John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Fourteen minutes equally divided. Amendment No. 2866 (Purpose: To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide scholarships for future teachers and loan forgiveness and cancellation)

Mr. KERRY. What was the agreement on time? I am sorry, I could not hear you.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Vaccines for the New Millennium Act of 2000. I have the honor of being joined by the distinguished chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, Senator Frist, and my friend, the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. This bill addresses a catastrophic problem that needs our immediate attention. The proportions of the AIDS calamity in Africa are stupefying. More than 33 million people are infected with HIV--95 percent of them in sub-Saharan Africa. This disease will kill more than 2.5 million this year. It has already orphaned 11 million children, and it will orphan 40 million by 2010. These numbers are incomprehensible. To put in perspective, nearly 60 people will become infected with HIV in the time it takes me to testify today. In addition, tuberculosis will kill close to 2 million this year, and a person dies from malaria every thirty seconds. No nation--but particularly ours--as rich as we are in talent, technology and money-- can fail to help turn this around. We should remember: borders do not matter when you are dealing with contagion. These epidemics are out of control. And if we are to reverse this death spiral, we need to institute bold new measures. We must provide new global health infrastructures which look at long-term solutions for disease eradication. And, until they are established, we must provide much-needed short-term financing for disease prevention and treatment. Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have shown great leadership in trying to find a solution to the health emergencies in the developing countries. I applaud the work of my friend, Senator Durbin with whom I have joined on a number of bills this year. I also recognize and support the efforts of Senator Boxer and Senator Smith for their work on the Global AIDS Plan. Senator Moynihan and Senator Feingold also have an important plan to prevent vertical transmission of HIV from mother to child. I have supported all these plans. Mr. President, I think we need to acknowledge the scope of this epidemic requires a bold response which looks beyond just preventing and treating this disease. The epidemiology of this disease dictates lifetime adherence to preventive measures. I am fully supportive of prevention programs--I have seen their very positive effect in the AIDS Action Committee in Boston and in AIDS Project Worcester. The Outer Cape also has a tremendous program which I support every year in Provincetown and these are echoed in small towns across Massachusetts which have accessed CDC grants and instituted the absolute best of community-based programs. I have also been an early and consistent supporter of the Ryan White program which comes up for reauthorization this year. But, Mr. President, we need a vaccine--for the United States and for the developing world. Vaccines are the most cost-effective weapon in the arsenal of modern medicine to stop the spread of contagious disease, and they offer a relatively inexpensive means of lowering a society's overall cost of medical care. Prime examples of the success are the three million children whose lives are saved each year as a result of early childhood immunizations against diphtheria, polio, pertussis, tetanus, measles, and tuberculosis. Mr. President, consider the alternatives we have now. Pharmaceutical products, like the highly touted antiviral ``cocktail'' for treating AIDS patients can cost, on average, as much as $15,000 a year. That is a princely sum for even wealthy countries but clearly, for nations with per capita incomes of $700 or $800 like Malawi, such treatments and drugs are nowhere in the real of affordability. They also require enormous infrastructure investments and medical compliance which is difficult to adhere to in this country let alone developing societies. For these nations, finding an affordable vaccine for AIDS is really the only option that offers them an opportunity for gaining control over the AIDS epidemic. Unfortunately, of the $2.4 billion or so spent on overall AIDS research last year, only a fraction was spent on AIDS vaccine research. The World Bank estimates that perhaps between $280 million and $350 million was spend worldwide on finding a vaccine for AIDS in 1999, or somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of the total amount spent on AIDS research. Furthermore, of the $300 million or so spent on HIV vaccine research, less than $50 million came from private sector research and development budgets. Simply put, our biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries do not believe that investing in AIDS vaccine research is a good investment. So, Mr. President, we have a responsibility, an obligation, to change this perception. Investing in an AIDS vaccine is one of the best investments we as a nation can make. And for Africa, it is the only hope for survival. And while continued and expanded investments in our research engines are vitally important--I am referring to AIDS research at the National Institutes of Health--the time has come for us to explore additional strategies for stimulating private sector AIDS vaccine research and development. We must look for innovative financing mechanisms. We must instill the financial incentives for our pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors to engage in areas that have previously ignored. Mr. President, I was amazed to learn that of the $56 billion a year spent globally on health research, well over 90 percent is spent on research into health problems that concern only 10 percent of the world's population. Amazingly, of the 1,200 new drugs commercialized between 1975 and 1997, only 13 were for tropical diseases--diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis which combined kill close to 3 million people a year. Why is it that pharmaceutical companies don't invest in these diseases? Because there is no hope for finding a vaccine for malaria? No hope for finding an affordable vaccine for tuberculosis or HIV? Is the science just insurmountable? Absolutely not. Companies don't invest in these diseases because they don't foresee a profit. A malaria vaccine, while offering the potential to save millions of lives, does not offer the same return to shareholders as the return from Viagra, Lipitor, Prozac, or other blockbusters here in the United States. I don't blame the pharmaceutical industry for concern about their shareholders, but I believe it is morally imperative to jumpstart research into vaccines as quickly as possible. What then, is the answer? Should we turn our back on these diseases as a casualty of the way free markets function? Should we dump billions into new government bureaucracies to tackle these problems? The answer on both counts is no. We as a nation, and as a responsible member of the international community, should create the market incentives to encourage our pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, the best and brightest companies in the world, to invest in those diseases which are a scourge to the world. What we need to do is give pharmaceutical companies the financial incentives to achieve what we know is possible and let them work their magic--these are the same engines of growth and technological progress which have helped extend life expectancy beyond what was imaginable at the turn of the century. Now, let's help them turn their attention to those diseases which kill millions upon millions in developing countries. I think this type of public-private partnership is the most efficient means of addressing the world's growing health care pandemics. How would it world specifically? The legislation I introduce today, the ``Vaccines for the New Millennium Act,'' provides a number of market incentives to encourage private sector investment in lifesaving vaccines. These incentives can be classified in one of two ways. Some of them provide a ``push'' mechanism--lowering the cost of R&D at the front end. Others provide a ``pull'' mechanism, demonstrating that a market will exist if the pharmaceutical companies provide the product. On the push side, first, the bill expands on the research and development tax credit by increasing the credit rate from 20 percent to 50 percent for research related to developing vaccines for AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, or any infectious disease which kills over 1 million people a year. The tax credit is incremental such that the credit applies to research spending which exceeds a base amount. In effect, the credit rewards incremental increases in lifesaving vaccine research--thus giving our drug companies an incentive for more focus on lifesaving vaccines. Second, the bill allows small biotechnology companies which