John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send to the desk a bill for introduction. The bill is entitled the Judicial Education Reform Act of 2000. Mr. Feingold is cosponsoring the legislation. Mr. President, as the arbiters of justice in our democracy, judges must be honest and fair in their duties. As importantly, if the rule of law is to have force in our society, citizens must have faith that judges approach their duties honestly and fairly, and that their decisions are based solely on the law and the facts of each case. Even if every judge were uncorrupt and incorruptible, their honesty would mean nothing if the public loses confidence in them. Court rulings are effectively only if the public believes that they have been arrived at through impartial decision-making. The judiciary must avoid the appearance of conflict as fastidiously as it avoids conflict. Recent press coverage and an investigation by the public interest law firm Community Rights Counsel have revealed that more than 230 federal judges have taken more than 500 trips to resort locations for legal seminars paid for by corporations, foundations, and individuals between 1192 and 1998. Many of these sponsors have one-sided legal agendas in the courts designed to advance their own interests at the expense of the public interest. In many cases, judges accepted seminar trips while relevant cases were pending before their court. In some cases, judges ruled in favor of a litigant bankrolled by a seminar sponsor. And in one case a judge ruled one way, attended a seminar and returned to switch his vote to agree with the legal views expressed by the sponsor of the trip. The notion that federal judges are accepting all-expense-paid trips that combine highly political legal theory with stays at resort locations from persons with interests before their courts creates an appearance of conflict that is unacceptable and unnecessary. At a minimum, it creates a perception of improper influence that erodes the trust the American people must have in our judicial system. Fortunately, the problems posed by improper judicial junkets can be remedied and the appearance of judicial impartiality restored. The Judicial Education Reform Act will seek to amend the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 to close the loophole that allows for privately-funded seminars by requiring federal judges to live by the same rules that now govern federal prosecutors. The proposal is modeled after the successful Federal Judicial Center. It will ensure that legal educational seminars for judges serve to educate, not improperly influence. It will ensure that these seminars improve our judiciary through better-trained and better-informed judges, not undermine it by eroding public confidence in judicial neutrality. Specifically, the legislation bans privately-funded seminars by prohibiting judges from accepting private seminars as gifts, providing appropriate exceptions, such as where a judge is a speaker, presenter or panel participant in such a seminar. The proposal establishes a Judicial Education Fund of $2 million within the U.S. Treasury for the payment of expenses incurred by judges attending seminars approved by the Board of the Federal Judicial Center. It requires the Judicial Conference to promulgate guidelines to ensure that the Board approves only those seminars that are conducted in a manner that will maintain the public's confidence the judiciary. Finally, the proposal requires that the Board approve a seminar only after information on its content, presenters, funding and litigation activities of sponsors and presenters are provided. If approved, information on the seminar must be posted on the Internet. Mr. President, in introducing this legislation, I am not charging the federal judiciary or any single judge with improper behavior. I do not question the integrity of judges, rather I question a system that creates the clear appearance of conflict. I understand the need for education. Our economy has mainstreamed once exotic technologies in communication, medicine and other fields, and it is important that judges have access to experts to keep current on technological advances. And I recognize the need for judges to be exposed to diverse legal views and to test current legal views. The Judicial Education Reform Act legislation provides $2 million for precisely that purpose. No judge will be without access to continuing education. But, that education will not be funded by private entities with broad legal agendas before the federal courts, or, as has happened in some of the most unfortunate cases, private entities with cases pending before participating judges. Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to place in the record a statement from the Honorable Abner J. Mikva on this subject. Mr. Mikva is a former Chief Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and a current Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. His statement captures this the essence this issue and need for reform.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senate passage of H.R. 820, as a amended by the text of S. 1089, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2000. I would like to thank Senator Snowe for her leadership on this very important legislation, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. The legislation provides authorization of appropriations for fiscal years 2000 through 2002 for the U.S. Coast Guard, and is an important step to helping them further their responsibilities that are so important to all of us. It is widely recognized that the Coast Guard is critically underfunded. Pursuant to the administration's request, H.R. 820 authorizes a substantial increase in the two largest Coast Guard appropriation accounts, operating expenses and acquisition, construction, and improvement of equipment and facilities. Operating funds are critically needed by the Coast Guard to protect public safety and the marine environment, enforce laws and treaties, ensure safety and compliance in our marine fisheries, maintain aids to navigation, prevent illegal drug trafficking and illegal alien migration, and preserve defense readiness. H.R. 820 will also provide an increase of approximately $130 million for the acquisition, construction, and improvement of equipment and facilities. These funds would be used to support vital long-term projects such as the Deepwater System, which the Coast Guard launched in 1998 to modernize its aging, and now inadequate, deepwater-capable cutters and aircraft. H.R. 820 specifically authorizes $42.3 million of the $9.6 billion required over the next twenty years for this Integrated Deepwater System. Increasing authorization levels for the Coast Guard is important, but we must continue to work together to ensure the increases in this bill become a reality for the agency in the coming years. The Coast Guard is facing a fiscal crisis as a result of a number of budgetary pressures. While demand for Coast Guard services continues to increase, there has been no parallel increase in the amounts available for the Coast Guard in our budget. We are only in the beginning stages of modernizing aging ships and aircraft through the Deepwater Project, and funding needs will increase in the coming years. At the same time, the number of jobs created by the new economy has severely affected Coast Guard recruitment, and it disturbs me to report that the Coast Guard is short nearly 1,000 uniformed personnel. Ever-increasing fuel and maintenance costs, along with these escalating recruiting costs to address personnel shortfalls, have placed increased pressure on Coast Guard operations. This year, these pressures forced the Coast Guard to reduce days at seas and flight hours for a number of its missions such as environmental protection, fisheries enforcement, and drug trafficking; meanwhile, the demands of these missions grow daily. More commercial and recreational vessels ply our waters today than ever before in our Nation's history. International trade has expanded greatly, resulting in increased maritime traffic through our Nation's ports and harbors. Tighter border patrols have forced drug traffickers to use the thousands of miles of our county's coastline as the means to introduce illegal drugs into our country. In a typical day the Coast Guard will save 14 lives, seize 209 pounds of marijuana and 170 pounds of cocaine, and save $2.5 million in property. The continued operation of all of the Coast Guard services is critical. The men and women of the Coast Guard do their utmost for us every day. We owe it to them to provide the resources necessary to carry out their missions effectively and safely. H.R. 820 is a good first step, and I would hope that my colleagues will join Senator Snowe and me in our continuing effort to rebuild our Nation's oldest sea service.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Magnuson- Stevens Act Amendments of 2000. I would like to thank Mr. Hollings for joining me as an original cosponsor of this legislation to reauthorize and update the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. As my colleagues and I well remember, we last substantially reauthorized the Act only four years ago with the Sustainable Fisheries Act--a three-year effort in itself. As in 1996, I look forward to working with members of the Commerce Committee as we update and improve this most important legislation. Mr. President, the fishery resources found off U.S. shores are a valuable national heritage. In 1998, the last year for which we have figures, U.S. commercial fisheries produced $3.1 billion in dockside revenues, contributing a total of more than $25 billion to the Gross National Product. By weight of catch, the United States is the world's fifth largest fishing nation, harvesting over 4 million tons of fish annually. The United States is also a significant seafood exporter, with exports valued at over $8 billion in 1998. In addition to supporting the commercial seafood industry, U.S. fishery resources provide enjoyment for about 9 million saltwater anglers who take home roughly 200 million pounds of fish each year. Over the past year, the Commerce Committee under Senator Snowe's leadership has been holding a series of hearings around the country in preparation for this year's reauthorization. These hearings have pointed to one central theme--while there is certainly room for improving fisheries management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the sweeping changes we made in 1996 are still being implemented in each region. In fact, a number of regions are showing good progress, including New England where the yellowtail flounder and haddock stocks are rebounding. For this reason, I believe this year's reauthorization should leave in place the core conservation provisions of the Act, and focus on providing adequate resources, and any organizational or other changes necessary for NOAA Fisheries and Regional Fishery Management Councils to achieve the goals we set forth in the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Mr. President, the bill I introduce today outlines a proposal for making this a reality. While we have added increasingly complex technical and scientific requirements to the fisheries management process, we have failed in many cases to provide the resources necessary to meet these requirements. Effective fisheries management for the future will rely on committing adequate resources and direction to the fisheries managers as well as the fishing participants. These include providing necessary funding increases to both the agency and the Councils, creation of a national observer program, establishing a nationwide cooperative research program with the fishing industry, and ensuring that we are collecting the socioeconomic data we need to design management measures that make sense for fishermen. This legislation aims to remedy this by providing a significant increase in funding, and specifying amounts required to support both the new initiatives and existing programs. Over the years, we have reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act many times, and each time we have wrestled with the question of how to improve the ability of the Regional Fisheries Management Councils to effectively and fairly implement the requirements of the Act. This bill suggests ways in which to begin remedying these concerns. First, the bill would clarify that the Secretary of Commerce must ensure representation on the Council of all qualified persons who are concerned with fisheries conservation and management. While fishermen are the source of tremendous wisdom and expertise needed in managing these fisheries, there are others such as scientists and those with other relevant experience who may also provide valuable service to the Councils. To help the Secretary meet this requirement, the bill requires Governors to consult with members of recreational, commercial, and other fishing or conservation interests within a State before selecting a list of nominees to send to the Secretary. We would like to see all those who can provide constructive attention to our fishery management problems to work together to forge innovative and progressive solutions. In addition, we must increase independent scientific involvement