John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Today we must vote on a package of bills that are intended to promote trade and thereby lift-up the economies of sub-Saharan African and Carribean Basin nations. I believe strongly in that premise. I believe that free and fair trade can improve the lives of workers in developing nations and is vital to improve our economy at home. On balance, this achieves those goals, and I therefore support it. Much of the debate surrounding this package of trade bills has centered on the provisions dealing with Africa. This is proper, as it is the AGOA portion of the bill that I am most concerned about. Many argue that AGOA is the last chance for Africa to develop a textile industry. In 2005, current quotas on textiles from Asia and other parts of the world will be lifted. If we lift those quotas on sub-Saharan African countries now, those countries may have some chance to develop their textile industry in the next five years, before Asia--especially China--has a chance to dominate textile manufacturing. If Africa does not develop its textile industry now, there is no way it will be able to compete with China in 2005. This would not only hurt African nations, who will be without a textile industry, but it will hurt US apparel manufacturers, who will have one less resource to produce their products and will be forced to send more of their work to China. That said, this bill fails to address many of the crucial problems facing Africa, and it would be tragic if this were the final word on Africa. First, this bill fails to address the perhaps the single greatest barrier to economic growth and development in Africa: the spread of AIDS. Unless our efforts to combat this epidemic are bolstered immediately, this public health disaster will result in severe economic distress for African countries. The effect of this disease, which strikes people in their most economically productive years, cannot be ignored if we expect these countries to be effective trading partners. It is imperative and entirely appropriate to include AIDS relief in this legislation. A recent study in Namibia estimated that AIDS cost the country almost 8 percent of its GNP in 1996. Another analysis predicts that Kenya's GDP will be 14.5 percent smaller in 2005 than it would have been without AIDS, and that income per person will be 10 percent lower. The microeconomic outlook is not much better. Businesses across sub- Saharan Africa are already suffering at the hands of HIV. In Zimbabwe, for instance, life insurance premiums grew four-fold in just two years because of AIDS deaths. Some companies there have reported a doubling of their health bills. In Botswana, companies estimate that AIDS- related costs will soar from under one percent of wages in 1999 to five percent by 2005. In Zambia and Tanzania, some companies have already reported that costs resulting from AIDS-related health costs and lower productivity have exceeded total profits. Without addressing a health crisis of this enormity, we are ignoring one of the most important impediments to development of the African continent. The second concern I have with the AGOA bill is that it ignores the great albatross of debt that hangs around the neck of the African people and is a tremendous impediment to their economic growth and development. AGOA provides no debt relief to Africa, despite the fact that Africa's crushing $230 billion debt burden is a massive obstacle to economic and social progress. By ending the vicious circle of debt and debt servicing, debt relief for Africa would open the way for private investment in African enterprises, investment that is critical to the long-term development and growth of every economy. I believe that the United States should play a prominent role in reducing the debt burden of nations that are unable to achieve sustainable economic growth and development under the constraint of servicing their national debts. Our economic relationship with Africa must take the long view and advance policies that will build a solid basis for continued growth, rather than simply extending the short- sighted, debt-centered policies of decades past. Unfortunately, many amendments that would have begun to address the weaknesses of the AGOA bill failed on the Senate floor. I supported amendments that would have improved labor and environmental standards and that would have better addressed transhipment concerns. Although those amendments failed, I will, nevertheless, support this package, not because I am fully satisfied with its treatment of Africa, but because as a whole, the package includes other important trade measures that will not only bolster the economies of developing nations, but will have a positive economic impact here at home. I have long been a proponent of Trade Adjustment Assistance as a way to help U.S. workers and industries that have been harmed by trade. The Generalized System of Preferences is also a crucial to developing countries by stimulating their exports. I am pleased that this package includes these very important programs. Finally, the CBI portion of the package will put our neighbors in the Caribbean on more equal footing with Mexico. By providing duty free treatment to apparel assembled in the Caribbean basin only if US fabrics are used, this bill will strengthen the economy and long term stability of Caribbean Basin countries. This will go a long way to help them to recover from the extensive damage they suffered during Hurricanes Mitch and Georges. The U.S. has a trade surplus with Caribbean Basin which has led to more and better jobs in my home state of Massachusetts and throughout the country. Because the balance of the package of trade bills before us today is favorable, I support the bill with the sincere hope that we revisit the issues of concern to sub-Saharan Africa soon.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of thousands dedicated volunteers around the country. The legislation I am offering addresses an inequity in the tax code that adversely affects AmeriCorps volunteers. I urge my colleagues to pass it immediately. Since 1994, in 4,000 communities across the country, AmeriCorps participants have tutored and mentored more than 4 million children, developed after-school programs for over one million young people, and helped build more than 11,000 homes. Their dedication and commitment are a tribute to the American tradition of public service. Currently, at the conclusion of 1,700 hours of service, AmeriCorps members receive an education award of $4,725. The award may be used by former volunteers to pay for tuition expenses or the repayment of student loans. Under long-established tax law, scholarships and grants are excludable from income. However, because the AmeriCorps awards are considered to represent payment for services rendered, they must be included in taxable income at the end of the year. This tax treatment creates a significant hardship for former volunteers. Because AmeriCorps education awards are sent directly to the loan agency or educational institution, they do not represent income from which a portion may be reserved by the beneficiary for the payment of tax. After serving in AmeriCorps, many former volunteers work part-time to pay for college, and the education award pushes their income above the standard income tax deduction, creating tax liability for an individual with little means to pay for it. Mr. President, allow me to illustrate. Maleah Thorpe of Sunderland, Massachusetts, is a two-year AmeriCorps participant. Most recently, Maleah served as a volunteer with Massachusetts Campus Compact. The Massachusetts Campus Compact coordinates formal and informal assistance for students, staff, and faculty in the areas of: America Reads and early childhood literacy initiatives, America Counts and math education initiatives, and other Campus and community partnerships. Maleah's service has benefited our community and our country, while at the same time, has provided a rewarding personal experience. Listen to what Maleah has to say about AmeriCorps: My experiences with AmeriCorps have been life-changing, introducing me to so many opportunities and a new appreciation of both the diversity and strength of people in our nation. I consider myself fortunate and am thankful that I will have not one, but two educational awards should I need to use them. However, I am at the same time dreading the out- of-pocket expense that will accompany their use * * *. Although I was anxious to use the educational award earned during my first year of service to reduce my undergraduate loan debt, the cost of paying taxes on the amount has prohibited me from doing so. When I entered AmeriCorps two years ago, I did so for the service. I also anticipated that approximately 75 percent of my undergraduate loan debt would be paid within three years of graduation, something that helped justify the financial cost of living on only the minimal stipend. Instead, I will enter graduate school in the fall, my undergraduate loans will continue to accrue interest and I will likely acquire additional loans to cover some expenses because I can simply not afford to use and pay taxes on my educational awards while I am a student. I know that I am not alone in this predicament. Many alumni with whom I served are either students or completing additional years of service, solely responsible for educational and living expenses. Many of us do not have additional income to pay taxes on the educational awards nor the ability to ask friends or relatives to assist us. I have given two years to serve my fellow citizens of the nation and the Commonwealth and would never give up those experiences. However, I should not now be punished for this choice by the burden of additional taxes. Similar situations arise with other programs. Congress has recognized these inequities and acted to address them. For example, this summer's Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act would have specifically provided that scholarships received through the National Health Service Corps, the Armed Forces Health Professions program, and the National Institutes of Health Undergraduate program are tax exempt. Let's do the same for the thousands of volunteers who, through the AmeriCorps program, give up two years of their lives to make a difference in communities across our nation. The AmeriCorps Scholarship Fairness Act clarifies that AmeriCorps education awards should receive the same tax treatment as a traditional college scholarship. Under the proposal, amounts received by an individual as part of a national service education award would be eligible for tax-free treatment as a qualified scholarship under section 117 of the tax code, without regard to the fact that the recipient of the scholarship has provided services as a condition for receiving the scholarship. The Joint Tax Committee estimates the cost in lost revenue would be $2 million the first year, $15 million over five years, and $32 million over ten years. The government should cherish, not punish, volunteerism and public service. I hope my colleagues will join me in enacting this simple but meaningful legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and three letters from Massachusetts constituents be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me begin by congratulating Senator Lautenberg for developing this important piece of legislation that recognizes the importance of rail in our overall transportation system as we approach the 21st century. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the High Speed Rail Investment Act, which will provide Amtrak with much needed resources to pay for high speed rail corridors across the country. This legislation is crucial for the country, and for my home State of Massachusetts, and I am hopeful we can move it quickly through Congress. This bill will give Amtrak the authority to sell $10 billion in bonds over the next 10 years to finance high speed rail. Instead of interest payments, the Federal Government would provide tax credits to bondholders. Amtrak would repay the principal on the bonds after 10 years, however, the payments would come primarily from required state matching funds. I know many states will gladly participate in this matching program, as their Governors and State legislatures are eager to promote high speed rail. Amtrak would be authorized to invest this money solely for upgrading existing lines to high speed rail, constructing new high speed rail lines, purchasing high speed rail equipment, eliminating or improving grade crossings, and for capital upgrades to existing high speed rail corridors. Let there be no mistake, this country needs to develop a comprehensive national transportation policy for the 21st century. So far, Congress has failed to address this vital issue. What we have is an ad hoc, disjointed policy that focuses on roads and air to the detriment of rail. We need to look at all of these modes of transportation to alleviate congestion and delays on the ground and in the sky and to move people across this country efficiently. Failing to do this will hamper economic growth and harm the environment. Despite rail's proven safety, efficiency and reliability in Europe and Japan, and also in the Northeast corridor here in the United States, passenger rail is severely underfunded. We need to include rail into the transportation mix. We need more transportation choices and this bill helps to provide them. In the Northeast corridor, Amtrak is well on its way to implementing high speed rail service. The high speed Acela service should start running in January. This will be extremely helpful in my home State of Massachusetts, where airport and highway congestion often reach frustrating levels. The more miles that are traveled on Amtrak, the fewer trips taken on crowded highways and skyways. But new service in the Northeast corridor is only the beginning. We need to establish rail as a primary mode of transportation along with air and highways. This bill will help us achieve that goal across the country and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of such an important piece of legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of thousands dedicated volunteers around the country. The legislation I am offering addresses an inequity in the tax code that adversely affects AmeriCorps volunteers. I urge my colleagues to pass it immediately. Since 1994, in 4,000 communities across the country, AmeriCorps participants have tutored and mentored more than 4 million children, developed after-school programs for over one million young people, and helped build more than 11,000 homes. Their dedication and commitment are a tribute to the American tradition of public service. Currently, at the conclusion of 1,700 hours of service, AmeriCorps members receive an education award of $4,725. The award may be used by former volunteers to pay for tuition expenses or the repayment of student loans. Under long-established tax law, scholarships and grants are excludable from income. However, because the AmeriCorps awards are considered to represent payment for services rendered, they must be included in taxable income at the end of the year. This tax treatment creates a significant hardship for former volunteers. Because AmeriCorps education awards are sent directly to the loan agency or educational institution, they do not represent income from which a portion may be reserved by the beneficiary for the payment of tax. After serving in AmeriCorps, many former volunteers work part-time to pay for college, and the education award pushes their income above the standard income tax deduction, creating tax liability for an individual with little means to pay for it. Mr. President, allow me to illustrate. Maleah Thorpe of Sunderland, Massachusetts, is a two-year AmeriCorps participant. Most recently, Maleah served as a volunteer with Massachusetts Campus Compact. The Massachusetts Campus Compact coordinates formal and informal assistance for students, staff, and faculty in the areas of: America Reads and early childhood literacy initiatives, America Counts and math education initiatives, and other Campus and community partnerships. Maleah's service has benefited our community and our country, while at the same time, has provided a rewarding personal experience. Listen to what Maleah has to say about AmeriCorps: My experiences with AmeriCorps have been life-changing, introducing me to so many opportunities and a new appreciation of both the diversity and strength of people in our nation. I consider myself fortunate and am thankful that I will have not one, but two educational awards should I need to use them. However, I am at the same time dreading the out- of-pocket expense that will accompany their use * * *. Although I was anxious to use the educational award earned during my first year of service to reduce my undergraduate loan debt, the cost of paying taxes on the amount has prohibited me from doing so. When I entered AmeriCorps two years ago, I did so for the service. I also anticipated that approximately 75 percent of my undergraduate loan debt would be paid within three years of graduation, something that helped justify the financial cost of living on only the minimal stipend. Instead, I will enter graduate school in the fall, my undergraduate loans will continue to accrue interest and I will likely acquire additional loans to cover some expenses because I can simply not afford to use and pay taxes on my educational awards while I am a student. I know that I am not alone in this predicament. Many alumni with whom I served are either students or completing additional years of service, solely responsible for educational and living expenses. Many of us do not have additional income to pay taxes on the educational awards nor the ability to ask friends or relatives to assist us. I have given two years to serve my fellow citizens of the nation and the Commonwealth and would never give up those experiences. However, I should not now be punished for this choice by the burden of additional taxes. Similar situations arise with other programs. Congress has recognized these inequities and acted to address them. For example, this summer's Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act would have specifically provided that scholarships received through the National Health Service Corps, the Armed Forces Health Professions program, and the National Institutes of Health Undergraduate program are tax exempt. Let's do the same for the thousands of volunteers who, through the AmeriCorps program, give up two years of their lives to make a difference in communities across our nation. The AmeriCorps Scholarship Fairness Act clarifies that AmeriCorps education awards should receive the same tax treatment as a traditional college scholarship. Under the proposal, amounts received by an individual as part of a national service education award would be eligible for tax-free treatment as a qualified scholarship under section 117 of the tax code, without regard to the fact that the recipient of the scholarship has provided services as a condition for receiving the scholarship. The Joint Tax Committee estimates the cost in lost revenue would be $2 million the first year, $15 million over five years, and $32 million over ten