John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Let me just say, Mr. President, to the leader--and I know he shares this view--there are many of us prepared to adopt the same measure of militancy that was found in the House of Representatives in order to guarantee that the Senate has an opportunity to deal with campaign finance reform. I hope the leadership on the other side will take note of the need to do the business of this Nation and to do the business of the Senate in a timely and orderly fashion, but that there is an absolute determination by a number of us to guarantee that we make the best possible effort to try to pass the Shays-Meehan bill in this body.

Mr. KERRY. As we all know, the cynicism of the American people is, regrettably, growing with respect to their view as to how politics works in their own country. Increasingly, that is reflected in their attitude about campaigns and voting. And many, many people are aware of the enormous influence of money in American politics. Regrettably, there appears, now, to already be a question arising within this Congress about the link of tobacco to some of the events that have taken place here. I wonder if the leader would not share with me the sense that the entire tobacco debate and the now-early investigative efforts taking place with respect to tobacco expenditures don't make even more compelling the notion that the U.S. Senate ought to deal with campaign finance reform as rapidly as possible?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask further of the leader. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. So the only thing standing in the way of a similar expression of what we know to be a majority of the U.S. Senate prepared to vote for campaign finance reform, the only thing that stands in the way is the leadership of the Republican Party, that wants to say no, we are not going to give you this opportunity. Is that correct?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, with respect to the campaign finance reform bill the leader mentions, it is clear, is it not, that bill ultimately passed after the repeated efforts of the membership of the House to make it clear that they would not accept leadership efforts to stop it? In other words, there were repeated efforts by the leadership, the Speaker of the House, to sidetrack campaign finance reform. But, for one of those rare instances where it happens, the popular will, the will of the American people to have the vote on campaign finance reform and to put into effect a reform that for years people have known we need--that won in the House of Representatives. Is that not correct?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the leader just to clarify for the record precisely the full measure of the request that he made. It is my understanding the leader requested, not that we would not proceed to other legislation, but that we would simply create an opportunity, a fixed opportunity within the next 6 weeks during which time we would be able to debate the issue of health maintenance organization reform. Is that correct?

Mr. KERRY. Will the leader yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY. With respect to the problem of the Patients' Bill of Rights, is that not the No. 1 issue of concern of Americans--young, old, middle aged, of all walks of life--that is the one thing most on the minds of the American people that they want the U.S. Congress to address?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend and colleague Senator McCain for his work on this important issue. I am honored to introduce with him this legislation, entitled the Children's Health Assurance Through the Medicaid Program (CHAMP), which would increase health coverage for eligible children and increase state flexibility. Mr. President, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 gave States the option to bring more eligible but uninsured children into Medicaid by allowing states to grant ``presumptive eligibility.'' This means that a child would temporarily be covered by Medicaid if preliminary information suggests that they qualify. Providing health insurance for children is important because studies show that children without health insurance are more likely to be in worse health, less likely to see a doctor, and less likely to receive preventive care such as immunizations. Mr. President, the legislation Senator McCain and I are introducing today would strengthen the existing option and give states more flexibility. First, it will allow states to rely on a broader range of agencies to assist with Medicaid outreach and enrollment. By expanding the list of community-based providers and state and local agencies to include schools, child support agencies, and some child care facilities, states will be able to make significant gains in the number of children identified and enrolled in Medicaid. States would not be required to rely on these additional providers but would have the flexibility to choose among qualified providers and shape their own outreach and enrollment strategies. The cost of these changes to the presumptive eligibility option for Medicaid under last year's Balanced Budget Act are modest. Our understanding is that our proposal would cost approximately $250 million over five years. This is a positive step in the right direction, helping ensure that the growing population of American children start off on the right foot. Access to affordable health care in the early years saves the country's financial resources in the long run. Once again, I would like to thank Senator McCain for his invaluable work on behalf of children. I look forward to working with him