John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the Senator from Michigan. In the 16 years I have been here, I have debated a number of these issues with my colleague from Virginia. We have debated a number of different incursions in various countries, involvement of U.S. troops abroad. There are few people in the Senate I respect as much or have as much affection for as the Senator from Virginia, whose knowledge and patriotism are absolutely unquestionable on subjects such as this. I, as a veteran of Vietnam and as somebody who came back from that war to argue about Congress's capacity and prerogatives to make judgments about our involvement there, have nothing but respect for the position he espouses today about congressional prerogative. It exists. We should respect it. It is a critical component of the balance of power in this country. It is entirely appropriate that Senator Byrd and Senator Warner ask the Senate to make a judgment about our troops. We should do no less. We owe the American people that judgment. That is one of the great prerogatives of the Senate. What they are asking the Senate to do is, in effect, to make the judgment today that we have reached our limit with respect to the current involvement in Kosovo and we are going to set up a structure for withdrawal. They argue: not at all; there is a vote down the road as to whether or not we will appropriate money. But in point of fact, the way this amendment is structured, the message is clear: The vote is now; the choice is whether or not we believe we should continue to be involved. I do not question that there are aspects of this involvement that I think are not necessarily well thought out even today. I think there are divisions between the ethnic parties in Kosovo that we have not properly thought through as to how we resolve them in the long run. There are aspects of the risks we are asking young American troops, male and female, to bear with which I am uncomfortable. I am not suggesting there aren't ways to strengthen our approach to this, both our responsibilities and European responsibilities. But-- here is the ``but''--I ask my colleagues to look at the law as it is set forth in the language of S. 2521. It says: None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available shall be available for the continued deployment of U.S. combat troops in Kosovo after July 1, 2001, unless and until the President does something. What does the President have to do? He has to submit a report to Congress asking for the money to be spent but, most importantly, describing the specific progress made in implementing a plan. What is the plan the President has to describe to Congress on which he is making progress? The plan refers to a subsection (b). If we turn to it, it says very specifically: The President shall develop a plan, in consultation with appropriate foreign governments, by which NATO member countries, with the exception of the United States, and appropriate non-NATO countries will provide, not later than July 1, 2001, any and all ground combat troops necessary to execute Operation Joint Guardian or any successor operation in Kosovo. That means, according to the plan he must now begin to put into effect, he must report to us how far along we are in getting out. There are quarterly target dates that that plan requires us to establish, with 3-month intervals, achieving an orderly transition. There is an interim plan for achieving the objectives not later than September 30, 2000, and then there is the final plan. We are, in effect, being asked to vote today on a plan for withdrawal. We are stating our intention that, absent a future vote at some later time, which has been met with a succession of interim stages of withdrawal, we will have a vote on appropriations. I say to my colleagues, that is not the way to deal with foreign policy generally. It is certainly not the way to deal with this specific issue. Why is it not the way to deal with this specific issue? Well, effectively, we are being asked to vote today as to whether or not we think the investment we made in the war itself is worthwhile. On March 23, 1999, I joined with 57 of our colleagues to vote that we thought there was something worthwhile doing in Kosovo. And we voted to support a resolution that authorized the President to conduct military operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I did so because I believed then, as I believe now, that the U.S. national interest and stability throughout Europe is unquestionable and that the oppression and thuggery of the Milosevic regime not only threatened that stability throughout Europe, but it posed an unacceptable challenge to the humanitarian values of the American people. Mr. President, this Nation committed 50 years and trillions of dollars to protecting the security of Europe through the Marshall Plan. Half a million American troops served in Europe to preserve the peace won by our fathers and grandfathers in World War II. I respectfully suggest that the Senate effectively decided, when we voted to do those military operations, that we were not willing to walk away from the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo because that would have been walking away from the very investment in peace and freedom for which we paid so dearly. It troubles me, then, to say that today some of the most stalwart supporters of our efforts in Kosovo only a year ago would now say that we should effectively put into gear the process of walking away from whatever responsibilities may remain in terms of how we adequately finish the job. I share the frustration of my colleagues that our European allies, whose own stability is so closely tied to peace in the Balkans, have not met their obligations to the Kosovo peacekeeping effort as swiftly and as deftly as we would like. I want to underscore that I think the efforts of Senator Byrd and Senator Warner have helped to place that responsibility squarely in front of them. Let me ask a simple question of my colleagues. If restoring the peace in Kosovo was in our interest 1 year ago, isn't preserving the peace in Kosovo in our interest today? I don't believe you can separate those obligations. I think the answer is resoundingly yes, it is in our interest today. Some people may rethink their vote, and that is perfectly legitimate. Some people may believe that they misinterpreted that national interest, and they should explain it as such. But I don't understand how this country can clearly define its interest in Europe for the 50 years since World War II and maintain hundreds of thousands of troops in Europe in order to make clear our determination to stay with that peace effort and not be willing to keep 5,000-plus troops in Kosovo, which we all deem to be a component of our European interests. I don't understand that. Are we suggesting that we are not willing to bear any of those risks? Now, I understand as well as anybody the post-Vietnam syndrome and the sort of nervousness people have about putting troops in harm's way. But I am confident that most of my colleagues who have worn the uniform will share with me the belief that that is what you put it on for, and that being in the military is not a cakewalk to get your GI bill so that you can ride on the benefits for the rest of your life; it is assuming certain risks. Sometimes in the national interest of our country--maybe not the vital security interest, but in a security interest, or some level of interest--there are sometimes risks that we have to be willing to bear to achieve our goals. The price of leadership that we have spent so much of our treasure earning is not cheap. You can't fulfill the obligations that we have in the world on the fly. You can't do it on the cheap. I know there are certain questions of readiness and other questions, but there are many choices we make with respect to the entire military budget, national missile defense, and others that bear significantly on where we spend money and how we spend money. I believe that we won an enormously important victory in terms of the values that drive our foreign policy and on which this country is founded. I think 5,000 troops, the lack of losses, and the extraordinary accomplishments we have gained in this region over the last years say to us that even with the difficulties, this is a policy that, measured against the risk to our troops, is worth pursuing. I ask my colleagues to measure very carefully whether or not they are prepared today to send a message to Milosevic, as well as our allies, that we are not willing to stand the test of time with respect to those obligations and responsibilities. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I assume that comes off their time?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my great privilege today to introduce to my colleagues in the Senate a very special person who is here with us, a long time friend of mine and a true leader, nationally as well as in Massachusetts, the Rev. Eugene Rivers. Reverend Rivers is the pastor of the Azusa Christian Community in Four Corners, which is an inner-city community in Boston. He honored the Senate today by delivering our opening prayer, asking particularly that each and every one of us are bestowed with the wisdom to turn our fears into courage so that we will have the power to make good decisions even in bad situations. I think those words are particularly important to us in the context of this debate in the last few days. Not only should we be touched by Gene Rivers' words this morning, but I emphasize to my colleagues the degree to which the words of this person of the cloth and the acts of life come from his heart. As someone who knows him and has worked with him and has been inspired by him, I can tell my colleagues that he is the living embodiment of the words he shared with us today. Those words reflect the important work that he has made his life's work--walking often in places of danger, always in places of difficulty, in order to try to bring the word of God and the spirit to our fellow citizens--in fact, the citizens of the world. Gene Rivers comes from a place that understands some of the toughest fights in our country. He was born and raised in south Chicago and in northwest Philadelphia. He found himself in a bad situation as a gang member. He was struggling to break free from the life that he knew was either going to take him to jail or to a cemetery. After, from that difficult life of the streets, Reverend Rivers persevered and he attended Harvard University and then did studies at the Divinity School. Ultimately, he has returned to the streets to live out his inner self in the spirit that commands his life. He has been part of what we call the Boston Miracle. As he puts it, he has let God use him to fight the gangs. Most recently, through his tremendous efforts in Boston, with Operation 2006 and the Baker House, my staff and I have seen Gene Rivers go out into the community, knocking on doors, standing on street corners to develop the services and assistance and the inspiration that so many young people need. He works very closely with the law enforcement authorities in helping to defuse the danger of the gangs. As a consequence of his hands-on efforts, we went through, I think, almost a 2-year period in which we had not one young person killed in the city of Boston. He is consistently working to try to defuse those kinds of situations. Because of his direct hands-on action, Operation 2006 reduces juvenile violence and it brings the community together in ways that perhaps no one in public life could do without that special kind of connection. I might add that, since then, Gene Rivers has tackled a much larger call beyond Massachusetts. The Senate this year has become particularly aware of the devastation taking place in Africa as a result of the AIDS epidemic. Gene Rivers has tackled that issue, challenging leaders in Africa, as well as leaders here, to engage in a candid discussion that tries to bring us all together in a united effort to deal with this terrible scourge. He has helped to make us all aware of the responsibility to do something about this, and he has had an impact. Reverend Rivers was, in fact, the subject of a cover story in Newsweek magazine, I think a little over a year ago. They described him as an ``intellectual burst of firecrackers spinning off ideas and energy.'' He has been called an ``impolitic preacher'' and a man of action. Today, I simply want to thank him for always answering the call of leadership, for battling, from every day for the souls and safety of our inner-city kids to standing up to halt the spread of AIDS throughout Africa. I thank him for being a great voice of our generation, and he graces us with his wisdom and his prayers. I extend my heartfelt thanks to Rev. Eugene Rivers for his guidance, his friendship, and his leadership.