years. The government should cherish, not punish, volunteerism and public service. I hope my colleagues will join me in enacting this simple but meaningful legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and three letters from Massachusetts constituents be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing our great sorrow for the loss of John Chafee. He was a really remarkable, special soul, a very gentle person, who nevertheless had a will of steel. He was, in many ways, sort of an archetypal New Englander, for those of us who come from that part of the country. There was a great quality of independence, a great ability to march to the beat of his own drummer. He did that. I think that in very special ways he was one of the bridges in the U.S. Senate. I first crossed paths with John Chafee back during the Vietnam war. I am proud that his signature is on my medals. We talked a lot about that after I came back. He had the great capacity to reach out across the aisle. I recall this summer, as a matter of fact, how he came up to me one evening and said, ``I am a bachelor; Virginia is not here.'' My wife, Teresa, wasn't here at the time. He said, ``Let's go to dinner.'' So we went down to the Metropolitan Club, where I heard some other colleagues say he often went to dinner. We just sat and talked a lot about life, about war, about his experiences; and all the divisions of the Senate sort of melted away because of his gesture. But it was not strange for John to do that. Those of us who worked with him over the years here know that he was always reaching across the aisle trying to build a bridge, trying to pull people together. I remember when we were in the throes of a fight over the clean air amendment in 1990. There were great meetings in the room back here with George Mitchell. John Chafee, Senator Mitchell, and a few others with great calming voices, were reaching out trying to pull people together and find a path of common sense. That is really one of the great legacies, the commitment that produced that amendment and also produced a whole host of advances with respect to the environment. I traveled with John to Rio. We were part of the delegation for the Rio conference when we had that huge summit. I traveled with him again to Kyoto. I remember one very peaceful moment when we snuck away to a beautiful Japanese garden. He was busy looking at the architecture, experiencing the remarkable peace of that place, and laughing at the fact that he had stolen away from a conference for a few moments to do so. John was one of the great calming influences in this body, a man of extraordinary common sense, a person who always tried to stand for principle--not for party, not for ideology, but for what was best for the State, best for the country, and best, in his judgment, for families and for the future. He was passionate about Rhode Island, and passionate about the country. And in the end, I think his legacy will be measured not only by the legislation that he worked on, not only by his remarkable efforts to help us get a health care bill in 1993 and 1994, but meetings which I will forever remember in his hideaway where he brought people together trying to forge a centrist plan, which, ultimately, I might add, helped pave the way for Kennedy-Kassebaum and for other things that we have contemplated. But he understood what his course was. He had a great sense of who he was, of what this place meant to him, and what all of us could achieve. He always placed those aspirations on the table as directly and as honestly as anybody I know in the Senate. John was also a warrior--a great warrior. Underneath the remarkable, docile, and temperamental person that we grew to know, there was really this other person who knew how to fight for country and for things that were bigger than him. He did so at Guadalcanal, he did so in Korea, and he did so in a remarkable way. I will always remember Col. Terry Ball--he became a general, and he is now retired, just recently, about a week or two ago--telling me of the remarkable journey he took with John, a journey he talked to John about before he took it, to go back and visit in the South Pacific those great places that he was part of with the Marine Corps. I remember reading William Manchester's book, ``Return to Darkness.'' In many ways, that was the journey John went on when he went back there to revisit those places where he had served with such distinction but where he also knew such a profound loss. This past summer, we shared another great moment together. We had the privilege of joining the Secretary of the Navy on the USS Constitution at Boston Harbor for a dinner. He was there with his family--the greater part of his family. It was a dinner in honor of John and his service. A number of us went up there to share that evening. I must say the sparkle in his eye at being aboard the ship with the flags raised, the colors presented, with his presentation of a walking cane from the Constitution itself, the sparkle in his eye that evening is something I will always remember. I will never forget his passion for the Armed Forces, and particularly, of course, for his beloved Marines. The Marines have their motto semper fi, ``forever faithful.'' It is clear that motto was the guiding light of John's life--forever faithful to his family, to his love, Virginia, to his children, his grandchildren, to the Senate, to his State, and to the principles which guided them. He is really Mr. President, with all respect for all of our colleagues, the kind of person in this great institution who is worth emulating. I hope there will be others such as him in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their efforts, though I must say I take exception to the comment of Senator McCain which he made earlier. He is my very close friend. I have worked with him very closely on a lot of issues. But when he suggests there is a bipartisan opposition to reform, I think he is not paying tribute to the fact that no Democrat voted against cloture. No Democrat voted against proceeding to the full measure of germane amendments that would precede the bill. So even though the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli, may feel very strongly about not just dealing with soft money, he was prepared to accept the verdict of the Senate in a normal process of amendment. This is not bipartisan in opposition. There is only one group of people who voted against proceeding to campaign finance reform, only one group, and I regret it is entirely on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, because, obviously, we are not trying to make this partisan. We were very grateful for those courageous Republicans who decided the time has come to vote for campaign finance reform. Obviously, we want them. We desperately need more Republicans who are willing to embrace campaign finance reform. But the fact remains that on the critical votes of whether or not the Senate was prepared to eliminate the extraneous amendments, have cloture, and proceed to the process of debating this bill, not one Democrat said no to that. It was only Republicans who have stopped the Senate in its tracks. Where do we find ourselves? What did the Senator from Kentucky say? He recited a few days of histrionics, a few days of sort of maneuvering. We had a whole morning, this morning, as the Senator from Wisconsin was saying, where we could have debated this. Why didn't we debate this morning? The Senate did not even convene until 1 hour prior to having the votes, and that was because under the consent order previously entered into, with the two cloture votes, those votes were going to take place 1 hour after the Senate convened. So what could be more convenient? Convene the Senate as late as possible so that you have no time to debate and then proceed to have two votes. Why? Because you cannot turn up the heat on the issue; because the television cameras will not be on; because the galleries are not open; because the American people will not be sharing in a real debate about the impact--the corrosive impact--of money on the American political system. And our 47 and 48 colleagues on the other side of the aisle who stand there and close down the process ought to take a sampling of the people who are in the galleries. I know we are not allowed to do that, but I bet if you asked every single one of them, as they leave this Chamber, ``Do you think there is too much money in American politics? Do you think the money gains access to the system? Do you think the money distorts the process? Do you think the money somehow does favor for certain issues over the general interests?'' Every single one of those people, or at least 85, 90 percent would tell you, yes, there is too much money in American politics, and it separates the average citizen from the people they elected to represent them. Overwhelmingly, Americans believe that. And, overwhelmingly, Americans understand there is a connection between what happens in Washington and what does not happen in Washington and all of the contributions. This is the fight that some of us came to have: The fight over whether or not we are going to have a fair political system. I understand a lot of our friends on the other side of the aisle do not want to change the system. Politics has a certain amount of self- interest in it; and the self-interest of getting reelected is a powerful one. A lot of our colleagues over on the other side of the aisle have a lot more money available to them than Democrats. I was outspent in every election I ran in until the last election when a Republican agreed with me to do something different. We had a fair playing field. He was a sitting Governor. I was a sitting Senator. So you know what we did. We both banned soft money--no soft money in our campaigns; we banned independent expenditures--no independent expenditures; and we actually reached an agreement that we would both limit ourselves to how much money we would spend in our race. Then we did something else different. We had nine 1-hour televised debates so the people in our State could share in a good, healthy exchange about the issues that matter to them. So you can do it differently. You can do it differently. But if a lot of incumbents sit here and say: Boy, I like that money; it's so much easier for me to go down to the Hyatt Hotel or the Hilton Hotel or the Sheraton and have an event; and there are a whole lot of people who can afford the flight, the air ticket to Washington, and then can, after the air ticket, afford to bring a big check to me, come and meet me for a little while, and I can collect a whole lot of money--that way, I can fund a campaign--that is pretty easy. Most challengers in this country cannot do that. The end effect of that is literally to strip away the vibrancy of our own democracy because what happens is the money is very well represented. But the points of view that do not have the money are not as well represented. And no one here can deny that. No one here can deny that. We have heard a lot of talk in the last few days about corruption. We have heard about the way money corrupts politics, about how it corrupts the system. I express my admiration to the chairman of the Commerce Committee, my friend who is on the floor of the Senate. I think he has a lot of guts. He has a lot of courage to come to the floor of the Senate and tell a lot of people the truth. And a lot of people do not like to hear it. So it got very personal last Friday--very personal--as we got led off into a tangential debate where one Senator was challenging Senator McCain, was challenging him to name names, lay out for us a list of those in the Senate who have been corrupted. I say to my colleague who was asking that question: Where does that line of questioning take us? Where does that line of questioning take us? No Member of the Senate that I know of runs around impugning the character or the integrity of another colleague. That is not what the Senator from Arizona was doing. What the Senator from Arizona was doing was having the courage to point out that we are all prisoners--something he knows something about. But in this case, we are also the jail keepers because we have the key. We have the ability to release every single one of us from this prison--where we have to go out and raise these extraordinary amounts of money, where we allow ourselves to be proselytized by groups of people who spend $100 million a month in this city, either to get us to do something or to stop us from doing something. Think about it. Then go out and ask how many of the average Americans are contributing to that $100 million. Ask the folks working two or three jobs, ask the folks who pay their taxes and struggle to send their kids to a good school, and who know their kids need technology and child care and health care and a whole lot of other things if they feel well represented by that $100 million. How many of them are lined up outside the Commerce Committee or the Banking Committee or the Ag Committee, or any other committee, when we have a markup around here? How many of them can afford to send a young messenger to wait in line, from the early hours of the morning, so they are assured of having a seat where the action is taking place? I think we ought to get away from the side arguments and the side diversions and understand what the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Wisconsin, the Senator from Minnesota, and a whole lot of other Senators, a majority of the Senate, think about that, a majority. This is not some wild-eyed, crazy fringe, tiny group of Senators who are somehow trying to stop the Senate from doing business. This is a majority of the Senate who believes the time has come to have campaign finance reform. Oh, sure, we all know the rules say it takes 60 votes. That is a supermajority. We all understand that. But on the great fights of the Senate, people were willing to stay and fight. It took 6 weeks, I think, of filibuster for the Civil Rights Act to pass. We can go back in history through a lot of other great debates of the Senate. It took a long time, with serious work, serious meetings, serious efforts to try to reach agreement. Let me give Senators a critical fact concerning the perception among the American people today. I don't think anybody can disagree with this. Some people want to avoid it, but I don't think an honest, intellectual assessment would allow them to disagree with it. Every poll shows it; every conversation anybody might have, even with the top corporate chieftains of this country. I have talked to some of the top CEOs of some of the biggest Fortune 500 companies in the country about how they feel about fundraising--from a Democrat or from a Republican. Those are the people who are increasingly turning off the current system. They are scared. They don't voluntarily get out of it. There are a few who have. The committee of businessmen that has come together with a new plan has had the courage to say: We are not going to give to Republicans, and we are not going to give to Democrats, either. I have heard so many of these CEOs say: I know it is bad; I know it is corrupting. I don't like it; I don't want to be part of it. But if I unilaterally stop doing it, my competitor will be at the table, and I won't be at the table. That is what happens. So they don't do it. The fact is, the majority of Americans believe the amount of money spent on campaigns gains a special access to the political system for those who are most capable of contributing, whatever side they are on, whatever side of the issue. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, no Senator is affected by the money that is given. Take the word ``corruption'' off the table, as it applies to any specific act of any legislator. Ask yourself, by fairer judgment, if the group that wants to achieve goal A can go out and raise tens of millions of dollars and have the ability to then load that money into campaigns for people who will vote for what goal A is, and the people in goal B are all pretty poor or don't have access to money or aren't organized and don't have the ability to contribute the same way, but their goal may be equally worthy or, in fact, more worthy, is there a fairness in the system? Is there a form of corruption of the political process, not of the people but of the political process, that denies the kind of fair playing field I think is at the heart of the kind of democracy this country wants to provide its citizenry and for which it really stands? I think the perception of that unweighted playing field, the perception of that unfairness ought to concern every Member of the Senate. We can sit back and point to our own personal integrity. We can say we don't make decisions on public policy based on campaign contributions. The truth is, we are extraordinarily exposed to the general awareness and perception and belief and cynicism that is now attached to the system which says that the money speaks and that it makes a huge difference. I think such a significant portion of Americans are affected by this that, in point of fact, the standard set up by the Supreme Court with respect to the perception of corruption is met. When the Senator from Kentucky--I will talk about this a little later--talks about the first amendment, there is a sufficient test under first amendment standards that would allow the Court to make a decision in favor of some restraints. They have already done that. They did it in 1972, in 1974. We certainly have the right to do it now. I ask my colleagues, every year 20,000 Americans are poisoned with the E. coli bacteria when they eat contaminated food. They have found tuberculosis in beef, and two-thirds of chickens contain the potentially deadly campylocbacter bacteria. That is not a finding of politicians. That is what scientists tell us. But in spite of the rapid spread of food-borne illnesses, we haven't responded. We haven't done anything. Walk into a room of 50 ordinary Americans and tell them we haven't done anything to promote public health needs on this issue, that every single bill that has come before us on food-borne illnesses has been killed, and then tell them the food industry has made $41 million in campaign contributions to congressional candidates over the last 10 years. Almost every person who hears that will say: I bet you there is some kind of connection there. Seventeen thousand people were killed by drunk drivers last year. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the National Safety Council, and hundreds of other organizations formed a coalition to pass stricter standards on drunk driving, in order to keep drunk drivers off the road and get tougher on them when we catch them. Almost everyone agrees this would save lives. But the regulations didn't pass. Surprise. Ask the average person on the street if they think our inaction on something as obvious as that has any connection to the over $100,000 spent by Alcohol Wholesalers, by the National Restaurant Association, Wine and Spirits Wholesalers, other alcoholic beverage organizations, that gave to both sides, Democrats and Republicans alike. Ask them if they think there is a connection. Last year, we tried to do something to respond to the fact that every day 3,000 kids become smokers. We know, because the doctors and scientists tell us, that half of those children will wind up dying early and costing us enormous sums of money in our medical care system until they ultimately die from their addiction. Ask the average American if they believe all our legislative efforts on tobacco fell apart, or at least in any part was it connected to the fact that Philip Morris and all the other big tobacco companies spent millions of dollars over every year for several years in contributions to both parties to hundreds of candidates for the House and the Senate. Was that a spending in the general public interest? Was that a spending in the interest of the Nation? Certainly--and I agree with my colleague from Kentucky--if it wasn't spent to elect a candidate, if it was spent to sell the virtue of tobacco or of something that had nothing to do with an election, certainly that fits under the first amendment. I understand that. That is a separate issue that can be dealt with separately. I think we have to be even more frank than that in sort of acknowledging the kind of connection people perceive. The truth is, I think all of us know, to varying degrees, we are trapped in a reality where big money gets its calls returned. Big money gets its meetings. Big money gets the face time it asks for and looks for. We can see it in all of the fundraisers that take place in this city and in other parts of the country. Every single one of us is sensitive to that reality. I understand that. There are very few Senators who don't work hard to try to undo that, the notion of the walls of the prison, if you will. I don't think Senators like it particularly. Some are content to live with it, even though they may not like it. The reality is, nonetheless, it changes the way the institution operates. We only have to listen to someone such as Senator Byrd, the former leader, who has seen it on every side and has seen it change over the years that he has been in the Senate. He will tell us how the Senate has changed in the way it operates because of the amount of money in our system today. I say to my colleagues, rather than put current Members on the spot, listen to what some of our colleagues who have retired from Congress, who are liberated from having to raise the money, who are out of the system, have said about the current game in which they were once trapped. Representative Jim Bacchus, a Democrat from Florida: I have, on many occasions, sat down and listened to people solely because I knew they have contributed to my campaign. There is an honest statement by a former Representative. I don't expect all my colleagues to stand up and say that, but that is what he said. When asked whether Members of Congress are compromising the institution of Congress when they solicit contributions from the special interests they regulate, former House minority leader Bob Michel, a Republican from Illinois, said simply: There is no question. I don't know how you even change that. It is a sad way of life here. That is a former leader in the House of Representatives, and a Republican. I don't have the quote, but I remember my friend, Paul Laxalt, one of the closest friends of Ronald Reagan, who, when he left the Senate, said unequivocally: The amount of money being raised in the U.S. Congress was corrupting the process, and it was having a profound impact on the quality of the U.S. Congress. Listen to what former Representative Peter Kostmayer said: You get invited to a dinner somewhere, and someone gives you money, and then you get a call a month later and he wants to see you. Are you going to say no? You are just not going to say no. Why do the special interests give money? I think everybody would agree that former Senator and majority leader George Mitchell was a man of enormous integrity. He led the Senate. He has been leading the peace talks in Northern Ireland, a person of huge integrity, a former U.S. district judge, a former Senate leader. George Mitchell summed it up saying: I think it gives them the opportunity to gain access and present their views in a way that might otherwise not be the case. That is fundamentally the flaw. The Senator from Kentucky and others can take umbrage at the notion of the use of the word ``corruption,'' but you don't have to be specifically corrupt in some way that breaks the law to be sharing in a general corruption, an ``impairment of the integrity,'' as Webster defines it, of the institution, and the integrity of this institution is impaired by the current system. I mentioned a moment ago some of the best minds in the business community--CEOs and others--who have shared with me, and I know with other colleagues, that they find the current system nauseating, sickening. They are tired of being ``shaken down''. That is their term, not ours. I know there are letters that have been sent by Members of the Congress to those groups that don't give. People have been threatened not to give to the other party. People have been threatened. These stories have all appeared in the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe--stories all across the country. People believe if they don't play the game on the fundraising circuit, they will lose out in the subcommittees, the committees, and on the floor. We saw, this summer, that some prominent business executives joined a coalition for campaign finance reform, called the Committee for Economic Development. They promptly received a letter from the Senator from Kentucky, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee telling them in no uncertain terms: If you disagree with the radical campaign finance agenda of the CED, I would think that public withdrawal from this organization would be a reasonable response. So what is the message there? The business leaders told me what they thought the message was. They said: We find it ironic that you are-- This is what they sent to Senator McConnell. This is their response to the people who are trying to keep us from voting for campaign finance reform. The business leaders wrote: We find it ironic that you are such a fervent defender of First Amendment freedoms, but seem intent to stifle our efforts to express publicly our concerns about a campaign finance system that many of us believe is out of control. I don't raise these issues to suggest in any way that any individual Member of this body is corrupt. I am not saying that, nor is the Senator from Arizona. But the system is leading us all down a road that diminishes the trust of the American people in this institution and that diminishes our connection to the American people and therefore their faith in the system of Government and in the capacity of this Government to do what our Founding Fathers wanted it to do. This is less and less a real democracy, and more and more a ``dollar- ocracy,'' a democracy mostly decided and impacted by the amounts of money that can be raised and spent, and not by the quality of the ideas that are put forward and debated in the great manner of Lincoln and Douglas and others who took ideas to the American people. Are we scared of ideas? Do we have to pitch every idea in a 30-second advertisement, or a 60-second advertisement, and flood the airwaves with seductive, distorted, completely contrived messages, rather than laying out to the American people a series of facts and relying on them to choose? I have been here now for 15 years, and every year I have been here we have tried to achieve campaign finance reform. In fact, I was the author, together with Senator Boren, Senator Mitchell, and others, of an original effort that had a component of public financing. We actually passed that on the floor of the Senate when the Democrats were in the majority. President Bush vetoed it. Subsequently, we got as many as maybe 46--I think it was--votes for a bill that might have had some component of public financing. But, each year, as the Republican majority has grown, the number of people willing to embrace a broader set of reforms has also diminished, leaving us now with a stripped-down version of McCain-Feingold-- stripped-down to the point that many people on our side of the aisle fear that it may have the unintended consequences of the 1974 reforms; that if you do one component of reform, but you don't have a fair playing field, you simply unleash torrents of money into other sectors that may wind up having a negative impact on the ability of people to be elected. I think we have to act. I say to my colleague from Kentucky, the notion that the members of the media are going to sit there--those who have covered the Senate for years--and believe that 4 days of truncated, half-hearted debate somehow represents a legitimate effort on campaign finance reform is beyond anything credible. I don't think a member of the media could believe that when we sit here and say, well, we went to this last Thursday, and on Friday half of the Senate left to go home, and on Monday half of them hadn't come back, and on Tuesday morning there was absolutely no debate at all, and then we had two votes, and pretend somehow that the Senate has done anything serious about campaign finance reform. What a farce. What a joke. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to understand that this is an issue that isn't going to go away. We must begin to be serious about having a fair playing field--and I do mean a fair playing field, not trying to jockey it for Democrats or for Republicans but deciding as a matter of common sense how we can approach an election. We are supposed to be the premier democracy on the face of this planet. We are supposed to be setting the example for people in other parts of the world. And more and more people look at our system, and say: That is what it is all about? They spend $20 million in States such as Nevada chewing each other apart trying to prove what an evil American the other guy or woman is. How extraordinary. I think everybody on our side of the aisle was prepared to go into long and serious meetings. We are prepared to caucus. We are prepared to have efforts to try to decide how we can come up with a fair playing field. We ought to have a real debate because we need to understand that the costs of campaigning are eliminating the capacity for fully representative government for most Americans. Some people do not believe that. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue with fervor that the first amendment is represented by money, and the more money you can raise, the fairer it is. You can go out and campaign. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $756 million. That is a 76-percent increase since 1990. And it is a sixfold, 600- percent increase since 1976. The average cost of a race in 1976 was $600,000 for a winning Senate race. The average cost went to $3.3 million. Many of us in 1996 were forced to spend more than that. My race in 1996 was the most expensive race of that year in the country--a paltry sum compared to the Senator from California. I think she and her colleague had to raise upwards of $20 million, and I think perhaps $30 million was spent against Senator Feinstein. I am not sure of Senator Boxer--but somewhere in that vicinity. My race in Massachusetts was cheap compared to that. We had only $12.5 million, maybe $13 million for 6 million people. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senator races from 1980 to 1994. I know Senators don't do this. Not every Senator is raising money every single week. But many are because of the vast sums they have to raise. But on average, each Senator has to raise $12,000 a week for 6 years to pay for his or her reelection campaign. That is just the tip of the iceberg now because we have had this incredible explosion in soft money. Soft money represents everybody taking advantage of the loopholes. It wasn't the intention of campaign finance reform or Congress to allow soft money. I must admit some Democrats managed to develop that loophole rather more effectively at the outset than some Republicans. It doesn't make it right. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money; in 1992, that number doubled to $90 million; and in 1995 to 1996, that number tripled to $262 million. Do you know where it comes from? It comes from U.S. Senators who are passing legislation making telephone calls, or having meetings with high-powered corporate types, or very rich people who write checks for $50,000, $100,000, $200,000, and $300,000. Indeed, I believe the last year, in 1996, there were nine people in America who wrote checks for $500,000. That is where it comes from. And don't let anybody kid you. It goes into campaigns. It wasn't meant to originally. But now it goes almost directly into campaigns. So you, frankly, have corporations and a lot of big money directed into the campaign process which was never the intention of the U.S. Congress back in 1974 when they passed campaign finance reform. Do you know why ordinary citizens believe they are being shut out? Do you know why the average American doesn't believe the system is on the up and up? Do you know why the average American thinks big money gets influence over their money? I will tell you why. Because fewer than one-third of 1 percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. I want to repeat that. Why do people think the system is out of whack? Because fewer than one-third of 1 percent of all the eligible voters in America gave more than $250 in the electoral cycle. Think what would happen in this country if we invited people, as we used to do in the Tax Code, to take a tax deduction for a $50 or $100 donation. And those tax deductions, when people were encouraged to take them, in fact, added up to about $500 million a cycle, which would have paid for almost all the races back then. You could do it with small donations, if they wanted to--if they wanted to. But they like to go out and get the bigger dollars. One-third of 1 percent of Americans contribute over $250. Ask most Americans what they think they are capable of giving to campaigns or are able to contribute, and you will get a sense of the great divorce in this country, a huge gulf, a Grand Canyon of campaign finance gap that is separating the average American from the political process. Then we have another problem in the system--the issue ads. These are those ubiquitous TV and radio ads bought by all kinds of special interests to persuade the American people to vote for or against a candidate. Usually, these ads are negative. They are usually inaccurate. But they are one of the driving forces of the American political process today. They violate the spirit of campaign finance laws in the country. Of course, they do. Listen to what the executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action said. He said: It is foolish to believe there is a difference between issue advocacy and advocacy of a political candidate. What separates issue advocacy and political advocacy is a line in the sand drawn on a windy day. Mr. President, the American people want us to fix this system. An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll shows that 70 percent of the public believes campaign finance reform is needed. So what the Republican Party is doing today is saying, well, we don't care what 70 percent of the American people are willing to do. They are unwilling to pass campaign finance reform that is fair, unwilling even to deal with it in a serious way. Last spring, a New York Times poll found that an astonishing 91 percent of the public favor a fundamental transformation of the system. I believe we ought to be able to deliver on that kind of reform. Some of our colleagues believe that reforming the current finance system in a comprehensive manner would violate the Constitution. The constitutionality of a ban on soft money could raise questions. I think the issue of a total ban on soft money, depending on how it is structured, could conceivably be worked out in a thoughtful and artful way. But the point is it is fundamentally a sham issue as it is being presented by the other side. And the first amendment is being used as a shield to prevent the proper scrutiny of this issue and to prevent us from changing it. The truth is there are ways that you can reform the system within the confines of the first amendment. On the critical soft money issues, leading constitutional scholars and former ACLU leaders agree that banning soft money contributions will not violate the Constitution if properly constructed. And we forget that the Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo held that limits on individual campaign contributions do not violate the first amendment. It simply cannot be said the first amendment provides an absolute prohibition of any and all restrictions on speech. When State interests are more important than unfettered free speech, that speech is appropriately allowed to be narrowly limited. Speech is already limited. We know in cases of false advertising and obscenity. And I think it is clear that under the limits of Buckley we can deal with the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption and the warranted limits on individual campaign contributions. The ban proposed in McCain-Feingold simply requires all contributions to national political parties be subject to the existing Federal restrictions on contributions to those parties that are used to influence Federal elections, and it would bar State and local parties from raising soft money for activities that might affect a Federal election. Groups remain completely free to spend as much money as they want on speech. This is a red herring, a straw man. It is well used, I might add, by the Senator from Kentucky, but it is wrong. I am convinced the courts would ultimately hold it so, were we to do our work properly. We've also heard that if we ban soft money, we will unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights of special interest groups to engage in free speech. I would respectfully suggest that there is some real confusion here. The ban proposed in McCain-Feingold would simply require that all contributions to national political parties be subject to existing federal restrictions on contributions those parties use to influence federal elections, and it would bar state and local parties from using soft money for activities that might affect a federal election. Groups would remain free to spend as much as they wanted on speech--they simply could not funnel that money through the political parties. Another favorite argument offered by those opposed to reform is that we already have bribery laws to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption. This argument ignores the fact that the Supreme Court in Buckley explicitly considered and rejected the same claim. The Court said that it was up to Congress to decide whether bribery and disclosure laws were enough to address the federal problem with real and perceived corruption. A majority of the Members of the House and Senate do not believe the bribery laws are sufficient to limit corruption or the appearance of corruption. Opponents of campaign finance reform are vehement that any effort to control or limit sham issue ads would violate the first amendment. They argue that as long as you don't use the words ``vote for'' or ``vote against'', you can say just about anything you want in an advertisement. But