John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I believe the eloquent questions asked by the Senator from South Dakota make their own answers. I think any American dispassionately making a judgment about this process and looking at this legislation and measuring its impact would come to the conclusion that the fundamental sense of fairness, that the distinguished leader is talking about, is absent. I am sure the distinguished majority leader, who is standing here, will have his response, and I understand that. He is going to suggest, wait a minute, fairness is fairness. But here is a letter from the President of the United States. The President of the United States says if we do this, he is going to veto this. He has proven previously he is prepared to veto bills when he says he will. It seems to me that if we are not looking for a political issue, if we really want to legislate, we would sit down with the President of the United States and say, OK, Mr. President, we are prepared to offer this; let's have an agreement. But the President says that even his offer--I want to reemphasize this--even his offer was refused. The President says on long-term care: I offered to embrace your proposed deduction for long-term care in exchange for inclusion of my proposal to give families who are burdened today by long-term care needs a $3,000 tax credit. Let me ask my colleagues this: Long-term care, I have become particularly familiar with that over the course of the last year and a half. My father passed away last July and he had considerable care, as my mother does today. It is expensive. We are fortunate that we can pay for it. But it taught me firsthand what happens to those families who can't and how extraordinarily expensive and difficult it is. We have driven families out of hospital care and we have driven them out of nursing home care. We have increasingly, through the creation of the drugs we have in this country, made it easier for people to be treated at home and be kept out of the hospital. But here we are denying people the capacity to have a $3,000 tax credit for long-term care. Why? So you can give more money back to the HMOs. Where is the fundamental sense of fairness? The President of the United States offered to the majority party the chance to say let's compromise. And what happens? We get legislation coming to the floor that seeks to just stuff it to the President of the United States and stuff it to the rest of us here and stuff it to the American people.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I voiced my concern about this to the leader yesterday and a number of times previously--that this is not the way to legislate. I think most of us understand that. I think it really calls to question the sort of good-faith, bipartisan efforts our friends often talk about. There is a simple matter of courtesy with which this institution and any institution essentially needs to run. I don't like to say this, but I have to say that it just sort of runs roughshod over anybody's notions of decency that there isn't even a phone call, there isn't even a discussion. Is there a way to work this out? Can we sit down? Can we have a meeting? What is possible here? None of those questions were asked--just an assumption that this is the way we are going to do it and we are going to proceed forward. I just think it is destructive and unfortunate.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to the distinguished leader, I only learned that this morning having had limited time to review it. Well, it either happened purposefully or by accident. Either way, that is not the intent of the Congress with respect to the minimum wage. I understand that it is a 6-month termination of the minimum wage, which I hope is by accident. But if it is, it represents the craziness and the sloppiness of the way in which this has come to the floor.

Mr. KERRY. I have it right here, Mr. President. I tell the leader I do now have a copy of it.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will gladly respond to the distinguished leader's question. I went into this a little bit before he came. Let me repeat: The distinguished Senator from Missouri and I worked hard on the small business components of this. But there was no consultation whatsoever, no phone call, no request for signature, no meeting, no discussion even about this bill being used, at least with this Senator, as the vehicle for these components being put in it. We were not in the room. We didn't know where the room was. We weren't even asked whether or not this was something we might or might not object to or what the impact might be on the bipartisan efforts that had taken place to have a complete small business reauthorization bill. Moreover, the bill that comes to the floor today is not even the same small business reauthorization that we worked on. It has been changed, again, we had no consultation and no part.

Mr. KERRY. I am happy to yield to the distinguished leader.