do not have tax liability to pass a smaller tax credit through to investors. Firms with assets under $50 million may choose to pass through a 25 percent tax credit to investors who provide financing for research and development on one of the priority vaccines. The credit would apply to stock issued after the date of enactment and used within 18 months to pay for qualified vaccine research expenses. Both of these proposals have been endorsed by a combination of public health advocacy groups and industry--including AIDS Action Council, the Global Health Council, the American Public Health Association and the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. Third, the bill authorizes voluntary contributions to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations and the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations is an international partnership recently established to expand and improve access to existing safe and cost-effective vaccines. It is being supported by a number of nations and international donors, including an incredibly generous founding gift by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A similar provision was included in the President's budget. By working to improve the delivery of existing vaccines, the Global Alliance not only offers the opportunity to save lives, it will improve health delivery systems for the distribution of future vaccines. Fourth, the bill authorizes voluntary contributions to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. In effect, the initiative provides financing to industry in return for international access to the vaccine. For example, under a typical IAVI/industry agreement, IAVI will provide financing in exchange for an agreement with the manufacturer to sell the vaccine to developing countries at very reasonable prices. Once again, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation provides a large portion of IAVI's funding. To further accelerate the invention and production of lifesaving vaccines, the bill includes a tax credit proposed in the President's budget. Under the proposal, every dollar paid by a qualifying organization to buy a lifesaving vaccine would be matched by a dollar of tax credits--thereby doubling the purchasing power of nonprofit organizations and others that purchase vaccines for developing countries. The credit only applies to vaccines not yet developed, thus demonstrating the existence of a market if drug companies fill the void. The credit would apply to vaccines for AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, or any other disease which kills over 1 million people annually. The bill also establishes a Lifesaving Vaccine Purchase Fund. This approach has been advocated most prominently by Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs, a witness on the third panel. Under my proposal, Congress would authorize and advance appropriate $100 million a year, over ten years, to a fund for the purchase and distribution of newly-developed vaccines for AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. The first appropriation would not occur until a vaccine has been licensed and approved. In effect, by establishing a guaranteed market, the proposal would provide a real incentive for additional private sector research. However, the money would not be spent until the vaccine was developed, thus postponing any cost to the government. Finally, the bill directs the Administration to initiate negotiations with officials of foreign governments for the establishment of an international vaccine purchase fund that would purchase and distribute in developing countries vaccines for malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, or any infectious disease which kills over 1 million people. It is assumed that if such an agreement is reached, the domestic fund described above would be integrated into the multilateral agreement. This is a comprehensive plan, Mr. President, which I have worked on for two years. This past weekend, it was endorsed as a positive step by academics, pharmaceutical executives and governmental leaders at a high-level conference convened by the University of California at San Francisco, World Bank and the Global Forum for Health Research. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi will introduce identical companion legislation in the House and it is my hope that our colleagues will give it equally serious attention.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Vaccines for the New Millennium Act of 2000. I have the honor of being joined by the distinguished chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, Senator Frist, and my friend, the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. This bill addresses a catastrophic problem that needs our immediate attention. The proportions of the AIDS calamity in Africa are stupefying. More than 33 million people are infected with HIV--95 percent of them in sub-Saharan Africa. This disease will kill more than 2.5 million this year. It has already orphaned 11 million children, and it will orphan 40 million by 2010. These numbers are incomprehensible. To put in perspective, nearly 60 people will become infected with HIV in the time it takes me to testify today. In addition, tuberculosis will kill close to 2 million this year, and a person dies from malaria every thirty seconds. No nation--but particularly ours--as rich as we are in talent, technology and money-- can fail to help turn this around. We should remember: borders do not matter when you are dealing with contagion. These epidemics are out of control. And if we are to reverse this death spiral, we need to institute bold new measures. We must provide new global health infrastructures which look at long-term solutions for disease eradication. And, until they are established, we must provide much-needed short-term financing for disease prevention and treatment. Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have shown great leadership in trying to find a solution to the health emergencies in the developing countries. I applaud the work of my friend, Senator Durbin with whom I have joined on a number of bills this year. I also recognize and support the efforts of Senator Boxer and Senator Smith for their work on the Global AIDS Plan. Senator Moynihan and Senator Feingold also have an important plan to prevent vertical transmission of HIV from mother to child. I have supported all these plans. Mr. President, I think we need to acknowledge the scope of this epidemic requires a bold response which looks beyond just preventing and treating this disease. The epidemiology of this disease dictates lifetime adherence to preventive measures. I am fully supportive of prevention programs--I have seen their very positive effect in the AIDS Action Committee in Boston and in AIDS Project Worcester. The Outer Cape also has a tremendous program which I support every year in Provincetown and these are echoed in small towns across Massachusetts which have accessed CDC grants and instituted the absolute best of community-based programs. I have also been an early and consistent supporter of the Ryan White program which comes up for reauthorization this year. But, Mr. President, we need a vaccine--for the United States and for the developing world. Vaccines are the most cost-effective weapon in the arsenal of modern medicine to stop the spread of contagious disease, and they offer a relatively inexpensive means of lowering a society's overall cost of medical care. Prime examples of the success are the three million children whose lives are saved each year as a result of early childhood immunizations against diphtheria, polio, pertussis, tetanus, measles, and tuberculosis. Mr. President, consider the alternatives we have now. Pharmaceutical products, like the highly touted antiviral ``cocktail'' for treating AIDS patients can cost, on average, as much as $15,000 a year. That is a princely sum for even wealthy countries but clearly, for nations with per capita incomes of $700 or $800 like Malawi, such treatments and drugs are nowhere in the real of affordability. They also require enormous infrastructure investments and medical compliance which is difficult to adhere to in this country let alone developing societies. For these nations, finding an affordable vaccine for AIDS is really the only option that offers them an opportunity for gaining control over the AIDS epidemic. Unfortunately, of the $2.4 billion or so spent on overall AIDS research last year, only a fraction was spent on AIDS vaccine research. The World Bank estimates that perhaps between $280 million and $350 million was spend worldwide on finding a vaccine for AIDS in 1999, or somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of the total amount spent on AIDS research. Furthermore, of the $300 million or so spent on HIV vaccine research, less than $50 million came from private sector research and development budgets. Simply put, our biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries do not believe that investing in AIDS vaccine research is