that is simply not what the Supreme Court said in Buckley. It said that one way to identify campaign speech that can be regulated is by looking at whether it uses words of express advocacy. But the Court never said that Congress was precluded from adopting another test so long as it was clear, precise and narrow. It is exactly that kind of test that is included in Shays-Meehan and that I hope can be put back into the reform bill we are debating here today. I believe reasonable people can come together and work through these first amendment questions. Certainly that ought to be a challenge the United States Senate is capable of meeting. And I believe that if we can do that we can move on to a question no longer of whether to reform the campaign system, but how. I believe that the amendment offered by our minority leader would help us embrace reform. Though not a cure, embracing the Shays-Meehan model passed in the House treats the most serious symptoms that threaten the health of our whole democratic system. Let me say again, this amendment is by no means sweeping reform. It does not limit spending by candidates. It does not replace private campaign contributions with clean money. But, it does address two of the most serious problems with our current, broken campaign finance system. It bans soft money and it clamps down on phony issue ads. We must attack both of these problems simultaneously if our campaign finance system has any hope for recovery. And I would remind the Senate that even those of us who agree that there is a serious problem have different ideas on how to fix it, or what aspect in particular most desperately needs a cure. I have long been an advocate of one particular kind of reform. I joined Senator Wellstone once again this year in offering a clean money bill that would take special interest money out of the political system. But I am a realist. The Senate is not yet ready to embrace something as broad as clean money, in spite of its merits. that is not going to happen yet, but I continue to hope and believe that it will someday. In the meantime, we must focus on finding a remedy for the worst of the problems from which our campaign finance system suffers. I believe Shays-Meehan can do that. And, Mr. president, I believe we can move this debate forward and pass this legislation if we can avoid the hot-button issues on both sides, the poison pill amendments we've encountered again and again which have stopped us in our tracks. One amendment which particularly worries me is the so-called paycheck protection amendment. Some of my colleagues on the other side are advocating that unions obtain written authorization from all union members before using any portion of union dues for political activity. The amendment would not require corporations to obtain the same written authorization from shareholders before using corporate treasury funds used for political activity. Proponents of this amendment complain that union dues are used to run issue advocacy campaigns that are really thinly disguised electioneering. However, rather than closing the issue advocacy loophole, which would comprehensively solve the problem, my colleagues on the other side would inhibit unions only while leaving corporations as well as conservative advocacy groups untouched. If paycheck protection were passed, it would limit almost all political activities by unions, not just use advocacy. It would gut the funds the unions use for internal communications activities, particularly get out the vote activities. Rather than adopting this inherently unfair amendment, which would target only unions, a better solution is to close the issue advocacy and soft money loopholes. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in opposing a paycheck protection amendment if one comes up. Mr. President, I hope we can avoid those poison pills, I hope we can actually pass something this week, and that we can support the campaign finance reform bill that was passed in the House, so that we have the tools to remedy both sham issue ads and soft money. There is an awful lot riding on this debate. Because we have been down this road before, many think the result is a foregoing conclusion. In a front page article last Tuesday, the Washington Post stated, ``. . . opponents of reform will rest easy in the knowledge that nothing will be accomplished.'' I hope the Post is wrong. I believe we can make the system better. We are not going to take all of the steps that would be necessary for a cure, but we can take care of the parts of the system that are hurting all of us the most. And that is a course of action on which all our citizens--and this Senate--ought to be able to agree. I urge the Senate not to turn away from a real process where we sit together, work through the objections, have honest debate and discussion, and allow the Senate to work its will on the floor of the Senate rather than walking away again from one of the most urgent needs as expressed by our fellow citizens in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent my comments not count under the two-speech rule.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERRY. I object.

Mr. KERRY. Object.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support the FY 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report because it provides important emergency assistance for America's farmers and will provide $15 million in disaster assistance for the commercial fisheries failure in the Gulf of Maine. I believe that this funding is crucial to the survival of fishing industry in New England. It will allow our fishermen to use their fishing vessels as research platforms to do, among other things, cooperative research activities in partnership with the New England Fisheries Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service. I thank appropriations committee Chairman, Mr. Stevens, and the Democratic ranking member, Mr. Byrd, for their support of New England fishermen and their assistance in obtaining the funding included in the Conference Report. I also thank Agriculture appropriations subcommittee chairman, Mr. Cochran, and Democratic ranking member, Mr. Kohl, and their staffs. Finally, I thank Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Gregg, and Ms. Snowe for their support in including this provision in the conference report. Last year, we were able to secure $5 million in emergency assistance for cooperative activities to assist fishermen who were negatively affected by groundfish closures in the Gulf of Maine. These new funds will be used to help fishermen overcome drastically reduced trip limits. A trip limit of 30 pounds, about 2 cod, was imposed immediately after the fishery opened. This was raised to 100 pounds by Commerce Secretary Daley at the request of the New England Fisheries Management Council. These trip limits have had a severely detrimental economic and social impact on many fishery-dependent communities in New England. Ongoing stock recovery requirements have required continued reductions in fishing and resulted in continuing hardship. The additional funding included in the Conference Report will be used to employ fishermen in cooperative research programs, fund on-vessel observer programs, and provide training and education for fishermen. I thank my colleagues for recognizing that New England fishermen and their communities require disaster assistance until our fisheries have a chance to rebuild.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lifesaving Vaccine Technology Act of 1999 with my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin. Mr. President, each year malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS kill more than 7 million people, disproportionately in the developing world. Each of these diseases is potentially preventable by vaccination. A recent column in the Boston Globe by David Nyhan sums up the situation facing the developing world succinctly. Tuberculosis causes more deaths than any other infectious disease, killing 3 million people annually. One hundred thousand children die from TB each year. The World Health Organization estimates that between now and 2020, ``nearly one billion more people will be newly infected, 200 million people will get sick, and 70 million will die from tuberculosis, if control is not strengthened. Tuberculosis is not just an issue for some faraway countries; in the United States, more than 19,000 cases of tuberculosis are reported annually and increasingly we are seeing drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis in this country but especially in the states of the former Soviet Union where, according to one CDC doctor, an epidemic is taking place of ``the worst situation for multidrug resistant tuberculosis ever documented in the world.'' Other areas of the world, such as central India, Bangladesh, Latvia, Congo, Uganda, Peru are also experiencing near-epidemic tuberculosis crises. According to the World Health Organization, malaria kills more than 2 million people every year, and the disease is an important public health problem in 90 countries inhabited by almost half of the world's population. Each year, one million children under the age of five die from complications associated with malaria. Again, Mr. President, malaria is a disease we tend to associate with foreign exotic lands, and overlook the fact that in this country, more than one thousand people are stricken by malaria each year. Researchers at the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases contend that ``conventional control measures . . . appear increasingly inadequate. . . As a result of drug-resistant parasites and insecticide-resistant mosquitoes, fewer tools to control malaria exist today than did 25 years ago.'' Last year, the human immunosuppressant virus took the lives of 2.5 million, of which more than 500,000 were children under the age of 15. In the United States, almost one million are currently living with HIV- disease and 40,000 are newly infected each year. In Zimbabwe and Botswana, as many as 25 percent of the adult population is infected with HIV. In Zambia, 72 percent of households contain a child orphaned by AIDS. South Africa, which was largely isolated from HIV during its apartheid years, is now home to 10 percent of the new infections in Africa, and in the country's most populous province, KwaZulu-Natal, one-third of adults are HIV-infected. Analysts claim that India is an AIDS disaster-in-waiting: half a million people in one of India's smallest rural states (Tamil Nadu) are HIV-positive, as are fifteen percent of the women in one of India's more populous states (Maharashtra). While AIDS is entirely preventable in this country and abroad, and while behavioral interventions for HIV have proven effective at reducing infection rates, many factors, including political obstacles, insufficient prevention funding, forced sexual encounters, and the difficulty of maintaining safe behavior over a lifetime, mean that a vaccine will be required for control of this worldwide epidemic. And, yet, Mr. President, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies in the United States, the home of the most innovative research and development in the world, are not working on vaccines to the world's largest killers. Market disincentives--especially the lack of a viable, cash-rich market--play against investment into these vaccines. Private- sector scientists and chief executive officers have a difficult time justifying to their boards an investment in developmental research toward these vaccines as long as other pharmaceutical research and development into products appealing to the developed world, like anti- depressants or Viagra, present more attractive investments. This market failure and the need for incentives is shown most dramatically by last year's survey by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Of the 43 vaccine projects found to be in development by the survey not one was for HIV, malaria or tuberculosis. To find vaccines for the biggest infectious disease killers in the world, both the private and public sectors must be engaged in a bolder, more creative and dramatic way. Mr. President, with that in mind, we are introducing the Lifesaving Vaccine Technology Act, which establishes an income tax credit for 30 percent of the qualified expenses for medical research related to the development of vaccines against widespread diseases like malaria, HIV and tuberculosis, which according to the World Health Organization, cause more than one million deaths annually. This bill also declares that it is the sense of Congress that if the vaccine research credit is allowed to any corporation or shareholder of a corporation, the corporation should certify to the Secretary of the Treasury that, within one year after that vaccine is first licensed, the corporation will establish a good faith plan to maximize international access to high quality and affordable vaccines. In addition, the bill expresses the sense of Congress that the President and Federal agencies (including the Departments of State, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury) should work together in vigorous support of the creation and funding of a multi-lateral, international effort, such as a vaccine purchase fund, to accelerate the introduction of vaccines to which the vaccine research credit applies and of other priority vaccines into the poorest countries of the world. Lastly, the bill expresses the sense of Congress that flexible or differential pricing for vaccines, providing lowered prices for the poorest countries, is one of several valid strategies to accelerate the introduction of vaccines in developing countries. Mr. President, this legislation has received the support of the American Public Health Association, the Global Health Council, AIDS Action, the AIDS Policy Center for Children, Youth and Families, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. And, I am especially pleased that the Clinton Administration has signaled their approval of our approach. At his most recent speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations, President Clinton committed ``the United States to a concerted effort to accelerate the development and delivery of vaccines for malaria, TB, AIDS and other diseases disproportionately affecting the developing world.'' This bill is highly targeted: it will cost relatively little to implement but would have a profound impact on America's response to international public health needs. And it would complement--certainly not supplant--current federal efforts at USAID, the NIH and other federal agencies to assist developing countries and to bolster vaccine research. Mr. President, this legislation is a companion to a bipartisan bill introduced in the other body by my friend and colleague from San Francisco, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, and 36 co-sponsors. Over the years, I have had the honor to work with the distinguished Congresswoman on various pieces of legislation. The nation is in her debt for her tenacity and her overwhelming sense of duty to country. Her constituents benefit daily from her leadership, and I am pleased to be associated with her again today. I am hopeful that the positive response Congresswoman Pelosi has found in the other body is replicated in the Senate and that our colleagues join the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and I in passing the Lifesaving Vaccine Technology Act as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Nyhan column, an article which appeared in the Albany Times-Union about the market difficulties of developing an AIDS vaccine, and a Congressional Research Service study of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lifesaving Vaccine Technology Act of 1999 with my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin. Mr. President, each year malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS kill more than 7 million people, disproportionately in the developing world. Each of these diseases is potentially preventable by vaccination. A recent column in the Boston Globe by David Nyhan sums up the situation facing the developing world succinctly. Tuberculosis causes more deaths than any other infectious disease, killing 3 million people annually. One hundred thousand children die from TB each year. The World Health Organization estimates that between now and 2020, ``nearly one billion more people will be newly infected, 200 million people will get sick, and 70 million will die from tuberculosis, if control is not strengthened. Tuberculosis is not just an issue for some faraway countries; in the United States, more than 19,000 cases of tuberculosis are reported annually and increasingly we are seeing drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis in this country but especially in the states of the former Soviet Union where, according to one CDC doctor, an epidemic is taking place of ``the worst situation for multidrug resistant tuberculosis ever documented in the world.'' Other areas of the world, such as central India, Bangladesh, Latvia, Congo, Uganda, Peru are also experiencing near-epidemic tuberculosis crises. According to the World Health Organization, malaria kills more than 2 million people every year, and the disease is an important public health problem in 90 countries inhabited by almost half of the world's population. Each year, one million children under the age of five die from complications associated with malaria. Again, Mr. President, malaria is a disease we tend to associate with foreign exotic lands, and overlook the fact that in this country, more than one thousand people are stricken by malaria each year. Researchers at the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases contend that ``conventional control measures . . . appear increasingly inadequate. . . As a result of drug-resistant parasites and insecticide-resistant mosquitoes, fewer tools to control malaria exist today than did 25 years ago.'' Last year, the human immunosuppressant virus took the lives of 2.5 million, of which more than 500,000 were children under the age of 15. In the United States, almost one million are currently living with HIV- disease and 40,000 are newly infected each year. In Zimbabwe and Botswana, as many as 25 percent of the adult population is infected with HIV. In Zambia, 72 percent of households contain a child orphaned by AIDS. South Africa, which was largely isolated from HIV during its apartheid years, is now home to 10 percent of the new infections in Africa, and in the country's most populous province, KwaZulu-Natal, one-third of adults are HIV-infected. Analysts claim that India is an AIDS disaster-in-waiting: half a million people in one of India's smallest rural states (Tamil Nadu) are HIV-positive, as are fifteen percent of the women in one of India's more populous states (Maharashtra). While AIDS is entirely preventable in this country and abroad, and while behavioral interventions for HIV have proven effective at reducing infection rates, many factors, including political obstacles, insufficient prevention funding, forced sexual encounters, and the difficulty of maintaining safe behavior over a lifetime, mean that a vaccine will be required for control of this worldwide