and the Senate to pass this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend and colleague Senator McCain for his work on this important issue. I am honored to introduce with him this legislation, entitled the Children's Health Assurance Through the Medicaid Program (CHAMP), which would increase health coverage for eligible children and increase state flexibility. Mr. President, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 gave States the option to bring more eligible but uninsured children into Medicaid by allowing states to grant ``presumptive eligibility.'' This means that a child would temporarily be covered by Medicaid if preliminary information suggests that they qualify. Providing health insurance for children is important because studies show that children without health insurance are more likely to be in worse health, less likely to see a doctor, and less likely to receive preventive care such as immunizations. Mr. President, the legislation Senator McCain and I are introducing today would strengthen the existing option and give states more flexibility. First, it will allow states to rely on a broader range of agencies to assist with Medicaid outreach and enrollment. By expanding the list of community-based providers and state and local agencies to include schools, child support agencies, and some child care facilities, states will be able to make significant gains in the number of children identified and enrolled in Medicaid. States would not be required to rely on these additional providers but would have the flexibility to choose among qualified providers and shape their own outreach and enrollment strategies. The cost of these changes to the presumptive eligibility option for Medicaid under last year's Balanced Budget Act are modest. Our understanding is that our proposal would cost approximately $250 million over five years. This is a positive step in the right direction, helping ensure that the growing population of American children start off on the right foot. Access to affordable health care in the early years saves the country's financial resources in the long run. Once again, I would like to thank Senator McCain for his invaluable work on behalf of children. I look forward to working with him and the Senate to pass this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for nearly three years I have had the privilege to know Michael Queenan, who has served in my office as a Legislative Correspondent, and is leaving the extended Kerry family this month to attend law school. I like to say that Michael Queenan was the best Christmas present my colleague from Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey ever sent to my office. Three years ago I was searching for a bright young person to bring new energy to our staff. We interviewed a long list of prospective candidates and, although many were terrific, the right staffer just did not turn up. One day, late in December, some of our staff members were struggling to fit the office Christmas tree into its stand in the front office. Almost out of nowhere appeared a young man, an intern from Rep. Markey's office, dropping off a letter to be signed. After a minute or two, this intern had taken off his coat, rolled up his sleeves, and was at work trimming our office Christmas tree. We quickly found out that this young man was a recent graduate of Clark University and a native of Winchester, Massachusetts. His name was Michael Queenan. In just a few days he was done with his internship for Rep. Markey--and he was the newest member of our staff! From the first day he walked into our office in the Russell Building-- even before he was hired--- Michael demonstrated a willingness to pitch in and contribute on any project, large or small. He brought a tremendous work ethic and energy to his duties, first as a Staff Assistant tirelessly working on the front phones and later as a Legislative Correspondent. After he joined our legislative staff, Michael Queenan also discovered a genuine passion for the most vital issues facing working families today. He spent hours researching legislation, responding to constituent concerns, and pouring his energies into the lengthy and at times tedious legislative process. Mike was hard at work over the last two years, assisting our Legislative Assistants, on issues ranging from raising the minimum wage to making health care affordable, college opportunity accessible to eradicating the A.I.D.S epidemic. In his own way--quietly, persistently--Michael contributed to the passage of legislation that made life better for the people of Massachusetts and for working people around the country. Michael Queenan, however, was always more than just a policy staffer. He was a presence in our office. As the director of our intern program and the manager of our softball team, Michael Queenan established himself as an enthusiastic leader on our staff. As a former intern, he made it a personal goal for every one of our interns to have a positive experience, to learn from their observations of the Senate at work, and to glean from their time in our office the value of hard work. Michael also brought to our office his fierce competitiveness on the softball field, earning the nickname ``Wheels'' for his speed and tenacity on the base-paths. Michael might well have earned that title for the hours he spent in my 1982 Dodge convertible, accompanying me to events around Washington. Mr. President, I wish Michael well as he leaves my office to attend law school this summer. I will always be grateful for the hard work and long hours he dedicated to his job in my office, and I will be equally grateful for his friendship, one that will continue long after Michael moves back to Massachusetts. I know that I join his parents, Fran Holland and Dick Queenan, in expressing my pride at what Michael has accomplished, and great hopes and warmest wishes for the bright future ahead of him.