet Cong, drawn into the line of fire and put in positions of danger without regard, I might add, for their side as well as ours. To the best of my memory, most people worked diligently--I know Senator Kerrey did as well as others--to avoid the capacity for confusion or for accidents. I know certainly within our unit there was a great deal of pride on many occasions when orders were changed on the spot simply because perceptions on the spot made it clear that there was the potential for innocents to be injured. I fully remember what it was like to ``saddle up'' for a nighttime mission with no Moon, with no light, trying to move clandestinely and trying to surprise people. The confusion that can ensue in those kinds of situations is not confusion that lends itself to a 32-year-later judgment. There were occasions in Vietnam, as everyone knows, when innocents were victims. There wasn't a soldier there at that time, or who has come back to this country and home today, who doesn't regret that. But I also know it is simply a disservice to our Nation and to the quality of the service and a person such as Bob Kerrey to have condemnation after the fact which does anything to diminish the quality of service, or the unit's service, or the service of so many others who spent their sweat and blood and youth in that particularly difficult battlefield. So it is my hope that in the next days people will understand the appropriate perspective and put this issue in its appropriate perspective. Bob Kerrey served with distinction. He obviously feels anguish and pain about those events, but I do not believe they should diminish, for one moment, the full measure of what he has given to his country and of what he represents. It is my hope that he personally will not allow it to.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today we celebrate the long career of dedicated public service rendered by Mr. Bill Bradley of Ware, MA. His deep love of policy and politics has inspired me and many others, and I am fortunate to have Bill's friendship and counsel in my life. This weekend, Bill's friends and colleagues will gather to look back on 25 years of service to two United States Senators, a Congressman, the US Department of Agriculture and the people of Massachusetts. Bill retires from a distinguished career of government service, most recently having held the post of Regional Director for the Department of Agriculture's Rural Development Program and today I join his extended political family in this celebration. The same interest and passion that Bill brought to his USDA service can be found in earlier chapters of his life. As a freshman in high school, he pursued an early interest in politics by working as a congressional page in Washington D.C. in 1962, and his sponsor was a son of Dorchester who went on to become the great Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, John W. McCormack. Bill was a page through the next two years, and capped his early Washington experience by witnessing Lyndon Johnson's inauguration in 1965. After graduating from the University of California and serving a brief stint with the U.S. Forest Service in Alaska, Bill got his first job on Capitol Hill as a Legislative Aide for Congressman Dale Milford of Texas during the Carter Administration. Soon he moved closer to his Massachusetts up north to run a mobile office for my predecessor in this chamber, the late Paul Tsongas. From 1979 to 1983, Bill traveled in this capacity through the same towns he would later serve through the USDA. Once established in Western Massachusetts with Senator Tsongas, Bill dug deeper into the issues closest to the heart of those communities, and soon his knowledge and understanding of the region and its needs was exemplary. Even greater was his passion to serve them. Bill coordinated these cities and towns in my first Senate campaign in 1984 and later became the Director of Constituent Services for my whole state-wide operation. Throughout the nine years he spent on my staff, he held positions that ranged from Director of Western Massachusetts to Director of Local Relations. In each position, Bill demonstrated the same tenacity and dedication to improving people's lives he carries to this day. It came as no surprise to those who worked with and knew Bill that President Clinton would recognize and embrace these same qualities as he assumed office in 1993. The President appointed Bill to the position of Regional Director for the Department of Agriculture's Rural Development Program, and the success of his tenure is well known to everyone in the three- state region he served. He oversaw more than 65 employees in six offices throughout three states. The program's successes throughout this time are numerous; he worked with other agencies and officials to obtain new fire trucks for the Palmer Fire Department, and worked with Congressman Neal and the Ware Selectmen to help move the police station to its current location. During his eight years of directing this agency, Bill coordinated the distribution of over $870 million dollars in rural housing programs that helped rural towns foster and maintain economic development. Concurrent with this service, Bill was a Member of the Electoral College for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and I congratulated him along with his friends and colleagues as he cast his vote for the re-election of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Throughout all of these national and State-wide efforts, Bill Bradley has maintained an iron-clad commitment to community and his neighbors. He has served as Director of the Ware Cooperative Bank, and mobilized State and Federal money through the Ware Community Development Authority. His love of politics is surpassed only by music and his devotion to his wife, Linda, and I congratulate both of them as they begin this new chapter in their lives. I have been very fortunate to have some of the best people I have ever known be involved in my campaigns and on my staff. Bill Bradley is a credit to his community and the State of Massachusetts. He has performed 25 years of public service with a professionalism and dedication that is increasingly rare, and it is with great pride, respect and affection that I celebrate his contributions to the lives of people throughout Massachusetts and the United States of America.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I submit a statement for the Record regarding a small business amendment I offered to the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution with my colleague, Senator Bond, on April 6, 2001. First, let me extend sincere thanks to my colleagues for supporting this amendment which restored critical funding to the Small Business Administration's finance and management assistance programs that help start and strengthen small businesses in our country. Second, let me correct the Record to reflect all the cosponsors: Senators Bond, Bingaman, Wellstone, Landrieu, Daschle, Leahy, Johnson, Schumer, Collins, Levin, Snowe, Harkin, Conrad, and Domenici. My apologies to Senators Conrad, Domenici, and Harkin who were not listed in the Record when the amendment passed. Again, thank you to all my colleagues for agreeing to this amendment and showing their support for our small businesses. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the amendment and the summary along with all the letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the budget resolution as well as an amendment I am offering which concerns the tax cut portion of the resolution. This week's debate is quite likely the most important debate in this body we have had, and will have, for several years. What we have before us is a budget blueprint that would completely reverse the direction of the United States federal government budget, a 180 degree change from budget policies we have pursued over the last eight years. What the Majority is offering is a repudiation of the fiscal discipline of the 1990s and a return to the bold tax-cutting era of the 1980s. And why not? The Congressional Budget Office projects surpluses as far as the eye can see. Ten years from now, in 2011, they project a unified budget surplus of nearly 900 billion dollars. Social Security and Medicare, for at least several years, are on firm footing. Let's get this surplus money out of town, they say, before Washington bureaucrats have an opportunity to throw it down the drain. It's a strong argument, it sounds good in TV ads and Sunday morning talk shows. The American people should decide how their money is spent, not Washington politicians detached and removed from Mainstreet, USA. But the reality is quite different. The American people are not so easily deceived. Thanks to a previous Administration that demonstrated the benefits for everyone of turning around government deficits, taxpayers understand and appreciate the undeniable advantages