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to share just a few words about a good friend we recently lost, someone I have known since I first ran for Lieutenant Governor in Massachusetts in 1982, a good hearted and selfless individual who was always an inspiration, Jo-Ann Molnar. Jo-Ann recently passed away after bravely battling cancer, and I know that I am not alone in saying that as someone whose life was touched by Jo-Ann Molnar's service, activism, and warmth, there is today a deep and profound sense of loss. In Jo-Ann many of us have lost--and today I would like to honor--a committed activist, a person of enormous courage and character and, most simply, a great friend. I first met Jo-Ann Molnar when I became involved in politics in the 1970s. Jo-Ann approached me at one of our earliest events and offered to help in any way she could. Jo-Ann was one of those individuals who-- through her commitment to do what is right, through her belief in politics not as sport but as a fight for principle--could reaffirm precisely why politics matters and why public service is worthwhile. Jo-Ann and I remained in touch ever since that first involvement, and I looked forward to and always appreciated Jo-Ann's warm cards and greetings. Always a loyal friend, Jo-Ann would share with me her thoughts on issues of importance, keep me abreast of her accomplishments, and offer me words of encouragement as I worked through the challenges of the United States Senate. It was through her frequent cards and letters--and the occasional happy meeting either in Massachusetts or at political gatherings around the Maryland area--that I learned of the many ways in which Jo-Ann continued to dedicate herself to public service. Her determination to make a difference led her to remarkable achievements. In 1977, Jo-Ann graduated magna cum laude from Fairleigh Dickinson University, with a degree in history and political science. She went on to earn a master's degree in political science from American University. Jo-Ann selflessly offered her leadership to her fellow Democrats, serving admirably as President of the Montgomery County, Maryland Young Democrats, as Vice Chair of the Handicapped Commission in Montgomery County, and on the Board of Directors of the Montgomery County public libraries. In addition to her help with my campaigns, Jo-Ann served as a legislative intern to U.S. Senator Donald Reigle, U.S. Representative Gene Andrew Maguire, and Montgomery County Council member Michael L. Gudis. She also worked as a Congressional Liaison Assistant for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. For almost a decade, Jo-Ann served as a legal researcher for the Human Relations Commission. She gave of herself as a Sunday School teacher and a confirmation teacher at the Foundary United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C, as well as an instructor at Colesville United Methodist Church in Silver Spring, Maryland. Mr. President, Jo-Ann lived a life true to her ideals of service-- service to community, service to faith. I would add, though, that none of these achievements would have been possible if Jo-Ann had not worked so hard to overcome cerebral palsy. Jo-Ann refused to be slowed by her disability--and in fact rejected the notion that she should in any way lower her expectations for herself or expect different expectations from those to whom she so selflessly offered her best efforts. Jo-Ann was a fighter, and I continually marveled at her drive to rise above what some would view as limitations. For that reason, Jo-Ann served as one of the best possible advocates and activists for the Americans with Disabilities Act. Honored as a teenager for her activism on the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Jo-Ann kept pushing as an adult to break down barriers in our society that she believed kept disabled Americans from maximizing their contributions to their communities and our nation. Jo-Ann was not just an advocate for legislation to protect and empower disabled Americans-- she was the living embodiment of those efforts. Mr. President, it is difficult to accept that we have all lost a friend in Jo-Ann Molnar, but it is particularly difficult, I know, for Jo-Ann's family--her mother, Helen, and her two sisters, Dorothy and Ilona. They are in our thoughts and prayers. I was comforted, though, to learn that Jo-Ann was able to enjoy life as she had always done, up until her last days. Jo-Ann's mother, Helen, let me know that she had a wonderful Christmas with her family and was able to attend a New Millennium New Year's Eve celebration, complete with the 60's rock music she loved. Just as she did throughout her life, even in her most difficult days, Jo-Ann kept on doing the things that she loved--and she moved forward in so many remarkable efforts driven by a real sense of social conscience. Mr. President, today I remember Jo-Ann for her service, her friendship, and her kindness. All of us who knew her continue to draw strength from her courage and her faith, and Jo-Ann's life continues to inspire.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to lend my support to the Daschle sense of the Senate, which commends the organizers and marchers of the Million Mom March and urges the juvenile justice conference include the Senate-passed gun control measures in its report and to issue its report by the Memorial Day recess. I support the gun control measures that are contained in the juvenile justice bill that was debated and passed by the Senate last July and I sincerely hope that the conference will meet to finish their work on this critically important bill. I am deeply troubled by the numbers of people--and particularly the number of children--that are wounded or killed by gunfire each year. And, Mr. President, I know that all of America understands that the impact of gun violence on children is staggering. Listen to some of these statistics, Mr. President: The National Center for Health Statistics found that in 1997 almost 12 children died every day from gunfire. The gun homicide rate for children under 15 is sixteen times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. Between 1979 and 1997, gunfire killed nearly 80,000 children and teens in America--25,000 more than the total number of American soldiers killed in battle in Vietnam. Firearms wounded an additional 320,000 children during this same period. In a single year 4,205 children and teens were killed by gunfire. Those 4,205 deaths are equal to the number of passengers on eight jumbo jets, 90 school buses full of children, and more than an entire high school graduating class of a school the size of Columbine every school month. Nearly three times as many children under ten died from gunfire as the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. Children are twice as likely as adults to be victims of violent crime, and more likely to be killed by adults than by other children. Homicide is the third leading cause of death among children aged five to fourteen. Mr. President, these statistics reveal why it is of such considerable consequence that we complete work on the juvenile justice bill. We cannot ignore the violent reality that so many of our children face. The Senate has debated and passed the a very good piece of legislation that seeks to reduce gun violence among our young people. All we are asking, Mr. President--all that we have been debating here today--is that the juvenile justice conference meet, that they finish their business and issue their report, and that the Congress vote on the conference report. The juvenile justice bill is being made controversial, Mr. President, but it does not need to be. The Senate-passed juvenile justice bill would enhance efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children, by closing the gun show loophole which currently permits sales at gun shows without a background check; by prohibiting the sale or transfer by a licensed dealer of a handgun without a secure gun storage or safety device; by closing the loophole in the law that permits the importation of large-capacity ammunition clips; by keeping guns out of the hands of serious juvenile offenders by banning gun sales to juveniles with violent crime records; by expanding the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative to 250 cities by 2003 to enhance efforts to trace guns used in crimes and identify and arrest adults who sell guns to children; by requiring the FTC and the Attorney General to study the extent to which the gun industry markets and distributes its products to juveniles; by increasing penalties on ``straw purchases'' to curb the transfer of firearms to individuals who cannot purchase them legally--juveniles, felons, fugitives, and stalkers; and by banning juvenile possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and high- capacity ammunition clips. Mr. President, I don't think it is necessary to get bogged down in a protracted, partisan debate over this legislation. The Senate must come together to address the horrible number casualties caused by gun violence in this country. The juvenile justice bill that we have debated and passed will make our communities, our schools, and our cities safer for this nation's young people. And, Mr. President, I think it is a critical first step to addressing the problem of gun violence that this legislation be moved through conference and voted on. But Mr. President, I understand that common-sense gun control measures are not a silver bullet capable--by themselves--of solving this tragic problem. We must do much more, Mr. President, than just close the gun show loophole, we must also increase enforcement of existing gun laws at the federal, state, and local levels. We must increase our investment in and commitment to early learning programs. We must also improve and reform our public schools. We must ensure that our students have meaningful after-school programs