epidemic. And, yet, Mr. President, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies in the United States, the home of the most innovative research and development in the world, are not working on vaccines to the world's largest killers. Market disincentives--especially the lack of a viable, cash-rich market--play against investment into these vaccines. Private- sector scientists and chief executive officers have a difficult time justifying to their boards an investment in developmental research toward these vaccines as long as other pharmaceutical research and development into products appealing to the developed world, like anti- depressants or Viagra, present more attractive investments. This market failure and the need for incentives is shown most dramatically by last year's survey by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Of the 43 vaccine projects found to be in development by the survey not one was for HIV, malaria or tuberculosis. To find vaccines for the biggest infectious disease killers in the world, both the private and public sectors must be engaged in a bolder, more creative and dramatic way. Mr. President, with that in mind, we are introducing the Lifesaving Vaccine Technology Act, which establishes an income tax credit for 30 percent of the qualified expenses for medical research related to the development of vaccines against widespread diseases like malaria, HIV and tuberculosis, which according to the World Health Organization, cause more than one million deaths annually. This bill also declares that it is the sense of Congress that if the vaccine research credit is allowed to any corporation or shareholder of a corporation, the corporation should certify to the Secretary of the Treasury that, within one year after that vaccine is first licensed, the corporation will establish a good faith plan to maximize international access to high quality and affordable vaccines. In addition, the bill expresses the sense of Congress that the President and Federal agencies (including the Departments of State, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury) should work together in vigorous support of the creation and funding of a multi-lateral, international effort, such as a vaccine purchase fund, to accelerate the introduction of vaccines to which the vaccine research credit applies and of other priority vaccines into the poorest countries of the world. Lastly, the bill expresses the sense of Congress that flexible or differential pricing for vaccines, providing lowered prices for the poorest countries, is one of several valid strategies to accelerate the introduction of vaccines in developing countries. Mr. President, this legislation has received the support of the American Public Health Association, the Global Health Council, AIDS Action, the AIDS Policy Center for Children, Youth and Families, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. And, I am especially pleased that the Clinton Administration has signaled their approval of our approach. At his most recent speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations, President Clinton committed ``the United States to a concerted effort to accelerate the development and delivery of vaccines for malaria, TB, AIDS and other diseases disproportionately affecting the developing world.'' This bill is highly targeted: it will cost relatively little to implement but would have a profound impact on America's response to international public health needs. And it would complement--certainly not supplant--current federal efforts at USAID, the NIH and other federal agencies to assist developing countries and to bolster vaccine research. Mr. President, this legislation is a companion to a bipartisan bill introduced in the other body by my friend and colleague from San Francisco, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, and 36 co-sponsors. Over the years, I have had the honor to work with the distinguished Congresswoman on various pieces of legislation. The nation is in her debt for her tenacity and her overwhelming sense of duty to country. Her constituents benefit daily from her leadership, and I am pleased to be associated with her again today. I am hopeful that the positive response Congresswoman Pelosi has found in the other body is replicated in the Senate and that our colleagues join the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and I in passing the Lifesaving Vaccine Technology Act as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Nyhan column, an article which appeared in the Albany Times-Union about the market difficulties of developing an AIDS vaccine, and a Congressional Research Service study of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Delaware for his terrific leadership on this issue over the last few days, and for a long period of time. Let me quickly address, if I may, one point. The Senator from Delaware a few moments ago referred to the strange dynamic that has set in here in the Senate. I just want to underscore that, if I may, for a moment. I grew up, as many of us did, looking at the Senate with a sense of great respect and awe for the capacity of the Senate to come together around the most significant national security issues that faced the country. I think all of us always looked at this institution as the place that, hopefully, could break through the emotions and find the most common sense solution that is in the interests of the American people. Some of the great history of the Senate has been written about those moments where Senators crossed the aisle and found commonality in representing the interests of the Nation. I must say that in the 15 years I have been privileged now to serve here, representing Massachusetts, I have never seen the Senate as personally and ideologically and politically divided and willing to subvert what we most easily can define as the common national interest for those pure ideological or political reasons. And I don't think that is mere rhetoric when I say that. I noticed when Presidents Reagan and Bush were in office, there was a considerable thirst on the other side of the aisle for adventures in Granada, Panama, and Somalia, and the obvious need to respond to the threat in Iraq and the Middle East. But suddenly, with President Clinton, we saw those very people who were prepared to support those efforts, even in a Granada or in a Panama, suddenly people argued that Kosovo didn't have any meaning, Bosnia didn't have meaning, and even Haiti, where there was an incredible influx of refugees and chaos right off our shore, failed to elicit the same kind of responsible international reaction as we had seen in those prior years. Now, regrettably, this treaty finds itself being tossed around as the same kind of ``political football,'' to a certain degree. And I think that is unfortunate, and it certainly does not serve the best interests of the Nation. Mr. President, preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the most important issues facing the United States today. Since the end of the Cold War, we have made great strides in reducing the danger to the American people of the vast nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union. But the nuclear danger persists, and the job of nuclear arms control is far from finished. Multiple nuclear tests detonated by India and Pakistan emphasize the need for greater U.S. leadership on this critical issue--not less. In the last week, we have been told by critics of the CTBT that, for a variety of reasons, it will increase, rather than reduce the danger from nuclear proliferation. I believe that a careful examination of the criticism of this treaty will show that, on balance, it will enhance-- not undermine--U.S. national security interests. First, critics argue that, in their desire to conclude a comprehensive test ban, the Clinton administration made key concessions resulting in a flawed Treaty that is worse than no Treaty at all. Let me say at the beginning that I believe the CTBT is far from perfect. I am not going to argue with my colleagues on the other side that you can't find a legitimate point of disagreement about the Treaty. I'm not going to argue with those who don't like the way a particular compromise was arrived at in the treaty, or that think a particular principle might have been fought for harder and the absence of victory on that particular principle somehow weakens the overall implementation of the Treaty. The negotiating record--which has been subject to great scrutiny in recent days--reflects as many compromises from the original U.S. position as triumphs in achieving our objectives. There are legitimate reasons for concern that we did not achieve all of the original goals of the United States in negotiating this Treaty. I certainly take to heart Secretary Weinberger's admonition that you should not want the end goal so much that you give up certain substance in arriving at that end goal. I think that is a laudable and very important principle around which one ought to negotiate. But my colleagues in this body understand better than most the necessity of compromise in finding pragmatic solutions to the many difficult problems we face. And the compromises we agreed to in the CTBT will allow us to achieve the nonproliferation goals we seek. What has often been lost throughout this debate is that the United States enjoys a tremendous technological advantage over the other nuclear powers in both the sophistication of our weapons and our ability to maintain them reliably. The Administration and the Congress initially agreed to seek a test ban that would permit only the lowest- yield nuclear tests, which was soundly rejected by our negotiating partners because it would essentially ensure that only the United States, with the technical capacity the others lack to conduct those low-yield tests, would be permitted to continue testing its nuclear stockpile. As Ambassador Stephen Ledogar--the head of the U.S. negotiating team--testified before the Foreign Relations Committee last Thursday, the other four nuclear powers argued that they needed a higher threshold in order to gain any useful data. Russia argued that, if a testing threshold were to be established for the five nuclear powers, it should allow for nuclear yields of up to ten tons of TNT equivalent, hardly a level that constituted an effective testing restriction. Our negotiators quickly rejected that idea, and President Clinton decided the best way to resolve the impasse and protect U.S. interests would be to pursue a policy of zero-yield--a ban should be a ban. The Russians were not happy with this proposal, but eventually were persuaded to accept a total ban on any nuclear test that produced any nuclear yield. Clearly, the United States would have been better off if we had been able to negotiate a test ban that allowed us to continue testing. But it is ridiculous to argue that, because the CTBT does not protect the U.S. advantage it represents a dangerous capitulation on our part. To implement and verify a zero-yield test ban, we need not be worried about distinguishing between a low-yield test and a medium-yield test to determine if the Treaty has been violated. Any test of any yield is a violation. In this regard, the Treaty's strength is in its simplicity. Second, critics argue that we shouldn't ratify the CTBT because we can't verify compliance. There has never been an arms control treaty that is 100% verifiable, and the CTBT is no exception. We will not be able to detect nuclear tests down to the most minute level of nuclear yield. But we will be able to verify that the Test Ban is accomplishing what it is meant to accomplish: an end to nuclear testing that advances the sophistication of current nuclear stockpiles or the development of new nuclear stockpiles. The key to a successful verification system is that a potential violator must believe that the risk of getting caught is greater than the benefit of the violation. The lower the yield of the nuclear test, the smaller the chance of detection by seismic means. But at the same time, the amount of useful information a nation would get by conducting a low-yield clandestine test would be limited. As a result, a potential violator would likely decide that the risk of getting caught is greater than the benefit of conducting the test. In addition, clandestine testing will not allow any developing weapons program to approach current U.S. capabilities. For those who are concerned about the danger from low-yield nuclear testing, I would also argue that defeating this treaty will make it more difficult, not less, for the United States to detect those tests by denying us the benefits of the International Monitoring System that will verify the CTBT. The International Monitoring System will include 50 primary seismic monitoring stations and an auxiliary network of 120 stations, 80 radionuclide stations for atmospheric measurements, 11 hydroacoustic stations to detect underwater signals, and infrasound monitoring as well. This system will be augmented by the very powerful national intelligence-gathering technologies currently operated by the U.S. and others. The CTBT also allows any state party to request an on-site inspection of a questionable seismic event. The Treaty calls for on-site inspection requests to be submitted to the Executive Council of the CTBT Organization--the body charged with implementing the Treaty--along with supporting data, collected either from the monitoring and data mechanisms established under the Treaty or from national technical means. The Executive Council will have representatives from every region, and nations within each region will rotate membership on the Executive Council on a set schedule. The United States has reached agreement with the nations in our region that we will always be one of the 10 nations representing our region, so we will always have a vote on the Executive Council. Thirty of the 50 members of the Executive Council must approve an on- site inspection request. Critics have argued that it will be very difficult for the United States to garner the support of 30 nations to allow for an on-site inspection. They argue that our traditional adversaries will use the Executive Council to block inspections that are necessary to protecting the U.S. national interest. It is true that countries such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq and their few supporters can be counted on to block U.S. and other requests for on-site inspections. However, most of the nations of the world have no interest either in pursuing nuclear weapons or allowing their neighbors to pursue them unchecked, which is why this Treaty enjoys such strong support throughout the international community. Rogue nations would have to find support among more than 40 percent of the Executive Council to block our request for an on-site inspection. But it is unlikely that the United States would not be able to persuade at least 30 members of the merits and importance of our inspection request. The CTBT will give us access to tools we otherwise would not have for monitoring nuclear tests, and an option for on-site inspection of seismic events that we do not fully understand. Defeating the treaty would deny our intelligence community the additional benefits of those additional tools. Third, critics argue that the CTBT will not end nuclear proliferation, because key countries of proliferation concern will not sign or ratify. This is an important argument, because it goes to whether this Treaty can accomplish the fundamental purpose for which it is designed--stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is true that countries will halt nuclear testing, or not, based on a calculation of their own national interest. But by creating an international norm against nuclear testing, the CTBT will add a powerful factor in a rogue nation's assessment of whether its national interest will be helped or harmed by the conduct of a nuclear weapon. A nation that chooses to test will face considerable costs to its political, economic and security interests. U.S. ratification of the CTBT will lay the basis for universal enforcement of the Treaty, even against the few nations that may not sign. The CTBT is a critical component of broader U.S. strategy on nuclear non-proliferation, which has the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at its core. In 1995, states parties to the NPT agreed to extend that Treaty indefinitely, in large part based on the commitment of the declared nuclear weapons states to conclude a CTBT. The failure of the United States to ratify the CTBT will seriously undercut our ability to continue our critical leadership role in the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. Formal entry-into-force of the Treaty requires ratification by the 44 countries that have nuclear power reactors or nuclear research reactors and are members of the Conference on Disarmament. And in my mind, it is altogether appropriate that a treaty banning the testing of nuclear weapons requires the participation of all the nuclear-capable states before it can enter into force. Of those 44, 41 have signed the CTBT, and 23 have ratified. All of our allies have signed the Treaty. Russia and China have signed the Treaty. Only India, Pakistan and North Korea have not signed. Now, some have argued that the United States should be in no hurry to ratify the Treaty, that we should wait until Russia, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea have ratified. They worry that the United States will forfeit its ability to conduct nuclear tests with no guarantee that the countries we are most concerned about will make the same commitment. But the United States has already concluded that we do not need to conduct nuclear tests to maintain our vast nuclear superiority. No one on the other side of the aisle is arguing we should go out and test tomorrow. Why? Because we don't need to test tomorrow. We don't need to test next year. We don't need to test for the foreseeable future, according to most scientists in this country, because we don't test the nuclear explosion itself for the purpose of safety and for making judgments about the mechanics of both the electrical and mechanical parts of a nuclear warhead. The CTBT binds us to a decision we have already made, because it is in our national interests to stop testing. And if, at some point down the line, it becomes necessary to resume testing to preserve the reliability of our nuclear deterrent, we can withdraw from the Treaty to do so. Clearly, we want countries like India and Pakistan to ratify the Treaty and commit themselves to refraining from nuclear testing. Aren't we more likely to convince them to do this if we ourselves have already ratified the Treaty? As Secretary Albright correctly pointed out on Thursday, waiting is not a strategy. During the debates on the Chemical Weapons Convention, there were those who advocated taking this passive approach to protecting our interests. But in fact, after the United States ratified the CWC, Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran and Cuba followed our lead. The best chance for achieving the nonproliferation goals of the CTBT is for the United States to lead. If the Senate were to reject the Treaty, international support for the test ban would be gravely undermined, and countries like India