of fiscal discipline. That is why when one puts before the public the following question, should the government send the surplus back in a tax cut or divide the surplus equally between debt reduction, tax relief, and priority investments, the second option, the prudent and reasonable option, always wins. So let's take a close look at the two options we have before us. This debate should not be about sound bites. It is far too important. The two options are the Democratic-favored balanced budget approach based on principles of fairness, reasonable tax relief, and fiscal discipline or the Republican-favored approach of risky, back-loaded tax cuts dependent on surpluses which may or may not appear. Is this Democratic approach, as the able senior Senator from Texas calls it, just an excuse not to support a tax cut? Far from it. For the last 8 years, fiscal discipline has meant turning around 300 billion dollar deficits into 200 billion plus surpluses. And what is a surplus, it is savings. It means the government is a net saver instead of a net debtor. It means that the federal government is buying back outstanding Treasury bonds from the public. The public turns around and invests that money elsewhere. In effect, every dollar of paid-down debt frees up a dollar for the public to invest in the private sector, the engine of growth. With the government acting as a net saver rather than a debtor, inflation is held in check and interest rates come down. The benefits to the American people are real. Auto loan rates are lower. Home mortgage rates are lower. Businesses have access to credit for investments, leading them to hire more workers and keeping unemployment down. As everyone from Greenspan to Rubin to Summers have recognized, it is a virtuous cycle. So what we have before us today is an effort to reverse that cycle, an effort to revert to another era, a prior era. We have been down that road. Is that the direction we want to steer the country? In the real world, a business would never write a check that it was not sure it could pay. But that is exactly what Republicans want to do with the biggest check of all. Let's write the check now and hope that when it comes due, there will be enough money in the bank to pay for it. Would any self-respecting businessman manage his company in such a fashion? The answer is no. The reality is that most of the Republican tax cut would not even take effect for several years, many provisions are so far into the future that they won't show up in any IRS form you file for nine or ten years. Building an estate? Great. I just hope you don't have the misfortune to pass away before 2011 because that is the year they repeal the estate tax. Can we really afford the check they are writing? That is the $64,000 question. Economic and budget forecasting is somewhat like a weather forecast, the further you go into the future and the more long-range the forecast, the less likely it is to prove accurate. What we do know is that if productivity levels drop to their historical average, rather than staying at the levels they reached in the last few years, the surplus could fall by as much as $2 trillion. And 84 percent of the surplus comes after the next presidential election. Or put another way, two-thirds of the surplus comes in the second five years of the 10-year projection. But we need to pass a tax cut today to keep from spending the money. Last time I checked there were no spending proposals on the table that postpone their effective dates for 5 years. In the same way, we shouldn't be passing tax cuts that don't take effect for another 5 years. Let's pass a short-term tax cut, and if the money comes in like the rosy forecasts indicate, we can extend it when the date arrives. I want to address some specific aspects of this budget before us. Back in February, we held a special joint session to hear our new President's priorities for the future. President Bush stated, ``Education is my top priority and, by supporting this budget, you'll make it yours, as well.'' The truth rests in the numbers. The Bush budget includes 40 dollars in tax cuts for every one dollar increase in education. This budget resolution makes clear that President Bush's tax cut proposal is a higher priority than addressing key priorities, such as education and child care and that his enormous tax cut crowds out significant investments in education. Yesterday this body made significant strides toward increasing the budget numbers for education by reducing the tax cut. I am thrilled that the Senate voted to increase funding for important education priorities by $250 billion over 10 years. The majority leader has expressed his intention to attempt to overturn that vote later this week. I sincerely hope that that does not occur. The President's budget does not include a sufficient investment in public education. The amendment passed yesterday brings us much closer to the investment that we must make in public education in order to ensure each child has access to a first-rate education. Despite the President's claims, education funding in his budget does not keep pace with previous congressional funding increases for education. The President says that he is requesting an increase of $4.6 billion for education, and he takes great pride in claiming a 11.5 percent funding increase over the last fiscal year. But the President's outline includes only a 5.9 percent increase at the program level. To put that in plain English, almost half of the increase that Bush is touting as his major investment in education would happen even if the budget didn't pass and the appropriations process did not occur. About $2 billion of Bush's funding increase for his so-called ``top priority'' was forward-funded last year. So the actual increase in new spending that Bush is proposing is only about $2.5 billion. That is one-third the average rate of increase in education spending over the past four years, after adjusting for inflation. Here is the area that the President has identified as his highest priority, education, and it would have its recent rate of growth reduced by two-thirds. We don't know yet exactly which education programs Bush will increase funding for, because none of us have seen the details of Bush's budget. But he has said that he plans to provide funding for his reading first initiative, increase funding for special education, increase the maximum level of Pell Grants, increase funding for improving teacher quality, and provide more funding for character education. All of these are laudable goals and funding increases that I wholeheartedly support. But what about Title I funding? Does the President propose to increase funding for the most disadvantaged students? And what about after- school programs and making our schools safe? What about more funding for education technology? In the last administration, we accomplished the amazing feat of connecting every school to the Internet. But will this President help schools to incorporate technology into the curriculum? We just don't know, and by math there won't be enough money for these priorities after this massive tax cut. That is why it is so critically important that the Harkin amendment not be overturned and the tax cut be decreased in order to pay for these important initiatives. One critically important initiative that we know the President's budget will not make a priority is school renovation and construction. There is overwhelming need for school construction funding. Three- quarters of our schools are in need of repairs, renovation, or modernization. More than one-third of schools rely on portable classrooms, such as trailers, many of which lack heat or air conditioning. Twenty percent of public schools report unsafe conditions, such as failing fire alarms or electric problems. At the same time our schools are aging, the number of students is growing, up nine percent since 1990. The Department of Education estimates that 2,400 new schools will be needed by 2003. Last month the American Society of Civil Engineers released their ``2001 Report Card for America's Infrastructure,'' which grades the condition of the nation's schools, drinking water, wastewater, transportation needs and so forth. Of all the categories included in the report, schools received the lowest mark, a D-. Despite these facts, despite the desperate need for repair and renovation, the Bush budget provides only a modest investment in school construction and only allows for the use of private activity bonds for schools, a mechanism that requires a major corporate sponsor to finance a school, which would help only a few communities that are struggling to meet growing enrollments or upgrade their crumbling schools. As many of my colleagues have already mentioned, there was a very disturbing report in the New York Times several weeks ago about the anticipated cuts to critical children's programs. I am extremely distressed