Mr. KERRY. May I say to my friend from California, she is one of the champions in the Senate for that kind of fairness and for her sensitivity to the notion of what happens to our seniors. Obviously in California it is vital to have that kind of sensitivity. Let me underscore what she just said, because not only do the tens of billions of dollars go to the HMOs in a disproportionate share--one- third in the first 5 years, 50 percent in the second 5 years--the Senator from South Dakota, the distinguished minority leader, led an effort in the Senate to try to secure $80 billion as the appropriate balanced budget fix here, with a recognition that we would do away with the 15-percent cut which has been mandated inappropriately by almost everybody's agreement. What we are winding up with is $30 billion, which has now been divided by the majority party completely inappropriately to one of the greatest sources of the problem in the delivery of health care in the country. What is absolutely extraordinary in this situation is that, as the Senator from California mentions, there is only one sort of minor requirement here about what kind of behavior the HMOs might be held to. All of us in the Senate have been fighting for months to try to get a Patients' Bill of Rights and establish a real set of principles and standards by which people in the United States will know what they are going to get from HMOs, what they can expect from HMOs, and how they will be treated by HMOs. But here we are with a great big grab bag giveaway to the HMOs, without any of those standards being embraced here. If you want to talk about the conscience, and doing what is right, which is what the Senator from Nebraska talked about, here is an incredible example of the way in which they have sort of flagrantly chosen how to satisfy their constituencies, their sense of who ought to get something, and have left out completely the rights we have been fighting for that would have accrued-- the basic rights, a woman's right to know she can keep her own OB/GYN she has had for a number of years, a person's right to go to an emergency room of their choice, a right to a second opinion. Think about that, to get a second opinion and not to have some HMO bureaucrat in a State that isn't even associated with your particular health care problem not make the decision but have your doctor make a decision. We can't even come to the floor of the Senate and do that here. We have to give away money to the folks who already have health care rather than taking care of the people who are uninsured which could be done cheaper. In fact, what the President says in his letter is really interesting. I will share this completely with my colleagues as we put it into the Record. The President said, before this came to the floor, before we were put in the predicament of having to vote against something that has a lot of good in it, many of us like components of what is in this bill. Many of us worked hard to get components of this bill. We are going to be forced to vote against it because of the fundamental unfairness. The President of the United States makes that very clear in his letter. I will continue to read what the President says to both leaders: Instead you put forward a series of tax cuts that, particularly when standing alone, would be inequitable, inefficient, and even potentially counterproductive to health care policy. For example, while our FamilyCare proposal would expand coverage to 4 million uninsured parents at a cost of slightly over $3,000 per person, your proposal would provide additional coverage to one-seventh the people at six times the cost per person. Moreover, your proposal would give the least assistance to moderate income families that need the help the most, while even raising concerns that those with employer-based coverage today could lose their insurance. Similarly, on long-term care, I offered to embrace your proposed deduction for long-term care insurance in exchange for inclusion of my proposal to give families, who are burdened today by long-term care needs, a $3,000 tax credit. That sounds pretty bipartisan to me. The President said: I offered to embrace your proposed deduction if you would embrace my effort to give families who have long-term care problems a $3,000 tax credit. What happens? Rebuffed. The President says: Unfortunately, your legislation ignores the bipartisan package I suggested and instead would provide half the benefits of my proposal for financially pressed families trying to provide long-term care for elderly and sick family members. Surely we can agree on this bipartisan compromise that has already been endorsed by a broad array of members of Congress, advocates for seniors and people with disabilities and insurers. Similarly, I am perplexed that we cannot agree to include the bipartisan credit for vaccine research and purchases that is essential to save lives and advance public health. Let me say a word about that, if I may, because I wrote that legislation. We have been struggling in the Congress to get this considered. I wrote it with Senator Bill Frist. This is an effort to try to guarantee that the great AIDS crisis will be properly addressed. Millions of people are dying in Africa, countless hundreds of thousands are affected here in our own country by this ravaging disease. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical companies have no incentive because people in those countries cannot afford to buy the drugs. It is much more profitable to produce Viagra or any number of other drugs that are advertised now--Claritin, whatever. There are a whole set of drugs that have quick return and that make money. But poor countries cannot afford to buy these drugs. We have already passed into legislation funding of some $500 million for AIDS vaccine distribution across the world. The problem is that there is no vaccine today, and there won't be a vaccine unless the companies have an incentive and a capacity to be able to develop it. It is not only AIDS, incidentally, it is also for tuberculosis, for malaria. There are infectious diseases for which we could have further research in terms of vaccine development. What we want to do is provide the companies with a tax credit and the capacity to do that. It has broad bipartisan support. It is only $1.5 billion over 10 years. But that is not even in here. That is ignored in here. The President of the United States is suggesting it ought to be in here. They are perfectly prepared to take a huge percentage of the $30 billion and give it to the HMOs, but they are not prepared to provide the $1.5 billion in an effort to provide incentives foe AIDS vaccine research. The President also says: I also am disappointed that you have made virtually no attempt to address the concerns my Administration has expressed to you about the pension provisions of your bill. By dropping the progressive savings incentives from the Senate Finance Committee bill, you have failed to address the lack of pension coverage for over 70 million people. Moreover, employers may have new incentives to drop pension coverage for some of the low- and moderate-income workers lucky enough to have pension plans today. Finally, I remain deeply concerned that your Medicare and Medicaid refinement proposal continues to fail to attach accountability provisions to excessive payment increases to health maintenance organizations (HMOs) while rejecting critical investments in beneficiaries and vulnerable health care providers. Specifically, you insist on an unjustified spending increase for HMOs at the same time as you exclude bipartisan policies such as health insurance options for children with disabilities, legal immigrant pregnant women and children, and enrolling uninsured children in schools, as well as needed payment increases to hospitals, academic health centers, home health agencies, and other vulnerable providers. Congress should not go home without responding to the urgent health needs of our seniors, people with disabilities, and children and the health care providers who serve them. I read the newspapers today, and I saw a fairly typical sort of Washington response from someone on the other side of the aisle suggesting that the President's veto of this bill was somehow going to provide them with an upper hand in the last weeks of this election cycle. This is not about the last week of the election. This is about fundamental policy, which the President has described in this letter, which goes directly to the question of how this country is going to provide for health care for our citizens. There are 44 million or so Americans who have no health care whatsoever. What about them?