in the Councils, and my legislation would provide that Councils must involve Science and Statistics Committee members in the development and amendment of fisheries management plans. I do know of the grave concerns expressed by conservation groups, fishermen, scientists and managers about problems with the existing fishery management process. I believe we need to address these questions, both with respect to the Councils and the Agency. I would like to work on this further with my colleagues as we go forward, but in the meantime this bill asks the National Academy of Sciences to bring together international and regional experts to evaluate what works and what may be broken in the current system, and what additional changes may be necessary to modernize and make more effective our entire fishery management process. In our series of hearings around the country, we have consistently heard a call from both industry and conservation groups for observer coverage in our fisheries. We have failed to adequately provide funding mechanisms for observer coverage; each year, federally funded observers are deployed in as few as five to seven fisheries, and observer coverage is rarely over 20 percent. Without observer coverage, there is little hope that we will have statistically significant data, particularly data on actual levels of bycatch. I have included provisions to ensure that each fishery management plan details observer coverage and monitoring needs for a fishery, and created a new National Observer Program. This national program would address technical and administrative responsibilities over regional observer programs. I have also included provisions to allow Councils or the Secretary to develop observer monitoring plans, and have established a fishery observer fund which would include funds appropriated for this purpose, collected as fines under a new bycatch incentive program, or deposited through fees established under this section. In the 1996 reauthorization, we took a first step in dealing with the issue of bycatch by instructing NMFS to implement a standardized bycatch reporting methodology. Nonetheless, I believe we have a long way to go in dealing with the bycatch problem in many of our fisheries. In addition to establishing a national observer program, my bill would establish a task force to recommend measures to monitor, manage, and reduce bycatch and unobserved fishing mortality. The Secretary would then be charged with implementing these recommendations. In addition, I have provided for the development of bycatch reduction incentive programs that could include a system of fines, non-transferable bycatch quotas, or preferences for gear types with low-bycatch rates. It is also time for us to move forward on ecosystem-based fishery management. We do not yet have the data to actually manage most of our fisheries on an ecosystem basis, but I still believe we must begin the preparation and consideration of fishery ecosystem plans. We must strive to understand the complex ecological and socioeconomic environments in which fish and fisheries exist, if we hope to anticipate the effects that fishery management will have on the ecosystem, and the effects that ecosystem change will have on fisheries. My legislation would require each Council to develop one fishery ecosystem plan for a marine ecosystem under its jurisdiction. Each ecosystem plan would have to include a listing of data and information needs identified during development of the plan, and the means of addressing any scientific uncertainties associated with the plan. One of the most resounding comments we heard at all of our regional hearings was the need to continually improve scientific information, and to involve the fishing industry in the collection of this information. My bill would establish a national cooperative research program, patterned after the successful cooperative research program in the New England scallop fishery, for projects that are developed through partnerships among federal and state managers, fishing industry participants, and academic institutions. Priority would be given to projects to reduce bycatch, conservation engineering projects, projects to identify and protect essential fish habitat or habitat area of particular concern, projects to collect fishery ecosystem information and improve predictive capabilities, and projects to compile social and economic data on fisheries. Over the years, I have heard much complaint that NMFS does not communicate effectively with the fishing industry or the general public. To remedy this, my bill calls for the establishment of a fisheries outreach program within NMFS to heighten public understanding of NMFS research and technology, train Council members on implementation of National Standards 1 and 8 requirements of NEPA and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and identify means of improving quality and reporting of fishery-dependent data. New provisions would also require improvement of the transparency of the stock assessment process and methods, and increase access and compatibility of data relied upon in fishery management decisions. I have required the Secretary to periodically review fishery data collection and assessment methods, and to establish a Center for Independent Peer Review under which independent experts would be provided for special peer review functions. Mr. President, I have also included provisions to address one of our biggest problems in fisheries today--too many fishermen chasing too few fish. It is true that many of our fisheries are overcapitalized. A buyout in New England several years ago attempted to deal with this problem, and according to Penny Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, in a recent USA Today article, the buyout ``jump started recovery in the New England groundfish fishery.'' A section of my bill would require the Secretary to evaluate overcapacity in each fishery, and identify measures planned or taken to reduce any such overcapacity. My legislation would amend the existing Act to ensure that capacity reduction programs also consider and address latent fishing capacity, and would allow the use of Capital Construction Funds and funds from the Fisheries Finance Program for measures to benefit the conservation and management of fisheries such as capacity reduction, as well as for gear and safety improvements. In 1996, we enacted a new concept in defining, and requiring protection and identification of, essential fish habitat (EFH). While there has been much outcry that essential fish habitat has been identified too broadly and that EFH consultation processes have resulted in regulatory delay, GAO reports very few real problems resulting from such designations. As a result, I do not feel it is necessary to significantly modify EFH provisions. Instead, I believe we can improve the current work of NMFS and the Councils to identify EFH, and areas within them called ``habitat areas of particular concern'' (HAPCs). I have added new provisions that would require Councils to protect and identify HAPCs as part of existing requirements to identify and protect EFH. My bill would clarify that HAPCs are to be identified pursuant to the NMFS EFH guidelines, and that these areas should receive priority identification and protection, as they are oftentimes the areas most critical to fish spawning and recruitment. It is crucial that we improve our understanding of fisheries habitat, and my bill would establish pilot cooperative research projects on fishery and non- fishery impacts to HAPCs. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to address the issue of individual fishing quotas, which have been the subject of much debate over the past few years. There is a moratorium on these programs in place until September 30, 2000, and we have been skirting consideration of this new management tool for too long. We must begin debate and consideration of the panoply of exclusive quota-based programs that have developed over the past several years, which must include adoption of legislative guidance for these programs. For this reason, the bill suggests a set of national criteria that would permit establishment of exclusive quota based programs--including community-based quotas, fishing cooperatives, and individual fishing quotas--but still protect the concerns of those who do not wish to employ these tools. I invite all those who are concerned about these issues to engage in a discussion with my colleagues and me on the appropriate way to address this national issue as we move forward this session. I understand the many concerns of small fishermen in New England regarding the use of these tools. First, no region would have to implement an exclusive quota-based program without approval of a 3/5 majority of eligible permit holders through a referendum process. In addition, any exclusive quota-based program developed under my legislation would have to meet a set of national criteria. These national criteria would include provisions specifically aimed at protecting small fishermen such as the following: (1) ensuring that quota-based programs provide a fair and equitable initial allocation of quota (including the establishment of an appeals process for qualification and allocation decisions), (2) preserving the historical distribution of catch among vessel categories and gear sectors, (3) considering allocation of a portion of the annual harvest specifically to small fishermen and crew members; and (4) requiring programs to consider the effects of consolidation of quota shares and establish limits necessary to prevent inequitable concentration of quota share or significant impacts on other fisheries or fishing communities. To respond to the concern that we must ensure quota-based programs meet conservation objectives, my legislation would provide a 7-year review of the performance of quota holders, including fulfillment of conservation requirements of the Act. Finally any quota-based program would have to have a plan to rationalize the fishery--which in some cases would require a buyout of excess capacity under section 312(b) of the Act. Mr. President, I believe this legislation provides the funding, tools, and programs to ensure the important changes made in the 1996 amendments are implemented effectively and improved where necessary. During the last reauthorization, our nation's fisheries were at a crossroads, and action was required to remedy our marine resource management problems, to preserve the way of life of our coastal communities, and to promote the sustainable use and conservation of our marine resources for future generations and for the economic good of the nation. We made changes in 1996 that were good for the environment, good for the fish, and good for the fishermen. We must stay the course, and this bill will help us do just that. In addition, the bill will provide us with innovative tools, such as exclusive quota-based programs and the new national observer program, to further advance fisheries management. Mr. President, I remain committed to the goal of establishing biologically and economically sustainable fisheries so that fishing will continue to be an important part of the culture of coastal communities as well as the economy of the Nation and Massachusetts.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I join Senator Robb and 16 other colleagues to introduce comprehensive legislation aimed at spurring economic development and person empowerment in our inner cities and isolated rural areas. Our economy is booming, and has been for most of the 90s, yet there are still individuals and families who are struggling. What we've tried to do is develop economic incentives that will encourage business development and remove barriers that make it hard for entrepreneurs, community organizations and individuals to build healthy communities. Among the many important initiatives in this bill is my new markets legislation that I introduced last September, S. 1594, the Community Development and Venture Capital Act, which passed the Senate Committee on Small Business today, and as part of the Clinton/Hastert package in the House yesterday. It also includes full funding for Round II of Empowerment Zones. The Community Development and Venture Capital Act has three parts: a venture capital program to funnel investment money into distressed communities; Senator Wellstone's program to expand the number of venture capital firms and professionals who are devoted to investing in such communities; and a mentoring program to link established, successful businesses with small businesses owners in stagnant or deteriorating communities in order to facilitate the learning curve. The venture capital program is modeled after the Small Business Administration's successful Small Business Investment Company program. As SBA Administrator Alvarez pointed out just last week in a Small Business Committee hearing, the SBIC program has been so successful that it has generated more than $19 billion in investments in more than 13,000 businesses since 1992. And, in the past five years, the SBIC participating securities program has returned $224 million in profits, virtually paying for itself for the past nine years. As successful as that program is, it does not sufficiently reach areas of our country that need economic development the most. One, out of the total $4.2 billion that SBICs invested last year, only 1.6 percent were deals of less than $1 million dollars in LMI areas. Two, only $1.1 million of that $4.2 billion went to LMI investments in rural areas. Three, in 1999, 85 percent of SBIC deals were $10 million and more. In broader terms, the economy is booming. Since 1993, almost 21 million jobs have been created. Since 1992, unemployment has shrunk from 7.5 percent to 4 percent. In the past two years, we've paid down the debt $140 billion, and CBO currently projects a surplus of $176 billion. Some estimates even say more than $2 trillion. In spite of these impressive numbers, one out of five children grows up in poverty and there are pockets of America where unemployment is as high as 14 percent. We can make a difference by investing in a new industry of community development venture capital funds that target investment capital and business expertise into low- and moderate-income areas to develop and expand local businesses that create jobs and alleviate economic distress. The existing 25 or 30 community development venture capital funds have set out to demonstrate that the same model of business development that has driven economic expansion in Silicon Valley and Route 128 Massachusetts can also make a powerful difference in areas like the inner-city areas of Boston's Roxbury or New York's East Harlem, or the rural desolation of Kentucky's Appalachia or Mississippi's Delta region. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan says ``Credit alone is not the answer. Businesses must have equity capital before they are considered viable candidates for debt financing.'' He emphasizes that this is particularly important in lower-income communities. What I'm trying to do as Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, and have been working with the SBA to achieve, is expand investment in our neediest communities by building on the economic activity created by loans. I think one of the most effective ways to do that is to spur venture capital investment in our neediest communities. I am very glad that Senator Robb and my other colleagues agreed to include this powerful economic development plan in this legislation. Switching to another provision in this bill, this legislation builds on the President's and Speaker's agreement by securing full, mandatory funding for Massachusett's Empowerment Zone. As I said earlier, this passed the full House yesterday by a vote of 394 to 27. Full, mandatory funding is important because, so far, the money has dribbled in--only $6.6 million of the $100 million authorized over ten years--and made it impossible for the city to implement a plan for economic self- sufficiency. Some 80 public and private entities, from universities to technology companies to banks to local government, showed incredible community spirit and committed to matching the EZ money, eight to one. Let me say it another way--these groups agreed to match the $100 million in Federal Empowerment Zone money with $800 million. Yet, regrettably, in spite of this incredible alliance, the city of Boston has not been able to tap into that leveraged money and implement the strategic plan because Congress hasn't held up its part of the bargain. I am extremely pleased that we were able to work together and find a way to provide full, steady funding to these zones. That money means education, daycare, transportation and basic health care in areas--in Massachusetts that includes 57,000 residents who live in Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattipan--where almost 50 percent of the children are living in poverty and nearly half the residents over 25 don't even have a high school diploma Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their work on this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators McCain, Boxer and Abraham in announcing that today we will be introducing a bill that takes a positive, balanced approach to the issue of Internet privacy. There can be no doubt that consumers have a legitimate expectation of privacy on the Internet. Our bill protects that interest. At the same time, consumers want an Internet that is free. For that to happen, the Internet, like television, must be supported by advertising. Our bill will allow companies to continue to advertise, ensuring that we don't have a subscription-based Internet, which would limit everyone's online activities and contribute to a digital divide. If we recognize that the economy of the Internet calls for advertising, we must also recognize that it won't attract consumers if they believe their privacy is being violated. Finding this fine balance of permitting enough free flow of information to allow ads to work and protecting consumers' privacy is going to be critical if the Internet is going to reach its full potential. And I believe this bill strikes the right balance. I think all of the bill's cosponsors were hopeful that self- regulation of Internet privacy would work. And I think self-regulation still has an important role to play. But it seems that now it is up to Congress to establish a floor for Internet privacy. I have no doubt that many innovative high tech companies and advertisers will go beyond the regulations for notice and choice we provide here. A number of companies in my home state of Massachusetts already do, providing consumers with anonymity when they go online. I applaud and encourage those efforts and am certain that if Congress enacts this bill, they will continue. But technology and innovation won't address all the concerns people have about Internet privacy. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that core privacy principles are the norm throughout the online world. We need to respond to the consumers who don't shop on the Internet because they are concerned about their privacy. This is necessary not only for the sake of the consumers, but for every online business that wants to grow and attract customers. The bill that we are introducing today will encourage those skeptical consumers to go online. This legislation will require Web sites to clearly and conspicuously disclose their privacy policies. People deserve to know what information may be collected and how it may be used so that they can make an informed decision before they navigate around or shop on a particular Web site. They shouldn't have to click five times and need to translate legalese before they know what a site will do with their personal information. Requiring disclosure has the added benefit of providing the FTC with an enforcement mechanism. If a Web site fails to comply with its posted disclosure policy, the FTC can bring an action against it for unfair or deceptive acts. This is the bare minimum of what I believe consumers deserve and expect, and I don't think this would have any unintended or negative consequences on e-commerce. In addition, this bill addresses the core principle of choice by requiring Web sites to offer consumers an easy to use method to prevent Web sites from using personally identifiable information for marketing purposes and to prevent them from selling that information to third parties. This bill empowers consumers and lets them make informed decisions that are right for them. By ensuring consumers have the right to full disclosure and the right to not have their personally identifiable information sold or disclosed, this bill addresses the most fundamental concerns many people have about online privacy. But I believe there are still a number of important questions that we need to answer. The first is whether there is a difference between privacy in the offline and online worlds. Most of us hardly think about it when we go to the supermarket, but when Safeway or Giant scans my discount card or my credit card, it has a record of exactly who I am and what I bought. Should my preferences at the supermarket be any more or less protected than the choices I make online? Likewise, catalog companies compile and use offline information to make marketing decisions. These companies rent lists compiled by list brokers. The list brokers obtain marketing data and names from the public domain and governments, credit bureaus, financial institutions, credit card companies, retail establishments, and other catalogers and mass mailers. On the other hand, when I go to the shopping mall and look at five different sweaters but don't buy any of them, no one has a record of that. If I do the same thing online, technology can record how long I linger over an item, even if I don't buy it. Likewise, I can pick up any book in a book store and pay in cash and no one will ever know my reading preferences. That type of anonymity can be completely lost online. This bill requires the National Research Council to study the issue of online versus offline privacy, and make a recommendation if there is a need for additional legislation in either area. Likewise, this bill requires the Council to study the issue of access. While there is general agreement that consumers should have access to information they provided to a Web site, we still don't know whether it's necessary or proper for consumers to have access to all of the information gathered about an individual. Should consumers have access to click-stream data or so-called derived data by which a company uses compiled information to make a marketing decision about the consumer? And if we decide consumers need some access to this type of information, is it technology feasible? Will there be unforeseen or unintended consequences such as an increased risk of security breaches? Will there be less, rather than more privacy due to the necessary coupling of names and data? I don't we are ready to regulate until we have some consensus on this issue. Finally, it is important to add that this bill in no way limits what Congress has done or hopefully will do with respect to a person's health or financial information. When sensitive information is collected, it is even more important that stringent privacy protections are in place. I have supported a number of legislative efforts that would go far to protect this type of information.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I join Senator Robb and 16 other colleagues to introduce comprehensive legislation aimed at spurring economic development and person empowerment in our inner cities and isolated rural areas. Our economy is booming, and has been for most of the 90s, yet there are still individuals and families who are struggling. What we've tried to do is develop economic incentives that will encourage business development and remove barriers that make it hard for entrepreneurs, community organizations and individuals to build healthy communities. Among the many important initiatives in this bill is my new markets legislation that I introduced last September, S. 1594, the Community Development and Venture Capital Act, which passed the Senate Committee on Small Business today, and as part of the Clinton/Hastert package in the House yesterday. It also includes full funding for Round II of Empowerment Zones. The Community Development and Venture Capital Act has three parts: a venture capital program to funnel investment money into distressed communities; Senator Wellstone's program to expand the number of venture capital firms and professionals who are devoted to investing in such communities; and a mentoring program to link established, successful businesses with small businesses owners in stagnant or deteriorating communities in order to facilitate the learning curve. The venture capital program is modeled after the Small Business Administration's successful Small Business Investment Company program. As SBA Administrator Alvarez pointed out just last week in a Small Business Committee hearing, the SBIC program has been so successful that it has generated more than $19 billion in investments in more than 13,000 businesses since 1992. And, in the past five years, the SBIC participating securities program has returned $224 million in profits, virtually paying for itself for the past nine years. As successful as that program is, it does not sufficiently reach areas of our country that need economic development the most. One, out of the total $4.2 billion that SBICs invested last year, only 1.6 percent were deals of less than $1 million dollars in LMI areas. Two, only $1.1 million of that $4.2 billion went to LMI investments in rural areas. Three, in 1999, 85 percent of SBIC deals were $10 million and more. In broader terms, the economy is booming. Since 1993, almost 21 million jobs have been created. Since 1992, unemployment has shrunk from 7.5 percent to 4 percent. In the past two years, we've paid down the debt $140 billion, and CBO currently projects a surplus of $176 billion. Some estimates even say more than $2 trillion. In spite of these impressive numbers, one out of five children grows up in poverty and there are pockets of America where unemployment is as high as 14 percent. We can make a difference by investing in a new industry of community development venture capital funds that target investment capital and business expertise into low- and moderate-income areas to develop and expand local businesses that create jobs and alleviate economic distress. The existing 25 or 30 community development venture capital funds have set out to demonstrate that the same model of business development that has driven economic expansion in Silicon Valley and Route 128 Massachusetts can also make a powerful difference in areas like the inner-city areas of Boston's Roxbury or New York's East Harlem, or the rural desolation of Kentucky's Appalachia or Mississippi's Delta region. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan says ``Credit alone is not the answer. Businesses must have equity capital before they are considered viable candidates for debt financing.'' He emphasizes that this is particularly important in lower-income communities. What I'm trying to do as Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, and have been working with the SBA to achieve, is expand investment in our neediest communities by building on the economic activity created by loans. I think one of the most effective ways to do that is to spur venture capital investment in our neediest communities. I am very glad that Senator Robb and my other colleagues agreed to include this powerful economic development plan in this legislation. Switching to another provision in this bill, this legislation builds on the President's and Speaker's agreement by securing full, mandatory funding for Massachusett's Empowerment Zone. As I said earlier, this passed the full House yesterday by a vote of 394 to 27. Full, mandatory funding is important because, so far, the money has dribbled in--only $6.6 million of the $100 million authorized over ten years--and made it impossible for the city to implement a plan for economic self- sufficiency. Some 80 public and private entities, from universities to technology companies to banks to local government, showed incredible community spirit and committed to matching the EZ money, eight to one. Let me say it another way--these groups agreed to match the $100 million in Federal Empowerment Zone money with $800 million. Yet, regrettably, in spite of this incredible alliance, the city of Boston has not been able to tap into that leveraged money and implement the strategic plan because Congress hasn't held up its part of the bargain. I am extremely pleased that we were able to work together and find a way to provide full, steady funding to these zones. That money means education, daycare, transportation and basic health care in areas--in Massachusetts that includes 57,000 residents who live in Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattipan--where almost 50 percent of the children are living in poverty and nearly half the residents over 25 don't even have a high school diploma Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their work on this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators McCain, Boxer and Abraham in announcing that today we will be introducing a bill that takes a positive, balanced approach to the issue of Internet privacy. There can be no doubt that consumers have a legitimate expectation of privacy on the Internet. Our bill protects that interest. At the same time, consumers want an Internet that is free. For that to happen, the Internet, like television, must be supported by advertising. Our bill will allow companies to continue to advertise, ensuring that we don't have a subscription-based Internet, which would limit everyone's online activities and contribute to a digital divide. If we recognize that the economy of the Internet calls for advertising, we must also recognize that it won't attract consumers if they believe their privacy is being violated. Finding this fine balance of permitting enough free flow of information to allow ads to work and protecting consumers' privacy is going to be critical if the Internet is going to reach its full potential. And I believe this bill strikes the right balance. I think all of the bill's cosponsors were hopeful that self- regulation of Internet privacy would work. And I think self-regulation still has an important role to play. But it seems that now it is up to Congress to establish a floor for Internet privacy. I have no doubt that many innovative high tech companies and advertisers will go beyond the regulations for notice and choice we provide here. A number of companies in my home state of Massachusetts already do, providing consumers with anonymity when they go online. I applaud and encourage those efforts and am certain that if Congress enacts this bill, they will continue. But technology and innovation won't address all the concerns people have about Internet privacy. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that core privacy principles are the norm throughout the online world. We need to respond to the consumers who don't shop on the Internet because they are concerned about their privacy. This is necessary not only for the sake of the consumers, but for every online business that wants to grow and attract customers. The bill that we are introducing today will encourage those skeptical consumers to go online. This legislation will require Web sites to clearly and conspicuously disclose their privacy policies. People deserve to know what information may be collected and how it may be used so that they can make an informed decision before they navigate around or shop on a particular Web site. They shouldn't have to click five times and need to translate legalese before they know what a site will do with their personal information. Requiring disclosure has the added benefit of providing the FTC with an enforcement mechanism. If a Web site fails to comply with its posted disclosure policy, the FTC can bring an action against it for unfair or deceptive acts. This is the bare minimum of what I believe consumers deserve and expect, and I don't think this would have any unintended or negative consequences on e-commerce. In addition, this bill addresses the core principle of choice by requiring Web sites to offer consumers an easy to use method to prevent Web sites from using personally identifiable information for marketing purposes and to prevent them from selling that information to third parties. This bill empowers consumers and lets them make informed decisions that are right for them. By ensuring consumers have the right to full disclosure and the right to not have their personally identifiable information sold or disclosed, this bill addresses the most fundamental concerns many people have about online privacy. But I believe there are still a number of important questions that we need to answer. The first is whether there is a difference between privacy in the offline and online worlds. Most of us hardly think about it when we go to the supermarket, but when Safeway or Giant scans my discount card or my credit card, it has a record of exactly who I am and what I bought. Should my preferences at the supermarket be any more or less protected than the choices I make online? Likewise, catalog companies compile and use offline information to make marketing decisions. These companies rent lists compiled by list brokers. The list brokers obtain marketing data and names from the public domain and governments, credit bureaus, financial institutions, credit card companies, retail establishments, and other catalogers and mass mailers. On the other hand, when I go to the shopping mall and look at five different sweaters but don't buy any of them, no one has a record of that. If I do the same thing online, technology can record how long I linger over an item, even if I don't buy it. Likewise, I can pick up any book in a book store and pay in cash and no one will ever know my reading preferences. That type of anonymity can be completely lost online. This bill requires the National Research Council to study the issue of online versus offline privacy, and make a recommendation if there is a need for additional legislation in either area. Likewise, this bill requires the Council to study the issue of access. While there is general agreement that consumers should have access to information they provided to a Web site, we still don't know whether it's necessary or proper for consumers to have access to all of the information gathered about an individual. Should consumers have access to click-stream data or so-called derived data by which a company uses compiled information to make a marketing decision about the consumer? And if we decide consumers need some access to this type of information, is it technology feasible? Will there be unforeseen or unintended consequences such as an increased risk of security breaches? Will there be less, rather than more privacy due to the necessary coupling of names and data? I don't we are ready to regulate until we have some consensus on this issue. Finally, it is important to add that this bill in no way limits what Congress has done or hopefully will do with respect to a person's health or financial information. When sensitive information is collected, it is even more important that stringent privacy protections are in place. I have supported a number of legislative efforts that would go far to protect this type of information.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I am pleased to join the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Helms, and the Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, Dr. Frist, in bringing this very important bill to the Senate. Mr. President, the human toll of the AIDS crisis in Africa is stupefying. More than 30 million people now live with AIDS and annual AIDS-related fatalities hit a record 2.6 million last year. Ninety-five percent of all cases are found in the developing world. AIDS is now the leading cause of death in Africa and the fourth leading cause of death in the world. In at least 5 Africans countries, more than 20 percent of adults are HIV-positive. The AIDS epidemic is more devastating than wars: in 1998 in Africa, 200,000 people died from armed conflict; 2.2 million died from AIDS-- more than 5,000 Africans died every day from the disease. This week, the U.S. Census Bureau announced new demographic findings for Africa. Because of AIDS, Botswana, Zimbabwe and South Africa will experience negative population growth in the next five years. Without AIDS, these countries would have experienced a 2-3 percent increase in population. Children born within the past 5 years in Namibia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe can expect to die before the age of 35. Without AIDS, their life expectancy would have been 70. In addition, a new and very troubling statistic was announced this week: UNAIDS reported that 55 percent of all HIV-infections were in women. So AIDS is not only robbing societies of young women but also of the child they might have had. It is not hyperbole to say that this is Africa's worst social catastrophe since slavery, and the world's worst health crisis since the bubonic plague. Other parts of the world are going down the same path as Africa. Infection rates in Asia are climbing rapidly, with several countries, especially India, on the brink of large-scale expansion of the epidemic. When I was in India in December, epidemiologist from our government as well as Indian officials admitted that the number of cases in Asia could surpass those of Africa by the year 2010. In addition, countries of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are especially vulnerable, as Russia is experiencing one of the highest increases in infection rates of any single country in the world last year. Is this the kind of world we want for the 21st century? In this age of remarkable biotechnical and biomedical breakthroughs, when we have cures of impotence and treatments for depression, do we want to ignore a public health crisis of biblical proportions? When we're talking about the democratization of the developing world, when we're talking about the triumph of capitalism and open markets, when we're talking about the benefits of globalization, we cannot remain silent-- as rich as we are in talent, technology and money--about the threat AIDS poses to our national security. Mr. President, last week, the 13th annual International Conference on AIDS was taking place in Durban, South Africa. It was the first time this international conference is being held in a country in the epicenter of the AIDS pandemic in the developing world. A number of important breakthroughs have been announced from the Conference and the Senate should be aware of them: Pharmaceutical companies have announced that they are prepared to offer their life-extending therapies to the developing world at no cost or at a very discounted rate. Merck will provide Botswana with $100 million in medicine over the next five years. Abbott Laboratories confirmed that it will initiate a charitable program in Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Romania and India. Boehringer Ingelheim will give away one of the most important drugs in preventing the transmission of HIV from mother to child--Viramune--to developing countries over the next 5 years. Similarly, Pfizer recently promised to give South Africa its effective product--Diflucan--which is used for treating a deadly brain infection associated with AIDS. These are all important developments. Access to these pharmaceutical products has historically been prevented by high