a good investment. So, Mr. President, we have a responsibility, an obligation, to change this perception. Investing in an AIDS vaccine is one of the best investments we as a nation can make. And for Africa, it is the only hope for survival. And while continued and expanded investments in our research engines are vitally important--I am referring to AIDS research at the National Institutes of Health--the time has come for us to explore additional strategies for stimulating private sector AIDS vaccine research and development. We must look for innovative financing mechanisms. We must instill the financial incentives for our pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors to engage in areas that have previously ignored. Mr. President, I was amazed to learn that of the $56 billion a year spent globally on health research, well over 90 percent is spent on research into health problems that concern only 10 percent of the world's population. Amazingly, of the 1,200 new drugs commercialized between 1975 and 1997, only 13 were for tropical diseases--diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis which combined kill close to 3 million people a year. Why is it that pharmaceutical companies don't invest in these diseases? Because there is no hope for finding a vaccine for malaria? No hope for finding an affordable vaccine for tuberculosis or HIV? Is the science just insurmountable? Absolutely not. Companies don't invest in these diseases because they don't foresee a profit. A malaria vaccine, while offering the potential to save millions of lives, does not offer the same return to shareholders as the return from Viagra, Lipitor, Prozac, or other blockbusters here in the United States. I don't blame the pharmaceutical industry for concern about their shareholders, but I believe it is morally imperative to jumpstart research into vaccines as quickly as possible. What then, is the answer? Should we turn our back on these diseases as a casualty of the way free markets function? Should we dump billions into new government bureaucracies to tackle these problems? The answer on both counts is no. We as a nation, and as a responsible member of the international community, should create the market incentives to encourage our pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, the best and brightest companies in the world, to invest in those diseases which are a scourge to the world. What we need to do is give pharmaceutical companies the financial incentives to achieve what we know is possible and let them work their magic--these are the same engines of growth and technological progress which have helped extend life expectancy beyond what was imaginable at the turn of the century. Now, let's help them turn their attention to those diseases which kill millions upon millions in developing countries. I think this type of public-private partnership is the most efficient means of addressing the world's growing health care pandemics. How would it world specifically? The legislation I introduce today, the ``Vaccines for the New Millennium Act,'' provides a number of market incentives to encourage private sector investment in lifesaving vaccines. These incentives can be classified in one of two ways. Some of them provide a ``push'' mechanism--lowering the cost of R&D at the front end. Others provide a ``pull'' mechanism, demonstrating that a market will exist if the pharmaceutical companies provide the product. On the push side, first, the bill expands on the research and development tax credit by increasing the credit rate from 20 percent to 50 percent for research related to developing vaccines for AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, or any infectious disease which kills over 1 million people a year. The tax credit is incremental such that the credit applies to research spending which exceeds a base amount. In effect, the credit rewards incremental increases in lifesaving vaccine research--thus giving our drug companies an incentive for more focus on lifesaving vaccines. Second, the bill allows small biotechnology companies which do not have tax liability to pass a smaller tax credit through to investors. Firms with assets under $50 million may choose to pass through a 25 percent tax credit to investors who provide financing for research and development on one of the priority vaccines. The credit would apply to stock issued after the date of enactment and used within 18 months to pay for qualified vaccine research expenses. Both of these proposals have been endorsed by a combination of public health advocacy groups and industry--including AIDS Action Council, the Global Health Council, the American Public Health Association and the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. Third, the bill authorizes voluntary contributions to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations and the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations is an international partnership recently established to expand and improve access to existing safe and cost-effective vaccines. It is being supported by a number of nations and international donors, including an incredibly generous founding gift by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A similar provision was included in the President's budget. By working to improve the delivery of existing vaccines, the Global Alliance not only offers the opportunity to save lives, it will improve health delivery systems for the distribution of future vaccines. Fourth, the bill authorizes voluntary contributions to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. In effect, the initiative provides financing to industry in return for international access to the vaccine. For example, under a typical IAVI/industry agreement, IAVI will provide financing in exchange for an agreement with the manufacturer to sell the vaccine to developing countries at very reasonable prices. Once again, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation provides a large portion of IAVI's funding. To further accelerate the invention and production of lifesaving vaccines, the bill includes a tax credit proposed in the President's budget. Under the proposal, every dollar paid by a qualifying organization to buy a lifesaving vaccine would be matched by a dollar of tax credits--thereby doubling the purchasing power of nonprofit organizations and others that purchase vaccines for developing countries. The credit only applies to vaccines not yet developed, thus demonstrating the existence of a market if drug companies fill the void. The credit would apply to vaccines for AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, or any other disease which kills over 1 million people annually. The bill also establishes a Lifesaving Vaccine Purchase Fund. This approach has been advocated most prominently by Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs, a witness on the third panel. Under my proposal, Congress would authorize and advance appropriate $100 million a year, over ten years, to a fund for the purchase and distribution of newly-developed vaccines for AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. The first appropriation would not occur until a vaccine has been licensed and approved. In effect, by establishing a guaranteed market, the proposal would provide a real incentive for additional private sector research. However, the money would not be spent until the vaccine was developed, thus postponing any cost to the government. Finally, the bill directs the Administration to initiate negotiations with officials of foreign governments for the establishment of an international vaccine purchase fund that would purchase and distribute in developing countries vaccines for malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, or any infectious disease which kills over 1 million people. It is assumed that if such an agreement is reached, the domestic fund described above would be integrated into the multilateral agreement. This is a comprehensive plan, Mr. President, which I have worked on for two years. This past weekend, it was endorsed as a positive step by academics, pharmaceutical executives and governmental leaders at a high-level conference convened by the University of California at San Francisco, World Bank and the Global Forum for Health Research. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi will introduce identical companion legislation in the House and it is my hope that our colleagues will give it equally serious attention.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the dialog. It has been helpful. I always appreciate having it with him. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. For the purposes of this, let us say it is 50 percent. I don't understand the public policy rationale for 50 percent of this benefit that we are going to grant going to private schools when 90 percent of America's children are in public schools, and of that 90 percent, the vast majority are poorer than those 52 percent who are going to get the benefit. It just doesn't make sense.