by this news. The President's singular focus on cutting taxes undermines critical programs like child care, early learning funding, child abuse treatment and prevention. The President plans to cut, not just slow the rate of spending, $200 million from the Child Care and Development Fund. I would like to point out that there is a waiting list of more than 16,000 children in Massachusetts who await the opportunity to receive quality child care through this fund. I cannot figure out what has motivated the President to zero out the Early Learning Opportunities Act. This legislation, sponsored by Senator Stevens, passed the Congress last year with bipartisan support. President Bush believes strongly in literacy. And we all know that children who begin school lacking the ability to recognize letters, numbers, and shapes quickly fall behind their peers. Students who reach the first grade without having had the opportunity to develop cognitive or language comprehension skills begin school at a disadvantage. Children who have not had the chance to develop social and emotional skills do not begin school ready to learn. I'm sure that President Bush knows these things. So why would he cut funding for the Early Learning Opportunities Act, which seeks to bring together state and local resources to ensure that children begin school ready to learn? I guarantee you this, if you ask the American people whether they would prefer this enormous tax cut at the expense of funding for child care, child abuse prevention and treatment, and funding for early learning programs, they will unequivocally tell you that they want those programs strengthened and enhanced, not decimated, or in the case of the Early Learning Opportunities Act, zeroed out. It's certainly clear that children are not the President's top priority, his enormous tax cut is. We voted yesterday to support those programs that we know the American people care about. We must hold strong and resist attempts to undermine the funding commitment for these important programs. As we all know, the real details of the Bush budget are still locked up somewhere in the White House. The President wants Congress to leave town before those numbers are released. And well he should, because those numbers are going to show what we have all known for some time. Compassionate conservatism is code language for cuts in children's programs, health care, the environment and other national priorities. While we have not yet received the real Bush budget, what we are learning through confirmed accounts is that the budget will: cut child care grants by $200 million, cut child abuse programs by $16 million, and would entirely eliminate the $20 million ``early learning'' fund for child care and education for children under the age of 5 which is based on legislation I wrote. Cut funding for training health care providers in medically underserved areas by nearly $100 million. Cut the Office of Minority Health by 12 percent. Cut training for doctors at children's hospitals. Eliminate the COPS, or Community Policy Services Program. The list goes on. Someone will have to explain to me how cutting child care grants and child abuse programs is compassionate because I just don't see it. Let's take a couple minutes to look at the President's research and development agenda. Unfortunately, the President's budget plan will do serious damage to funding available for scientific R&D. Experts agree that over the past 50 years, advances in science and technology have contributed to half our nation's economic growth. It's true that investments in R&D tend to pay off only in the long term. For instance, much of the growth we enjoyed in the 90s stemmed from investments the federal government made in science in the 1960s. The ubiquitous computer which is so critical to our productivity today would not be available to us if serious research had not begun decades ago. But, this budget fails to look to the long term, and by failing to adequately provide for investment in science and technology, will slow economic growth and leave our children and our grandchildren with far fewer opportunities than we had just a few short years ago. Instead of increasing the growth of science and technology, the President's budget proposal ignores the R&D needs of the nation. Although the Administration has indicated support for a $2.8 billion increase in the National Institutes of Health budget for FY 2002, many other research initiatives will not receive the funding levels they need. The President's budget proposal for next year projects that non- defense R&D will decline by 7.8 percent adjusted for inflation, by fiscal year 2005. This is more than five times faster than the decline in total federal spending. After accounting for inflation, the Bush budget cuts the National Science Foundation by 2.6 percent, NASA by 3.6 percent and the Department of Energy by 7.1 percent. In the end, under the Bush budget federal support for science will decrease by 6 percent by 2005 as a share of the Gross Domestic Product. This is contrary to the commitment we should be making to innovation and entrepreneurship. This budget's approach to science and technology research is short- sighted and irresponsible. But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the science and technology advisor to the first President Bush. Allan Bromley, a nuclear physics professor at Yale, recently wrote an editorial that was published in the New York Times in which he expressed his concern about the impact the President's R&D cuts will have on the economy. He succinctly stated: The proposed cuts to scientific research are a self- defeating policy. Congress must increase the federal investment in science. No science, no surplus. It's that simple. So we have a budget blueprint before us that essentially rubberstamps a Presidential budget which we have yet to see, but that we are slowly learning, through leaks, will substantially cut a number of priorities that many of my Colleagues and the nation share. Now, I would like to take some time to discuss the President's tax plan and an amendment I am offering. We hear so much talk about how the President's tax plan provides the largest percentage reductions to low and middle-income families. Mr. President, it's just not true. The reality is that the President's tax cut would leave out 28 million taxpayers, taxpayers who see 15.3 percent of every paycheck go directly to the taxman. I'm talking about people who pay payroll taxes. For all taxpaying families, the average annual payroll tax burden is over $5,000. The average payroll tax payment has risen from $3,640 in 1979 to $5,010 in 1999. For the vast majority of taxpayers, payroll taxes, Social Security and Medicare, generate the largest tax burden. Federal payroll taxes actually exceed federal income taxes for 80 percent of all families and individuals with earnings. For single- parent families, the number is even more alarming. Today, 95 percent of single-parent households pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. According to the National Women's Law Center, over 3 million women raising children as a single parent, or 36 percent of all single mothers and their families, will receive no tax benefit from the Bush plan. Likewise, almost half of the black and Hispanic women raising children as a single parent would not benefit a one penny. These taxpayers lose out because the President's tax plan focuses only on marginal income tax rates. The House has made some small steps to address this issue, but more needs to be done if we are going to pass a balanced and fair tax bill. My amendment would require that any substantial tax relief legislation, 500 billion or greater, which comes to the floor of the Senate this year include a certification by the Senate Finance Committee that it provides significant relief for the 28 million taxpayers who pay payroll taxes but who do not have sufficient earnings to generate income tax liability. Tax legislation which did not include a certification by the Senate Finance Committee, or conferees in the case of a tax bill conference report, would be subject to a 60-vote point of order. This amendment is a small step we need to take to ensure that as the Senate develops tax legislation, it maintains a commitment to providing REAL relief to all taxpayers, not a selected few. I can not imagine why anyone would oppose such a reasonable amendment. Clearly, any large tax bill should hold dearly the interests of all working families and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KERRY. The leaders are exactly right. There was a lot of passionate dialogue in our caucus last year about the High Speed Rail Investment Act, and the minority leader listened to all of us very carefully. Our caucus, I must say, was united in its commitment to the notion that those of us who cared about this innovative bonding legislation needed to have some