Mr. KERRY. I am delighted to yield to the Senator. (Mr. BROWNBACK assumed the chair.)

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague, the question he raises should not be treated by my colleagues as simply political posturing or somehow a statement that suggests that there is simply a point to be scored here. In the years I have been here, I have never seen the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd--who I think most people in the Senate would agree is really the custodian of the institution--he is the Senator who has written the most, thought the most, and perhaps stood the strongest for the rights and prerogatives of Senators, and the rights and prerogatives of this institution. What the Senator from Nebraska is raising in his question really goes to the core of the conscience, if you will, of the Senate, of what is right, of what is the controlling legal authority for the Senate. Is it appropriate to have a process that excludes and distorts and diminishes the institution in the way this process has? The distinguished minority leader is on the floor of the Senate. I saw him as angry yesterday and as visibly upset as I think any of us in our caucus have ever seen him because of his sense of this violation of process, of the ways in which the rights of individual Senators are being denied. Now, people may not like a particular vote around here, and people may not want to vote because they don't like the fact they have to stand by that vote, but the fact is, this legislation that comes to the floor of the Senate today is a violation of our rights, of the sort of conscience, if you will, that the Senator is talking about, about doing what is right. I will go on, if I may, to underscore----

Mr. KERRY. I will yield.

Mr. KERRY. I will say this to my colleague. If you look at the distribution here to the HMOs, and if you look at what happens to community hospitals, to home health care delivery, to the nursing homes, to those people who are part of a community and stay in a community, and who are not there for profit, versus what they have done to provide the lion's share of funding to those who work for profit but at the same time have cut off 400,000 senior citizens from getting health care, it is an extraordinary imbalance on its face.

Mr. KERRY. Let me answer the Senator from Nebraska by saying, in the 16 years I have been in the Senate--in the debates we had in 1986 on tax simplification--in almost every single tax proposal we have worked on in those years, I have never heard the word ``fairness'' come from that side of the aisle. I have never heard them suggest that the plan they are offering America is based on a fundamental notion of what is fair for all Americans.

Mr. KERRY. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. KERRY. I say to my colleague from Nebraska, he is again perceptive in seeing the extraordinary contradiction in the actions taken by the majority party, the Republicans in Congress, compared to what their own nominee for President is suggesting is the appropriate way to proceed. Indeed, the very criticism leveled by George Bush against Al Gore that he is, in fact, trying to target appropriately-- appropriately, I underline ``appropriately''--is really critical because what the Republicans are doing here is targeting, which is precisely what their candidate has criticized, but they are targeting inappropriately. They are targeting, once again, to reward those already most rewarded. They are targeting to reward those who already have health care. They are targeting in a way that ignores the concern of the President and most of us here, which is: How do you provide coverage to those people who are without coverage or having the greatest difficulty in providing for their health care with HMOs that are cutting them out.