Mr. KERRY. Fifty percent.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I may again just quickly say the Joint Tax Committee tells us that they arrive at an assessment where under the legislation of the Senator from Georgia, 52 percent of the tax benefit will go to taxpayers with children in private schools.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I believe my friend will acknowledge, as he has already--I think he said that a majority of this benefit will go to families in private schools.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my friend knows full well that the famous teacher Stanley Surrey, I think at Harvard Law, coined the phrase ``tax expenditure.'' We make choices in the Senate that if you forego a tax you expect to collect, it is an expenditure. Now, that is a well-known principle in terms of how we operate.

Mr. KERRY. As I have said, the real fight is the issue of this concept.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I say to my colleague--and he knows this full well--there are Members of the Senate who basically have been fighting for years to create sort of a full-fledged support system, through the Federal Government, for education and/or for schools outside the public school structure. That has been a great fight in the Senate. What I said is it is not the $7 that is critical here; it is the principle. If we adopt in the Senate a notion that we are going to now in the United States have a full-fledged support system for parochial schools and religious schools through the elementary and secondary level, that is new. Once we have made it $7, you are going to come back--or someone is--and say we haven't given them enough; we have to give them $500 because that is more meaningful. Of course, if we were willing to support either private or religious schools previously, what would stop us from giving them more money now? That is what this fight is about; it is not about the $7. Although, as a matter of choice, I don't see why it is we reward people who are already capable of sending their kids to these places and have made that choice versus the people who are having the hardest time making ends meet.

Mr. KERRY. Now, when I see chapter 1 unfunded, or I see urban centers where they don't have computers, and I see so many kids in so many parts of the country whose families can't afford any of the amenities that make a difference, I find it very hard as a matter of choice to suggest that even that 50 percent is appropriately spent. Now, I am not arguing with the Senator. I am not suggesting to him or saying that some family in public school may not benefit from this. I understand some public schools have uniform codes and a parent may be able to go buy a portion of the uniform. I don't know how much $7 a year is going to do. If you are doing it K through 12, that is the interest. The only benefit under the Finance Committee rule is the tax benefit of the tax-free interest savings. So you can withdraw the money you have put into the savings account, but all you are really getting the benefit on is the tax-free component. Say you put $500 in there and you have to draw it out in 2 years at 6 percent, or 5 percent, which is what they are earning nowadays--these things aren't even marketable; none of the major houses are marketing them, so you are going to earn base interest on it and you are not going to get much money as a consequence of that. So when you have very few resources, I say to the Senator, what is the justification?

Mr. KERRY. I appreciate that my friend from Georgia is fairminded, and we always engage in good dialog. I appreciate that. First, we are sent here to make choices about priorities for the country.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me underscore that distinction to my friend. The Vice President, No. 1, laid out the most comprehensive plan set forward by anybody running for President of the United States. He set forward a plan that included $115 million for a trust fund over 10 years. He set forward a plan to attract principals, to deal with teachers' pay, and with standards. It was a broad-based plan, and the section that the Senator from Georgia refers to does not apply to private secondary and elementary schools. It is college and job training. Historically--and I drew this distinction--the Congress of the United States has always drawn a distinction between the higher education structure and the secondary and elementary structure. The problems I cited are precisely the reason why you need to have a broad-based approach before you throw any piecemeal legislation out there.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, may I respond?

Mr. KERRY. I don't agree with everything President Clinton does or has done.

Mr. KERRY. I said in my comments that the amount of money is really not the key. I said I throw away the $7 as not particularly moving. But the $7 comes from the Joint Tax Committee estimate.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for an answer?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there has been a long discussion here. I do not know if I am the last in the course of the afternoon. If I am, I apologize profusely to those who are enduring until we are released, but I would like to share some thoughts regarding this bill, if I may. We are not sure what the status will be tomorrow morning with respect to debate or opportunity to comment on it. I just heard the Senator from Minnesota say the sky is not falling in. It is not the end of public education for the small amount of experiments that have taken place in Minnesota. I am sure that is absolutely true, looking at the amount of money involved, maybe $7 a year to a family using it for K-12, because once they have put whatever money aside they could in order to take advantage of K-12, the amount of interest buildup is not that great. So obviously we are not talking about the grandest sums of money. That is not what is really at stake. In point of fact, the small amount of money is, in and of itself, an argument against doing what we are doing because it barely makes a difference to most of these families--though our colleagues who are advocating it argue that whatever difference it makes, it is worth trying to make that difference. But that obscures what is really at stake here. It obscures the very significant, large issues about what the Senate ought to be doing, about what the real priorities of education in the country are, and about the inappropriateness of the underlying principle on which this bill is based. So it does not matter how much money, whether it is $10, $20, $30. It is a question of whether or not we are addressing the real concerns of education; whether or not this is what the Senate ought to be doing as its first act of speaking on the issue of education in the year 2000. It is astonishing to me that given the breadth of the education needs of the country, and given everybody's acceptance that education is perhaps the single most important issue to the Nation, here we are, when we could spend weeks on the critical issue of a broad-based approach to education, we have one little tidbit, one little piece of bait hanging out there as a statement of where our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to want to come from with respect to the larger issue of education itself. What am I talking about? In the legislation, on page 5, where it talks about a qualified elementary and secondary education expense, it says specifically that this can go to anyone who is: . . . an elementary or secondary school student at a public, private or religious school. . . . This is an enormous transition for the United States of America because what we are talking about is a first-time extension of a significant tax approach to secondary and elementary school, private, and religious education. We have historically always drawn a critical line between higher