kind of response on the floor that indicated how we could proceed with this legislation. I am pleased with the commitment made by the leadership last year, and I am pleased with the quick introduction and overwhelming support for this legislation this year. I am also very grateful for the majority leader's commitment, given last December, to getting movement on this bill within the first six months of this session. As summer approaches, intercity travelers can look forward to bottlenecked highways and airports strained beyond capacity. Is it any wonder that Amtrak's ridership is on the rise? But in order to improve our ability to travel the country without delay, the Federal Government needs to provide business travelers and vacationers with a third option. At the moment, the Federal Government invests in road-building and air transportation, but only about 5 percent of our transportation budget over the last 30 years has gone to help Amtrak provide top- quality intercity rail service. We've got to do more in order to have a truly intermodal transportation network, and a large majority of this body recognizes that fact. Fifty-six Members of the Senate are now cosponsors of this legislation, Mr. President. As I have said many times before, high- speed rail is not a partisan issue. It is not a regional issue. It is not an urban issue. So I look forward to building on the legacy of Senator Moynihan and Senator Lautenberg and completing what is absolutely essential for this country, which is a high-speed intercity rail system of which the Nation can be proud. funding for graduate medical education

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in conclusion, we have noticed in the last months small businesses have been severely constrained because banks are tightening up credit. This amendment is going to leverage some $13 billion worth of investment in the country. There isn't a State in the Nation where small business doesn't make an enormous difference. Small business represents 50 percent of the jobs in the private sector. By restoring these funds, we are going to help to turn around the slowness that people perceive in the economy today and I think give a lot of relief to an awful lot of businesses in the Nation. I thank the managers for accepting this amendment.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment that ensures the small business programs at the Small Business Administration are adequately funded for FY 2002 and can continue to provide loans and business assistance to the country's 24 million small businesses. It is necessary to restore and reasonably increase funding to specific programs, such as the 7(a) loan program and the Women's Business Centers, at the SBA because the current budget request would reduce funding for the agency by a minimum of 26 percent. These cuts come at a time when the economy is volatile and the Federal Reserve Board reports that 45 percent of banks surveyed have reduced lending to small businesses by making it harder to obtain loans and more expensive to borrow. This amendment also shores up resources for the agency's management training and counseling programs, which are sometimes more important to the success of small businesses than loans. This amendment is not controversial, and it is bipartisan. I want to thank my colleagues--Senators Bond, Bingaman, Wellstone, Landrieu, Daschle, Leahy, Johnson, Schumer, Collins, Levin, and Snowe--for cosponsoring what I consider sensible and realistic changes to the budget. In order to foster small businesses creation and growth in this country, we need to restore $264 million to the SBA's budget for FY2002. That amount would leverage $13.2 billion in loans and venture capital and counsel more than one million entrepreneurs. That may seem tiny compared to some amendments we've been considering, but let me assure you the impact is great on the economy. Small businesses provide 50 percent of private-sector jobs. For less than $2 per taxpayer, we can provide access to credit and capital for our nation's job creators. Mr. President, every single State in this Nation benefits from the small business support the SBA provides. I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support and a summary of the amendment be printed in the Record. The National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders, Inc., Stillwater, OK, April 5, 2001. Hon. John F. Kerry, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kerry: I am writing on behalf of NAGGL's nearly 700 members in support of your amendment, number 183, to the Budget Resolution that would revise the proposed budget for the Small Business Administration in fiscal year 2002. Specifically, your amendment would restore $264 million to the SBA's budget in fiscal year 2002 of which $118 million is earmarked for the agency's 7(a) guaranteed loan program. We strongly believe it is in the best interest of small business that your amendment be adopted. The present budget proposes no fiscal year 2002 appropriations for the 7(a) loan program and instead proposes to make the program self-funding through the imposition of increased fees. The previous SBA Administrator testified before the House Small Business Committee last year that the 7(a) program was already being run at a ``profit'' to the government. This statement was confirmed in a September 2000 Congressional Budget Office report entitled ``Credit Subsidy Reestimates, 1993-1999.'' Unfortunately, the budget as currently proposed would, in our view, have the effect of imposing additional taxes by increasing program fees. This result would be ironic given the Administration's push for tax cuts. A recent survey of NAGGL's membership, who currently make approximately 80 percent of SBA 7(a) guaranteed loans, shows that if the budget were adopted as proposed, most lenders would significantly curtail their 7(a) lending activities. Therefore, small businesses would find it more difficult and expensive to obtain crucial long-term financing. The proposed budget would increase the lender's cost of making a loan by 75 percent and would increase the direct cost to the borrower by 12 percent. Any fee increase is unacceptable when the program is already profitable for the government. The small business consequences of a slowdown in 7(a) guaranteed lending are manifold. Currently, according to statistics available from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the SBA, approximately 30 percent of all long-term loans, those with a maturity of 3 years or more, carry an SBA 7(a) guarantee. This is because lenders generally are unwilling to make long-term loans with a short- term deposit base. Therefore, reducing the availability of 7(a) capital to small businesses will have a significant effect on them and on the economy. The average maturity for an SBA 7(a) guaranteed loan is 14 years. The average conventional small business loan carries an average maturity of one year or less. For those conventional loans with original maturities over one year, the average maturity is just three years. The majority of SBA 7(a) borrowers are new business startups or early stage companies. The longer maturities provided by the SBA 7(a) loan program give small businesses valuable payment relief, as the longer maturity loans carry substantially lower monthly payments. For example, if a small business borrower had to take a 5 year conventional loan instead of a 10 year SBA 7(a) loan, the result would be a 35%-40% increase in monthly payments. The lower debt payments are critical to startup and early stage companies. Small business loans, where they can be found, would have vastly increased monthly payments. This at a time when the economy appears to be struggling and when bank regulators have spurred banks to tighten credit criteria, the current budget only proposes to worsen the situation for small business borrowers. Your amendment would help mitigate this problem. It would provide small businesses far better access to long-term financing on reasonable terms and conditions at a time when their access to such capital is critical. We urge your colleagues to support your initiative and adopt your amendment. Respectfully, Anthony R. Wilkinson.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask Senator Jeffords be added as a cosponsor, as well as Senators Lieberman, Reid, Bingaman, Landrieu, Cantwell, Biden, Kennedy, Feinstein, Murray, Leahy, and Collins.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to modify the amendment, and I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KERRY. I call up amendment No. 249.