Mr. KERRY. I will be delighted to yield to my colleague.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the President said: While we have already reached substantial agreement in important areas, such as replacement of the Foreign Sales Corporation regime, your legislation-- He is writing to the House and Senate Republican leaders-- your legislation has substantial flaws in key areas. As I stated yesterday-- This is the President of the United States saying this-- I believe it is absolutely essential that we do as much as possible to meet America's need for safe and modern schools. It is estimated that there may be as much as a $125 billion financing gap in meeting the school construction and modernization needs of our children. The bipartisan Rangel- Johnson proposal to finance $25 billion in bonds to construct and modernize 6,000 schools is, quite frankly, the very least we should do, given the magnitude of this problem and its importance to America's future. Unfortunately, your proposal falls far short of the mark. So yesterday, and in prior discussions for weeks, the President made it very clear this falls short; this will not be sufficient; he will veto it. Nevertheless, we are here. The President goes on to say: We should not sacrifice thousands of modernized schools to pay for inefficient tax incentives that help only a few. For example, the arbitrage provision encourages delay in urgently needed school construction and would disproportionately help wealthy school districts. Health care is perhaps one of the most important components of this bill. The Senator from Nebraska raised this same point--we are talking about the health care system of the country. It has been an enormously divisive and complicated issue within the Finance Committee. Suddenly, in the dead of night, it is just snatched out, a proposal is sent to the floor as part of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 and people are surprised that the President may decide he is going to veto it and that those of us on this side of the aisle might have objections to that piece of legislation coming to the floor in this manner. Nobody should be surprised about our concerns under these unusual circumstances. This is what the President says: On health care, my offer sought to lay a path to common ground by coupling both of our priorities on health and long- term care. In other words, the President sought to find the common ground. The President sought compromise. The President sought to try to address the needs of both Republicans and Democrats on health and long-term care. He writes: Unfortunately, your health care proposal completely ignores our proposal to cover millions of uninsured, working Americans. Instead, you put forward a series of tax cuts that, particularly, when standing alone, would be inequitable, inefficient, and even potentially counterproductive to health care policy. The reason they would be counterproductive to health care policy is because the Republican proposal gives tax cuts to people who already have health care, who already have a high level of income, who are already covered by employers, and what you do by doing that is provide an incentive for employers to turn to them and say: We do not need to cover you anymore; you can go out and get your own health care because you are getting a tax cut--while it leaves millions of Americans who are uninsured without any insurance options whatsoever. That is so patently counterproductive, as well as patently unfair, that it begs our coming to the floor of the Senate to stand with the President and suggest this ought to be vetoed.

Mr. KERRY. I say to my colleague from the State of North Dakota, he is again absolutely correct, in that the only portion of this bill discussed amongst the conferees was the Small Business Reauthorization Act. I was never consulted as to what additional measures were included. And, in many respects, it is even worse than he has described. As I said, there was a conference on which we worked hard with respect to small business legislation itself, but that conference is not even properly reflected in the small business bill that has been brought here because this is a changed small business bill. It is not completely the Reauthorization package that we had conferenced. It has been changed without the courtesy of involving those of us on this side of the aisle, obviously without the debate that would have had the impact the Senator from North Dakota cites. I have here the letter from the President of the United States in which he promises this report will be vetoed. I know the leadership on the other side of the aisle has read this and notwithstanding that the President has promised that this will be vetoed and notwithstanding the fact that the President is making it very clear to the American people and to our colleagues why it will be vetoed, they, nevertheless, have seen fit to simply bring this to the floor and, so to speak, stuff it through the Senate. Why? To create a political issue or perhaps simply to be stubborn and try to set up the President for some possible political gain. This is precisely what George Bush himself has been talking about: partisanship, bickering, the very kind of thing that supposedly he says he could control here and on which he has been campaigning. He was asked to make one phone call to stop this and he will not even make that phone call. Here we are debating, and people are wondering why we are here. Why debate this measure just so it can be vetoed. Why not bring up the Patients' Bill of Rights, or provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors under Medicare instead of wasting time? I will share what President Clinton said before this catchall package came to the floor, before we had to be put into this position of voting against it. I am reading from the President's letter of October 26. I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. I will be delighted to yield to my colleague.

Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my colleague from Nebraska, he is absolutely correct. That is exactly what has happened. That is exactly the state of affairs. In point of fact, let me say as a matter of courtesy, in terms of the process of the Senate, as ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I was never called, never asked, never even presented this conference report for signature, never even told as a matter of courtesy what would go into this package and happen to the hard work of the Small Business Committee. It was simply done in the dead of night and presented to us, fait accompli, to the Congress. I think all of us have the right to ask, as Senators, what kind of courtesy is this we are being afforded as a matter of just collegial relations within the Senate. I think this process shows a fundamental disrespect for this institution, for the constitutional process and members of the Senate. But, let me say to my colleague from Nebraska, here is what has been stuffed in this bill, to use the term by which he has appropriately described it. This is a small business bill. But, without any hearings, without any appropriate bipartisan decision, this bill is brought to the floor of the Senate today with H.R. 5538, as it was introduced, the Minimum Wage Act; H.R. 5542, as it was introduced, the Taxpayer Relief Act, which goes to the issue of the tax cuts; H.R. 5543, the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act, entirely outside the purview of the Small Business Committee; it comes with H.R. 5544, the Pain Relief Promotion Act, an entirely controversial and, as we will discuss through the course of this day, potentially very dangerous and damaging measure with respect to the delivery of quality medical care in this country; and, H.R. 5545, the Small Business Reauthorization Act, which was already mentioned. The Senator from Nebraska is absolutely correct about the impact, the substance, and the process here.