to keep young people off the streets at the times in which juvenile crime rates are highest. We must enable communities to hire full-time, school based police officers under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program to prevent and respond to disorder and violence in our schools. We must allocate funding for school counselors to assist in identifying troubled students and providing them with the necessary resources and attention to address their problems. We must support partnerships between schools, families, and law enforcement to build relationships, establish anti-truancy programs and mentoring and conflict resolution programs in schools and communities. But if we are truly committed to ending the terrible trend of gun violence in this country, than we must also implement gun control measures. It is going to take much, much more to deal with this horrendous problem than passing the juvenile justice bill, but this legislation is critical to reducing gun violence. Mr. President, I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that another very important component of reducing gun violence is improving the enforcement of existing gun laws. I believe we should provide additional funding for ATF agents to crack down on gun dealers who violate federal laws and expand the highly-successful Project Exile program nationwide. I do not view gun control measures and enforcement provisions as mutually exclusive. I do not believe that we must choose between more gun control legislation or tougher enforcement. This is a false choice. The American people want a comprehensive approach that includes common-sense gun legislation; tougher enforcement; and closing the loopholes that exist in current law. Increased enforcement--at the federal, state, and local levels--is a critical component of a comprehensive approach to ending gun violence. We have improved our enforcement efforts over the last few years and I think we should step-up our efforts to improve enforcement. Department of Justice statistics show a 41 percent increase in the number of federal gun felons sentenced to more than five years in prison since 1993, and a 16 percent increase in the number of gun cases filed. The number of higher-level offenders--those sentenced to five or more years--has gone up nearly 30 percent in five years. Mr. President I'd like to call your attention to an article that appeared in USA Today on June 10, 1999. This article reported that ``Gun laws are enforced more vigorously today than five years ago by nearly any measure. Prosecutions are more frequent than ever before; sentences are longer; and the number of inmates in federal prison is at a record level. The number of inmates in federal prison on firearm or arson charges (the two are lumped together) increased 51% from 1993 to 1998 . . . A U.S. Sentencing Commission analysis done for USA Today shows that lying on the background check form is prosecuted in federal court far more often than acknowledged.'' We are on the right track and I sincerely hope that the federal government continues to improve its enforcement record. As of April 1999, there were more than 100,000 federally licensed firearm dealers in America--more licensed gun dealers than there are McDonald's franchises. Yet there were only 1,783 ATF agents to police them; many of those agents are detailed by law to only investigate crimes involving explosives. Clearly there is room for the federal government to do more than it is currently doing. I wholeheartedly support increased enforcement efforts and commit to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see that federal, state, and local enforcement efforts are increased. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that the American people want more from us and they deserve better from us. They want an end to random and senseless violence. We have got to get past the partisan divide that exists in the Senate. It is preventing us from effectively addressing the problem of gun violence and that cannot be tolerated, Mr. President. We must come together to achieve the goal that I know each and every Senator shares: to make our society safer for our young people. This issue is too important, Mr. President, to get caught up in politics. We must find a way to work together on this issue.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the HUBZones in Native America Act of 2000. This bill is designed to clarify eligibility requirements and enhance participation by Native American-owned small firms seeking certification in the Small Business Administration's Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) government contracting program. The bill also sets up a temporary pilot program for Alaska Native Corporations under the HUBZone program. As ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, I was a cosponsor to the HUBZone legislation when it was enacted into law as part of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997. The original bill language, because of some peculiarities in Native American and Alaska Native law, inadvertently exempted some Native American-owned firms located in economically distressed areas from participating in the HUBZone program. This bill is designed to make those firms eligible to participate. The HUBZone program, Mr. President, is designed to help qualified small businesses located in economically distressed areas--inner cities, rural areas, and Native American tribal lands--secure contracting opportunities with the Federal government. The program is also designed to create jobs in these areas by requiring that firms hire 35% of their workforce from economically distressed areas. According to the SBA, there are currently 1171 small businesses that are eligible to participate in the HUBZone program, and 114 of these are Native American-owned, 11 of which are located in the state of Alaska. This bill should provide the vehicle for more Native American- owned firms to become eligible. Mr. President, Native Americans are one of the groups that the SBA presumes to be socially and economically disadvantaged for purposes of their Section 8(a) and Small Disadvantaged Business contracting programs. Unfortunately, Native American tribal areas have not been able to share in the remarkable economic growth that our country has enjoyed for the last few years. It is my hope that this bill, with its technical corrections to the HUBZone program, will in some part, provide greater economic opportunities in these areas that continue to suffer high levels of unemployment and desperately need this help.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to share just a few words about a good friend we recently lost, someone I have known since I first ran for Lieutenant Governor in Massachusetts in 1982, a good hearted and selfless individual who was always an inspiration, Jo-Ann Molnar. Jo-Ann recently passed away after bravely battling cancer, and I know that I am not alone in saying that as someone whose life was touched by Jo-Ann Molnar's service, activism, and warmth, there is today a deep and profound sense of loss. In Jo-Ann many of us have lost--and today I would like to honor--a committed activist, a person of enormous courage and character and, most simply, a great friend. I first met Jo-Ann Molnar when I was running for Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, and Jo-Ann approached me at one of our earliest events and offered to help in any way she could. It was on that race in the middle of a difficult and heated campaign that Jo-Ann first demonstrated to me not just that she was an indefatigable volunteer, but that she was one of those individuals who--through her commitment to do what is right, through her belief in politics not as sport but as a fight for principle--could reaffirm precisely why politics matters and why public service is worthwhile. Jo-Ann and I remained close ever since that first campaign, and I looked forward to and always appreciated Jo-Ann's warm cards and greetings. Always a loyal friend, Jo-Ann would share with me her thoughts on issues of importance, keep me abreast of her accomplishments, and offer me words of encouragement as I worked to find my way in the United States Senate. It was through her frequent cards and letters--and the occasional happy meeting either in Massachusetts or at political gatherings around the Maryland area--that I learned of the many ways in which Jo-Ann continued to dedicate herself to public service. Her determination to make a difference led her to remarkable achievements. In 1977, Jo-Ann graduated magna cum laude from Fairleigh Dickinson University, with a degree in history and political science. She went on to earn a master's degree in political science from American University. Jo-Ann selflessly offered her leadership to her fellow Democrats, serving admirably as President of the Montgomery County, Maryland Young Democrats, as Vice Chair of the Handicapped Commission in Montgomery County, and on the Board of Directors of the Montgomery County public libraries. In addition to her help with my campaigns, Jo-Ann served as a legislative intern to U.S. Senator Donald Reigle, U.S. Representative Gene Andrew Maguire, and Montgomery County Council member Michael L. Gudis. She also worked as a Congressional Liaison Assistant for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. For almost a decade, Jo-Ann served as a legal researcher for the Human Relations Commission. She gave of herself as a Sunday School teacher and a confirmation teacher at the Foundary United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C, as well as an instructor at Colesville United Methodist Church in Silver Spring, Maryland. Mr. President, Jo-Ann lived a life true to her ideals of service-- service to community, service to faith. I would add, though, that none of these achievements would have been possible if Jo-Ann had not worked so hard to overcome cerebral palsy. Jo-Ann refused to be slowed by her disability-- and in fact rejected the notion that she should in any way lower her expectations for herself or expect different expectations from those to whom she so selflessly offered her best efforts. Jo-Ann was a fighter, and I continually marveled at her drive to rise above what some would view as limitations. For that reason, Jo-Ann served as one of the best possible advocates and activists for the Americans with Disabilities Act. Honored as a teenager for her activism on the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Jo-Ann kept pushing as an adult to break down barriers in our society that she believed kept disabled Americans from maximizing their contributions to their communities and our nation. Jo-Ann was not just an advocate for legislation to protect and empower disabled Americans-- she was the living embodiment of those efforts. Mr. President, it is difficult to accept that we have all lost a friend in Jo-Ann Molnar, but it is particularly difficult, I know, for Jo-Ann's family--her mother, Helen, and her two sisters, Dorothy and Ilona. They are in our thoughts and prayers. I was comforted, though, to learn that Jo-Ann was able to enjoy life as she had always done, up until her last days. Jo-Ann's mother, Helen, let me know that she had a wonderful Christmas with her family and was able to attend a New Millenium New Year's Eve celebration, complete with the 60's rock music she loved. Just as she did throughout her life, even in her most difficult days, Jo-Ann kept on doing the things that she loved--and she moved forward in so many remarkable efforts driven by a real sense of social conscience. Mr. President, today I remember Jo-Ann for her service, her friendship, and her kindness. All of us who knew her continue to draw strength from her courage and her faith, and Jo-Ann's life continues to inspire.