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Jeffords in introducing the Nurse Reinvestment Act. This legislation will increase the number of nurses in our country, and also ensure that every nurse in the field has the skills he or she needs to provide the quality care patients deserve. We are in the midst of a serious nursing workforce shortage. Every type of community, urban, suburban and rural, is touched by it. No sector of our health care system is immune to it. Across the country, hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies and hospices are struggling to find nurses to care for their patients. Patients in search of care have been denied admission to facilities and told that there were ``no beds'' for them. Often there are beds, just not the nurses to care for the patients who would occupy them. Our Nation has suffered from nursing shortages in the past. However, this shortage is particularly severe because we are losing nurses at both ends of the pipeline. Over the past five years, enrollment in entry-level nursing programs has declined by 20 percent. Lured to the lucrative jobs of the new economy, high school graduates are not pursuing careers in nursing in the numbers they once had. Consequently, nurses under the age of 30 represent only 10 percent of the current workforce. By 2010, 40 percent of the nursing workforce will be over the age of 50, and nearing retirement. If these trends are not reversed, we stand to lose vast numbers of nurses at the same time that they will be needed to care for the millions of baby boomers enrolling in Medicare. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will support the recruitment of new students into our nation's nursing programs. The bill will fund national and local public service announcements to enhance the profile of the nursing profession and encourage students to commit to a career in nursing. Our legislation will also expand school-to-career partnerships between health care facilities, nursing colleges, middle schools and high schools to show our youth the value of a nursing degree. Our legislation will ensure that barriers to higher education do not dissuade Americans who are interested in nursing from pursuing a degree in the field. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will support remedial education for students who need help getting-up to speed on math, science and medical English. Our legislation will also ensure that there is support for single moms and dads with children who need a hand in daycare or a lift in getting to their classroom because they are without transportation. In addition to recruiting new nurses, our legislation will reinvest in nurses who are already practicing by providing them with education and training at every step of the career ladder and at every health care facility in which they work. It will ensure that nurses can obtain advanced degrees, from a B.S. in Nursing to a PhD in Nursing. It will enable nurses to access the specialty training they require to learn how to treat a specific disease or utilize a new piece of technology. Our bill will also help colleges and universities develop curriculum in gerontology and long-term care so that nursing students can pursue concentrations, minors and majors in this growing field of health care and be ready to apply their knowledge to the current and future senior population. To assist institutions in providing advanced education and training for nurses across the career ladder, our bill will strengthen the partnerships between colleges of nursing and health care facilities. Grants will be available to support such initiatives as the teaching of a courses in gerontology in the conference rooms of a hospital or nursing home. Grants will also support the use of distance learning technology to extend education and training to rural areas, and specialty education and training to all areas. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will authorize, for the first time in history, a National Nurse Service Corps. Separate from, though modeled after, the National Health Service Corps, the NNSC will administer scholarships to students who commit to working in a health care facility that is experiencing a shortage of nurses. In urban, suburban and rural communities across the country, where facilities turn away patients due to staff shortages, the NNSC will send qualified nurses to serve and provide the care that patients deserve. Our legislation will place nursing students in hospital-based programs on equal footing with medical students by enabling those nurses to obtain training in community health centers, federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics. To support nurse education and training in non-hospital-based programs, which are not eligible to bill Medicare for their training expenses, our bill establishes a Dedicated Fund for Clinical Nurse Education. Home health care agencies and hospices would be able to draw from the fund to establish new or upgrade old training programs. Finally, the Nurse Reinvestment Act will reauthorize the 1987 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act's enhanced federal Medicaid match for clinical nurse education and training in nursing homes. Under our bill, states will be eligible to receive an enhanced federal match of 90 percent for the costs of nurse education and training in nursing homes. Our country boasts the best health care system in the world. But, that health care system is being jeopardized by the shortage plaguing our nursing workforce. Indeed, state-of-the-art medical facilities are of no use if their beds go unfilled and their floors remain empty because the nurses needed to staff them are not available. The Nurse Reinvestment Act not only seeks to increase the numbers of new nurses in our country, but also ensures that all nurses have the skills they need to provide the high quality care that makes our health care system the best in the world.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, a year ago we joined together in the Senate with Senator Helms as leader, and others in the Foreign Affairs Committee, to make a major effort with respect to the international AIDS program. President Bush and his security team the other day joined what President Clinton and his security team had found, which is that this is an international security issue. It is a national security issue for the United States. I hope all of our colleagues will join together in restoring this critical funding that will deal with prevention, care, and treatment across the globe.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, yesterday, at long last, the United States Senate voted to take a first step toward reforming our campaign finance system. This long awaited vote comes after years of partisan delay tactics which have long prevented us from taking an up-or-down vote on this bill. It also comes after an election in which $3 billion was spent in an effort to elect or defeat candidates. Today we have the chance to pass reform which at the very least demonstrates that we've learned a lesson from years of scandal and year upon year of runaway spending. But let me be clear about something: despite the rhetoric we have heard on the Senate floor, the bill we vote on today is not sweeping reform that will give one party or the other the edge when it comes to funding campaigns. Instead, this bill simply restores, to a certain degree, the campaign finance reform laws that we enacted more than 25 years ago. Back then, in the post-Watergate era, we recognized that it was time to prevent secret stashes of cash from infiltrating our political system. We succeeded in that effort, and I believe the system worked reasonably well for some time, until the recent phenomena of soft money and sham issue advocacy overtook the real limits we had established for our campaign system. I want to take a minute, to talk about how we got to this point in which our system so desperately needs this modest reform bill. Federal law has prohibited corporations from contributing to federal candidates since 1907. This nearly hundred-year-old ban was enacted in recognition of the fact that corporations accumulate great wealth that could be used to distort electoral outcomes. Labor unions likewise have been barred from contributing to candidates since 1943. In addition, the post-Watergate campaign finance law capped individual contributions to candidates, parties and PACs. These limits were put in place after the country learned a hard lesson about the corrupting influence of money in politics. Unfortunately, the Federal Election Commission and the courts opened the loopholes that ultimately eviscerated our reform efforts. Soft money first came into play in 1978 when the FEC, the toothless watchdog of our campaign finance laws, opened the door to the cascade of soft money by giving the Kansas Republican State Committee permission to use corporate and union funds to pay for a voter drive benefitting federal as well as state candidates. The costs of the drive were to be split between hard money raised under federal law and soft money raised under Kansas law. The FEC's decision in the Kansas case gave parties the option to spend soft money