education and secondary and elementary education. We do that for a lot of different reasons, not the least of which is that the Federal Government has never assumed fundamental responsibility as a national priority, if you will, for every person in America going on to higher education. Though we hope it, we want it, we encourage it, we have Pell grants, we have student loans, we have all kinds of ways in which we encourage people to do that, but we do not have the breadth of touch on the students because of the great breadth of educational opportunity that has grown up privately in the country. That is not true in public education, which has been a commitment for secondary and elementary schoolchildren since this country's founding when Thomas Jefferson first talked about the pillars of education; since the days when we first made our commitment to a public education system that would help serve as the great melting pot/equalizer, if you will, by which we help to bind the country together as a country. That was going to happen, not through divisions of wealth but, rather, through people knowing that by every child in America sharing in the opportunities of public education we would build that kind of country. All of us understand the educational system we have today is not performing, in some places, in the way we desire. It is, I might add, performing an awful lot better in a lot more places than many people want to admit. The fact is, there are some stunningly capable, extraordinary public schools across this country. They are providing students for the best universities in the Nation. What we need to talk about on the floor of the Senate is how we are going to empower every public school in the country to be able to replicate the best practices that take place at those other extraordinary public schools, or, I might add, at a private school, or at a religious school. But we do not fund it, and that is what this legislation seeks to do. It is called the Affordable Education Act. I am not sure why it is called the Affordable Education Act because only those who can already afford to send their kids to a parochial or to a charter school or some other kind of school really are going to benefit from it. It is hardly going to be affordable to the families for whom the question of affordability is most important. It is certainly not going to be affordable even for those families who are already making savings because the amount of money they are allowed to put away hardly makes anything affordable. Finally, it really is not affordable because it applies to so few kids. Ninety percent of the children in America go to school in public schools, and nothing in this act is going to alter that one iota. Ninety percent of the kids in America go to school in public schools. What we really ought to call this act is the Alternative to Public Education Act because that is really what it seeks to do. It seeks to establish a new principle by which we can come back each year and begin to build up the amount of money that some will fight for to put into savings accounts so that ultimately it will grow to a sufficient amount that, indeed, will become the alternative to public education for those who have the ability to make that choice or, for various reasons of abandonment of the public school system, are encouraged to do so as the only way to send their kids, in their judgment, somewhere that will make a difference. What we ought to be talking about in this Chamber today--in fact, every day until we complete the task--is how we are going to guarantee that every school within the public school system has a fair opportunity to make of itself what schools in the richest communities make or schools which are the beneficiaries of remarkable endowments or parents in various parts of the country who have enormous sums of money and, in some cases, schools which are not necessarily dependent on a significant amount of money but which have a core group of parents and students which allows them to behave in a way that is different from some schools in the inner cities or in rural areas where it is much tougher to build that kind of support. The question the Senate ought to be debating is why we are not here as our first act trying to guarantee the real promise of America, which is to make certain that all of our children have an opportunity to go to schools that will make a difference in their lives on the positive side of the ledger. We have been around this sometime before in the Senate, and it grows increasingly frustrating as we continually come back with these scatter-shot, little tidbit efforts. I know my colleague from Georgia does not view it as a tidbit. I know this is important to him personally. I know it is important to some colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But you cannot look me or anyone else in the eye and suggest this can pretend to be a comprehensive approach to the education needs of this country. If it is not, you cannot convince me that this is where we ought to begin the debate about what we are going to do to fix the schools in the country. I have come to the floor and said this to my colleague from Georgia. I do not understand it. I know no one is going to accuse me of not being here long enough to understand it. I think I have a pretty good sense of how the politics of these issues work, and I still am frustrated and do not understand it because I do not think we are always that far off. Yet we continually keep talking past each other. I heard the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, argue that we ought to have a very significant increase in the amount of money we put into education. I am confident that when he was Governor, the Chair understood full well the difficulties of some of the urban centers of the State he represents on how hard it is, based on a low tax base, to provide for computers or provide for sports programs in the afternoons or for libraries that stay open or afterschool programs or remedial programs for kids who are having trouble learning. These things do cost money. The fact is, there are communities in our country that do not have a tax base to go to. Yet we have an agrarian-based structure that suggests we still ought to have a school system working on those old hours as well as on the old funding mechanism. Where does the money come from? The money comes from property taxes, except to the degree they get money from the State treasury in either some form of education reform or other disbursement. For too many communities, they have zero ability. In our State, we had the same tax revolution everybody else in the country had. We had a limit on the amount property taxes can be increased--and properly so, I might add. There are a lot of families on fixed incomes. There are a lot of senior citizens who have paid for their homes who do not have the income stream to support an increase in revenue. There are a lot of young families starting out who do not have the ability to find the extra cash-flow to pay for the property tax increase that might be necessary to adequately fund a really excellent school system. What do we do? We merrily go down the road ourselves ignoring this fundamental reality. I am with my colleagues on the other side of the fence. I do not want to throw money down a dark hole. I do not want to give money to a school system that is layered with politics, or has an inability to hold the teachers accountable, or does not have a structure that involves parents and has accountability of what kids are learning. I do not think anybody in the Senate wants to do that. So I am having difficulty understanding why it is we cannot find a formula by which we are prepared to put some money into the system requiring those systems to embrace real reform, leaving up to those systems--and this is important--the determination of how they will get their kids to the end goal of a superlative