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Lieberman amendment to ESEA. I am very supportive of the efforts of the Senator from Connecticut and my other colleagues who have worked so diligently on this amendment. This amendment is based upon a theory that I am very supportive of: increased flexibility in exchange for increased accountability. This means that States and school districts should have more flexibility in using Federal funds, but they must meet certain achievement measures, and most important, those achievement gains must hold true for children of all races, all ethnicities, and regardless of gender. Therefore, I am sorry that I am not rising in support of this amendment, because it includes many components of education reform that I firmly believe are necessary to improving the public education system for all students. The Lieberman amendment would target the title I formula even more to the most highly disadvantaged students. This amendment would also dramatically increase our investment in the title I program. The Federal Government's number one priority should and must be to ensure that economically disadvantaged students are provided with supplementary educational resources, and I commend my colleagues for increasing this critical investment in this program. The Lieberman amendment would also increase the accountability of Federal dollars, a component of education reform that I know is critical to improving the public education system. The Federal Government has an obligation to ensure that we are getting the most from our investment in public education, by holding our teachers, our schools, and our students accountable to the highest standards. This amendment would make a great step toward increasing the Federal Government's investment in accountability. Accountability is the third side of an education triangle that also includes standards and assessments. Now that many states have adopted high standards and tests to measure students' progress toward those benchmarks, they have turned their attention to making sure that performance matters. Achieving real accountability in our schools is a large part of what this amendment is all about and I believe increased accountability is critically important for the state of public education in this country. Again I commend my colleagues for focusing their amendment on this important element of public school reform. The Lieberman approach focuses on public school choice, another element of public education reform that I support and know to be critical to improving educational attainment for all children. Public school choice is becoming more and more a part of the American educational system. In 1993, only 11% of students attended schools chosen by their parents. In 1999, 15% of students attended schools chosen by their parents. While still serving a relatively small percentage of students, charter schools and magnet schools are becoming an increasingly common tool to improve the education of our nation's children. In 1994, there were only 100 charter schools in this country. Today, there are 1,700. Currently there are over 5,200 magnet schools serving approximately 1.5 million students. Magnet schools foster diversity and promote academic excellence in math, science, performing arts and marketable vocational skills. Parents deserve more choice in their children's public schools. Increasing parental choice will allow healthy competition between public schools. Choice, of course, necessarily implies that one thing is being chosen over another. As a result, choice means competition which is a force that often hastens change and improvement in any organization or system. All schools, district and charter, are forced by competition to examine why parents, students, or prospective teachers might be choose to go to other schools. Even teachers' unions and school board associations are signing on to the concept of publicly funded schools that operate outside most state and district regulations. In early 1996, the National Education Association promised $1.5 million to help its affiliates start charter schools in five States and to study their progress. I am pleased that my esteemed colleagues have made public school choice a primary component of this amendment. This amendment also deals with an issue we have frequently discussed during this ESEA debate: the consolidation of many Federal programs. Let me say that I am not opposed to consolidating some Federal programs. I do believe that there are important programs that are not overly burdensome on states and schools and that have proven successful, and I believe that the success of these programs is due in part on the competitive grant process and Federal guidelines of the programs. I know the Federal Government does not have all the answers and that we cannot always anticipate the needs of states and local school districts throughout this country, and though I have some specific concerns about the level of consolidation in the Lieberman amendment, I support the streamlining of Federal programs and providing flexibility to states and school districts. Despite my support for so many things in this amendment, I am ultimately unable to support the Lieberman approach. The Federal Government is the only entity that ensures funding is provided to the most disadvantaged populations in this country, like migrant children, homeless and runaway youth, and immigrant children. I am greatly concerned about the loss of Federal support for these vulnerable youth. Therefore, I cannot support the Lieberman approach despite my commitment to so many of its provisions. The Federal Government's involvement in education has always been to ensure that vulnerable populations are provided the additional funds that are necessary to their educational success. And I have heard from those people in Massachusetts who work with homeless young people and with troubled youth. And they have told me how incredibly important this Federal money is to these children. These children have so much going against their ability to succeed, I believe we must maintain our commitment to those children. I am encouraged by the work my colleagues have done on this amendment. I am supportive of their new approach to public education reform and their attempt to draft legislation that would attract the support of both Republicans and Democrats. I am frustrated and saddened by the very partisan nature of this year's ESEA debate, and commend my colleagues for their fresh approach to ESEA reauthorization and their attempts to attract support from both sides of the aisle. I regret that I cannot support this amendment, but I look forward to working with many my colleagues to address the concerns that I and other Senators have. I hope we can resolve these concerns and that we can bring this divided Senate together on the issue of public education. I look greatly forward to working with my colleagues in the future and deeply appreciate their hard work and new perspective on this critically important issue.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today to lend my support to a critical component of our efforts to reform the public education system and ensure that all children can learn to high standards: a collaborative approach to increasing the availability of high-quality early learning initiatives for young children. The amendment before us today recognizes the importance that the early years of a child's life play in his or her future learning and development. This amendment acknowledges what we know to be to true: children who begin school lacking the ability to recognize letters, numbers, and shapes quickly fall behind their peers. Students who reach the first grade without having had the opportunity to develop cognitive or language comprehension skills begin school at a disadvantage. Children who have not had the chance to develop social and emotional skills do not begin school ready to learn. Mr. President, we have the opportunity here today in this bipartisan amendment to see to it that all of our young children have access to high-quality early learning initiatives and that all of our children begin school ready to learn. The beauty of the approach that I am advocating for here today, is that it builds upon existing early learning and child care programs in each and every community in this country. Mr. President, this early learning amendment would provide support to families by minimizing government bureaucracy and maximizing local initiatives. This amendment would support the creation of local councils that will provide funding to communities to expand the thousands of successful early care and education efforts that already exist. It will establish an early learning infrastructure at the local level. This infrastructure will establish the necessary linkages between private, public, and non- profit organizations that seek to provide a healthy, safe, and supportive start in learning and in life for children of pre-school age. Mr. President, this amendment provides the Senate with a critically important bipartisan opportunity to support early learning collaboratives at the state level, in towns, in cities, and in communities throughout this country. I can attest to the success and importance of this collaborative approach, because I have seen it work. I was so convinced by what I saw in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Mr. President, that I introduced legislation in the 105th and the 106th Congresses that is very similar to the amendment before us today. Let me tell you about the Early Childhood Initiative (ECI) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania--an innovative program which helps low-income children from birth to age five become successful, productive adults by enrolling them in high quality, neighborhood-based early care and education programs, ranging from Head Start, center-based child care, home-based child care, and school readiness programs. ECI draws on everything that's right about Allegheny County--the strength of its communities--neighborhood decision-making, parent involvement, and quality measurement. Parents and community groups decide if they want to participate and they come together and develop a proposal tailored for the community. Regular review programs ensure quality programming and cost-effectiveness. We're talking about local control getting results locally: 19,000 pre- school aged children from low-income families, 10,000 of which were not enrolled in any childcare or education program. Evaluations have shown that enrolled children are achieving at rates equivalent to their middle income peers. And as we know, without this leveling of the playing field, low-income children are at a greater risk of encountering the juvenile justice system. In the United States, child care, early learning, and school-age care result from partnerships among the public sector--federal state, and local governments; the private sector--businesses and