any time a federal election coincides with a state or local race. Sham issue advocacy too, has a history that defies the intent of campaign finance laws. In what remains the seminal case on campaign finance, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that campaign finance limitations applied only to ``communications that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office.'' A footnote to the opinion says that the limits apply when communications include terms ``such as `vote for,' `elect,' `support,' `cast your ballot for,' `Smith for Congress,' `vote against,' `defeat,' `reject.' '' The phrases in the footnote have become known as the ``magic words'' without which a communication, no matter what its purpose or impact, is often classified as issue advocacy, thus falling outside the reach of the campaign finance laws. Until the 1992 election cycle, most for-profit, not-for-profit, and labor organizations did not attempt to get into electoral politics via issue advocacy. However, that year a group called the Christian Action Network ran an ad that stretched the distinction between express advocacy and issue advocacy to its limits. The ad, which was broadcast at least 250 times just before the presidential election, was described by a court as giving candidate Bill Clinton a ``sinister and threatening appearance'' before finally wiping his image from the screen. The 30-second spot, entitled ``Clinton's Vision for a Better America,'' denounced what the Christian Action Network labeled Clinton's ``homosexual agenda.'' The ad never used Buckley's ``magic words'' and the Court of Appeals decided that the ad was a discussion of issues related to ``family values'' rather than an exhortation to vote against Clinton in the upcoming presidential election. The ad by the Christian Action Network and others like it opened the flood gates to more so-called issue advocacy in later elections, resulting in the half-a-billion dollars in sham issue ads that influenced the 2000 elections. Soft money and sham issue advocacy became predominant features of our campaign finance system even though neither was intended to play a role in our campaigns when the post-Watergate reform laws were written. The result? Last year approximately $1 billion in soft money contributions and sham issue ad expenditures influenced our federal elections. Many who oppose reform will argue that both soft money and sham issue ads are constitutionally protected and should be allowed to continue unfettered. I would like to take just a moment to address those arguments. We have been told that the ability to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars in soft money is constitutionally protected. The truth is, banning soft money contributions does not violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Buckley held that limits on individual campaign contributions do not violate the First Amendment. If a limit of $1000 on contributions by individuals was upheld as constitutional, then a ban of contributions of $10,000, $100,000 or $1 million is also going to be upheld. It simply cannot be said that the First Amendment provides an absolute prohibition of any and all restrictions on speech. When state interests are more important than unfettered free speech, speech can be narrowly limited. Speech is limited in cases of false advertising and obscenity. In addition, we are not, as the saying goes, free to yell ``fire'' in a crowded movie theater. In those cases, there is a compelling reason to limit speech. Buckley, too, said that the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption warranted limits on individual campaign contributions. Soft money contributions to political parties can be limited for the same reason. In addition, in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri PAC, the Supreme Court recently justified its decision to uphold a $1050 contribution limit for elections in Missouri, stating that it was concerned with ``the broader threat from politicians too compliant with the wishes of large contributors.'' It went on to say: ``Leave the perception of impropriety unanswered, and the cynical assumption that large donors call the tune could jeopardize the willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance.'' I think the Supreme Court's language bodes well for the likelihood that a soft money ban will be upheld. Likewise, I believe that the electioneering provisions of the bill will be upheld. It's a trickier case, but I would submit that the bright line test in McCain-Feingold satisfies the Supreme Court's holding in Buckley. The so-called ``magic words'' test of express advocacy has come to provide what is a wholly unworkable test that I believe was never the intention of the Court. The magic words test elevates form over substance, and in practice has proven meaningless. The proof of that is in the half-a-billion dollars in sham issue ads that were aired last year. I would add that the test in this bill does not stop any advertisements. Advertisements that simply discuss issues, without naming candidates are always permissible. Advertisements that air within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election can discuss issues, as long as the ads do not depict a particular candidate. And any advertisement can be aired at any time, as long as it is paid for with hard money. A final argument opponents of reform like to make is that we spend less on campaigns than we do on potato chips or laundry detergent. But I would ask the proponents of this argument whether what we are seeking in our democracy is electioneering that has no more depth or substance than a snack food commercial. Because, despite the ever-increasing sums spent on campaigns, we have not seen an improvement in campaign discourse, issue discussion or voter education. More money does not mean more ideas, more substance or more depth. Instead, it means more of what voters complain about most. More thirty-second spots, more negativity and an increasingly longer campaign period. Less money might actually improve the quality of discourse, requiring candidates to more cautiously spend their resources. It might encourage more debates, as was the case in my own race against Bill Weld in 1996, and it would certainly focus the candidates' voter education efforts during the period shortly before the election, when most voters are tuned in, instead of starting the campaign 18 months before election day. The American people don't buy the arguments made by opponents of reform. The American people want us to forge a better system. A national survey conducted by the Mellman Group in April of last year found that by a margin of 68 percent to 19 percent, voters favored a proposal that eliminates private contributions, sets spending limits and gives qualifying candidates a grant from a publicly financed election fund. That same survey also found that 59 percent of voters agree that we need to make major changes to the way we finance elections. But perhaps the most telling statistic from this survey is that overwhelming majorities think that special interest contributions affect the voting behavior of Members of Congress. Eighty-seven percent of voters believe that money impacts Members of Congress, with 56 percent expressing the belief that if affects the members ``a lot.'' Even when asked about their own representatives, the survey again found that voters overwhelmingly believed that money influenced their behavior. Eighty-two percent believe campaign contributions affect their own members, and 47 percent thought their representatives were affected ``a lot.'' McCain-Feingold is an important piece of legislation that begins to tackle the problems of soft money and issue advocacy I have outlined. I support this legislation, but I would note one serious shortcoming of the bill. It won't curb the rampant spending that drives the quest for money. Unfortunately, we all recognize that creating spending limits is not a simple proposition. In the 1996 Buckley case, the Supreme Court struck spending limits as an unconstitutional restriction of political speech. An important caveat to its decision is that spending limits could be imposed in exchange for a public benefit. I wish we had at our disposal a number of bargaining chips, public benefits that we could trade in exchange for spending limits. However, unless the Supreme Court reverses itself, something I am certainly not expecting in the near future, we must accept that if we want to limit the amounts spent on campaigns, we must provide candidates with some sort of public grant. The votes we have taken on various amendments addressing public funding make it clear that a lot of my colleagues aren't ready to embrace public funding as a way to finance our campaigns. But it is, in my opinion, the best constitutional means to the important end of limiting campaign spending and the contributions that go with