education. I do not think the Federal Government ought to run that. I do not think we ought to come trotting in with some new mandate and tell people, if you do not do this--that is not what this is about. We are only 7 percent of the budget of schools across this country. Moreover, it is a steadfast principle that none of us wants to break that somehow the Federal Government ought to be involved in running the schools. We do not want that. I do not want that. I believe in local control, but local control has to mean also local empowerment, local capacity, local ability to do some of these things. None of our colleagues can ignore the fact that if you are a young law student getting out of law school, one of the better law schools in the Nation, and you go to work in Boston or New York, you are going to start out now at $140,000 with the top law firms. Right out of law school, you can earn as much as a Senator, which may not be an appropriate measurement of anything, but that is what we are valuing. A teacher comes out of college with $50,000 to $100,000 of loans, which they are required to start paying back the minute they go to work. They are going to start at $22,000, $21,000, $23,000, maybe work their way into the thirties after they have 15 years and a master's degree, and, depending on the school system, they can be at some school systems where they can get into the sixties, but with most of them they are in the forties after almost a career of service. How do we turn to any student saddled with those loans in college and say: Ignore all those dot coms where you can earn 60,000 bucks almost right out of school, ignore the opportunities of the marketplace where there is 4-percent unemployment and you have this extraordinary gap in all the technological fields where the greatest restraint on growth to our Nation is going to be the lack of an available skilled labor pool, and we are going to say to kids who are facing that kind of job market: Come teach and be a pauper; come teach, but forget the notion that you can share in that cape cottage or buy that extra car or have a longer vacation; you are going to just eke it out, you are going to just make it, but we expect you to raise your family the same way everybody else does and to live by the rules, and so forth and so on. Are we crazy? We have lost all sense of proportion if we are not willing to try to recognize that if you are going to value teaching, you have to value teaching. That means valuing it by putting a fair market value on the people you want to have teach. Does that mean that in exchange for that fair market value, you had better get your return? You bet it does. Does that mean accountability? Yes. Does that mean if you are not doing the job properly, you ought to be able to be fired? Yes. Does that mean you may have to work longer hours in return for that? Yes, it does. I do not understand why we cannot come to some kind of an agreement that liberates every school system to go out and be the best it can be, and to let parents have choice, and have competition within the public school system. I am all for that. That is the best form of accountability there is in America--competition. I have seen this happen. I have gone to many blue ribbon schools and have said: Why is this a blue ribbon school? What is it about this school that makes it a place where parents are clamoring to put their kids, but you go 10 blocks away and there is a school nobody wants to go to? You can very quickly pinpoint real, tangible reasons those differences exist. Generally it begins with the principal. There is a great principal in every blue ribbon school I have visited. One of the great deficits in America today is our lack of capacity to attract, in some of the more complicated systems, the principals we really need in the context of modern education. Once again, that is a reflection of the money involved. It is a reflection of the school system, the structure, and other kinds of things. But we ought to be on the floor of the Senate with a comprehensive approach as to how we attract young corporate chieftains, who are able to retire today with extraordinary wealth, to perhaps come in and be the principal of a school for a short period of time, lending their expertise. Ex-military officers, who retire after 20, 25 years, and are still young and have great talents in leadership, could help to manage. I forget the name of the general out in Seattle who passed away a year and a half to 2 years ago who did an extraordinary job of doing just that. He became beloved in the school system because of the leadership skills he brought to the task. We should have a national effort geared to try to attract people and pull them into these jobs. If we did that, we could begin to create energy in our schools where they competed with each other. As the parents say: I want to go over to the Driscoll school. I think what has happened over there at that Bartlett school is not working for my kid, but over at the other school all the parents are raving about the school system. The kids are doing better in their homework. They seem to have more discipline. All of a sudden, the schools are going to reverberate with parents making that kind of choice. This isn't novel. There are a lot of places in the country where that is happening today. It is working. There are many other ways in which we could have a greater level of accountability in our school system. All of this underscores what the real debate ought to be. I am also astonished that we are quick to come to the floor of the Senate to put more money into tougher sentencing. We will put people away for longer periods of time in jail. We will build more jails. We provided more assistance in the crime bill to do that. All of those things are important. But isn't it equally important to try to prevent some of those kids from falling into those kinds of troubled lives when it makes a difference? We know, to an absolute certainty, that the time when most of these kids get into trouble is in the afternoon when they are out of school, unsupervised, and they go back to apartments or houses where there is no adult until 6 or 7 o'clock in the evening. I believe it was almost 8 or 9 years ago that the Carnegie Foundation did an extensive study pinpointing most of the difficulties teenagers had in the afterschool hours--unwanted pregnancies, drug experimentation, trouble on the street corners. All of these things have occurred because they were not in school and because schools did not have the afterschool programs necessary to provide the value- oriented structure they need. Ask any child psychologist in the United States of America, ask any penologist in the United States of America, and they will tell you children need structure. When you release kids at 1:30 or 2 o'clock in the afternoon to almost a half a day of no structure, you are inviting the kinds of problems we have invited in the last years. It would be much cheaper to invest in long-term education, afterschool programs, early childhood education, et cetera, than to build $50,000- to $75,000-a-year prison cells for the people we have allowed to slip through the cracks. People say: Do we really allow them to slip through the cracks? Let me tell you, I have visited some schools where kids have dropped out. In America, it used to be that you had a truancy system. If you dropped out or you left your school for a couple of days, teachers actually cared about it. They said: Wait a minute. Johnny is not here today. Where is he? Somebody went after him to find out what was going on. Today, in cities all across America, a kid may not show up for school, and nobody does anything about it. Parents do not even know the kid did not show up. There is no money for truant officers? There is no money to track anybody? There is no way to do that? What do you mean? We are the richest country on the face of this planet. We have