and Pakistan would have no reason to refrain from continued testing. Aren't we better off with a treaty that gives us the capacity to monitor, the capacity to continue to show leadership with India and Pakistan, the capacity to set up a process with China before the Chinese test in a way that gives them the ability to translate the information stolen--referred to in the Cox commission report--into a real threat to the United States? That seems to me to be a very simple proposition. The Cox Report, and others, all acknowledge that at this point in time China has not created a new weapon or changed its nuclear capacity, using our information. And we know that, in order to do so, using on our information, they have to test. China has signed the treaty, and is prepared to adopt the restraints of this treaty. Those who argue that we are better off allowing China the window to go out and test and now profit from what it has stolen elude all common sense, in my judgment. How would the United States be better off with a China that is allowed to test and translate the stolen information into a better weapons system? That is not answered on the floor of the Senate. But some argue that that is the way they would like to proceed. U.S. ratification of the CTBT won't end nuclear proliferation, but U.S. rejection of the Treaty undermine the credibility of U.S. leadership on nonproliferation, which will jeopardize U.S. work to prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and to block the sale of sensitive technologies that could contribute to proliferation. Finally, critics argue that the United States will not be able to maintain a reliable nuclear deterrent without nuclear tests. I take very seriously the argument that, without nuclear testing, the credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent will be undermined. The security of the American people--and the security of our friends and allies around the world--depends on maintaining the credible perception that an act of aggression against us will be met with an overwhelming and devastating response. If I thought for a minute that U.S. ratification of the CTBT would undermine this deterrent, I would not--I could not--support it. In fact, the United States has today and will continue to have in the future high confidence in the safety, reliability and effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile. This confidence is based on over 50 years of experience and analysis of over 1,000 nuclear tests, the most in the world. Most of the nuclear tests the United States has conducted have been to develop new nuclear weapons; for the most part, we use non-nuclear tests to ensure the continued reliability of our nuclear arsenal. This is a key point--even with no test ban, the United States would not rely primarily on detonating nuclear explosions to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. Most of the problems associated with aging nuclear weapons will relate to the many mechanical and electrical components of the warhead, and the CTBT does not restrict testing on these non-nuclear components. Moreover, we have already proven that we can make modifications to existing designs without nuclear testing. In 1998, we certified the reliability of the B-61 Mod 11, which replaced an older weapon in the stockpile, without conducting a nuclear test. Looking to the future, the center of U.S. efforts to maintain our nuclear stockpile is the Science Based Stockpile Stewardship program, initiated by President Clinton in 1992. This 10 year, $45 billion program has four major objectives: to maintain a safe and reliable stockpile as nuclear weapons age; to maintain and enhance capability to replace and certify nuclear weapons components; to train new weapon scientists; and to maintain and further develop an operational manufacturing capability. And it is already working. Since our last test in 1992, the Secretaries of Defense and Energy and the Commander-in-Chief of Strategic Command have certified 3 times (and are about to certify for the fourth time) that the U.S. nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable. It is only in the distant future--2010 perhaps, but we don't know the answer to this yet--that conceivably the physics package of a nuclear weapon might provide the level of deterioration that might not be able to be replaced with totally new parts and therefore might somehow lessen our nuclear deterrent capacity. To enable us to respond to such a situation, President Clinton has established six Safeguards that define the conditions under which the U.S. will remain a party to the CTBT. Presidential Safeguards A through F, as they are known, outline the U.S. commitment to maintaining a science-based stockpile stewardship program to insure a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. The final safeguard, Safeguard F, states U.S. policy--as embodied in the official negotiating record of the CTBT-- that, if the President is advised that the safety or reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile can no longer be certified, the President, in consultation with the Congress, will withdraw from the CTBT under the ``supreme national interests'' clause of the Treaty. Now, critics of this Treaty have suggested that a future President, upon learning from his Secretaries of Defense and Energy that the nuclear stockpile can not be certified, and upon confronting all the scientific data that tells him our nuclear deterrent is eroding, will somehow fail to act--fail to invoke the ``supreme national interest'' clause--and withdraw the United States from the Treaty. I ask my colleagues, Is there one among us who, when confronted with this information, would hesitate to act? When the Congress is informed of the status of the nuclear arsenal--and those reports are given in full to the Congress-- is there anyone who doubts that the Congress would immediately demand that the White House take action to protect our nuclear deterrent? Surely, the critics of this Treaty who doubt that a President could find the political will to withdraw the United States from the CTBT when our ``supreme national interests'' are at stake aren't suggesting that there is a confluence of political factors that could possibly place the sanctity of a treaty above the sanctity of the lives of the American people. No one can tell me that any President of the United States is going to diminish the real national security interests of this country against some desire to keep a treaty in effect for the sake of having a treaty if, indeed, doing so will threaten the real interests of this Nation. U.S. ratification of, and adherence to, the CTBT will not jeopardize our nuclear deterrent, because the United States does not today, and will not tomorrow, rely on nuclear explosions to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. We have embarked on a high-tech, science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program that will allow the United States to maintain the superiority of its nuclear arsenal. And in the event that we can not certify the reliability of our nuclear deterrent, we have given notice to our negotiating partners that we will not adhere to the CTBT at the expense of our supreme national interests. So, in effect, we are talking about what we could achieve by passing this treaty and showing leadership on the subject of implementing an international regime of monitoring and of nonproliferation, versus continuing the completely uncontrolled capacity of nations to provide a true threat to the United States. Mr. President, critics of this Treaty argue that the United States today faces too many uncertainties in the realm of nonproliferation to commit ourselves to a leadership position on the CTBT. I can not speak to those uncertainties, but of the following, I am absolutely certain: if the Senate rejects the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, there will be more nuclear tests conducted around the world, not fewer, and we will be no better equipped than we are today to detect and monitor those tests; the U.S. nuclear arsenal will not be made more reliable--and other nuclear nations will have the freedom to conduct the necessary tests to bring their weapons on a technological par with our own, undermining the strength of our nuclear deterrent; and finally, the American people will be more vulnerable, not less, to the nuclear danger, because we will have undercut more than 30 years of work to build and fortify international norms on nuclear nonproliferation. The Senate has before it today an opportunity to send a signal to the world that the United States will continue to lead on international efforts to reduce the nuclear danger. We also face the prospect of acting too soon, after too little time for deliberation, and sending a signal that the United States can no longer be counted on to stand against the forces of nuclear proliferation. It seems to me that when the President of the United States makes a request in the interest of our Nation to the Senate to delay a vote, it is only politics that would drive us to have that vote notwithstanding that request. My plea would be to my colleagues in the Senate that we find the capacity to cool down a little bit, to have a vote that delays the consideration of this treaty so that we may proceed to answer properly each of the questions raised by those who oppose it, and, if need be, make changes that would not send the message that the United States of America is rejecting outright this opportunity to embrace a policy that from Eisenhower on we have fought to try to adopt. I hope that the leadership of the Senate on both sides of the aisle can be prevailed upon to prevent a tragic misstep that I fear will have grave consequences for the strategic interests of the United States and our friends and allies.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are now entering the third decade of the AIDS epidemic and while we have made some progress in fighting this devastating disease, our federal response is still lacking. More than 400,000 people have died of complications associated with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome since 1981. Last year, more than 54,000 new cases of AIDS were reported in this country. This trend is staggering and belies the misperception that somehow the AIDS epidemic in this country or abroad has abated. While it is true that therapeutic and treatment breakthroughs have led to longer and more productive fulfilling lives for those living with HIV, and that the death rate from AIDS has fallen in recent years, the fact remains that this epidemic has no cure and the rate of new infections has not slowed. But these are days of great hope, Mr. President, in the fight against AIDS. During the years of inaction by the Reagan and Bush Administrations during the 1980s, we entered the second decade of the epidemic on a much different note: treatments were few, toxic and largely ineffective; training of physicians in the care of patients with HIV was incomplete, uneven and erratic; discrimination and abuse of people living with AIDS in housing, employment and medical care was rampant and abhorrent. It was difficult to have much hope as we entered the 1990s. But this decade has seen great promise. We have made significant strides. No longer an immediate death sentence, AIDS has lost some--but certainly not all--of its social stigma. In that dark dawn of the epidemic, Mr. President, who would have believed that we would see a decade in which two Miss Americas would be AIDS activists, touring the country and speaking out on AIDS prevention and care? In the early 1980s, who would have believed that we would have an Office of AIDS Research at the National Institutes of Health, that funding for the Ryan White program would increase by 260 percent, or that funding for AIDS research would increase by 67 percent? And yet, Mr. President, the rumbling of the epidemic has not been stilled. In the early 1980s, who would have believed that some African countries would have 25 or 35 percent infection rates, or that an entire generation of gay men in the United States would be lost? Who would have believed that infection rates would continue at staggering paces at the same time leading voices would declare the epidemic over? Have we truly become victims of our own success? I certainly hope not, for as Tony Kushner wrote at the end of his monumental play, Angels in America, ``great work remains to be done.'' Until we have an AIDS-free day in America, I will not become complacent. As ranking member of the Housing subcommittee, I know that great work remains to be done in finding shelter for people living with AIDS. I was pleased that my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, and my friend from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, were able to answer my request positively to increase funding by $7 million for the Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS program in the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. This money is crucial as people living with AIDS have a fundamental need for adequate and safe housing. I will continue to work with all of my colleagues to keep the HOPWA program sufficiently funded. Great work remains to be done on HIV prevention. We are lacking in our commitment to adequately fund the Centers for Disease Control in their anti-HIV efforts. Until a cure is found, we must ensure that the federal government issues information widely which is accurate, blunt and unequivocal. Prevention efforts work, Mr. President. I have seen the work of the AIDS Action Committee in Boston and I can tell you that their innovative programs are working to slow the spread of AIDS. Unlike the increase in funding which the National Institutes of Health has received, the CDC's prevention efforts have remained at roughly the same level in the past few years. It was my hope that the appropriators would have recognized the unmet needs related to HIV prevention in this country and it is my fear that the failure to keep pace with that need portends a disaster. For example, in this legislation as in other legislation this year, we again were subjected to the perennial ill-informed debate on the issue of needle exchange. I am dismayed that the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill will include language which deprives the Secretary of Health and Human Services from using her discretion based on science and empirical academic study to determine if needle exchange programs reduce the transmission of HIV without encouraging illicit drug abuse. This is bad public policy, when Senators act like scientists, and it is bad health policy. It is my hope that the conferees on this bill will restore the Secretary's discretion. Great work remains to be done in combating AIDS abroad. We are a failure in our policy toward Africa. Our international efforts need to be bolstered to assist developing countries crippled by the effects of HIV disease. My distinguished colleague and friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, has been stalwart in raising the funding levels to fight AIDS abroad in the Foreign Operations appropriations bill and the Congress needs to follow his guidance by continuing to increase these levels. In addition, tomorrow I will introduce the Lifesaving Vaccine Technology Act of 1999 to spur research of vaccines to combat diseases which kill more than one million people every year, and I will have much more to say on this topic at that time. Great work remains to be done for hemophiliacs. There is perhaps no greater neglect by the federal government in responding to the AIDS epidemic than the ignoring of our hemophiliac population. On November 11, 1998 the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Act was signed into law. The bill, authored by the Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, received overwhelming bipartisan support, and I was proud to be an original co- sponsor of the bill. When it passed, hemophiliacs felt their thirteen year battle to be compensated for the lapse in regulation of our nation's blood supply was over. In the early 1980s, it became apparent that HIV was being improperly screened, and HIV-tainted blood product was being distributed to patients across the country. At the time, there were 10,000 Americans suffering with hemophilia, an illness which requires regular infusions of blood clotting agents. According to the Institute of Medicine's report on HIV and the Blood Supply, ``meetings of the FDA's Blood Product Advisory Committee in January, February, July and December 1983 offered major opportunities to discuss, consider, and reconsider . . . and review new evidence and to reconsider earlier decisions, [yet] blood safety policies changed very little during 1983.'' In effect, the report found the FDA was at fault for not responding to clear evidence of transmission dangers. As a result, more than sixty percent of all Americans with hemophilia were infected with HIV through blood products contaminated by the AIDS virus. Currently, more than 5,000 have died and more are dying each day. In my office, I have been visited by courageous hemophiliacs and when they leave, I never know if I will ever see them again. This population has been decimated, Mr. President, and the personal tragedy is unspeakable. We must fully fund the Ricky Ray Relief Act. The Senate version of the Labor-HHS-Education bill appropriates $50 million out of the $750 million needed to fund the Ricky Ray Trust Fund, and that is certainly better than the inadequate level of the other body, but it is a far cry from the level needed by the hemophiliac community. Members of this community never anticipated the one-time compensation from the trust fund, intended to assist with staggering medical bills and improve the quality of their lives, would turn out to be a pay-out to their estates. You need only to speak to some of my constituents, like Therese MacNeill. She will tell you, as a mom, the hardship she has experienced in coping with the tragedy of losing one son to AIDS and caring for another who is HIV-positive. Terri MacNeill will let you know in no uncertain terms why we must fully fund Ricky Ray to help families who for years were storing HIV-infected blood product in their family refrigerators next to the lettuce and milk, and now are struggling under mountains of medical bills. Other countries have recognized the plight of hemophiliacs who were infected by poorly screened blood. Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, and Switzerland are just some of the countries which have established compensation programs. Sixty Senators signed on as co- sponsors of the legislation authorizing the establishment of the Ricky Ray Trust Fund. Now is the time to realize our commitment to the hemophiliac population on par with other countries as well as our own actions in authorizing the bill. I hope that when the appropriations conference committee meets on this bill, the funding levels for the Ricky Ray act are raised substantially. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that I am heartened by the response of my friends, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and the able Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, in crafting this legislation. They have risen to an incredible challenge in the funding of programs designed for AIDS care, research and treatment, and I remain committed to work with them during this year and next to finish some of the great work that remains to be done, especially in regard to HIV prevention programs and the Ricky Ray Trust Fund.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleagues, Mr. Specter from the State of Pennsylvania and Mr. Harkin from the State of Iowa, for accepting in the manager's amendment of S. 1650 the sense of the Senate that my friend from Oregon, Mr. Smith and I offered on comprehensive education reform. Our amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the federal government should support state and local efforts to reform and improve our nation's public schools, and further, that every child should begin school ready to learn; that training and development for principals and teachers should be a priority; that public school choice should be encouraged to increase options for students; that support should be given to communities to develop additional counseling opportunities for at-risk students; and that school boards, administrators, principals, parents, teachers, and students must be accountable for the success of the public education system. I appreciate that my distinguished colleagues have acknowledged the importance of a bipartisan, comprehensive approach to reforming the public education system that emphasizes the principles enumerated above. If education reform is to succeed in America's public schools, we must demand nothing less than a comprehensive reform effort. We cannot address only one challenge in education and ignore the rest. We must make available the tools for real comprehensive reform so that every aspect of public education functions better and every element of our system is stronger. We must empower low-performing schools to adopt all the best practices of our nation's best schools--public, private, charter or parochial. We must give every school the chance to quickly and easily put in place the best of what works in any other school--and with decentralized control, site-based management, parental engagement, and real accountability. Numerous high-performance school designs have been created such as the Modern Red Schoolhouse program and the Success for All program. The results of extensive evaluations of these programs have shown that these designs are successful in raising student achievement. We must also restore accountability in public education--demanding that each school embracing comprehensive reform set tangible, measurable results to gauge their success in raising student achievement. We must reward schools which meet high standards and demand that those which fall short of their goals take immediate corrective action--but the setting of high standards must undergird comprehensive reform. In order to do this, we must break out of the ideological bind we have put ourselves in. We cannot only talk about education--it's more than an issue for an election--we must do something about it. We have the opportunity to implement comprehensive education reform at a time when the American people are telling us that--for their families, for their futures--in every poll of public opinion, in every survey of national priorities, one issue matters most, and it's education. That is good news for all of us who care about education, who care about our kids. But the bad news is, the American people are not so sure that we know how to meet their needs anymore. They are not even sure we know how to listen. Every morning, more and more parents--rich, middle class, and even the poor--are driving their sons and daughters to parochial and private schools where they believe there will be more discipline, more standards, and more opportunity. Families are enrolling their children in Charter schools, paying for private schools when they can afford them, or even resorting to home schooling--the largest growth area in American education. Earlier in this debate, I supported two amendments offered by the distinguished Senator and my senior colleague from the State of Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. I am deeply disappointed that neither of these worthy amendments were adopted by the Senate. Mr. Kennedy's amendments would have exempted education from the across the board cuts in discretionary spending that Republicans have proposed and provided increased funding for teacher quality. We know the American people are willing to spend more on public education. Yet the Senate voted to allow cuts. And we know that the American people want qualified teachers in their children's schools. Yet the Senate did not appropriate the fully authorized level of the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants program. I am also distressed that an amendment offered by my distinguished colleagues, Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Reed, and myself was not adopted by this body. Our amendment would have, for the first time, provided real accountability to poor children and ensure they attend successful schools. The American people have said time and again that education is their top policy concern. And we have heard time and again that the American people want their public schools held accountable. Yet we rejected this important amendment, that would have appropriated no new funding and would have ensured low-performing schools would be turned around, was rejected. Given our inability to pass these important amendments, I am particularly pleased that Mr. Smith and I could come together and offer this bipartisan amendment. The sense of the Senate we offered is the essence of our bill, S. 824, the ``Comprehensive School Improvement and Accountability Act.'' Our bill emphasizes the principles embodied in this sense of the Senate, such as early childhood development programs, challenge grants for professional development of principals, second chance schools for violent and disruptive students, and increased funding for the Title I program. We contend that these and other tenets are fundamental to the comprehensive reform of public schools.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to spend some time this afternoon speaking to my colleagues to vote against the amendment before us today, the amendment that would prohibit the Department of Labor or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from issuing any standard or regulation addressing ergonomic concerns in the workplace for one year. Mr. President, this prohibition would come just as OSHA prepares, in the next few weeks, to publish its proposed rule on ergonomics for public comment. This would be a blow to American workers and a real step backwards for the kind of cooperative approach to business and the workplace that we need in this country. Mr. President, let's be clear about the issue before us, the question of ergonomics and which workplace injuries will continue to occur if this amendment becomes law. Ergonomics is the science of fitting workplace conditions and job demands to the capabilities of the working population. The study of ergonomics is large in scope, but generally, the term refers to the assessment of those work-related factors that may pose a risk of musculoskeletal disorders. It is well-settled that effective and successful ergonomics programs assure high productivity, avoidance of illness and injury risks, and increased satisfaction among the workforce. Many businesses and trade associations have already implemented safety and health programs in the workplace and have seen productivity rise as fewer hours on the job are lost. According to Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles N. Jeffress in his testimony before the House Committee on Small Business, programs implemented by individual employers reduce total job-related injuries and illnesses by an average of 45 percent and lost work time injuries and illnesses by an average of 75 percent. Ergonomic disorders include sprains and strains, which affect the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage, or spinal discs; repetitive stress injuries, that are typically not the result of any instantaneous or acute event but are usually chronic in nature, and brought on as a result of a poorly designed work environment (these injuries are common causes of muscoskeletal problems such as chronic and disabling lower-back pain); and carpal tunnel syndrome. And let's be clear that this, Mr. President, is a real problem for American businesses and workers. Industry experts have estimated that injuries and illnesses caused by ergonomic hazards are the biggest job safety problem in the workplace today, as each year more than 600 thousand workers suffer from back injuries, tendinitis, and other ergonomic disorders. In fact, OSHA, estimates that injuries related to carpal tunnel syndrome alone result in more workers losing their jobs than any other injury. The worker compensation cost of all ergonomics injuries is estimated at over 20 billion dollars annually. What is most troubling, Mr. President, is that these types of injuries are preventable. There is something that can be done to protect the American worker. It should be noted that in drafting its proposed rule--a rule Mr. President, that is scheduled to be issued in just a few weeks--OSHA worked extensively with a number of stakeholders, including representatives from industry, labor, safety and health organizations, State governments, trade associations, and insurance companies. OSHA has drafted an interactive, flexible rule that allows managers and labor to work in unison to create a safer workplace environment. OSHA even placed on its Website a preliminary version of the draft proposed rule, in order to facilitate comments from the public. Mr. President, this is not a ``command and control'' regulatory action. As noted by Assistant Secretary Jeffress: ``An employer [should] work credibly with employees to find workplace hazards and fix them . . . the rule creates no new obligations for employers to control hazards that they have not already been required to control under the General Duty Clause under Section 5 of the Occupational Safety Act or existing OSHA standards.'' In other words, Mr. President, this rule is simply an interactive approach between employee and manager to protect the assets of the company in ways that are either already being done, or should be done under existing rules. This new rule is a guide and a tool, not an inflexible mandate. According to the Department of Labor, thirty-two states have some form of safety and health program. Four States (Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Washington) have mandated comprehensive programs that have core elements similar to those in OSHA's draft proposal. In these four states, injury and illness rates fell by nearly 18 percent over the five years after implementation, in comparison with national rates over the same period. I'd like to share with my colleagues two examples from my home state of Massachusetts that show how business and labor can benefit from successful ergonomics programs. Crane & Company, a paper company located in Dalton, Massachusetts signed an agreement with OSHA to establish comprehensive ergonomics programs at each of their plants. According to the company's own report, within three years of starting this program, the company's musculoskeletal injury rate was almost cut in half. Lunt Silversmiths, a flatware manufacturer in Greenfield, was troubled by high worker's compensation costs. One OSHA log revealed that back injuries were the number one problem in three departments. By implementing basic ergonomic controls, lost workdays dropped from more that 300 in 1992 to 72 in 1997, and total worker's compensation costs for the company dropped from $192,500 in 1992 to $27,000 in 1997. That's the difference this common sense approach can make. And, Mr. President, in spite of the arguments for the Bond amendment, there bulk of the science and the research proves that an ergonomic standard is needed in the American workplace. The National Academy of Sciences, the same group directed in this amendment to complete a study on this issue, already has compiled a report entitled Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders. And the report tells us that workers exposed to ergonomic hazards have a higher level of pain, injury and disability, that there is a biological basis for these injuries, and that there exist today interventions to prevent these injuries. In 1997, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health completed a critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and lower back. This critical review of 600 studies culled from a bibliographic database of more than 2,000 found that there is substantial evidence for a causal relationship between physical work factors and musculoskeletal disorders. Furthermore, Mr. President, we are not talking about a new phenomenon, or the latest fad. In 1990, Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole, in response to evidence showing that repetitive stress disorders (such as carpal tunnel syndrome) were the fastest growing category of occupational illnesses, committed the agency to begin working on an ergonomics standard. This rulemaking has been almost ten years in the making. Now is the time to put something in place for the American worker. This rule has been delayed for far too long. In 1996, the Senate and the House agreed to language in an appropriations conference report that would prevent OSHA from developing an ergonomics standard in FY 1997. In 1997, Congress prevented OSHA from spending any of its FY 1998 budget on promulgating an ergonomics standard. Last year, money in the FY 1999 budget was set aside for the new NAS study cited in this amendment, and the then-Chairman and Ranking Members of the House Appropriations Committee sent a letter to Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman, stating that this study ``was not intended to block or delay OSHA from moving forward with its ergonomics standard.'' Mr. President, we should wait no longer for this standard to be proposed, and workers should not have to wait until a new study is completed to be directed from preventable injuries. The time to protect the American workplace is now. People on the other side of this issue may argue that this is an expensive rule, or that the science is inadequate. This is simply not true. The changes envisioned by the rule will increase productivity and save costs. The studies have been numerous. Preventing OSHA from even working on an ergonomic standard, much less issuing one, at the eleventh hour is not the right approach for American workers. This standard is a win-win for workers and management: the better that workers are protected, the more time they spend on the job. The more time they spend on the job, the more productive the workplace. And it is obvious, but it bears restating, the more productive the workplace, the more productive this country. Workers want to be at work, and their bosses want them at work. We ought to be capable--as a Senate--to put that common sense approach and this simple ergonomics standard into place and we all be able to vote against the Bond amendment and help out workers and our businesses move forward together.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the amendment before us today provides a chance not just to make this spending bill better and stronger, not just to move forward by completing another stage of the budget process the American people are already unsure we can complete, but to take this spending bill and use it as a real vehicle for reform of our public schools. Today we can make the single largest investment in accountability ever at the Federal level--today we can help serve as a catalyst for the innovative and, I think, critical reform efforts taking shape around this country. The amendment would reserve $200 million of title I funds for disadvantaged children to provide assistance and support to low-performing schools. This amendment will compel school districts to take strong corrective actions to improve consistently low-performing schools. Passage of this amendment signals our commitment to the public schools. Our commitment to their success. And our commitment to ensuring failing schools turn around. For too long in this Nation we have tolerated low standards and low expectations for our poor children. The standards movement has begun to turn the tide on low expectations and we must build on that momentum and demand accountability from schools that fail our children. We have this opportunity at a time when the American people are telling us that--for their families, for their futures--in every poll of public opinion, in every survey of national priorities--one issue matters most--and it's education. Good news for all of us who care about education, who care about our kids. But the bad news is, the American people aren't so sure we know how to meet their needs anymore. They aren't even so sure we know how to listen. Every morning, more and more parents--rich, middle class, and even the poor--are driving their sons and daughters to parochial and private schools where they believe there will be more discipline, more standards, and more opportunity. Families are enrolling their children in charter schools, paying for private schools when they can afford them, or even resorting to home schooling--the largest growth area in American education. This amendment comes at an important time for our schools, you might say it comes at an even more important time for this Congress. We have to break out of the ideological bind we've put ourselves in--we can't just talk about education--it's more than an issue for an election-- we've got to do something about it. Parents in this country believe that public schools are in crisis and despite a decade of talk about reform, they give them no higher grade than a decade ago. 67 percent are dissatisfied with the way public education is working; 66 percent use the word crisis to describe what's going on in our schools today. But the American people--at times more than we seem to be in the Senate--are firmly committed to fixing our public schools--fixing our schools--not talking about fixing them, not using kids as pawns in a political chess game. It boils down to one fundamental, overriding concern: Americans want accountability for performance and consequences for failure in the public school system. Americans support a variety of innovative approaches to improving education--it's actually Washington that is more afraid of change than the citizens who sent us here. And it is time for us to be a catalyst for change--to help facilitate more innovation, not less--to improve the state of education in America: to address the problem of reading scores that show that of 2.6 million graduating high school students, one-third are below basic reading level, one-third are at basic, only one-third are proficient and only 100,000 are at a world class reading level. The time to lay down the marker of accountability for student performance is now. That's why today's discussion is so important-- because we have the opportunity today to do it--to stop talking past each other--and to deliver on the most