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my congratulations to Chairman D'Amato and Democratic Ranking Member Sarbanes for their fine work on the Credit Union Membership Access Act and for successfully completing this work on this important bill today. Working families in the United States, whether they live in urban or rural areas, deserve access to fairly priced credit and other financial services. Credit unions have historically served as a way for people of average means, without easy access to affordable credit, to pool their savings to make credit available to themselves and their fellow credit union members at competitive interest rates. In 1934, the Federal Credit Union Act created the federal credit union charter. Today in Massachusetts, there are 317 Credit Unions serving approximately 1.7 million people. Since 1934, credit unions have been helping both individuals and working families. They have helped launch and sustain small businesses. Some of them have played an important role in the development and revitalization of economically distressed communities. Historic mergers, consolidations and acquisitions have taken place in the financial service industry in recent years. Consumers have less choice, not more. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court earlier this year decided a case pertaining to how widely credit unions may reach for membership. These factors have created a necessity for the Congress to consider carefully the role credit unions should play in the mix of financial institutions in our nation. Federal credit unions have traditionally had ``fields of membership'' defined by ``common bond'' of association, occupation or geographic location. In 1982, the National Credit Union Administration developed regulations that allowed credit unions to be composed of multiple unrelated employer groups, each having its own distinct common bond of occupation. In February, the Supreme Court ruled that this NCUA regulation interpreted the law so broadly that it would be permissible to grant a charter to a conglomerate credit union whose members would include employees of every company in the United States. Without the passage of the Credit Union Membership Access Act, some credit unions could be forced to expel current members not affiliated with the original occupation group. I believe that the members of all current multiple-group credit unions should be allowed to continue in the credit unions they have chosen. It is vital to maintain the current credit union model as a key piece of the financial services system and credit unions must be permitted to prospect for members sufficiently to maintain their viability. Dislocating approximately 10 million credit union members not affiliated with their credit union's original occupation group could potentially have serious effects on the safety and soundness of credit unions in Massachusetts, and across the nation. This legislation establishes that separate groups having their own common bond of occupation or association that have less than 3,000 members are eligible to join an existing credit union. It assures that 10 million Americans have continued access to their credit union. It will allow another 25 million the right to join a credit union as a result of their employment within a certain company or organization. Finally, this act will help insure that 62 million Americans who own, operate or are employed by a small business will not be limited in their choice of financial institutions in the future. The purpose of credit unions--and for the tax exemption they receive--is to facilitate loans and other services to low-income communities, individuals, and very small businesses. They were never intended to be simply alternative, tax-exempt commercial banks. I have heard from a number of community banks in Massachusetts that believe credit unions which offer business loans have a substantial advantage over banks because of their tax exemption. Most credit unions are not involved in business lending and most of those who are focus on assisting very small businesses. However, some community banks believe that a small minority of credit unions that are involved in business lending has taken advantage of the current rules and expanded their product lines to the point that they are banks in all but name. I am also concerned about the lack of available information on the details of credit union business lending. The National Credit Union Administration does not have accurate information on the size or types of business loans made by credit unions. That is why I successfully included in this legislation an amendment requiring the Department of Treasury to study the issue of credit union business lending. This study would include an overall examination of credit union member business lending including the amount of business lending more than $500,000 and less than $50,000, and a breakdown of what types of businesses and the size of businesses that receive loans. It would determine how much credit union business lending goes to low- and moderate-income areas and the extent to which credit union member business lending meets the financial services needs low- and moderate- income individuals. Finally, it would determine whether credit unions which engage in member business lending have an advantage over community banks and if those advantages affect the survival and profitability of