it. Ultimately, I believe in the potential of a system that provides full public funding for political candidates. I would also support a partial public funding system, such as the one I offered in an amendment to this legislation. That amendment would have freed candidates from the need to raise unlimited amounts of money by providing with ``liberty dollars'' in the form of a two-for-one match for small contributions, in exchange for the candidates agreeing to abide by spending limits. I believe that any system that reduces candidates' reliance on private money and encourages them to abide by spending limits will ultimately be the best way to truly and completely purge our system of the negative influence of corporate money. Many of our states are already engaging in a grand experiment to see if full or partial public funding of campaigns serves the goals of reform. At the state level, politicians are learning that the cost of campaigns can be capped without reducing the effectiveness of a campaign. Challengers are becoming more competitive as their campaigns are infused with public money. Incumbents are learning that they can spend less time fundraising and more time governing if they avail themselves to public campaign funds. And our citizens are learning that their faith in the political process can be restored as money no longer appears to influence the political process. I am pleased that my home state of Massachusetts is one of the states that is experimenting with a Clean Money, Clean Elections law. The law, which voters adopted by referendum in 1998, will go into effect this year and will provide candidates for state office with full public funding if they agree to abide by spending limits. A recent survey of voters across the state found that three-fourths support the law. I am optimistic that the majority will grow after the law is put to its first test during the upcoming elections. It seems that Clean Money, Clean Elections laws are off to a good start in the states. But we need to know more about how well these programs work. That is why I am pleased that the managers of this bill accepted an amendment I offered that will require the GAO to examine the impact of Clean Money, Clean Elections laws in states where they have been enacted. Specifically, my amendment will require the GAO to determine more about the candidates who have chosen to run for public office using Clean Money, Clean Elections funds. It will provide us with concrete figures on which offices attract Clean Money, Clean Elections candidates, whether incumbents choose to use clean money, and the success rate of Clean Money candidates. In addition, the GAO will be able to determine whether Clean Money, Clean Elections programs reduced the cost of campaigns, increased candidate participation or created more competitive primary or general elections. We should encourage states to experiment with reform. I believe an objective study as required by this amendment will better enable leaders at the state level to evaluate the Clean Money, Clean Elections option. In the end, we may all learn that there is an important role for public financing in state and ultimately federal elections. As I said before, this bill, which bans soft money, regulates sham issue ads, and provides a study for public funding systems provides a good first start to reform, and I will therefore support it. I have one serious reservation about the bill, however, and that is its increase in the hard money limits. Although I fully understand the argument that the limits have not kept up with inflation, I am concerned that the increases in individual limits and, most especially, aggregate limits, do not take us in the right direction of decreasing the amount of money in elections. Moreover, this increase simply enables the tiniest percentage of the population that currently contributes large contributions to contribute even more. This increase does nothing at all to increase the role the average voter plays in our election process. Nevertheless, the vote yesterday is a victory for reform--but it needs to be the first vote, not the last. I want to offer my congratulations to my friends Russell Feingold and John McCain on this victory for reform, passage of a bill that breaks free from the status quo and will help us restore the dwindling faith the average American has in our political system. For too long we've known that we can't go on leaving our citizens with the impression that the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. This bill reduces the power of the checkbook and I am proud to support it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the comments of the Senator from Kentucky. I respect the very direct, open way in which he has stated his opposition, and he has done so on the basis of a belief system. I respect that. I think we all do. Let me say to my colleagues, there is an analogy that is not completely inappropriate in the sense that when you have found a way to do things and it works pretty easily and you are sort of swimming in it because it is easy, it is hard to give it up. It is not unlike an addiction in a sense. There has been an easy addiction to this flow of money. When you look at the amounts of money, from $100 million up to $244 billion in a span of 2 years, dozens of times in excess of the rate of inflation, you have to ask: What is going on here? I say to my colleagues, for those who fear this new world that has been defined, there are alternatives. There are other ways to do this. I am proud that I can stand as a Senator in the Senate today, having gotten elected a different way. In 1996, the Governor of our State and I mutually agreed to limit the amount of money we would spend--he, a fervent Republican; me, an ardent Democrat. We both agreed to spend the same amount of money. We both agreed that each of us would subtract from our total the amount of money that any independent expenditure ran in favor of the other person or that our parties spent on our behalf. We ran a race that was absolutely free from soft money, from party money. We had nine 1-hour televised debates, and the public knew us both, probably better than they wanted to, and made a decision. We can all run that way. There is adequate capacity in this new world to raise countless amounts of hard dollars. Under McCain-Feingold, we have raised the total amounts of money up to about $75,000 over 2 years to party and to individual. Nothing stops one Senator from going out and raising as much hard money as they can access in a 6-year term, in amounts that have now been raised to $2,000 a person, which means you can visit one couple, a husband and wife, and you can walk out with $8,000. All of us know that one-half of 1 percent of the people in America even contribute $1,000 contributions. So this is not a dire new world, a brave new world. This is a world the American people are asking us to live by, and countless business people across this country are sick and tired of us coming to them and saying I need $150,000 or I need $500,000 for my party. They look at the committee you serve on and they feel pressured, whether they say it or not. Whether you say it or not, it is an appearance. So I say to colleagues, this is a world we can survive in just fine. With 6 years of incumbency, with all of the power of the incumbent, with all of the times you can return home as a Senator and meet with constituents, there isn't one of us who doesn't start with the natural advantage, even under McCain-Feingold. So I suggest respectfully that this is the right world, the world with which we ought to be living. We should not fear the outcome of this particular change. I thank the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it seems to me it is obvious to almost every Senator that we are sort of reaching a critical moment where we decide whether we are for campaign reform or we are not. At the bottom line, that is really what the severability issue is about, even though the severability has been limited now to a major component of the bill: Issue ads, i.e., Snowe-Jeffords, versus soft money. The soft money falls, the prohibition on it, only if the Court finds that Snowe- Jeffords is inappropriate, unconstitutional. I say to my colleagues that the whole purpose of this reform is to get rid of the largest component of money that most taints the political process, which is soft money. One of the reasons people have doubts about their ability to be able to counter issue ads, if indeed that prohibition were to fall, is that they haven't been raising hard money, because when you can go to somebody and ask for $50,000, $100,000, $500,000, why bother going after the smaller sum of money? So it seems to me what is ignored in this argument is, if indeed you don't have soft money, and if indeed the prohibition on issue ads, if Snowe-Jeffords were to fall, you are not defenseless at all, you