important principle of real education reform--accountability. When schools begin to fail, when there is social promotion, when kids are being left behind, we need to hold those schools accountable for taking those best practices and turning around low performing schools not 5 years from now, not some time in the future, not after another study, but today--now. And if we can commit ourselves to that kind of accountability then we will have taken an incredible leap forward, not just building public confidence in public education, but in making all our schools better. It is past time that we coalesce around an approach to reform grounded in four simple concepts: high standards; teaching to those standards; giving every student the opportunity to meet those standards; and building strict accountability into the system to make those standards meaningful. Mr. President, 49 States have embraced or will soon embrace meaningful standards; there should be no partisan divide over this issue--and now is the time for us all to embrace the policies which empower our teachers to teach to standards and give every student the real opportunity to meet high standards. Now is the time for us to embrace the accountability that has worked so well for real leaders like Gov. Tom Carper in Delaware, and Mayor Daley in Chicago--now is the time for us to say not just that we hope schools will meet high standards, but that we'll work with them--holding them accountable--to get them there. It's time for us to say that we're willing--in our title I spending--to hold schools accountable for meeting those high benchmarks--to reach out to low performing schools and give them the intensive help they need to turn things around and help raise student performance. It boils down to real accountability--to acknowledging that though the Federal role in education, in terms of pure spending, has been relatively small, it does provide the leverage--if we are willing to embrace it--to empower schools in need of reform to turn themselves around rapidly--to cut through layers of bureaucracy--to access new resources--to shake up staff--and, if need be, to reconstitute itself--to become a new school in a fundamental sense--or to turn itself into, essentially, a charter school within the public school system. We know that title I itself, with the early accountability reforms already in place have raised accountability--but I would say that in this amendment we could do so much more--and we should. Consider the impact more accountability would make--the ability we would have to truly adhere to high standards throughout the system: to raise teacher quality; reform certification; provide mentoring and ongoing education; embrace merit pay; higher salaries; and end teacher tenure as we know it. Consider the ability to hold schools accountable for our childrens' needs--to say that we will not allow schools to be the dumping ground for adult problems--and to acknowledge that we need to fill those hours after school with meaningful study--curriculum--and mentoring. Consider the ability to hold students accountable for discipline and violence: to allow schools to write discipline codes and create second chance schools: to eliminate the crime that turns too many hallways and classrooms into arenas of violence. We need to do these things now--to be willing to challenge the status quo--to do more for our schools, to help every student achieve, to guarantee reform when they don't--and--in no small measure--to renew the promise of public education for the 21st century. This will not happen overnight, but it will happen. I look forward to joining with all of my colleagues in that effort: to pass this amendment, to make accountability the foundation of reform, and to face the challenge of fixing our public schools together.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair, and I particularly thank my senior colleague for this amendment, as well as for his extraordinary leadership on the subject of education. I think everyone here will agree there simply is no stronger voice for the quality of our schools and the opportunities for our children than my senior colleague. The great battle in the Senate over the past years has been to establish standards by which we would raise the education level of our schools. The fact is, a few years ago we basically won that battle because now 49 States in the country have agreed to put standards in place or have them in place. Those standards vary. In some States they are stronger than they are in other States, but the great challenge now is fourfold. One is to stay the course in putting the standards in place and raising the standards. The second is to guarantee that teachers can teach to the standards. The third is to guarantee that students have the opportunity to learn to the standards. That is not being dealt with specifically, though partly, in this amendment. The final one is accountability. All of this has to be accountable. We have learned that. You have to know that what you are trying to teach and what kids are learning are, in fact, being taught and learned. What the Senator from Massachusetts, my senior colleague, and Senator Reed and I and others are joining in is a recognition that we have an extraordinary challenge before us. I was going to use the word ``crisis,'' but I don't want to use it because it is overused. We have all heard the quotes about the number of teachers we need to hire in the next few years. We know maybe as many as 2 million teachers are needed, perhaps half of them in the next 5 years. We also know we are losing 30 to 40 percent of new teachers within the first 3 to 4 years. We know there are ways to make a difference in teachers staying at what is increasingly becoming one of the toughest jobs in America. It is interesting that a survey, released about 4 months ago, showed what teachers have been telling us for some time. Our own teachers in this country acknowledge that they don't feel fully prepared for the modern classroom. By modern classroom, we mean a lot of different things. We mean the technology needed to teach. We mean some of the modern teaching methodologies, pedagogies. We also mean the nature of the student who comes to school today. That student comes burdened with a whole set of problems, unlike the students of the past. We also know that because of the multicultural, racial diversity of our Nation, we have teachers coping with different cultures, with a diversity that is absolutely extraordinary but also challenging. The fact is that fully 80 percent of our teachers tell us they don't feel equipped to be able to do the job. They are crying out for help. That is what the Kennedy amendment delivers. It makes education programs accountable for preparing high-quality teachers, for improving prospective teachers' knowledge of academic content, through increased collaboration between the faculty and schools of education and the departments of arts and sciences, so we will ensure that teachers are well prepared for the realities of the classroom by providing very strong, hands-on classroom experience and by strengthening the links between the university and the K-through-12 school faculties. We also need to prepare prospective teachers to use technology as a tool for teaching and learning. We need to prepare prospective teachers to work effectively with diverse students. The truth is that we as Senators talk about the difficulties of teaching today in America. The fact is that it is one of the most difficult jobs in our Nation. It is extraordinary to me that the Senate, at this time of urgent need in the country, might not be prepared to make the most important investment in the country. It is extraordinary to me that kids just 2 or 3 years out of college can earn in a Christmas bonus more than teachers will earn in an entire year. It is impossible to attract some of the best kids out of our best colleges and universities because we are not willing to provide the mentoring, the ongoing education, the support systems, and the capacity to really fulfill the promise of teaching in the public school system. So I hope our colleagues will support the notion that all we are trying to do is raise to the original requested level the spending for the teacher enhancement grants, with the knowledge that this is the most important investment we can make in America. Teachers need and deserve respect from the Senate and from those who create the structure within which they try to teach our kids so that they can, in fact, learn and we can do better as a country.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Rockefeller and others to introduce the Medicare Beneficiary Access to Care Act of 1999. In July, during consideration of tax relief legislation, I offered an amendment on the floor of the Senate to carve out $20 billion from the tax bill and devote it towards relief for Medicare providers from the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act. Although the amendment received the support of 50 Senators, including seven of my Republican colleagues, it did not gather the necessary three-fifths majority required for passage. Today's legislation, a $20 billion package of specific measures to address the shortcomings of the Balanced Budget Act, represents the embodiment of our continued commitment to ensure that this relief is enacted before the end of the congressional session. Mr. President, I cannot fully express the urgency of this matter. Here in Washington, we often throw around numbers with little realization of the real impact on America's communities. In this instance, I assure you, the impact is real. Take the town of Quincy, Massachusetts, population 88,000, and the birthplace of former presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams. As we introduce this bill, the community hospital in Quincy, Massachusetts stands at the edge of closure. Jeffrey Doran, the hospital's CEO, has been working overtime to ensure that if the hospital closes, patients will be safely transferred to health care providers outside the community. Over the past several weeks, I have been on the phone multiple times with our State leaders asking them to step in and provide the needed relief where the Federal Government has failed. Failed, Mr. President, because the Medicare cuts enacted in 1997 have gone above and beyond what we intended or desired. The budget savings have exceeded the levels we envisioned at the time of enactment. Alternatively, Mr. President, let's take a look at the home health care industry. Home health care providers deliver rehabilitative services to Medicare beneficiaries in the safety and comfort of their home. In the State of Massachusetts, just since passage of the Balanced Budget Act, we have witnessed the closure of 20 home health care agencies who are no longer able to cover their costs as a result of cuts in Medicare payment reimbursements. The same is true with our nursing homes and extended care facilities. And just to provide some perspective, the cost of the legislation we introduce today amounts to less than three percent of the cost of the tax bill President Clinton vetoed last month. The cost of the entire bill is less than one provision in the tax bill to subsidize the interest expenses of American multinational corporations operating overseas. In fact, we could have passed this bill, repealed the interest expense provision, and saved American taxpayers an additional $4 billion. What a sad reflection on our state of affairs when the Senate would approve a tax provision to expand eligibility for Roth IRAs for people making over $100,000 a year, a provision that would cost over $6 billion, but has yet to address the dire needs of our teaching hospitals. A full legislative remedy for the Medicare payment problems facing teaching hospitals would cost $5.7 billion. Mr. President, the time will come for this debate, and the time will come before we adjourn. The bipartisan support exists. Let's keep the doors of our teaching and community hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies, and rural clinics open. Let's accept responsibility for the unintended effects of our previous legislation. Let's not wait any longer.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bipartisan bill, together with Senator Brownback of Kansas. This is the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 1999. This bill would protect workers from on-the-job discrimination related to religious beliefs and practices. It represents a milestone in the protection of the religious liberties of all workers. In 1972, Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice or observance unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. This 1972 amendment, although completely appropriate, has been interpreted by the courts so narrowly as to place little restraint on an employer's refusal to provide religious accommodation. The Workplace Religious Freedom Act will restore to the religious accommodation provision the weight that Congress originally intended and help assure that employers have a meaningful obligation to reasonably accommodate their employees' religious practices. The restoration of this protection is no small matter. For many religiously observant Americans the greatest peril to their ability to carry out their religious faiths on a day-to-day basis may come from employers. I have heard accounts from around the country about a small minority of employers who will not make reasonable accommodation for employees to observe the Sabbath and other holy days or for employees who must wear religiously-required garb, such as a yarmulke, or for employees to wear clothing that meets religion-based modesty requirements. The refusal of an employer, absent undue hardship, to provide reasonable accommodation of a religious practice should be seen as a form of religious discrimination, as originally intended by Congress in 1972. And religious discrimination should be treated fully as seriously as any other form of discrimination that stands between Americans and equal employment opportunities. Enactment of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act will constitute an important step toward ensuring that all members of society, whatever their religious beliefs and practices, will be protected from an invidious form of discrimination. It is important to recognize that, in addition to protecting the religious freedom of employees, this legislation protects employers from an undue burden. Employees would be allowed to take time off only if their doing so does not pose a significant difficulty or expense for the employer. This common sense definition of undue hardship is used in the ``Americans with Disabilities Act'' and has worked well in that context. We have little doubt that this bill is constitutional because it simply clarifies existing law on discrimination by private employers, strengthening the required standard for employers. This bill does not deal with behavior by State or Federal Governments or substantively expand 14th amendment rights. I believe this bill should receive bipartisan support. This bill is endorsed by wide range of organizations including the American Jewish Committee, Christian Legal Society, Family Research Council, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and the Southern Baptist Convention. I want to thank Senator Brownback for joining me in this effort. I look forward working with him to pass this legislation so that all American workers can be assured of both equal employment opportunities and the ability to practice their religion.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bipartisan bill, together with Senator Brownback of Kansas. This is the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 1999. This bill would protect workers from on-the-job discrimination related to religious beliefs and practices. It represents a milestone in the protection of the religious liberties of all workers. In 1972, Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice or observance unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. This 1972 amendment, although completely appropriate, has been interpreted by the courts so narrowly as to place little restraint on an employer's refusal to provide religious accommodation. The Workplace Religious Freedom Act will restore to the religious accommodation provision the weight that Congress originally intended and help assure that employers have a meaningful obligation to reasonably accommodate their employees' religious practices. The restoration of this protection is no small matter. For many religiously observant Americans the greatest peril to their ability to carry out their religious faiths on a day-to-day basis may come from employers. I have heard accounts from around the country about a small minority of employers who will not make reasonable accommodation for employees to observe the Sabbath and other holy days or for employees who must wear religiously-required garb, such as a yarmulke, or for employees to wear clothing that meets religion-based modesty requirements. The refusal of an employer, absent undue hardship, to provide reasonable accommodation of a religious practice should be seen as a form of religious discrimination, as originally intended by Congress in 1972. And religious discrimination should be treated fully as seriously as any other form of discrimination that stands between Americans and equal employment opportunities. Enactment of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act will constitute an important step toward ensuring that all members of society, whatever their religious beliefs and practices, will be protected from an invidious form of discrimination. It is important to recognize that, in addition to protecting the religious freedom of employees, this legislation protects employers from an undue burden. Employees would be allowed to take time off only if their doing so does not pose a significant difficulty or expense for the employer. This common sense definition of undue hardship is used in the ``Americans with Disabilities Act'' and has worked well in that context. We have little doubt that this bill is constitutional because it simply clarifies existing law on discrimination by private employers, strengthening the required standard for employers. This bill does not deal with behavior by State or Federal Governments or substantively expand 14th amendment rights. I believe this bill should receive bipartisan support. This bill is endorsed by wide range of organizations including the American Jewish Committee, Christian Legal Society, Family Research Council, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and the Southern Baptist Convention. I want to thank Senator Brownback for joining me in this effort. I look forward working with him to pass this legislation so that all American workers can be assured of both equal employment opportunities and the ability to practice their religion.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from California.

Mr. KERRY. I am sure I could complete it in that period of time, and I don't want to shortchange the Senator because it is her amendment.

Mr. KERRY. If I could say to my good friend from California, I am not speaking from prepared text. I would like to just speak my mind.