community banks. I am grateful to Chairman D'Amato and Democratic Ranking Member Sarbanes for including this study in the credit union legislation. I remain concerned as to how this legislation will affect the smaller community banks in Massachusetts and across the nation. That is why I worked to include in this legislation a study on legislative and administrative action to reduce and simplify the tax burden for community banks with less than one billion dollars in assets. I strongly support the requirement that credit unions must hold seven percent of net worth in retained earnings to be considered well- capitalized. If a credit union is critically undercapitalized, this legislation allows the NCUA to appoint a conservator or liquidating agent to take action to avoid losses to the National Credit Share Insurance Fund. This will limit the use of taxpayer funds to assist insolvent credit unions, and insure the credit union system remains safe and sound. In addition, I heartily endorse the section of this legislation that requires prompt corrective action for credit unions facing financial difficulty. I am disappointed that the provision to require the NCUA to evaluate annually the record of credit unions in meeting the credit needs of their local communities and low- and moderate-income individuals was taken out of the bill. I believe that this provision would have assisted credit unions in refocusing their energies toward those who need access to financial services the most. These are the people who credit unions were designed to serve. While not perfect, this legislation will ensure that credit unions continue to offer needed financial services to underserved, low- and moderate-income working families. This is a worthwhile compromise that I believe is basically fair to both credit unions and banks, as well as their customers. I will join my colleagues in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, all of America mourns the loss of two brave Capitol Police Officers--John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut. We will never understand the senseless violence that took their lives, never be able to explain why two fine men who loved their families have been stolen away from their wives and children. But we know for certain that Special Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. It has become almost cliched to say that Congress is the ``people's house.'' What many forgot, though, until last Friday, is that John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut were two very real people who kept the people's house safe for over a million visitors and thousands of staff members in the Capitol each year. Members of Congress know the Capitol police as men and women who come to work each day to protect us. We see them every morning and late into the night. We spend free moments in the hallways and off the Senate floor talking with them--talking about family, the score of last night's ball-game, the weather, and, of course, the prospects of getting home for the weekend. There is a special bond between us, those who are elected to serve here for a period of time and those who put on a uniform to serve in a different way. It is a bond of public service, a common purpose too often overlooked in the hustle and bustle of everyday life in Washington. This remains a country where we allow the media spotlight and our collective imagination to transform our public figures into heroes. John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut require no exaggeration or rhetorical enlargement to be seen as something above and beyond the ordinary. They are--quite simply--and will be, forever--heroes. John Gibson was a native of Massachusetts who, although he made his career here in Washington and his home in the suburbs of Northern Virginia, never left his allegiance to Massachusetts--or to the Boston Red Sox--behind. John Gibson cherished his Waltham accent and his deep roots in our state. He carried with him, everywhere, the values instilled in him in Waltham. He is remembered by those who knew him as the kind of husband and father who never went anywhere--not even on a routine errand to the corner store--without one of his children happily in tow. John Gibson served with total dedication to protect Representative Tom DeLay, and died because his commitment, when tested under fire, remained resolute. I want to extend my deepest condolences to John Gibson's family, to his wife and their three children, Kristen, John, and Daniel, and to the Moakley clan which is mourning John's loss. John Gibson became a part of Massachusett's biggest extended political family when he married Joe Moakley's niece, Evelyn. Whether debating Boston College football or sharing Irish stories in the afternoon, John Gibson was a special friend to the dean of our congressional delegation. Even in his sadness, Congressman Moakley knows that the young man from Waltham who joined the Capitol police force 18 years ago, served as a professional who took his sense of duty to heart. Jacob Chestnut, too, died as he lived--giving selflessly of himself to help others. The tragedy on Friday made Jacob Chestnut a hero throughout the country, but, long before that, he was a hero to the community in Maryland where he made his home. Jacob Chestnut was the neighbor who always lent a helping hand to those who needed it, the good Samaritan who expected nothing in return and served his community because it was the right thing to do do. Long before he was a hero to his country, Jacob Chestnut was a role-model to his children and grandchildren. One never knows how one will react under fire, how, when the shots ring out and the adrenaline