Mr. KERRY. I am happy to yield.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are beginning debate this morning on what is ostensibly the conference report of the Small Business Committee of which I have the pleasure to serve as the ranking member. Obviously, nobody has any illusions that what the debate on the floor of the Senate today is about is small business issues. This is the so- called tax bill that has been attached to the Small Business conference report. But let me say a word, if I may, about the process by which how this package was made a part of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000. Despite being named a conferee, and despite the inclusion of provisions that are important to small business, and despite the fact that this conference report contains the work of the Small Business Committee and which I devoted a considerable amount of time effort and energy to negotiating, I will be voting against the overall conference report before us today.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to clarify for the record the intent of language included under funding for the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the Agriculture Appropriation fiscal year 2001 bill. I want to point out that interagency coordination of federal resources is desirable and certainly something many of us have been supporting as a way to eliminate unnecessary activities and spending. We don't want to spend money in Washington duplicating positions and processes. We want money in the field helping local communities. The NRCS ``Conservation Operations'' and ``Watershed Surveys and Planning'' funding sections contain specific language that refers to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which is coordinated by an interagency committee to assist communities seeking technical assistance and opportunities for Federal grants. I would like to point out that this initiative has proven to work well for participating communities in my state and others.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks on H.R. 3417 and amendments to it that will pass the Senate today. It is a package of several bills all designed to benefit our coastal and marine environment. It is my hope, Mr. President, that the House of Representatives will consider and pass the bill immediately. They are sound proposals with broad support. Since the day I first arrived in the Senate more than 15 years ago, I have worked hard to address the many challenges confronting our common ocean and coastal resources. After all, few states draw as much of their national and regional identity from their coasts as does Massachusetts. And I have been fortunate that the Commerce Committee includes members of both parties who are ready and willing to work together, to find compromise and pass sound legislation. In that regard, I want to thank Senators Snowe, McCain and Hollings for their work on this bill. The major provisions of H.R. 3417, as amended, are the Pribilof Islands Transition Act, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act, the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Fishermen's Protective Act Amendments, the Coral Reef Conservation Act and the Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Act. Each of these major proposals in the bill, except the corals bill, has already passed the House, the Senate or both. The bill also includes a ban on the use of spotter aircraft in certain bluefin tuna fishery categories. This proposal has passed the Senate. I would like to make a few short comments on the Coastal Zone Management Act. To begin, I want to thank Senator Snowe, our chairman on the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee on the Commerce Committee, for putting this legislation on the Committee agenda this Congress and working for its enactment. Mr. President, when Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972, it made the critical finding that, ``Important ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values in the coastal zone are being irretrievably damaged or lost.'' As we deliberated CZMA's reauthorization this session, I measured our progress against that almost 30-year-old congressional finding. And, I concluded that while we have made tremendous gains in coastal environmental protection, the increasing challenges have made this congressional finding is as true today as it was then. It is clear from the evidence presented to the Committee in our oversight process and from other input that I have received, that a great need exists for the federal government to increase its support for states and local communities that are working to protect and preserve our coastal zone. To accomplish that goal, the Committee has reported a bill that substantially increases annual authorizations for the CZMA program and targets funding at controlling coastal polluted runoff, one the more difficult challenges we face in the coastal environment. This reauthorization tackles the problem of polluted coastal runoff. This is one of the great environmental and economic challenges we face in the coastal zone. At the same time that pollution from industrial, commercial and residential sources has increased in the coastal zone, the destruction of wetlands, marshes, mangroves and other natural systems has reduced the capacity of these systems to filter pollution. Together, these two trends have resulted in environmental and economic damage to our coastal areas. These effects include beach closures around the nation, the discovery of a recurring ``Dead Zone'' covering more than 6,000 square miles in the Gulf of Mexico, the outbreak of Pfiesteria on the Mid-Atlantic, the clogging of shipping channels in the Great Lakes, and harm to the Florida Bay and Keys ecosystems. In Massachusetts, we've faced a dramatic rise in shell fish beds closures, which have put many of our fishermen out of work. To tackle this problem, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 2000 targets up $10 million annually to, ``assist coastal communities to coordinate and implement approved coastal nonpoint pollution control strategies and measures that reduce the causes and impacts of polluted runoff on coastal waters and habitats.'' This is an important amendment. For the first time, we have elevated the local management of runoff as national priority within the context of the CZMA program. Runoff is not a state-by-state problem; the marine environment is far too dynamic. States share the same coastlines and border large bodies of waters, such as the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay or the Long Island Sound, so that pollutants from one state can detrimentally affect the quality of the marine environment in other states. We are seeing the effects of polluted runoff both in our coastal communities and on our nation's living marine resources and habitats. Mr. President, I'm pleased that we've included the runoff provision in the bill. It's an important step forward and I believe we will see the benefits in our coastal environment and economy. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 2000, Mr. President, has been endorsed by the 35 coastal states and territories through the Coastal States Organization. It also has the endorsement of the Great Lakes Commission, American Oceans Campaign, Coast Alliance, Center for Marine Conservation, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, California CoastKeeper and many other groups. It's a long list that makes clear that this is a consensus proposal. We heard from all sides and did our best to fine compromise, and I believe that we succeeded. I also want to make a short statement on shark finning. H.R. 3417 would prohibit the practice of shark finning. Sharks are among the most biologically vulnerable species in the ocean. Their slow growth, late maturity and small number of offspring leave them exceptionally vulnerable to overfishing and slow to recover from depletion. At the same time, sharks, as top predators, are essential to maintaining the balance of life in the sea. While many of our other highly migratory species such as tunas and swordfish are subject to rigorous management regimes, sharks have largely been overlooked until recently. The bill bans the wasteful practice of removing a shark's fins and returning the remainder of the shark to sea. National Marine Fisheries Service regulations in the Atlantic Ocean prohibit the practice of shark finning, but a nationwide prohibition does not currently exist. Shark fins comprise only a small percentage of the weight of the shark, and yet this is often the only portion of the shark retained. The Magnuson-Stevens Act and international commitments discourage unnecessary waste of fish, and thus I believe this bill ensures our domestic regulations are consistent on this point. Another goal of the Magnuson-Stevens Act--the minimization of bycatch and bycatch mortality--is an issue that I have been particularly committed to over the years. Because most of the sharks caught and finned are incidentally captured in fisheries targeting other species, I believe establishing a domestic ban will help us further reduce this type of shark mortality. The next step in this process is to act internationally. At present, foreign fleets transship or land approximately 180 metric tons of shark fins annually through ports in the Pacific alone. The global shark fin trade involves at least 125 countries, and the demand for shark fins and other shark products has driven dramatic increases in shark fishing and shark mortality around the world. International measures are an absolutely critical component of achieving effective shark conservation. Finally, the bill authorizes a Western Pacific longline fisheries cooperative research program to provide information for shark stock assessments, identify fishing gear and practices that prevent or minimize incidental catch of sharks and ensure maximum survivorship of released sharks, and provide data on the international shark fin trade. The United States is a global leader in fisheries conservation and management. I believe this legislation provides us the opportunity to further this role, and take the first step in addressing an international fisheries management issue. In addition, I believe the U.S. should continue to lead efforts at the United Nations and international conventions to achieve coordinated international management of sharks, including an international ban on shark-finning. Mr. President, this package also includes a provision to ban the use of spotter aircraft in both the harpoon and general categories of the Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery. This has been an ongoing issue in New England since 1996. Several of my Senate colleagues, including Senators Snowe, Kennedy, Gregg, and Collins, have asked the agency to ban aircraft in the past. Unfortunately Mr. President, because aircraft do not catch fish, our legal system has determined that the agency cannot regulate these aircraft. Let me point out that the fisheries service has gone through two rounds of public rulemaking on this issue and in both instances an overwhelming number of public comments were in support of this ban. The Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery is one of the last open fisheries in New England, and spotter aircraft provide an unfair competitive advantage to those fishermen who use them. Banning spotter aircraft will level the playing field and provide the opportunity for thousands of New Englanders to experience the thrill of landing a 400 pound bluefin tuna that, depending on the quality of the fish, can easily be worth $10,000. Mr. President, H.R. 3417 also includes an authorization for the Secretary of Commerce to acquire fishery research vessels in 2002, 2003, and 2004 at a cost of $60 million. These state-of-the-art fishery research vessels will replace a fleet of vessels that are becoming technologically obsolete and reaching the end of their useful lives. In New England, the primary vessel used for our stock assessments is the 38-year old Albatross IV. Over the years NOAA has assumed increased responsibilities for managing our marine resources under the Magnuson- Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. It is absolutely imperative that we give NOAA scientists the tools necessary to carry out the mandates Congress has given them. Mr. President, I sincerely hope that the House will move to pass this legislation. This is a very reasonable proposal. Indeed, it includes several proposals the House has initiated and passed. We have made every effort to act on their priorities and we ask that they do the same with our priorities. atlantic striped bass conservation act