created more wealth in the last 10 years than at any time in American history. We have 460-plus billionaires in America today. We have had a surplus now for the second year in a row. We are sitting around toying with whether or not we are going to give seven bucks a year to people who already have money so they can send their kid to a religious school or a private school. What are we doing? This place is losing its relevancy to the real problems of America if we cannot start at the beginning. The beginning is this broad-based problem that exists with respect to education in America. It is rampant. We understand that. How can our colleagues not come to the floor and say: It really does make a difference whether a teacher is being asked to teach 35 kids, 40 kids, 30 kids, 28 kids, or 18 kids. I have talked to first-grade teachers who tell me they have kids coming into the first grade today who cannot do the things kids used to do when they went to the first grade. They cannot do simple shapes. They cannot recognize colors. They cannot do early numbers. The teacher has to take that kid and somehow mainstream that child while managing the educational life of all the other kids in the classroom. I challenge any of my colleagues to do that for a day or two and see how they feel at the end of that effort. When you shortchange that teaching capacity, you are shortchanging every kid in the classroom. It has lasting impact. I will give you another example. Not so long ago, I visited the Castle Square Early Child Development Center in Boston. There are 67 kids--infants and toddlers--who are in the Early Child Development Center. Of those 67 kids, I think 98 percent are the sons and daughters of single parents. That is a cycle we are trying to break. We do not want to pass that on to the next generation. The best way not to pass it on to the next generation is to guarantee kids have the kind of structure that makes a difference in their lives. But for the 67 kids who were in the early child development center, there were 550 on the waiting list. Maybe 5, maybe 10 of the 550 will be lucky enough to cross the threshold of that child development center before they have to report for the first grade. Under the law of the land, you are supposed to report for the first grade ready to learn. But as we are learning, too many of these kids come to the first grade and are not ready to learn. So we have built a deficit into the system before we even begin. Then we turn around and respond by saying: The roof is falling in on the public education system of America. What are we going to do about it? Well, we are going to give kids an opportunity to go somewhere else. Where? To a private school, to a parochial school, to a charter school? Mr. President, there aren't enough places in private schools, in parochial schools or charter schools in this country to save a generation of American children. We can't build those schools fast enough. There aren't enough seats. So we can talk about that as an alternative all we want. It is no alternative. The alternative is to fix the public school system where 90 percent of the kids in this country go to school. Again and again, I say it, 90 percent. If we had the most ambitious program my colleagues on the other side of the aisle could design to have a voucher or to create some alternative, we couldn't take care of 5 to 10 percent of America's children, let alone 90 percent. If we want to fill those high-tech jobs, if we want America to match the increased focus of Asia, Europe, Latin America, and other countries on education as their primary need with respect to the digital divide and the economies of the future, if we are going to do that, we have to pay attention to the educational opportunities afforded to our youngest children at the earliest stages of life. It is incomprehensible to me that we can't find the capacity to make certain that those 550 kids can all get the kind of early input they need so we can alleviate some of the crises in our school system by sending kids to school ready to learn. All of this is part of a mosaic: early child education, early maternal input. Whether a mother is able to properly provide nutrition for a child affects a child's learning ability. All of these things do. It is very fashionable by many in the Senate to say that is the responsibility of parents. Yes, it is. It is the responsibility of parents. I agree. But what do you do when there aren't any parents? What do you do when there is only one parent who is working two to three jobs in order to make ends meet because that is also what we want them to do in America? They can't find the adequate child care. They don't have grandma and grandpa living in the house anymore. That is another change in America. People don't live that way anymore in the United States. So we don't have that great continuum that came down through generations that used to be the great teaching mechanism. But that is gone now. We have empty households. So what do we do? We can talk about family. We can talk about values. We can also talk about the other great teachers. Religion is one of the other great teachers, absolutely. But without the parents, too many of these kids don't have that either. If they are dropping out of school, they don't have the other great teacher. So we have millions of kids, literally, around the United States of America who don't have any of the three great teachers in life. They don't have the family teacher, they don't have the organized religious teacher, and they don't have the teacher teacher in school because they are at risk in dropping out. How do we fill the gap? We don't. We are debating whether or not to fill a nonexistent gap, to give some money to people who have already made a choice to send their kids to these schools. That is who most benefit by the legislation on the floor of the Senate. The people who benefit by this legislation are people who can save that kind of money. They are the people whose kids are probably already in a religious school or a private school. They are the kids who are already availing themselves of those benefits. I am not saying to my colleague there is no value in providing relief for one of those parents. That is why we voted for tax relief. That is why we provide student loans. We do lots of things to provide that kind of relief. I am all for that. But let us get our priorities straight. It seems to me the first obligation of the Senate is to come here embracing an overall concept. I might add to my colleague from Georgia, here we are being asked to spend $1-plus billion, $2 billion. It is as in a vacuum. I am being asked to give $2 billion to parents whose kids may go to religious or private schools without even knowing that the rest of the budget is going to be for any of the other things I have talked about. Are they going to be cut? Are we going to have less money for after school? Are we going to have less money for chapter 1? How much money are we going to have in the School Lunch Program this year? How much money will we have for Head Start? If I have to cut those or can't have as much as we ought to have, would we then take this $2 billion and put it elsewhere? This is simply not timely. It is not appropriate. I hope it is not a statement of the full measure of priority of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I hope it is not. There are other colleagues waiting to speak. I have gone on longer than I had intended. I hope this year can be a year in which the Senate can find its way to a comprehensive, across-the-aisle dialog, to bring ourselves together in a spirit of compromise. So far the only compromise I have seen with respect to the so-called Straight A's plan and the approach of our friends has been on our side of the fence. It is my hope we can have that real dialog. I look forward to it and thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I have no objection.