charitable organizations; and parents. Both the public and the private sectors help children get a strong start in life by supporting and providing child care, by enhancing early learning opportunities, and by supplying school-age care. Attention to early childhood development by so many organizations and levels of government is important and appropriate. But oftentimes, early care and education is a hodgepodge of public and private programs, child-care centers, family day-care homes, and preschools and ironically the widespread concern for the provision and quality of such programs has led to what some experts in this field have called a non-system. I'd like to tell you about one of the most ground-breaking studies in the effectiveness of early learning programs, called the Abecedarian Project, that is taking place at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. This highly-regarded study has found that low-income children who received comprehensive, quality early educational intervention had higher scores on cognitive, reading, math tests than a comparison group of children who did not receive the intervention. These effects persisted through age 21. The study also found that young people who had participated in the early education program were more likely to attend a four-year college and to delay parenthood. And the positive impact of the early learning program was not just limited to the children, Mr. President. Mothers whose children participated in the program achieved higher educational and employment status as well, with particularly strong results for teen mothers. Community collaboration allows a vast array of people to assess what support children and families need, what resources are available in their own community, and what new resources are necessary. Collaboration is a way to meet the needs of parents who work full time. For example, children who attend a state-financed half-day preschool program in a child-care center are able to remain in the center after the formal preschool program has ended until a parent finishes working when linkages between disparate programs are made. This sort of continuity can eliminate transportation problems that often plague working families and stressful transitions for parents and children. Child care and early learning are necessities for millions of American families. Children of all income levels are cared for by someone other than their parents. Each day, an estimated 13 million children under age six--including children with mothers who work outside the home and those with mothers who do not--spend some or all of their day being cared for by someone other than their parents. Many of these children enter non-parental care by 11 weeks of age, and often stay in some form of child care until they enter school. I commend my esteemed colleagues, Senator Stevens, Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond, Senator Dodd, and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, who, as you all know, is a true leader in this area, for working so diligently on this amendment. And I'm pleased to have the opportunity to be here on the floor to discuss this bipartisan legislation. Indeed, supporting states and local early learning collaboratives is not a partisan issue. In fact. Mr. President, the legislation that I introduced in the 105th and 106th Congresses, the Early Childhood Development Act, would support a collaborative approach and sustain an early learning infrastructure. My legislation has been supported by Senators on both sides of the aisle. I commend my colleagues--Senator Bond, Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Snowe, Senator Collins, and the late Senator Chafee, for supporting this important, non-partisan educational priority and approach to improving early learning opportunities for all children. And I particularly commend the bipartisan group of leaders on this amendment. Early childhood programs are cost effective and can result in significant savings in both the short- and the long-term. For example, the High/Scope Foundation's Perry Preschool Study examined the long- term impact of a good early childhood program for low-income children. Researches found that after 27 years, each $1.00 invested in the program saved over $7.00 by increasing the likelihood that children would be literate, employed, and enrolled in postsecondary education, and making them less likely to be school dropouts, dependent on welfare, or arrested for criminal activity or delinquency. A study of the short-term impact of a pre-kindergarten program in Colorado found that it resulted in cost savings of $4.7 million over just three years in reduced special education costs. Child care and early learning are particularly important for low- income children and children with other risk factors. Good early care and education programs help children enter school ready to succeed in a number of ways, and have a particularly strong impact on low-income children who are at greater risk for school failure. Mr. President, reading difficulties in young children can be prevented if children arrive in the first grade with strong language and cognitive skills and the motivation to learn to read, which are needed to benefit from classroom instruction. Law enforcement has attested to the importance of early learning programs. A poll of police chiefs from across the country found that nearly none out of ten (86 percent) said that ``expanding after-school and child care programs like Head Start will greatly reduce youth crime and violence.'' Nine out of ten also agreed that a failure to invest in such programs to help children and youth now would result in greater expenses later in crime, welfare, and other costs. Police chiefs ranked providing ``more after-school programs and educational child care'' as the most effective strategy for reducing youth violence four times as often as ``prosecuting more juveniles as adults'' and five times as often as ``hiring more police officers to investigate juvenile crime.'' I urge my colleagues to think about what is at stake here. Poverty seriously impairs young children's language development, math skills, IQ scores, and their later school completion. Poor young children also are at heightened risk of infant mortality, anemia, and stunted growth. Of the millions children under the age of three in the U.S. today, 25 percent live in poverty. Three out of five mothers with children under three work, but one study found that 40 percent of the facilities at child care centers serving infants provided care of such poor quality as to actually jeopardize children's health, safety, or development. Literally the future of millions of young people is at stake here. Literally that's what we're talking about. But is it reflected in the investments we make here in the Senate? I would, respectfully, say no-- not nearly enough, Mr. President. But today, during this debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we have a genuine opportunity to make a meaningful difference and contribution to the lives of poor children in this country. I'd also like to discuss the results of a study conducted by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. This study has been following a group of children to compare the development of children in high quality child care with that of children in lower quality child care. Researchers have thus far tracked the children's progress from age three through the second grade. At the end of this most recent study period, children in high quality child care demonstrated greater mathematics ability, greater thinking and attention skills, and fewer behavioral problems. These differences held true for children from a range of family backgrounds, with particularly significant effects for children at risk. Let me explain why this legislation is so fundamentally important and why it is clear we are not doing enough to ensure that our youngest children are exposed to meaningful learning opportunities: A study in Massachusetts found that the supply of child care in communities with large numbers of welfare recipients was much lower than in higher-income communities. The 10 percent of zip code areas with the greatest share of welfare recipients had just 8.3 preschools operating per 1,000 children ages 3 to 5. This was one-third lower than in high-income communities. Four out of five children already know what it means to be in the full-time care of someone other than one of their parents. A study by the U.S. Department of Education found that public schools in low income communities were far less likely to offer pre- kindergarten programs (16 percent) than were schools in more affluent areas (33 percent). Kindergarten teachers estimate that one in three children enters the classroom unprepared to meet the challenges of school. Only 42 percent of low-income children between the ages of 3 and 5 are in pre-kindergarten programs compared with 65 percent of higher income children. Our country has struggled, and this body has struggled, with ways to improve the lives of young, poor children in this country. The debate we are engaged in today centers around how to more effectively educate disadvantaged children, how to hold schools, administrators, and teachers accountable for providing a high-quality education, and ensuring that all children are given the opportunities to learn. Mr. President, early learning is a critical element of the fundamentally important goal of ensuring all children learn to high standards. We must go where the children are--in child care centers, in family-based care--and guarantee support of meaningful early learning services. The intent of a collaborative approach to early education and child care is to create a system that supports children's development and is also responsive to the needs of working parents. We need to take action in order to make a difference in the lives of our children before they're put at risk, and this bipartisan approach is certainly a step in the right direction, I believe a step the Senate must take. We need to accept the truth, Mr. President, that we can do a lot more to help our kids grow up healthy with promising futures in an early childhood development center, in a classroom, and in a doctor's office than we can in a courtroom or in a jail cell. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, for his extraordinary leadership in this arena, as well as in the entire area of education. I think my colleagues will agree that there is no more forceful, eloquent, or committed voice on the subject of children and of education in the country. I am grateful for his leadership on their particular issue. I also join in thanking the Senator from Alaska for his passionate and very firsthand commitment to this subject. He comes to this from a place of real understanding. And I hope his colleagues on his side of the aisle will recognize that this is not partisan. This is something that has the capacity to bring both sides together to the advantage of the children of America. I also thank my colleague, Senator Bond, who joined me several years ago in what was then a ground-breaking effort in the Senate to try to recognize the capacity of collaboratives in the local communities to be able to pick up much of this burden. For a long time, we spent an awful lot of energy in the Senate reinventing the wheel. I think what we did was try to say how we solve the problem without necessarily creating a new Federal bureaucracy and without creating additional administrative overhead. How do we play to the strengths of our mayors, of our local charitable organizations, which do such an extraordinary job, and which in so many cases are simply overburdened by the demand? I think there is not one Member who is not aware of a Boys Club, Girls Club, YMCA, YWCA, Big Brother-Big Sister, or any number of faith- based entities, whether the Jewish community centers, the Catholic charities, the Baptist Outreach--there are dozens upon dozens of efforts--that successfully intervene in the lives of at-risk or troubled young people and who succeed in turning those lives around. This should not be categorized as a government program with all of the pejoratives that go with the concept of government program. This is, in effect, the leveraging of those efforts at the local level that already work. The best guarantee that comes out of this amendment is that it appeals to the capacity of the local communities to choose which entities work and which entities don't. There is none of the rhetoric that somehow attacks so easily the notions that seek to do good and changes lives of people for the better, none of that rhetoric that suggests that Washington is dictating this or there is a new bureaucracy, or this is the long reach of the government at the Federal level trying to tell the local level what to do. None of that applies here. This is a grant to local collaboratives with the Governors' input and the input of those local charitable entities. They know best what is working; they know best where that money can have the greatest return on the investment. They will, therefore, decide what to do. Let me address for a quick moment the common sense of this. Senator Stevens talked about the science and brain development. Indeed, we have learned a great deal about brain development. In fact, we are learning even more each day. Just this year, new evidence about brain development has been made public which suggests that not only is the early childhood period so critical for a particular kind of discipline, but we are now capable of learning about the brain's functioning at different stages of development through to the point of adulthood. A child in their early teens, for instance, may be particularly susceptible to language input and at a later stage of life to more analytical skills; at the earlier stage of life much more subject to the early socialization skills and the early recognition, cognitive skills such as recognizing shapes, forms, numbers. The problem in America is--every single one of us knows this--certain communities don't have the tax base, don't have the income, and we will find parents have a greater struggle to provide for a safe, nonchaotic atmosphere within which their children can be brought up. Find a place where children get the proper kind of early input and it makes a difference in their capacity to go to school ready to learn. In an affluent community, almost by 2 to 1 we find many more children are in safe, competent, early childhood environments where they are well prepared to go to school. The consequences of not preparing a child to go to school at the earliest stage ought to be obvious to everybody, but they are not. I have heard from countless first grade schoolteachers who tell me in a class of 25 to 30 kids, they might have 5 to 10 kids who do not have the early cognitive skills their peers have, so the teacher is then reduced in their capacity to be able to provide the accelerated effort to the rest of the class because they are spending so much time trying to help people catch up. Moreover, it takes longer for the children to catch up. There are a host of other disadvantages that come with the lack of that early childhood education that often play out later in life, sometimes in very dramatic ways, when they get in trouble with the law, when they become violent, and when we spend countless billions of dollars, literally billions of dollars, trying to remediate things that could have been avoided altogether in the first place. That is what this is all about. This is common sense. There are two former Governors who will speak on this. I know what the Senator from Ohio did because I followed what he did when he was a Governor. We used some of what he did, as well as some of what was done by Governor Hunt in North Carolina, as models for possibilities. There are Governors all across this country who currently support wonderful, homegrown, locally initiated, locally based efforts that save lives and change lives on an ongoing basis. We need to augment the capacity of all of those entities to reach all of the children of America. If we did that, we could provide a tax cut in the end to the American people. For the dollar invested at the earliest stage, there is a back-end savings of anywhere from $6 to $7 per child, and sometimes much greater percentages in terms of the costs of the social structure that we put in place to either mitigate, and sometimes simply to isolate, people from society as a consequence of those early deprivations. This is not ``goo-goo'' social work. This is not do-goodism. It doesn't fit into any kind of ideological label. This is something that has worked all across the country. I close by pointing to one very successful initiative that I visited several years ago which became part of the basis of the collaboration in which Senator Bond and I engaged. In Allegheny County, PA, there is a thing called the Early Childhood Initiative. This program helps low-income children from birth to age 5 to become successful, productive adults by enrolling them in high- quality, neighborhood-based early care and education programs ranging from Head Start to center-based child care, to home-based child care, to school readiness programs. It draws on all of the corporate community. The corporate community matches funds. The corporations become involved with the charitable entities. The public sector becomes involved. They join together to guarantee there are regular review programs ensuring quality programming and cost effectiveness. We are now talking about 19,000 preschool age children from low- income families, 10,000 of which were not enrolled in any children's care or education program prior to the childhood education initiative being put in place. May I add, this has been done to date with a small amalgamation of Federal money, principally with corporate and local match and State money. This can be done. For a minimal amount of Federal dollars, you can leverage an extraordinary outpouring of local match, of corporate private sector involvement, all of which builds communities, all of which in the end would make this country stronger and significantly augment the capacity of our teachers, who are increasingly overburdened, to be able to teach our children adequately. I really hope this will be one amendment that does not fall victim to partisanship or to predisposition. I think we ought to be able to come to common agreement and common ground on this. I really commend it to my colleagues on that basis. I thank my colleagues for their forbearance.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I would like to honor the efforts of my long time friends at the Massachusetts State Letter Carriers' Association (MSLCA) as they continue to fight for job security, fair pensions, health care, and reforms to the national postal system. I would also like to applaud Massachusetts president, Frederick Celeste, and the National Association of Letter Carriers as they continually seek to improve and develop a mail service that efficiently delivers both in Massachusetts and nationwide. Soon Massachusetts' proud 11,000 Letter Carriers will be gathering in Washington, D.C. for their annual convention. These hardworking men and women provide the Bay State with a vital service each day. Letter Carriers have been the backbone of the communications and commercial infrastructure of our nation since its inception. On behalf of all Massachusetts residents, I would like to thank the Letter Carriers Association for remaining vigilant in the fight to further improve the postal system. The Letter Carriers' Association has always fought for decent wages, cost of living adjustments, job security, and benefits for its brothers and sisters, while constantly striving to forge a more effective partnership with the United States Postal Service and the federal government. Throughout my career, I have always been grateful for the tremendous help I have received from the Letter carriers. This year, The Letter Carriers of New England are rallying around an agenda to secure fair benefits to provide security for their families and their future. They are fighting for adequate social security benefits through the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Social Security Benefits Restoration Act. The Carriers are working to secure long-term care insurance for federal employees, and are guarding against rate hikes in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan by opposing inserting medical savings accounts. I look forward to continuing to join with the Letter Carriers in opposing the privatization of the Postal Service. Mr. President, The American public has an overwhelmingly favorable view of their letter carriers. In fact, 89 percent of the American public gives the Postal Service a favorable rating, higher than any other federal agency. In addition, 75 percent of Americans identify that the Postal Service is doing an excellent or good job. I think that it is time that we say, if it is not broke, don't fix it. The Letter Carriers have recently won some victories for their brother and sisters. In September, 1999, an Arbitration Board, in conjunction with an agreement between the Postal Service and the NALC, upgraded all letter carriers from Grade 5 to Grade 6 federal employees. The recent pay raise and cost of living adjustments reflect the concerted lobbying and negotiating efforts of the Letter carriers' leadership, including National President Vincent Sombrotto. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Letter Carriers for their service to the public. There is much to celebrate. As we focus on the fights that lay ahead, I look forward to joining with the Letter Carriers to protect our families and our future.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Is the Senator aware under Ed-Flex the Governors have full flexibility for a waiver for any kind of onerous regulation? We voted for that last year precisely for this purpose. It is, in fact, voluntary as to whether or not they make the decision to which he referred.

Mr. KERRY. If the Senator will yield, is the Senator aware--and maybe the Governor is not; I think he is--that it is an option, but, secondly, that the Senator joined with all of us in voting for Ed-Flex under which any Governor basically can do whatever they want? Is the Senator aware of that? That is what we passed last year, complete flexibility to Governors. We are not required to spend that. If they want to seek a waiver, they can get a waiver.

Mr. KERRY. I asked the question.

Mr. KERRY. Can the Senator tell me precisely what priorities resources are required to be spent on? Title I is the biggest expenditure of Federal money; it is for poor, disadvantaged children. Is that a priority?