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the legislation we will vote on shortly, the VA-HUD bill, with mixed feelings. I want to be clear to my colleagues, the distinguished Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri, those feelings have absolutely nothing to do with the level of leadership they have provided on this legislation. I think they have done an outstanding job under exceedingly difficult circumstances. When I say ``difficult circumstances,'' they know better than anybody in the Senate what we are talking about. This bill is traditionally knocked around, almost always begins with a significantly below realistic cap which makes it almost impossible for them to do their work for months on end. And then at the last minute they get some kind of a reprieve and they are allowed the opportunity to try to fit the pieces together, satisfy their colleagues, satisfy national priorities, and come to the Senate. I think they have produced a housing budget that in light of recent years--I emphasize this--is a very strong budget. They have done an exceptional job with respect to the existing housing programs that we have in this country. They have increased funding for almost every significant Federal housing program that is already run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. For that, I thank them-- not just for me but for countless numbers of people across the country who depend on one or another of those efforts to have decent shelter and a competent housing program for their communities. Let me share quickly a couple of examples where the work has been exceptional. They have provided about $6.2 billion for operating and capital costs in public housing, which is an increase over the administration's request. The HOPE VI program, which has been enormously successful in turning some of the Nation's worst public housing developments into healthy, mixed-income communities, including a number in my home State of Massachusetts, has received an additional $575 million. The HOME program and the CDBG received significant funding increases. Any of us can go home and talk to a mayor and we will learn quickly how important those particular programs have been to the discretionary capacity of mayors to be able to make a difference for their communities. The Community Reinvestment Act has been able to extend credit. That has assisted the communities. The bill also brought the homeless budget back up to where it was. But let me just discuss, if I may, an area in which I know both the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland share with me a sense of frustration and a sense of a priority not met by this legislation. There is something the Congress of the United States could have done about this, and has chosen not to do. Very simply, we need a production program in this country. We used to have a production program, but over the last years we have seen a retreat from the commitment by the Federal Government to provide production. Last night, in the debate between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush, there was an exchange where the Vice President said to the Governor that he didn't doubt his heart, or his goodness as a person but that he questioned his priorities. I come to the floor today to question the priorities of all of us in Washington, the Congress and the administration, with respect to one of the most evident, compelling needs that we face in this country, in community after community after community. This is not a Boston or a Massachusetts issue. It is not a New England issue. There is not a community in the United States of America that you go to today where there are not people having an extraordinarily difficult time being able to find adequate housing. The reason is partly something we can celebrate, in the sense it comes out of an economy that is so extraordinarily strong. But, on the other hand, because it is so strong and so many people are able to afford the few available places, the rents have risen to a point where even some vouchers are being refused. So we are upping the number of vouchers in this legislation to some 80,000 new vouchers, but there is no place for anybody to take them. The result is, even as we live in a time of extraordinary economic expansion, too many of our fellow Americans are not sharing on the up side and are finding it increasingly difficult to find decent housing. HUD estimates that 5.4 million low-income households have what we call worst case housing needs. These families are paying over half their income towards housing costs or they are living in severely substandard housing. Since 1950, the number of families with worst case housing needs has increased by 12 percent. That means 600,000 more of our fellow citizens cannot afford a decent and safe place to live, even though the United States of America has the best economy we have had in maybe half a century. For these families, living paycheck to paycheck, one simple unforeseen circumstance such as a child getting sick or a big car repair bill or some other kind of emergency can send them into homelessness. That is not an exaggeration. Earlier this year, on the front page of the Washington Post, an article detailed these problems right here in our own backyard, the Nation's Capital. That article detailed the plight of low-income families living in apartments that are no longer affordable because the owners decided to no longer accept Federal assistance. For those families, the loss of their affordable housing unit meant they could go without a home. We have mistakenly viewed this crisis as limited to certain demographic groups. I really caution my colleagues not to fall into