flows--at the moment when duty calls--one will call upon the inner strength to react with bravery. It requires a degree of courage found in the deepest reserves of the human character. Every police officer in this country chooses to serve with the knowledge that the day may come when that commitment will be tested. John Gibson told a friend--just a week before he was struck down at the Capitol--that he hoped that if that moment came, if he was called upon to draw his gun and defend tourists or Members of Congress or a fellow officer, that he would rise to the occasion. It is a thought that accompanies every police officer through every step of what is at once a dangerous and vital career. History will record that when that moment came for John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut, they rose to the occasion, remembered their duty, and gave their lives selflessly to protect not just the people's house, but the people themselves who make that Capitol a home. For the families they left behind, for those among us privileged to work with them, and for all Americans, these two officers will forever be heroes. Even as we pay tribute to these brave, fallen officers, we must remember that we are obligated to honor their memory with more than words alone. There is a temptation in this country to focus only on the extraordinary circumstances of these tragic deaths, to remember merely that John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut were fatally wounded in the ``people's house.'' Too many commentators in the last few days have said--again and again--``can we believe that this type of violence could occur in our nation's capital?'' The truth is--and police officers on the front lines know this better than we can imagine-- violence does occur in the nation's capitol, and in our classrooms, and our tree-lined neighborhoods, and in homes across this country. To pay tribute to John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut--to truly honor them for their sacrifice--we must make clear our conviction as a nation that we will not tolerate any form of violence in this country. To remember John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut in a way that lifts us all up--in a way that creates a safer world for the eight children these fine men left behind--we must commit ourselves to safer neighborhoods, violence-free schools, and communities where the sound of our children's laughter-- not the sound of gun shots--fills the air.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, would it be possible, I ask my colleague from New York, to work out an agreement where we might have a little more time on each side? Or I assume we are able to speak to either amendment during the time of the other amendment. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, thank you. I thank the Senator from Maryland. Amendment No. 3338 Madam President, I want to speak just for a moment, if I may, with respect to the Shelby amendment. This amendment concerns me greatly and I think should concern all Senators who have invested the amount of time and energy in the past years to guarantee that we will provide adequate access to credit to those parts of America that have historically been very difficult to reach, difficult to provide jobs, and difficult for people to gain access to credit. There is a fundamental reason that in 1977 Congress, in its wisdom, decided to pass the Community Reinvestment Act. All the Community Reinvestment Act asks is that banking institutions, demonstrate that they are making adequate efforts to try to provide credit to all of the people within their communities--that they are reinvesting in their communities. There is a reason that happened. It is very simple. They weren't doing it. Large financial institutions were growing, and were accepting deposits from people within a community, but the banks were not giving back to the people within that community. They were finding other places to invest for more lucrative, faster returns, safer returns, and the community suffered as a consequence of that. So you could have communities where you had rows of houses but they weren't homes. There is a distinction between a house and a home. What we have learned is that, over the years, the almost $400 billion worth of investments that have been made back into communities have made homes out of what were just houses, have provided people the capacity to be able to improve their own lives, to create their own jobs, within the community. And that helps the community. In point of fact, it reduces taxes. It reduces the social burden on the rest of the people within those communities who have to pick up the slack if the larger financial institutions are not doing so. What is astonishing about the Shelby amendment is that what it seeks to pass off as simply taking away those institutions with $250 million or less in assets is, in fact, an exemption for perhaps 85 percent of all the lending institutions in this country. The vast majority of the lending institutions in this country would be exempted from a requirement to show that they are involved in their community. The fact is, I know this well, because as the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, we have spent a considerable amount of time trying to analyze access to credit for small businesses, which we know are over 95 percent of the businesses in the country and which provide a majority of the jobs in the country. These are some of the people who also benefit by virtue of the CRA. The fact is that there is nothing that requires a lending institution to make a bad loan. In fact, those loans are specifically outlawed. They