price, and these companies should continue to work with governments and philanthropies like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation--which today is announcing another $90 million in grants to combat AIDS in the developing world. The contribution made by Bill and Melinda Gates to fighting infectious diseases cannot be overstated. Through their philanthropy, they have given countries which are being ravaged by disease a fighting chance. Fighting and winning the war against AIDS is more than just giving away medicine. We must continue to bolster the research into a cure. To this end, a number of significant biomedical breakthroughs have come out of Durban. The most significant is the announcement by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative of human trials of a new vaccine candidate against AIDS. Development of an effective AIDS vaccine is critical especially in Africa where preventive measures--such as encouraging change in high-risk behaviors and debunking deadly myths-- will do little to slow the spread of HIV in countries which have a 20 or 25 percent infection rate. It is clear that the only hope for these countries is a cure: that means, developing an effective vaccine and assuring its affordable distribution. And, we have a responsibility to act in this increasingly intertwined world because, together with all the benefits associated with globalization, we also now are facing a range of new threats that know no borders and move without prejudice--international crime, cyber- terrorism, drug-trafficking and infectious diseases. We are seeing a rise in the number of previously unknown lethal and potent disease agents identified since 1973--the ebola virus, hepatitis C, drug-resistant tuberculosis, West Nile virus and HIV. These diseases affect all of us, including American citizens. New Yorkers know the scare associated with these heretofore unknown diseases--last summer New York City was held captive by an encephalitis scare and new outbreaks this year have already been spotted in pigeons. There was a shock in the scientific community when it was discovered that outbreak of the mosquito-borne disease in New York was not, as scientists had believed, St Louis encephalitis: instead, it was a deadly variant of West Nile virus, a disease hitherto found only in Africa, the Middle East and parts of West Asia. United States health officials now fear that the disease may now become prevalent in the Americans. Similarly, it is foolhardly and dangerous to believe that any infectious disease can be adequately contained in one region. We are all at-risk. Militaries are not immune; in fact, they are in some cases even more susceptible to upheaval and instability from infectious diseases, especially AIDS. Some militaries in Africa have HIV-infection rates which top 40 percent. These military forces could be part of the solution for democratization in Africa in terms of peacekeeping and conflict prevention; instead, African armed services are losing their military effectiveness and adding to the social instability. It is projected that Africa will be home to 40 million children, orphaned by AIDS, by the year 2010. Zambia is a country of 11 million people--half a million of them will be AIDS orphans. We know from other regions of the world--like Cambodia and Burma--that exploited children are common targets by rogue militias and narco- and other criminal organizations. It is clearly in our interest to stem this activity. Likewise, economies are not immune. In fact, development of the last 20 years is being reversed in the countries hardest-hit by AIDS. AIDS cost Namibia almost 8 percent of its GDP in 1996. Tanzania will experience a 15 to 25 percent drop in its GDP because of AIDS over the next decade. Over the next few years, Kenya's GDP will be 14.5 percent less than it would have been absent AIDS. AIDS consumes more than 50 percent of already meager health budgets. In many African countries, the total annual per capita health-care budget is $10. 80 percent of the urban hospital beds in Malawi are filled with AIDS patients--all is a direct threat on evolving democratic development and free-market transition. Mozambique and Botswana have two of the world's fastest growing economies but this economic growth cannot be maintained when those countries' workforces are being decimated with the daily deaths of hundreds of people in their most productive years. In the Cote d'Ivoire, a teacher dies of complications associated with AIDS every school day. In South Africa, businesses owners often hire and train two employees for one job, knowing that one will probably die from AIDS. As we celebrated the passage this year of the Africa Trade bill, how can we seriously think that a vibrant market for products or investment can be formed on a continent which will lose up to 20 percent of its population in the next decade? To lure investors, the continent has already had to battle underdevelopment and racism, but now, some people in the developed world will see Africa as only as a place of disease. This is wrong and it is a direct threat to our national economic interests. Governments are not immune. This epidemic is causing leadership crises in some African countries. President Benjamin Mkapa of Tanzania reported last week that ``some ministries lose about 20 employees each month to AIDS.'' African governments are grappling with the devastation wrought by HIV on their economies and their societies. It is difficult to fathom the challenges they face with this public health crisis, and some of the actions sometimes baffle western observers. Some critics have recently pointed to the questions raised by President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa as to the origins of AIDS and as to the proper course of treatment. When it comes to dealing with AIDS, there are moral questions, there are budgetary constraints, there are political decisions. But there are also some biomedical truths. Senator Frist and I have discussed these issues with the distinguished ambassador from South Africa and followed up with President Mbeki when he came to Washington on a state visit. Leadership is necessary from both the United States and from Africa--this issue cannot be solved by one nation alone. But no one country can ignore it either. President Mbeki has focused his attention on fighting the AIDS epidemic by fighting poverty. In his remarks in Durban, he missed an opportunity by refusing to state unequivocally that HIV causes AIDS. And, I fear, his questions will allow those who engaged in risky and unsafe practices to continue. Only bashing pharmaceutical companies is not helpful in the fight against AIDS, and the participants at the International Conference on AIDS rightly passed a resolution in support of the tested science of AIDS. One can argue--and I do not at all subscribe to that argument--that Africa does not matter to the security interests of the United States. Some even mock the suggestion. I believe that this is not an issue of which any decent rational human being can be dismissive. One humanitarian terms, on political terms, on cultural terms, on economic terms, on historical terms, no one should dare be dismissive. We are linked to everything that is happening in Africa, starting back to our nation's and civilization's earliest history, and we are now tied by the new forces of globalization and technology. And I hope that we will always be tied by who we are and what we are as nation. This really tests the fiber of our country, in a sense, and questions whether we are prepared to deal with this threat. But even if you subscribe to the view that the AIDS disaster in Africa is not a threat to our national security, you have to at least recognize that unfettered spread of this horrendous virus to other regions of the world--including North America--is certainly a threat. As goes Africa, so goes India and China--and no one in this Senate can make the argument that an India or a China, destabilized by a public health catastrophe, can be ignored in terms of our national security interests. The window of opportunity is now open to making a real difference in Africa and improving global health, and that is why I am so pleased that the Senate is acting with all dispatch to make a significant contribution to fighting the epidemic in Africa. This bill builds upon the work of many of our most thoughtful and distinguished colleagues. It includes initiatives that Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Senator Frist and I began many months ago to speed vaccine development, to deal with AIDS orphans and to alleviate the suffering of those infected with HIV on the African continent. It also incorporates the plan Senator Frist, Congressman Leach and I have devised to inaugurate AIDS prevention grants from the World Bank. Senator Durbin and I proposed a plan to assist AIDS orphans, and the spirit of that legislation is found throughout this bill. Senator Boxer and Senator Gordon Smith have called for funding increases to AIDS prevention programs in Africa; Senator Moynihan and Senator Feingold have a proposal to target money to prevent further infection among infants. Their contributions can be seen in this bill. The work of the appropriators has been and will continue to be vital in funding programs to assist Africa. I commend Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell for increasing funding for the existing appropriations accounts on global health in the Foreign Operations bill and I am very grateful that they have agreed to fund the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) which I have been urging for a year now. I would also like to acknowledge the significant contribution of the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms. I commend the Chairman and our ranking member, Senator Biden, for their leadership. They have ensured that this session will not close until we have passed the largest single response by our Nation to the global AIDS epidemic. It is my hope that the other body will move to pass these vital proposals with all necessary speed. It is clearly in our national interests--security, economic, political, health and moral--to do all we can to solve this crisis. Let me be clear on this, Mr. President, my commitment to this issue is not transitory. I will not rest on this legislative victory. I will be back next year and every year after that until this public health disaster is over.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a former member of this body, Senator Edward W. Brooke. Senator Brooke has served the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as both a Massachusetts Attorney General and United States Senator. Recently, I had the privilege of attending the dedication of the New Chardon Street Courthouse in Boston on June 20th, named in honor of Senator Brooke. Given the former Senator's prestigious record of service to both the citizens of Massachusetts and the Nation, it is fitting that this honor be bestowed upon him. During his distinguished career which spanned the course of two decades, Senator Brooke earned the prominent distinction of being the first African-American directly elected to both a State Attorney General position and the United States Senate. While in each office, Senator Brooke spearheaded efforts to achieve civil rights and equality for women, minorities, and the poor. Elected Massachusetts Attorney General in 1962, Senator Brooke earned his reputation as a crime-fighter through his extensive work with the newly created Massachusetts Crime Commission. He actively combated corruption in State government and singlehandedly organized and completed the extensive investigation of the infamous ``Boston Strangler'' homicides. Only 4 years later, he became the first African-American Senator to serve since Reconstruction, and the first and only to be re-elected. During his two terms in Congress, Senator Brooke figured prominently into all aspects of the Senate. He vigorously opposed escalation of the Vietnam war and supported arms control treaties like the MIRV and ABM proposals that would eventually become the catalysts in establishing improved relations and recognizing the People's Republic of China. Senator Brooke was the first Republican Senator to call for President Nixon's resignation after the Watergate scandal. In addition, Senator Brooke was a tireless champion of the poor. He authored the ``Brooke amendment,'' which provided that public housing tenants pay no more than one-fourth of their income for housing. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the text of Senator Brooke's comments at the New Chardon Street Courthouse dedication ceremony be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, due to important family obligations, I was necessarily absent this evening during votes on the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation bill for fiscal year 2001. Mr. President, were I present, I would have voted for Senator Wellstone's amendment, number 3919. Further, were I present, I would have voted for Senator Specter's amendment, number 3958. I am a cosponsor of the amendment. It corrects an inadvertent error in the 1997 Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 that prevents Amtrak from leasing automobiles from the General Services Administration. The amendment will enable Amtrak to continue leasing such vehicles until 2003. Further, were I present, I would have voted to find Senator Durbin's amendment, number 3980, germane. I am a cosponsor of the amendment. The Agriculture Appropriation bill includes a rider that would block efforts to reform the hardrock mining industry, which has caused and continues to cause substantial environmental damage to public lands. Senator Durbin's amendment would have allowed needed reforms to proceed. I have submitted an additional statement on this issue into the Record. Finally, were I present, I would have voted for final passage of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation bill for fiscal year 2001.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Mr. Durbin to amend Section 3102 of the Agriculture Appropriation bill. Section 3102 is the latest edition in a series of riders that have prevented the Clinton Administration from reforming hardrock mining on public lands by putting in place sound environmental and fiscal protections. In past debates, proponents of these riders have argued that the hardrock mining industry has reformed its ways. They acknowledge that mining companies have made mistakes in the past. How could they not? The facts are overwhelming: More than 300,000 acres of federal lands have not been reclaimed. There are more than 2,000 abandoned mines in national parks. There are 59 Superfund sites at former mines across the country. The Mineral Policy Center estimates that the cleanup costs for abandoned mines on public and private lands may reach $72 billion. But after acknowledging this legacy of environmental damage, the proponents of these riders argue it is the result of decisions made 50 or 60 years ago--before we knew better-- before we understood that there a limits to what the environment can withstand. They tells us that a new environmental consciousness, sensitivity and awareness have taken root in the industry, and today's mines are safe because they utilize modern technology and practices. This is an important point, Mr. President. It deserves a response. I'm not out to punish the mining industry for mistakes of the past. I recognize that the mining industry has made improvements and that not all mining operations result in environmental disaster. The March 2000 National Geographic has an excellent article on the hardrock mining industry. It discusses the history of the mining in the West, its cultural heritage, its economic contribution, and its unfortunate legacy of environmental ruin. It also talks about some of the new efforts underway to lessen mining's impact on the environment. It describes Homestake Mining Company's McLaughlin gold mine near Lower Lake, California as a safe mine. The McLaughlin operation recycles and contains all processed water, the 600-acre tailings pond will eventually be converted into wetlands, and a monitoring system watches for contamination of ground water. Sierra Club and the Mineral Policy Center--two groups sharply and appropriately critical of mining operations--have praised this operation. Homestake's environmental manager at the site told National Geographic that, ``When you look at the total environmental cost, it's roughly 2 percent of our capital costs for the whole project. We want to protect the our stockholders' investment. Creating an environmental liability doesn't serve their interests or ours.'' I am confident that McLaughlin is not the only operation that is working and caring for the land, but it's just not true to say that the entire industry is reformed. There are bad actors and mistakes happen, and that is why we need tougher standards. I urge my colleagues to look at the record of the Hecla Mining Company's Grouse Creek Mine in the Salmon-Challis National Forest in Idaho. The Grouse Creek Mine opened in 1994 with great expectations. It was precisely the kind of operation we've heard about on the Senate floor: a new mine operated under a new environmental ethic, and presumably an example of why we don't need tougher protections. In August 1995, Mr. Michael White, the Vice President and General Counsel of the Hecla Mining Company, testified before the Senate that, ``The Grouse Creek Mine is a state-of-the-art facility and has been constructed not only to meet, but to exceed, existing environmental requirements.'' Mr. White continued, ``For example, road improvements that included sediment catch basins actually reduced sediment impact to Jordan Creek compared to preexisting conditions.'' Let me be clear: Mr. White promised us a state-of-the-art facility that would exceed existing environmental requirements, and he went even further to promise that the Grouse Creek Mine would actually improve the environment by reducing the sediment runoff into Jordan Creek. Hecla's chairman, Arthur Brown, said in 1995 of Grouse Creek that, ``Minimizing the environmental impact is a strong focus of Hecla.'' A Hecla company spokeswoman said in 1995, ``We believe that we need to take care of the land we are using; it's just good stewardship.'' The former Governor of Idaho, Cecil Andrus added his praise, saying ``Hecla has met every requirement we've asked of them. I can show you a thousand sins of the past that we need to clean up but modern mining is a plus.'' And the accolades continued: The Idaho Department of Lands nominated the mine for an award, and Hecla employees were honored by the US Department of Agriculture for their environmental work. It is now only 6 years latter, and Grouse Creek is an environmental disaster. In 1996--only two years after the mine opened-- the Environmental Protection Agency fined Hecla $85,000 for violating its wastewater permit. EPA found cyanide and mercury discharges that exceeded their limits by more than five times the allowed levels for over a year, and the mine was cited for excessive sediment discharge into Jordan Creek. In April 1999, Idaho officials found cyanide leaking into a stream that is habitat for the endangered chinook salmon, steelhead trout and bull trout. The cyanide levels were more than 12 times the concentrations at which chronic exposure harms fish. The environmental legacy of the now-closed mine is a tailings impoundment holding 450 million gallons of cyanide-laced water and 4.3 million tons of heavy metals. Can you imagine? The General Counsel of Hecla, Michael Smith, actually testified before the Senate in 1995 that the mine would actually improve the environmental quality of Jordan Creek. Within less than five years the operation was cited for loading Jordan Creek with excessive sediments and cyanide. The fiscal legacy is just as bad. A May editorial in the Idaho Falls Post Register reports that Hecla may walk away from the environmental mess it has created if the cost of cleanup exceeds $28 million. Before opening the mine, Hecla was only required to put up a bond of $7 million, and the company reported $120 million in losses before closing the mine. Maybe Hecla will reclaim the land, maybe it won't--it's too early to judge that issue--but clearly a system that allows part of a national forest to be turned into a toxic waste site, and leaves us negotiating cleanup, is in need of reform. And, Mr. President, more importantly, this didn't happen 50 years ago or 60 years ago. It happen 6 years ago. Grouse Creek isn't the only unfortunate example of the ``modern'' mining industry's environmental troubles. The Phelps Dodge Mining Corporation's Chino copper mine near Santa Rita, New Mexico has dumped more than 180 million gallons of contaminated wastewater into Whitewater Creek since 1987. In 1990, rainwater flushed 324,000 gallons of wastewater out of the Ray Complex mine site and into the Gila River in Arizona. Shortly after opening in 1986 the Summitville gold mine in southern Colorado began leaking cyanide, acid and heavy metals into 17 miles of the Alamosa River. Its owner is now bankrupt, the mine closed and the land has been declared a Superfund site. We need reform. Today's debate is not about sins of the past or punishing the mining industry. It is about ending a system that sells public land for as little as $2.50 per acre. A system that has allowed more than $240 billion worth of minerals to be excavated from public lands and does not collect a cent in royalties. A system that, despite all the excuses and promises, continues to allow the land to be damaged. We should not have to depend on the goodwill of the mining industry to protect public land--the rules should be clear, they should be strong and they should be enforced. American citizens should not carry the burden of fiscal and environmental irresponsibility. I thank Senator Durbin for moving to amend the hardrock mining rider. I urge other my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 2392, the Small Business Innovation Research Program Reauthorization Act of 2000. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is a great example of how government and business can work together to advance the cause of science, the diverse missions of the government, and a healthy economy. The results have been dramatic for small, high-technology companies participating in the program. Since 1983 when the program was started, some 16,000 small, high- technology firms have received more than 46,000 SBIR research awards through 1997, totaling $7.5 billion. Technological advancement is a key element of economic growth. According to a Congressional Research Service Report, Small, High Tech Companies and Their Role in the Economy: Issues in the Reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation (SBIR) Program, ``technical progress is responsible for up to one-half the growth of the U.S. economy and is one of the principal driving forces for increases in our standard of living.'' Mr. President, this bill, and the accompanying managers' amendment, are the products of months and months of work between Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, SBIR companies and SBIR advocates, the ten Federal agencies that participate in the SBIR program, and the Small Business Administration's Office of Technology and the Office of Advocacy. I want to thank Senator Bond and Senator Levin, and the members of the House Committees on Small Business and Science, and their staffs, for their hard work on this bill. Many of us had very different concerns regarding reauthorization of the SBIR program, and I greatly appreciate everyone's willingness to find common ground where possible and compromise. We wrestled with tough questions. How long to reauthorize the program? I wanted to make it permanent; it has a long and successful track record. In fact, in 1998, the Senate Committee on Small Business voted to do just that, but that legislation never passed the House. This year the Committee agreed to reauthorize the program for ten years, giving the agencies and innovative small businesses a good measure of security to plan SBIR projects for the longer term. However, the House Science Committee felt strongly that it should only be reauthorized for seven years. In the end, as reflected in this bill, we compromised on eight, reauthorizing the bill through September 30, 2008. How to improve the quality and collection of data without overburdening small businesses? GAO reports have found that the SBIR program works well, but that the records are sometimes incomplete, making it harder to evaluate the program and track awards. I fully support the goal of collecting the best information possible to evaluate the program, but I don't want small businesses owners to spend more time filling out paper work than absolutely necessary for that purpose. They are capable of developing cutting-edge research and meeting national R&D needs and should spend the majority of their efforts on that. As Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee and a Senator from the state whose small, hi-tech companies win the second largest amount of SBIR awards, I heard many, many complaints and concerns about the possibility of excessive and burdensome reporting requirements. I also heard complaints that the same level of reporting is not required of universities and big business that get Federal R&D dollars. There were real fears that Congress would require SBIR award winners to continue reporting to the SBA on SBIR research for years after a contract ended and that tracking commercialization out of context would be used against the program and against individual SBIR firms. Just knowing the ratio of awards to commercialization is not an indicator of success. By its very nature, R&D has a low probability of getting a product to market in relation to the investment in research. It is the ratio of commercialization in the SBIR program compared to that of big business, universities and the private sector that may be one indicator of the program's value to the government and to the nation. For example, one study shows that small businesses have 24 times as many innovations per R&D dollar as large businesses. In the end, we agreed to collect basic, but useful, information about sales and additional investment on Phase II awards. According to the Department of Defense that currently requires similar information, it generally takes less than 15 minutes to provide