that stereotype. There is not one metropolitan area in the country where a minimum wage earner can afford to pay the rent for the average two-bedroom apartment. The minimum wage today--is it $5.15? You would have to earn over $12 an hour to afford the median rent for the average two-bedroom apartment in this country. That figure rises dramatically in many metropolitan areas. An hourly wage of $28 is needed in San Francisco; $23 on Long Island; $19 in Boston; $17 in Washington, DC, $16 in Chicago and in Seattle, and $15 in Atlanta. In every one of these cases, the affordability crisis has grown worse over the course of the past year. Working families are increasingly finding themselves unable to afford a house. A person in Boston would have to make over $35,000 a year just to afford a two-bedroom apartment, and we know that is well above the median earnings of folks in that area--as well, I might add, as most of the country. In Cape Cod, MA, a working mother of three children has been forced to live in a camper. The children actually live in a tent because the camper is not large enough. The mother cooks on an outdoor grill. She cleans the campground toilets to help pay the rent on her campsite. She works 40 hours a week, earns $21,000 annually, and she cannot find affordable rental housing. There was another article in the Washington Post this week which emphasizes the impact of this issue. Because of the ability of higher wage earners in this area who have benefited from the booming economy to pay higher housing costs, we have seen a rise in the number of building owners who refuse to rent to households that are assisted by section 8 vouchers. In Prince Georges County, 300 tenants in an apartment complex were recently told they have to move because the owner is no longer going to accept section 8. I know the Senator from Missouri understands everything I have thus far said and supports the notion that we need a production program. I am grateful to the Senator from Missouri for having not just seen that, but put $1 billion into this bill for housing production. That is how this bill went to the conference level. That bill could have received support from the House and the administration that would have left us in a position to fund. When people say: Senator, what about the cap? What about the total amount of money? In this year, the 2001 budget cycle, as a matter of priority, the administration and others are choosing to pay down $200 billion of debt. I am all for debt paydown. I know that is a tax cut to all Americans. I have been one of those here who has supported the concept that we ought to pay off the debt as rapidly as we possibly can. But the key is in the words ``as rapidly as we possibly can.'' Maybe we should add words such as ``as is appropriate,'' or ``as is measured against other priorities of the country.'' I do not know where it is written in stone or otherwise made an edict of the budgeting process that we have to choose to pay down $200 billion instead of paying down $199 billion or $198 billion, or some other figure. Would it really be so bad if the United States took 1 year longer to pay off the entire debt while sufficiently addressing the question of adequate housing for American families today? The Senator from Missouri sought to put $1 billion into this bill. So we are making our own priorities. I say to my colleagues, as a matter of common sense and sound investment policy in the future of the country, it makes sense to invest in production of housing for people who cannot afford it because the alternative is that you have a lot of kids who are dragged out of schools, moving from community to community, often becoming at risk as a consequence of the lack of adequate housing. We will pick up their costs. We will pick up their costs when some Senator comes to the floor and says we need more Federal assistance to build prisons; or we need more Federal assistance for the juvenile justice system to take care of those kids who are getting into trouble; or we need more Federal assistance for the drug program because we have too many crack houses and too many communities that are magnets for crime. Why? Because we don't allow them to become the kinds of communities we want them to be by investing up front in creating the kind of housing the country needs. It is inexcusable, in a nation as rich as we are, doing as well as we are, that we cannot find $1 billion to make certain we have a production program to help build the kind of housing that will release the pressures on the marketplace and can be felt all up and down the ladder in housing costs in the country. Some colleagues will say: Why should the Federal Government do that? Years ago, we made a commitment in this country about housing. We have come to understand that there are certain things the marketplace doesn't always do very well. I happen to believe we have the most efficient allocation of capital of any economic system anywhere on the face of the planet. I am proud of that. I support that in dozens of ways--through the Small Business Committee, Banking Committee, Commerce Committee, tax incentives, various ways in which we allow the private sector to do what it does best, which is create jobs. But sometimes there are certain sectors of the economy where the marketplace does not work as efficiently. We have always recognized that with one kind of tax incentive or tax credit or direct grant or other kind of incentive or another. Housing just happens to be one of them. When the supply is very tight and the demand is very high, you have a capacity for rents to rise and you have builders targeting their building to that place where they can make the most money. That is a natural instinct in a marketplace where you are looking for the greatest return on investment. You do not get your great return on investment from the sectors where the people can least afford the rents. That is why we need a production program, and that is why I hope in these final days before the Congress adjourns we will find our way to include in the omnibus bill the production program we need so desperately. I thank the Chair.