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will have more to say. I thank the Senator for interrupting his remarks. My colleague has been waiting a long time. My only comment is that Ed-Flex was passed. It allows radical departures. And very few Governors have even taken advantage of the Ed-Flex that we passed. We need to look at the reality of what is happening. I thank the Senator very much for his engaging in this dialog and thank my other colleagues for their patience.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am actually informing him at this point in time, not asking him a question. I am going to ask a rhetorical question because, again, I do not have the time. But the fact is, the local entities that make the decisions, the State school officers, the secondary and elementary school principals, the teachers, the education associations--all of those folks are the ones who are supportive of the Democratic alternative. Second, I heard the Senator from Missouri say why is it that--I guess it was more than 50 percent of the people who work in schools are outside of the classroom? That is because we do not have enough teachers for the numbers of kids in the classroom. When you have one teacher teaching 35 kids, you begin to change the proportion of who is working in the school system. I am confident my friend from Missouri does not intend to have a school system that does not have custodians, does not have janitors, does not have schoolbus drivers, does not have people working in the cafeterias. These are the people ``outside of the classroom.'' What we really need to face is the reason the proportion is out of whack, which is that we will need 2 million new teachers in America in the next 10 years. We will need a million of those teachers in the next 5 years. At the current pay level, without the capacity of the Federal Government to assist in reducing class size, it is going to be exceedingly difficult for the very districts in which the Federal Government got involved in education in the first place, which are poor districts, to ever be able to catch up. I will ask another rhetorical question. If we are supposed to be giving control to the people who effectively have had control for all of these years, why is the school system in America doing so badly? We do not run it at the Federal level. We have never run it, nor are we asking to run it. We are trying to provide an incentive for communities, which have never bought into real reform, to buy into reform. If you look at the 1994 ESEA that we passed in a bipartisan fashion, you will see, as a result of that legislation, standards now being put in place across the country, whole school reforms being put into effect, a whole series of measures with respect to testing and improvements that are beginning to take hold. Have they reached the level that everybody would like? The answer is no. But we would never have had to try to make that kind of broad-based effort at reform if, indeed, everything was working so well because the local decisionmakers were making the decisions that needed to be made. Equally important, the Senator from Missouri was talking about raising the standards of schools. I know in St. Louis or Kansas City, MO, there are poor schools. I know in Atlanta there are schools that depend on title I money to adequately provide a cushion for what their lack of a tax base provides. Poor communities do not have a big tax base. Since schools are funded by the property tax, they do not have the ability to put the money into the school system. That is precisely why the Federal Government became involved in 1965 in title I in the first place. The reason was to address the problems of communities that were disadvantaged. Along comes this Republican bill with a provision called portability. I know the sponsors have spent a lot of time saying this is not a voucher, and the reason this is not a voucher is there is not a piece of paper that goes to the parent which they take to another school. The school district manages the money. But it is effectively a credit voucher. It is effectively an indirect voucher where a parent gets $400 to $600 of value for their child if they want to take them somewhere else for a different kind of schooling. It sounds good and appealing, but it directly undermines the very concept that brought the Federal Government in the first place to help education, which is, if a school has a group of disadvantaged kids, by providing assistance based on the number of kids, on the conglomerate need of that community, we can help lift the school so the school can become a great school and teach those kids. If we provide a per-disadvantaged-pupil stipend, what we will do is, in fact, reward kids who may be poor themselves but who go to a good school, a school that is not disadvantaged, that has an adequate tax base and does not at all need to have additional funding from the Federal Government. We will simultaneously have stripped away from a school that is struggling to be good the very heart of the money they need to make the difference and improve. If we really wanted to help make a difference today, we would fully fund title I. That is the way we make a difference in what is happening to the schools that are not making it. We would do so in a way that set an order of priorities with respect to the key things we wanted to do. I heard from the Senator from Missouri the mirror reflection of what we keep hearing from the other side. They keep saying: We do not want the Federal Government dictating how to approach this. The fact is, the Federal Government does not dictate that. It offers a specific menu. The schools can apply for the menu of money or not apply, as the case may be. If they think they need money for smaller class size, they can apply for that money, but nothing in the Federal budget orders a school to do that--nothing. It is a concept completely out of any reality whatsoever for people to suggest there is somehow this long arm that is telling them precisely what to do. It is only suggesting the guidelines and constraints of what they have to do if they choose to do what has been established as a priority. Surely we can all agree that afterschool programs are a priority. Getting guns out of schools is a priority. Drug-free schools is a priority. Having adequate class size is a priority. Having better teachers is a priority. I do not understand why the Senate is incapable of agreeing on a set of top priorities that every school district in this country can name and then say we are going to find a way to hold them accountable, not after 5 years but next year, to see precisely how there is funding money with respect to that priority. We are not going to tell them how to spend the money. We are not going to order them to spend the money. They can choose to do it or not do it, but we are going to at least guarantee that the country is going to spend its Federal dollars on those things that represent priorities of education. This is hard for me to understand. The bill proposed by the Republicans has no accountability for 5 years at all, and for all this talk of telling us that we want the local people to make the decision, it plunks the entire pot of money in the hands of the Governors. That is not local decisionmaking; that is just playing to the politics of the State, and the people most powerful and with the greatest lobbying capacity will go back to the old order and the Federal priorities will be by the wayside. We are somehow not connecting. It is the first time in all the years of this bill that there has been such a partisan bill and such a disconnect in an effort to meet the needs of our Nation. I close by saying there was a terrific ex-general who was the superintendent of schools for 3 or 4 years in Seattle, from where the Senator from Washington came. He did an extraordinary job and was beloved by all. He said: There are no libertarians, no Republicans, no Democrats, no conservatives or liberals among the kids in our schools. We ought to get the ideology out of this process and put the kids first. If we do that, I am confidant we can have a solution.

Mr. KERRY. I do not have time. Unfortunately, I am limited to 10 minutes now because of the time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Missouri, who I have listened to carefully--and I regret with only 10 minutes, I do not have time to yield and enter into a dialog, which I would enjoy doing--first of all, I agree with what he just said about the capacity of people to discipline. In fact, I have proposed what we call Second Chance Schools. In the legislation that Senator Gordon Smith and I proposed, there is a component of it that would help provide the capacity for that kind of discipline. But once again, because this is not a bipartisan process or one that has been open to anything except the point of view of the Straight A's plan, we do not have the ability to debate that or other things. I will also say to my friend from Missouri, one has to ask a question. He is talking about getting the capacity to the local people to be able to make the choices. If the local people were so thrilled with the proposal by the other side, why are they not supporting it? The only entity that I know of that is supporting the legislation proposed by the Republicans is the Heritage Foundation.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I appreciate the answer. I do not want to abuse the time because I know my colleagues are lined up to speak, but if I may ask further, I hear what the Senator is saying, but the examples I chose are examples of when it was a block grant. We changed the block grant precisely in order to obviate those kinds of examples. Bringing it to modern times, I know the Senator will agree with me that everyone in the Senate is not debating education because it is a nonissue in America. No one would suggest that every Governor in this country is doing as well as some other Governors in the country. No one would suggest--I am not going to name States here--there are not some States that are light years behind other States in what they are willing to adopt. So even measured against the modern system, I agree with the Senator from Washington. Let's tear apart some of the bureaucracy. Let's rip away some of the layers and tiers, let's minimize the paperwork. But let's guarantee we are working together in a more genuine fashion. The fact that we have bills on the floor that are, frankly, as far apart-- this is the first time in the eight times this bill has been to the floor that there is as little bipartisan effort at this stage as there is this year, a time when education is far more important than it has ever been in the history of the country. So I ask my colleague if it is not possible, if we somehow cannot find a more reasonable middle ground where we achieve goals of both sides which are essentially to provide the best opportunities for our kids. It seems to me, when you are looking at a 5-year period before you, in effect, measure what is happening, I am constrained to ask the Senator how that 5-year period helps a kid who goes into that foundational stage of education, or even a high school student? You go into freshman year and you are gone from high school before anybody has evaluated the program at the Federal level to make a judgment whether or not the Federal dollar is being well spent. Surely the accountability mechanism in the Democratic alternative cannot be that unappealing to those on the other side who want to give local administrators power but at the same time be more responsible for the Federal dollar. I wonder why it is, in fact, so unacceptable, measured against a 5-year block of time where nothing takes place.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator, and I will not be too long. We have come here for several years in a row with this impasse. The Senator from Washington and I have met privately trying to have a discussion about how we could find a meeting of the minds. I certainly don't question his desire to have kids in the United States educated. Obviously, there is a difference between us, as he has said, in our confidence in what may occur. As the Senator from Washington knows, when title I began back in 1965, for instance, it was a block grant. Indeed, in Memphis, TN, moneys were used to pay for swimming pools. In Oxford, MS, moneys were used for cheerleading uniforms. In Macon County, AL, moneys were used for football uniforms. In Attala County, MS, two lagoons for sewage disposal were constructed with title I money. The record of States not choosing to reduce class size or have afterschool programs or improve teacher quality is already there. The question I ask the Senator, If everyone on his side is so willing to pass this bill with the notion there is a level of accountability that they will put in place for improving education, why would they not be willing to adopt a series of areas which we could all agree on to represent the top priorities in America for education, such as getting better teachers, improving teacher quality, having afterschool programs? Isn't it possible to agree on a broad categorization that does not tell local districts how to do it, doesn't tie their hands to one particular choice, but gives them a sufficient range of options? At least we know the Federal dollar will not be subject to the kind of abuse it was once subjected.