Mr. KERRY. If I may ask, Mr. President, how long does the Senator from Minnesota plan to speak?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the public service of Mary Ford, who recently stepped down as the Mayor of Northampton, Massachusetts. Throughout her 8 years in office, Mayor Ford has elevated the City to one of the jewels of New England, and I join all of her friends, family, and constituents in honoring her today. As Mayor of Northampton, Ms. Ford oversaw the improvement of the school system, conducted comprehensive infrastructure improvements, modernized city services, and restored fiscal discipline. Perhaps the largest measure of her contributions to the city rests in the fact that, in the course of managing an annual budget of $55 million dollars, she erased a $3.2 million deficit. This financial turn-around allowed the city to entertain larger goals; the renovation and expansion of Northampton High School, the establishment of an innovative trust to preserve Section 8 assistance, and establishing Northampton as an attractive place to start new businesses. Her leadership on the budget, which includes the general fund, schools, and enterprise funds, has been complemented by computerizing all the city office's and raising hiring standards. She set the policy priorities for all the city's administrative departments, including; housing, health and safety inspection services, planning, culture and arts, finance, as well as economic and community development. Mayor Ford orchestrated all of these elements into a cohesive, focused set of services that was delivered in an effective and efficient manner, thus improving the lives of all residents. Due to Mary Ford's leadership, The City of Northampton is now one of the state's thriving, growing cities. The list of her accomplishments on behalf of the city's revitalization is varied and extensive; she improved the city's emergency response capabilities by allotting $5.5 million for a state- of-the-art firehouse, renovated one third of the city's roads, and conducted comprehensive traffic re-designing for increased safety. Her accomplishments in education include securing an investment of $25 million for the modernization of Northampton's high school, a $12 million middle school expansion program, and work with the entire system's faculty and staff in implementing staff recommendations, reforming curriculum, and increasing parental involvement. She has also shared her expertise in municipal and governmental affairs with state and national organizations. From 1995-99, she was a member of the Human Development Committee in the National League of Cities, a founding member of the Regional Education Business Alliance, Chair of the Task Force on the Future of State and Local Revenue Sharing for the Massachusetts Municipal Association, and President of the Women Elected Municipal Officials organization in 1998. Mr. President, I am proud to regard Mary Ford as a friend, colleague and partner in maintaining Massachusetts's economic prosperity and growth. She has performed an enormous task for the City and its residents, and I join with all of Northampton in thanking her for her exemplary public service and leadership.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President today I am introducing the Home Heating Readiness Act, which I offer with Senators Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Jeffords. The goal of this legislation is to prevent sharp and sustained increases in the price of home heating fuel, like the kind of price spike we are experiencing right now in Massachusetts and other northeastern states. Mr. President, at the end of December, the price of a gallon of home heating oil in Massachusetts average $1.78 across the state, and in some local areas consumers are complaining of prices as high as $2.00 per gallon. Only several weeks ago, when the weather was warmer, the price was far lower, about $.98, but as soon as the weather turned cold--as soon as families needed more oil to heat their homes--the price spiked. I want to be clear, on average, it appears that this winter will be warmer than most. Our problem is not the weather alone, something else in the supply chain of heating oil has failed. The Home Heating Readiness Act is an effort to learn, before it's too late, the steps we can take to correct deficiencies and prevent price spikes. Already the Energy Information Administration examines the price of heating fuel each fall in a report called the Winter Fuels Outlook, and the Administration has done, overall, an excellent job of examining supply, demand and potential weather scenarios and estimating the price of heating oil and propane. This legislation would ask the Administration to go farther and examine the functional capability of the industries, to search out potential problems and help us prevent or mitigate them. It asks EIA to examine the global and regional crude oil and refined product supplies; the adequacy and utilization of refinery capability; the adequacy, utilization, and distribution of regional refined product storage capacity; weather conditions; refined product transportation system; market inefficiencies; and any other factor affecting the functional capability of the industry to provide affordable home heating oil and propane. In addition to identifying problems, EIA will make recommendations on how those problems can be corrected, and how price spikes can be avoided or at least mitigated. Mr. President, with this legislation we are asking the EIA to do more and we should appropriate more funding to get the job done. For now, this legislation does not authorize a specific amount. It is my hope that the Clinton administration will work with us to determine an appropriate authorization level that we can add into this bill at an appropriate time. To help alleviate our current fuel crises the Clinton administration has released roughly $175 million to help low income families. I want to applaud that decision--those resources are urgently needed. However, I want to also point out that if we prevent these price spikes with better evaluation of the industry, we may have to spend less of those emergency funds in future winters. Finally, I want to work with Energy and Natural Resources Committee to get its input on how this proposal can be improved to meet our goals. The old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure certainly holds true in this case, and I hope that we act to create the Home Heating Readiness Report. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President today I am introducing the Home Heating Readiness Act, which I offer with Senators Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Jeffords. The goal of this legislation is to prevent sharp and sustained increases in the price of home heating fuel, like the kind of price spike we are experiencing right now in Massachusetts and other northeastern states. Mr. President, at the end of December, the price of a gallon of home heating oil in Massachusetts average $1.78 across the state, and in some local areas consumers are complaining of prices as high as $2.00 per gallon. Only several weeks ago, when the weather was warmer, the price was far lower, about $.98, but as soon as the weather turned cold--as soon as families needed more oil to heat their homes--the price spiked. I want to be clear, on average, it appears that this winter will be warmer than most. Our problem is not the weather alone, something else in the supply chain of heating oil has failed. The Home Heating Readiness Act is an effort to learn, before it's too late, the steps we can take to correct deficiencies and prevent price spikes. Already the Energy Information Administration examines the price of heating fuel each fall in a report called the Winter Fuels Outlook, and the Administration has done, overall, an excellent job of examining supply, demand and potential weather scenarios and estimating the price of heating oil and propane. This legislation would ask the Administration to go farther and examine the functional capability of the industries, to search out potential problems and help us prevent or mitigate them. It asks EIA to examine the global and regional crude oil and refined product supplies; the adequacy and utilization of refinery capability; the adequacy, utilization, and distribution of regional refined product storage capacity; weather conditions; refined product transportation system; market inefficiencies; and any other factor affecting the functional capability of the industry to provide affordable home heating oil and propane. In addition to identifying problems, EIA will make recommendations on how those problems can be corrected, and how price spikes can be avoided or at least mitigated. Mr. President, with this legislation we are asking the EIA to do more and we should appropriate more funding to get the job done. For now, this legislation does not authorize a specific amount. It is my hope that the Clinton administration will work with us to determine an appropriate authorization level that we can add into this bill at an appropriate time. To help alleviate our current fuel crises the Clinton administration has released roughly $175 million to help low income families. I want to applaud that decision--those resources are urgently needed. However, I want to also point out that if we prevent these price spikes with better evaluation of the industry, we may have to spend less of those emergency funds in future winters. Finally, I want to work with Energy and Natural Resources Committee to get its input on how this proposal can be improved to meet our goals. The old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure certainly holds true in this case, and I hope that we act to create the Home Heating Readiness Report. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.