still have the capacity to spend unlimited amounts of hard money in defense. One of the reasons Senator Wellstone, Senator Biden, I, and others are so concerned about the McCain-Feingold bill in the end, though we support it, is that it ultimately only reduces a portion of the money that is in American politics. It still leaves us in a race, ever- escalating, of raising extraordinary amounts of hard money, cavorting around the country, still indebted to interests, still asking for large sums of money. We are still going to do that. I know Senators McCain and Feingold would love to go further if they could. So, colleagues, this vote on severability is really a simple vote about whether or not we are prepared to take the risk of getting rid of the extraordinary amounts of soft money and taking on ourselves the burden, if indeed Snowe-Jeffords were to fall, of raising appropriate amounts of hard money with which to take our case to the American people. I happen to believe very deeply that the bright-line test we have set up will withstand scrutiny. All you have to do is read Buckley v. Valeo and read the Nixon and Missouri case. The Court makes clear that it is prepared to limit contributions where they are clearly contributing to the advocacy of the election of a candidate. Anybody can watch those ads and tell the difference as to whether they are purely about an issue or trying to seek defeat or election of a candidate. I am confident we have drawn a line that will pass constitutional muster. I ask my colleagues to take the risk in favor of reform and eliminate the soft money from American politics. That is what this vote is about.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY. I will be brief and then I will yield back my time. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin notwithstanding that he has to oppose my amendment. I understand why. I appreciate the gentle and sensitive opposition that he made, and I particularly appreciate the remarks he made about the CED and the business leaders who support what I am attempting to do this afternoon. I will answer quickly. I always enjoy my exchanges with the Senator from Kentucky. He is very good at what he does. He certainly is one of the best in this body at making arguments. However, I must say I am a bit taken aback by the notion that President Bush made a judgment not to take the Federal money, or to take the Federal money because he didn't have time to raise the other money. He raised $100 million in $1,000 contributions and Senator McCain suspended his campaign in March. The notion that President Bush, between March and the August convention, did not have an opportunity through his rather formidable fundraising machine to reask everybody for $1,000 who gave almost $100 million in order to find the $46 million necessary for the general election or some larger amount if he wanted to live by it is absolutely without merit. Everybody in this country who raises money knows he has the ability to raise $1,000 contributions a second time from those same $100 million worth of people who had invested in his nomination and who would not have quit on him and who would have wanted him elected President. Likewise with President Reagan, the exact same circumstances existed. He took the money because the money was there, but also because Americans knew that is the way they expect to elect their President in the general election. I don't think you could have sustained the arguments that would have been made in the face of campaign finance reform advocates across the country who believe they don't want a President who, during the general election, has to raise that kind of money and be subjected to what we are subjected to here on an annual basis. There is an enormous distinction here and it needs to be made. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are nearing the end of this debate. I will take a couple minutes to summarize a few thoughts. I will then reserve the remainder of the time. I understand Senator McCain may be coming to the floor. I emphasize to my colleagues that this is voluntary. It is absolutely voluntary. No one is mandated to live by this or to accept it. It simply gives candidates an option of being able to choose a different way of trying to be elected to high public office. It does so in a way that maximizes the effort to pull our fellow citizens who have less amounts of income, who have less capacity to influence the system into participating. It encourages small contributions. It provides a match only for the contribution up to $200. Therefore, if you want to raise a large sum of money or even receive a large sum of money from the Federal Government, you have to include a lot of people in your campaign. What it does ultimately is end the extraordinary spiral of higher and higher amounts of money governing the elections in our country, the staggering increases of each election. When I first ran for office, it was about $2.5 million or $3 million. My last race was $13 million. That is why we see so many millionaires running, so many self-funded campaigns. What we try to do is allow an adjustment against the self-funded candidate. We do not preclude a millionaire who wants to run for office and spend his or her money from doing so. There is no restraint whatsoever on somebody doing that, but what we try to do is level the playing field a little bit for that person who does not have the millions of dollars so their voice can also be heard in American politics. Most Americans would like to see a Senate that is more reflective of America, that has more people who have varied experiences and who reflect more of the life and real concerns and aspirations of our Nation. It is important for us to move to reflect that Americans have a right to elect Senators the same way they elect the President of the United States: by freeing them from the extraordinary burden of having to raise these large sums of money from those most interested in what we do, when we do it, and how we do it. I do not know one colleague who had an advertisement run against them or who lost an election because they voted for this in 1994 or because they voted for this in 1986. I do not ever recall it being raised in campaigns in this country. The notion of voting for a voluntary system for people to participate in an election, the same way we elect the President of the United States, that that would somehow trip them up in their reelection, is absurd and completely unproven in the process. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. He is one of those who doesn't just talk about these things; he really practices it. Everybody in the Senate respects the depth of his commitment to reform and the principles that guide him in politics. I am very pleased to have him as a cohort in this endeavor. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. KERRY. Let me begin by thanking the Senator from Connecticut. He has been at this for a long time. He has a voice of enormous credibility on the subject, and he is well respected around the country for his political wisdom and abilities. I think his voice is an important one, and I welcome it. Very quickly--and then I will yield some time to the Senator from Minnesota--when we talk about these perceptions, I am not going to throw names around at all, but I mentioned earlier prescription drugs and some of the health care issues. If you look at what the drug industry spent in the last Congress--$8.7 million on political contributions--the result in the 106th Congress was no prescription drugs for seniors. But it is interesting, the industry got an extension of the R&D tax credit for those companies. Most Americans would say: That is kind of interesting; I thought I had an interest in getting something, but they got it. Likewise, the juvenile justice bill doesn't happen because the gun lobby doesn't like the restrictions on gun show sales. The gun lobby spent $3.9 million in political contributions in the last cycle. Interestingly enough, the juvenile justice bill died in conference. You can go down a long list of these things. They may or may not be connected, but the perception among the American people is very clear. Without using any names at all, let me point out contributions from the oil and gas industry. Three or four of the major proponents of oil and gas interests in the Senate received in the last cycle $129,921; one received $146,779, another $286,000. But it is very interesting. Other people who were not so interested in the issue got figures in the range of $1,500, $1,075. That kind of a range sends a message to the American people about the impact of money in the system. Mr. President, it is precisely the perceptions--leave alone realities--of that kind of connection that distorts our existence and our ability to have the confidence of the American people. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.