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a few questions to explore what the Senator has just said?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I applaud Tufts University for furthering the values of leadership, citizenship, and public service, by founding a University College of Citizenship and Public Service. By creating this new college, Tufts' President, Dr. John DiBiaggio, is fostering an attitude of ``giving back'' to supplement the University's vision that `active citizen participation' is essential to freedom and democracy. Tufts has a history of commitment to civic education, having founded the Lincoln Filene Center for Citizenship and Public Affairs over 50 years ago. The largest student organization on the Medford campus is the Leonard Carmichael Society, a community service group, which boasts about 1,000 members. Recently, Tufts has hatched the ``United Leaders for a Better Tomorrow,'' a new student organization that aims to encourage young people to pursue careers in public service. With chapters starting across the country, this group of young leaders seeks to re-enlist those Americans interested in public service in using public office as a vehicle for change. Tufts University is now renewing its commitment to public service with an entrepreneurial spirit. Tufts is not adding a stand-alone college, composed of its own buildings and faculty. Instead, the university is creating a `virtual college,' one ``without walls;'' challenging itself to infuse all classroom instruction with the ideas of citizenship and public service. According to Tufts' President Dr. John DiBiaggio, the tangible impact will mean that a major in child development who is mentoring kindergarten kids in a poor community could also participate in legislative advocacy to improve conditions in that community or, a Tufts student who wants to be a chemist will have an opportunity to measure pollution in nearby waterways, determine the sources of this pollution and then create a local team to clean them up. The need for a college of public service has never been greater. While Tufts students, Massachusetts residents, and citizens nationwide are volunteering at record rates, voter participation rates continue to fall. Just two stops away on the T's red line, the ``Vanishing Voter Project'' at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government measures the depth of the public's cynicism and apathy towards public service. Last week, according to the Vanishing Voter Project's Voter Involvement Index, only 19% of the American public paid any attention to the Presidential race. In fact, at no time during the Presidential Primaries--one of the most hotly contested races in years--did the number of Americans paying attention to the race rise above 46%. In the world's leading democracy, in an age where limitless information is available at our fingertips, we can do better. More than ever, it is critical that we restore and maintain civil society. We need voters that are educated and engaged. Tapping the cutting edge of the New Economy's budding e-commerce, Tufts is partnering with eBay founder, Pierre Omidyar. eBay, is now the world's leading person-to-person online trading community. Omidyar's ten million dollar investment in the College of Public Service includes financial aid packages for 24 undergraduates every year, enhanced public and private sector internship opportunities, citizenship-based career workshops, and a senior honors program in civic activism. Mr. President, Tufts University's College of Citizenship and Public Service and its partnership with eBay's Pierre Omidyar illustrates the possibilities provided by technological innovation. The promise of a technology based digital democracy is that billions of people will engage in business, receive their news, and even vote, directly and instantly. Our challenge for this new age is to continue to foster values of public service, community, and citizenship, in order to constantly renew and re-engage our citizenry and our democracy.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to extend an invitation to the nation to join Massachusetts and the City of Boston in celebrating the gathering of tall ships for Sail Boston 2000. The tall ships represent a nautical history that stretches across the globe. The International Sail Training Association, jointly with the American Sail Training Association, is organizing the Tall Ships 2000 Race. I am proud to say that Boston Harbor has been granted the opportunity to be the only official United States Race Port. Beginning in April 2000, two races will start from Southampton and Genoa, finishing in Cadiz. The second leg will be a transatlantic race to Bermuda, and from there, the fleet heads north to Boston. This journey will replicate the routes taken by mariners and explorers over the last five centuries. On July 11th, 2000, the Tall Ships will parade into Boston Harbor, and they will be led by the oldest ship in the U.S. Navy; America's Old Ironsides; the U.S.S. Constitution. This national treasure was originally built in Boston between 1794 and 1797, and was charged with the task of defending a young American nation. This ship, the oldest commissioned warship in the world, set to sea in 1798, and in July 1999, the U.S.S. Constitution operated under her own sail for the first time in 116 years. This international fleet will be one of the finest gatherings of tall ships. Among the Sail Boston 2000 fleet are historic ships such as: Mir of Russia; Concordia of Canada; Juan Sebastian De Elcano of Spain; Pogoria of Poland; and the Amerigo Vespucci of Italy. Massachusetts and the historic Boston Harbor, which offers the perfect setting for this occasion, will open itself up to visitors from around the world, and over six million spectators are expected to visit us and enjoy the festivities. The history that the Tall Ships represent belongs to all of us, and it is my hope that visitors from every state in the nation will take the opportunity to visit Massachusetts and participate in this historic celebration.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Moving Company Responsibility Act of 1999 to improve the protections afforded to consumers who hire moving companies to carry their possessions from one state to another. Under current law, consumers whose goods are lost or stolen during transit have no redress against moving companies that deceive or mistreat them during the claims process. This problem was first brought to my attention by my constituents, Jane Rini and John Pucci. In 1990, Ms. Rini hired a moving company to transport her household goods from South Carolina to Massachusetts to attend Smith College's Ada Comstock Program. Among Ms. Rini's possessions were valuable original paintings and art objects that had been passed down through her family. When her belongings were delivered by the driver employed by the moving company, Ms. Rini noticed that the boxes containing the works of art were missing. Although the company's driver was not able to locate the boxes, he demanded that Ms. Rini sign inventory sheets indicating that her goods had been properly delivered and refused to leave her house until she signed for the delivery. Under pressure, Ms. Rini signed the inventory sheets, noting on them that boxes containing the works of art were missing. She was not informed by the company that she should note missing boxes on the bill of lading, nor was she given the pamphlet containing this information, as required by federal law. The next day, Ms. Rini and her family unpacked the boxes that had been delivered and determined conclusively that eleven works of art were missing. They have never been recovered. From that point on, Ms. Rini did everything to obtain redress that reasonably could be expected of a consumer. She filed her claim with the moving company in a timely manner, and she went to great lengths to supply the moving company's claims adjusters with all the information they needed to process her claim. However, her efforts to recover damages for the lost artwork were met with abusive and deceptive tactics seemingly designed to discourage her claim. At the beginning of the claims process, the company demanded that Ms. Rini provide it with documentation such as canceled checks, recent appraisal information, insurance riders, or cash receipts. Ms. Rini had no recent information on the works because they had been handed down through her family for generations, but she was able to supply the company with photographs of most of the missing pieces, and she even paid for professional appraisals of the works based on the photos. She also provided the company with a letter from 1929 which reflected the authenticity of some of the pieces. Mr. President, this should have been more than enough to satisfy the company as to the validity of Ms. Rini's claim, but the company refused to accept appraisals unless they were based upon actual examination of the objects. Meanwhile, Ms. Rini was told by a company representative that a thorough investigation of her claim would be conducted, but the representative negligently failed to interview or take written statements in a timely manner from any of the employees involved in the move who might have been able to substantiate the claim. Almost nine months later, the company denied Ms. Rini's claim on the grounds that all items were delivered and signed for on the bill of lading without a notation indicating missing items; that the company had not received adequate documentation to substantiate Rini's claims; and that the company had not uncovered any evidence that the works had not been delivered to Northampton. Ms. Rini finally took her case to a District Court in Massachusetts. During the trial, the moving company's own expert witnesses testified that reliable and fair estimates of the value of works of art are commonly obtained through examination of photographs, but the company maintained that Ms. Rini's documentary proof was insubstantial and denied that it had a duty to settle the claim. Upon hearing the testimony, the court found Ms. Rini's documentation provided sufficient evidence upon which the moving company should have settled her claim. It further characterized the company's tactics as ``unfair,'' ``unethical,'' and ``deceptive,'' and found that Ms. Rini was entitled to recover damages for injury she suffered as a result of the company's negligence and misrepresentation throughout the claims process. However, the District Court's decision, which was based on Massachusetts law, was overturned by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that state law providing relief to Ms. Rini is preempted by the federal law establishing uniform liability for motor carriers. Mr. President, Ms. Rini's story is just an illustration of the larger problem. Under current law, irresponsible, unethical moving companies are allowed to mistreat those who depend on them for service, and there is no recourse for consumers who are the victims of negligence or deception. Consumers who place their trust in moving companies should have a reasonable expectation that they will be treated with consideration and respect at all times; and when a company fails to deliver on its promise to transport household goods in good condition, consumers' efforts to recover damages should not be met with the kind of abuse and deception that Ms. Rini experienced. No consumer should have to suffer that sort of treatment. Unfortunately, current law provides little or no incentive for moving companies to make sure that customer claims are handled fairly. In fact, under current law, moving companies can act irresponsibly and unfairly with impunity. According to the Department of Transportation, well over 2,500 complaints were filed against moving companies in 1998, the most recent year for which this information is available. That's more than 2,500 consumers who believe they were treated unfairly--and those are just the consumers who actually took the time to file complaints. The time for Congress to act to protect consumers is now, and passage of the Moving Company Responsibility Act is the first step. The Moving Company Responsibility Act would provide customers with a means of redress against unethical companies by allowing them to pursue claims under state law. The penalties and fines available under state laws would serve as an incentive to companies to treat customers fairly throughout the business relationship. This is a simple bill, but it is needed to ensure that consumers are adequately protected when they contract with moving companies. I would like to thank my constituents, Ms. Rini and Mr. Pucci, for bringing this important consumer protection matter to my attention. This bill will provide important protections to consumers, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting it so that we can pass it quickly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.