the information, and companies are only required to give the information during the life of the contract. Probably the biggest question we dealt with was how to increase the participation in the SBIR program in states, and areas of states, that receive few or no awards. Though the number of awards given to a state has been proportionate to the number of proposals submitted, according to a GAO study, one-third of the states receive 85 percent of all SBIR awards. And the states that submit the most proposals generally have the right mix of small high-tech companies, an active venture capital community, and universities that understand the benefits of technology transfer, attract academic research funds and graduate a highly qualified workforce. While Massachusetts does extremely well in this program, for years I have recognized that the SBIR awards have been concentrated in less than half the states. The problem has been how to create a solution that helps small businesses in states that don't have the necessary infrastructure without changing the program's reliance on competition. Merit is the only way to maintain the integrity of the research because the highly competitive nature of SBIR awards (only one in seven or eight Phase I proposals is awarded) is one of the main reasons the program has been so popular and successful. This bill takes two innovative approaches to increasing nationwide participation in the program. First, it establishes a peer volunteer mentoring network, which Senator Levin and I originally introduced as S. 1435 in 1999. Modeled after SBA's successful Service Corps of Retired Executives or SCORE program, this mentoring program would reimburse experienced SBIR companies that volunteer to assist one or more newcomers to the program. They can help in a variety of ways, whether it's writing proposals, understanding the Federal procurement process or a particular agency, tapping into venture capital, or commercializing their technologies. The bill also directs the SBA to create a database with the names and profiles of successful SBIR companies interested in mentoring struggling or prospective SBIR companies. This will be used by the states to link companies to mentors based on their needs. Second, it creates the Federal and State Technology Partnership (FAST) program. This program is a competitive matching-grant program to encourage and help states cultivate high-tech small businesses and a build a support infrastructure in the state. I feel strongly, as does Senator Levin, and am very pleased, that all states, even the ones that currently win the most SBIR awards, are eligible to compete for a FAST matching grant so that they can help develop small, hi-tech companies in areas of their states that don't have SBIR activity. For example, in Massachusetts, most of our awards are in the Boston area. But with these grants, working with one of the economic development arms of our local government, we could coordinate and foster SBIR activity in the Western part of the state close to Amherst and Northampton. Those companies could create high-quality, high-wage jobs where the cost structure for companies is less expensive but where we have numerous universities and highly-skilled workers. Given the strength of these initiatives, I do have some concerns about mentoring getting lost in the states' FAST initiatives. For the record, I ask that the SBA, the program managers of participating SBIR agencies, and FAST entities promote this cost-effective tool. Take advantage of the substantial pool of good-will and willingness to share experiences of those who have been successful in the SBIR program. Let SBIR companies know that they will be reimbursed for relevant out-of- pocket expenses if they choose to become a volunteer mentor. It gives them another stake in this program, and will strengthen the program on many levels. And, SBA and SBIR agencies should let prospective or struggling SBIR companies know that veteran SBIR companies are out there willing to help them understand the world of SBIR and federal procurement. Mr. President, these research and development awards not only provide dollars to small hi-tech companies that create quality jobs, but they also help agencies meet their R&D needs. As one example, an Army SBIR award played a role in the development of the B-2 Bomber. Specifically, the research led to the development of a ``pilot alert'' system which warns the pilot if the plane is about to produce a trail of condensation that could be detected by enemy radar. Sales to date, to both the Air Force and commercial customers, exceed $27 million. And what about NASA? As the world watched the space shuttle Discovery in 1998, the feature elements of two of the shuttle's payloads were developed with SBIR funds. In Woburn, Massachusetts, NZ-Applied Technologies used its SBIR award to help develop photonic components for optical telecommunications applications. The company is so successful that Corning recently bought it for $150 million. Further, the company was named as one of the top 50 fastest growing companies in New England and top 500 fastest growing companies in the country. I want to thank my colleagues for their support of the SBIR program over the years. As always, I am pleased that we can work in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate passed the Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. Included in that legislation is a rider that exempts the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire from the Forest Service's Roadless Initiative. While I supported the passage of the Interior Appropriations bill, I want to express my concern over this rider. I am concerned because the White Mountain National Forest is a national resource, and it is completely appropriate for the federal government to set forth policies to conserve and protect a national resource. Many of my constituents in Massachusetts hike, camp, sightsee and enjoy the great natural lands of the White Mountains. In fact, it was a Massachusetts Congressman, John Weeks, who sponsored the legislation creating the White Mountain National Forest. When the Forest Service sought comment on a new management plan for the forest, more than 54 percent of all comments were submitted by Massachusetts residents. Proponents of the rider have argued that its purpose is to protect local control of forest management. Certainly local residents should have input in the management of the forest. I urge local participation in decisions at Cape Cod National Seashore. However, it sets a bad precedent when one forest is exempted from a national policy to protect the national interest. Despite these concerns I did not move to strike this rider. The reason, ironically, is that I'm confident that the White Mountain National Forest will remain protected because of local input. Time and again, the local process, driven by the citizens of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, has resulted in sound management of the White Mountain National Forest. So, while I oppose the amendment for the precedent it will set, I expect and hope that it will have almost no impact on the health of the forest.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to clarify for the record the intent of language included in Section 326 of the Interior 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 wasteful bureaucratic redundancies. We don't want to spend money in Washington duplicating positions and processes. We want money in the field helping local communities. The language in Section 326 refers to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which is coordinated by an interagency committee that serves that purpose for communities seeking technical assistance and opportunities for Federal grants. I would like to point out that this initiative has proven to work well for the participating communities in my state and others. It is my understanding that this language does not prohibit Federal agencies funded through this appropriation from working on or coordinating with each other to support American Heritage Rivers projects. Further, I understand that this language does prohibit the use of resources derived from this bill for funding personnel, training or administration of the activities of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the Santorum/ Lieberman amendment being offered to the Estate Tax bill. This amendment gives the Senate the opportunity to vote on broad economic development policies originally introduced a few weeks ago as S. 2779, the American Community Renewal and New Markets Empowerment Act. Of the many important and innovative provisions in this legislation, I would like to focus on the community development and venture capital initiative and full funding for Round II of Empowerment Zones. Mr. President, as my colleagues may remember last year I introduced the Community Development and Venture Capital Act. The purpose of community development and venture capital is to stimulate economic development through public-private partnerships that invest venture capital in smaller businesses. Not just any small businesses, but those that are located in impoverished rural and urban areas, known as new markets, or that employ low-income people. We call these areas new markets because of the overlooked business opportunities. According to Michael Porter, a respected professor at Harvard and business analyst who has written extensively on competitiveness, ``. . . inner cities are the largest underserved market in America, with many tens of billions of dollars of unmet consumer and business demand.'' Both innovative and fiscally sound, my new markets initiative is financially structured similar to Small Business Administration (SBA)'s successful Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program, and incorporates a technical assistance component similar to that successfully used in SBA's microloan program. However, unlike the SBIC program which focuses solely on small businesses with high-growth potential and claims successes such as Staples and Calaway Golf, the New Markets Venture Capital program will focus on smaller businesses that show promise of financial and social returns, such as jobs--what we call a ``double bottomline.'' To get at the complex and deep-rooted economic problems in new market areas, my initiative has three parts: a venture capital program to funnel investment money into our poorest communities, a program to expand the number of venture capital firms that are devoted to investing in such communities, and a mentoring program to link established, successful businesses with businesses and entrepreneurs in stagnant or deteriorating communities in order to facilitate the learning curve. What I'm trying to do as Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, and have been working with the SBA to achieve, is expand investment in our neediest communities by building on the economic activity created by loans. I think one of the most effective ways to do that is to spur venture capital investment in our neediest communities. Building on part of the President's and Speaker Hastert's agreement, this amendment secures full, mandatory funding for Round II empowerment zones. In Massachusetts--specifically Boston--this amounts to a little more than $93 million. Now, I know many of my colleagues are in the same boat because they have empowerment zones in their states--Ohio, South Carolina, Florida, California--but let me just give you the history of why this funding is so important. Funding for Round II empowerment zones started in 1998. So far, however, the money has dribbled in--only $6.6 million of the $100 million authorized over ten years--and made it impossible for Boston, and other empowerment zones, to implement its plan for economic self-sufficiency. In Boston, 80 public and private entities, from universities to technology companies to banks to local government, showed incredible community spirit and committed to matching the EZ money, eight to one. Let me say it another way--these groups agreed to match the $100 million in Federal Empowerment Zone money with $800 million. Yet, and regrettably so, in spite of this incredible alliance, the city of Boston has not been able to tap into that leveraged money and implement the strategic plan because Congress hasn't held its part of the bargain. I am extremely pleased that we were able to find a way to provide full, steady funding to these zones. That money means education, daycare, transportation and basic health care in areas--in Massachusetts that includes 57,000 residents who live in Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattipan--where almost 50 percent of the children are living in poverty and nearly half the residents over 25 don't even have a high school diploma. Mr. President, this bill goes further than funding empowerment zones and establishing incentives to attract venture capital into distressed communities. It enhances education opportunities, creates individual development accounts to help low-income families save and invest in their future, increases affordable housing, improves access to technology in our classrooms and creates incentives to help communities remediate brownfields. I thank my colleagues for their work on this legislation.

Mr. KERRY. Does the Senator from Texas have any time left?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to offer an amendment to the estate tax repeal bill. This amendment would establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund to fill the growing gap in our ability to provide affordable housing in this country. Over the past two decades, income and wealth disparities in our country have increased. The gap between the rich and the poor has widened. Even our robust economy has not been able to bridge the great divide between the haves and have-nots. This great divide remains impassable for millions of Americans who struggle to survive on the minimum wage. This divide remains impassable for millions of Americans who have no health insurance, no prescription drug coverage. This divide remains impassable for millions of Americans who cannot afford housing, child care, or a college education, who cannot afford to even finish high school because they must drop out and work in order to support their family. Despite the economic boom that heralded in the new millennium, poverty rates in our country have dropped only marginally. Today, 1 out of ever 5 children still lives in poverty, compared with 1 out of every 7 in the 1970s. The number of families living in extreme poverty--on less than $6,750 a year for a family of 3--has increased from 13.9 million in 1995 to 14.6 million in 1997. Over the 1990's, the average real income of high-income families grew by 15 percent, while average income grew by less than 2 percent for middle-income families and remained the same for the lowest-income families. I ask, with the futures of so many lower- and middle-income Americans hanging in the balance, what is the majority in Congress doing? What is the majority in Congress defining as a top priority? Would you believe a tax cut for the richest of the rich? Indeed they have. It is before us today. A tax break for the highest income earners in our country. A fiscally irresponsible tax cut which stands to threaten our non-Social Security surplus and undercut the critical investments we should be making in the future of all Americans. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Republican proposal to repeal the estate tax will cost $105 billion over the first 10 years, as it slowly phases in. Once the repeal has been fully implemented, it will cost an additional $50 billion each year. That comes out to roughly three-quarters of a trillion dollars over 20 years. Three-quarters of a trillion dollars is a generous hand-out, Mr. President. But into exactly whose hands does it fall? Does it go to the senior citizen who has survived one heart attack only to find that she cannot afford her cholesterol lowering medication? Does it go to the decorated homeless veteran who cannot afford to put a roof over his head? Does it go to the graduating high school senior who cannot afford to pay tuition and be the first generation of his family to go to college? The simple answer is no. The estate tax repeal would give the Forbes 400 richest Americans a windfall of $250 billion--that is enough to pay for prescription drug coverage, housing costs, and college scholarships for millions of Americans. The majority's priorities are misguided, irresponsible, and an affront to the American public. Don't get me wrong; I support targeted estate tax relief for small businesses and family farms. Owners of small businesses and farms should neither be penalized for their success nor denied the opportunity to pass their family businesses on to future generations. And the Democratic alternative which I support would increase the exemption for family-owned small businesses and farms from $1.3 million to $4 million by 2001, and to $8 million by 2010. But the outright repeal proposed by the majority goes far beyond what is necessary to save family businesses and family farms. Let's be clear: The majority is serious about one thing--unwise, unrealistic, and untenable tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at a time when the Federal tax burden has shrunk to its lowest level in four decades; at a time when low- and middle-income Americans are struggling to afford decent health care, housing, and education. I ask my colleagues, does anyone really believe that Donald Trump, Bill Gates, or Steve Forbes needs a tax cut? Does anyone really believe that before doing anything to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, we should provide a tax break to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans who control 40 percent of the wealth in this Nation? Apparently, the majority believes it. That is their idea of tax fairness: millions for the rich, not a penny for the middle class. The bottom line is: the Republican proposal mortgages America's future. It threatens our ability to reduce interest rates and protect the economy, to help secure a strong Social Security system for our nation's retirees, to modernize Medicare by establishing a prescription drug benefit for seniors and the disabled, and to provide educational assistance for those that want to climb up the ladder. There are many more worthwhile investments we could be making with the $750 billion this bill hands out to the extremely wealthy. I am offering an amendment to ensure that we make at least one of these critical investments--an investment in housing. The booming economy is fueling rising housing costs. While housing prices and costs skyrocket at record pace, many families are unable to keep up. Even during this time of great economic expansion, the housing crisis in this country worsens, quickly becoming a national disgrace. HUD estimates that 5.4 million low-income households have ``worst case'' housing needs. This means they are paying over half their income towards housing costs or living in severely substandard housing. In the past decade, the number of families who have ``worst case'' housing needs has increased by 12 percent--that's 600,000 more American families who cannot afford a decent and safe place to live. For these families living paycheck to paycheck, one unforseen circumstance, a sick child, a car repair bill, can send them into homelessness. Another recent study actually estimates that 13.7 million households have critical housing needs, including 6 million working and 3.7 million elderly households. Moreover, there is not one metropolitan area in the country where a person making minimum wage can afford to pay the rent for a two-bedroom apartment. A person needs to earn over $11 an hour to afford the median rent for a two bedroom apartment in this country. This figure rises dramatically in many metropolitan areas: an hourly wage of $22 is needed in San Francisco; $21 on Long Island; $17 in Boston; $16 in the D.C. area; $14 in Seattle and Chicago; and $13 in Atlanta. We have to remember that there are real people behind these numbers-- real people who are struggling to keep their families housed each month. The stories are a testament to the need for increased affordable housing. Let me give you a few. On Cape Cod, Susan O'Donnell a mother of three, earns $21,000 a year working full-time. Nonetheless, she is forced to live in a campground because she can not find affordable housing. The campground she is living at has time limits, so the only way she is able to stay for a prolonged period of time is through cleaning the campground's toilets. When her time runs out at the campground, she will again be forced to move with her three children, though it is not clear where she will be able to afford to move. Skyrocketing housing costs have pushed her, and other full-time workers on the Cape out of their housing and into homelessness. Janitors who work at high-tech companies in Silicon Valley are living in egregious conditions, including several large families living in single-family homes and others renting out garages for families to live in--garages which can cost $750 a month. Maria Godinez, of San Jose, works full time for Sun Microsystems making $8 an hour. She shares one bedroom of a single-family house with her husband and five children; 22 people live in that house. Not too far from where we are today, in Fairfax County, VA, Anita Salathe and her two children live in a shelter despite her having a job and a voucher for assisted housing--there just are not enough affordable housing units. The homelessness rate in Fairfax County has increased by 21 percent in the last two years. Full-time workers are living in shelters because their paychecks are not rising fast enough to keep pace with their growing housing costs. These stories are all too common. As housing costs rise around America, more working families are being pushed closer to homelessness. Despite these abysmal stories, we have decreased Federal spending on critical housing programs over time. From fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1999, we engaged in what I call the ``Great HUDway Robbery,'' diverting or rescinding over $20 billion from Federal housing programs for other uses. With a few exceptions, the funding increases of this past year have gone primarily to cover the rising costs of serving existing assisted families. Affordable housing units are being lost. Between 1993 and 1995, a loss of 900,000 rental units affordable to very low-income families occurred. From 1996 to 1998, there was a 19 percent reduction in the number of affordable housing units. This amounted to a dramatic reduction of 1.3 million affordable housing units available to low- income Americans. We need to bring our levels of housing spending back up to where they belong. Between 1978 and 1995, the Government increased the number of households receiving housing assistance by almost 3 million. From 1978 through 1984, we provided an additional 230,000 families with housing assistance each year. This number dropped significantly to 126,000 additional households each year from 1985 to 1995. If we hoped things could not get worse, in 1996 this nations' housing policy hit a brick wall. Not only was there no increase in families receive housing assistance, but the number of assisted units actually decreased. From 1996 to 1998, the number of HUD assisted households dropped by 51,000. In this time of rising rents and housing costs, and the loss of affordable housing units, it is incomprehensible that we are not doing more to bring the levels of housing assistance back from the dead. It is high time that we focused on housing policies in Congress and around the country. Housing is an anchor for families. When we focus our efforts on other social issues like education and health care, it is beyond comprehension that housing does not take a front seat in these discussions. It is no secret that neighborhood and living environment play enormous roles in shaping young lives. It should not be news that housing assistance, which helps a family maintain a stable home, is positive for low-income children. We know that a child can not learn if he has to attend 3 or 4 schools in a single year, if his family moves from relative to relative to friend to friend because his parents can't afford the rent. A recent study conducted by Johns Hopkins University helps to show that housing assistance is beneficial. Housing assistance makes it easier to get and retain a job by providing stability. We need to ensure that every American family has these same opportunities. We need to address the lack of opportunity, the lack of affordable housing. I am proposing to address this severe shortage of affordable housing by establishing a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. While we are considering a bill which allows the wealthy to pass on large estates and homes to their families, let's ensure that all Americans can afford a place to live. My proposal would create an affordable housing production program, ensuring that new rental units are built for those who most need assistance--extremely low-income families, including working families. In addition, Trust Fund assistance will be used to promote homeownership for low-income families, those families whose incomes are below 80 percent of the area median income. The Trust Fund aims to create long-term affordable, mixed-income developments in areas with the greatest opportunities for low-income families. A majority of assistance from the Trust Fund will be given out as matching grants to the States which will distribute funds on a competitive basis like the low-income housing tax credit. Localities, non-profits, developers and other entities will be eligible to apply for funds. The remaining 25 percent of the Trust Fund assistance will be distributed through a national competition to intermediaries, such as large, national non-profits which will be required to leverage private funds. This proposal will bring Federal, State and private resources together to create needed affordable housing opportunities for American families. When we allow families in this country to live in severely distressed housing, or in situations where they are forced to move from place to place, American children suffer--they have behavioral problems, they suffer from more health problems, and they do worse in school. I think the American people understand that helping children escape these problems today will pay us back tenfold in the years to come. I think the American people understand how we can measure what actually counts in America. I think they know that housing is more than a word or a government program--it is the quality of life--it is how we measure our lives and it is how we ought to take the measure of our nation. I urge you to support this amendment which restores our commitment to providing affordable housing for all families. We should not vote to ensure that the wealthiest Americans can retain more of their incomes and estates, while turning our back on those families who struggle each month just to put a roof over their heads.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Inouye, Sarbanes, Dodd, and Wellstone be added as original cosponsors.

Mr. KERRY. Does that mean if I speak for 1 minute the Senator will vote with me?

Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, I don't know whether I misheard the majority leader or whether he said 10 minutes equally divided; I think he means 20 minutes equally divided.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jennifer Fogul-Bublick, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during this debate.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Correct; they can do it today.

Mr. KERRY. With that understanding, I am afraid I have to refrain from this colloquy.