are specifically covered under the regulations. And the regulatory process requires the same standards of due diligence and the same standards of assuming credit. It simply requires them to make certain they are making some of those loans in the place where they do business. The fact is that the CRA has been a remarkable catalyst, and those $400 billion have had a remarkable impact in the United States. Study after study shows that CRA portfolios perform well and that banks are profiting as a result. It would be one thing if the banks came in here and said they were losing money, but they are not losing money, they are profiting as a result of the investments made under the CRA. That is precisely why banks are now starting to sell CRA loans on Wall Street--in order to raise more capital to make more CRA loans. I might add that we have heard some complaints about the administrative burden of CRA on small banks. A number of years ago, Madam President, those complaints were made to our committee. They were made to the Small Business Committee and others. There have been a series of efforts within the banking community, and in fact a considerable amount of progress has been made to reduce the overlap of regulations and reduce the administrative burden of CRA. I am told that there is a 30-percent reduction in the level of administrative effort to comply with CRA regulations. But all we are asking people to do is, in effect, report publicly on what they say they are going to do anyway. There are people who tell you: ``We don't want to do this because it is a regulatory burden. But trust us; we are going to be out there in the community making these loans anyway.'' If that is true, they are going to have all the records of the loans they are making. They are going to have all of the analyses of how this effects the community. They are going to have all of the analyses of those to whom they are lending. The only additional requirement when you finish with all the folderol and hype is the requirement that they make it public and that they do it in a regular and orderly fashion. But it's more than just the application of an economic model. CRA makes a difference in the lives of real people. In Massachusetts, there have been more than $1.6 billion in commitments made by financial institutions to assist low income neighborhoods. These funds have been invested in home ownership, affordable housing development, minority small business development, and new banking facilities and services. It's making a difference in Boston's inner city neighborhoods, from Roxbury and Jamaica Plain to the South End. Stacy Andrus, from Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, was a restauranteur struggling to make ends meet and retain her clientele in a competitive environment. She knew she had to be creative just to keep pace. Stacy began toasting chips out of pita bread to serve as finger food before the meals. Well, as you might expect, the pita chips soon became the most popular item on the menu. Like so many small business owners who know they've latched onto a great idea, Stacy wanted to expand her operation, to bring her concept to scale. But capital and credit are scarce in Jamaica Plain. Stacy couldn't find the help she needed until she started working with the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Development Corporation. This corporation works within a network of small business assistance providers that use CRA programs at local banks to secure financing for small businesses. With their help, Stacy obtained a $60,000 loan from BankBoston. As a result, her small business has expanded rapidly: She has leased a production plant in Jamaica Plain; put former welfare recipients on the payroll; and 900 bags of chips are rolling off the assembly line every day. Thanks to CRA, Stacy Andrus has made her Pita chips the top-selling gourmet snack food in Boston and she has major airlines interested in serving her chips to first class customers. But without CRA, the community of Jamaica Plain would not receive the benefits from the economic development that these investment have generated. CRA is also giving low-income communities a shot at home ownership, making the American Dream a reality for those who believed it was out of reach. Julie Orlando, a single mother of three, wanted to buy a home for her family in Leominster, Massachusetts. Julie's income, though, was less than 80 percent of the medial family income for the area. In the days before CRA, Julie wouldn't be considered a likely candidate to own a home. But because the Fidelity Cooperative Bank was involved in the CRA coalition, Julie was able to obtain a $72,000 mortgage with no points. The city of Leominster provided additional assistance to Julie and her family. Because the Fidelity Cooperative Bank participated in a CRA coalition, Julie and her two children can live the American Dream of owning their first home. That is exactly the type of assistance that the CRA was designed to provide. Let me tell you, Julie's success story is typical. It's indicative of the kind of progress we can make when we leverage market forces to work in disadvantaged communities. Mr. President, I believe the Shelby amendment will roll back the advances being made in cities and rural areas around the country. To eliminate these regulations for more than 85 percent of banks in the United States and 75 percent of banks in Massachusetts will close the door of home ownership and small business growth for thousands of low- income neighborhoods across the country. I believe that is the wrong direction for this country. The United States is experiencing economic growth that surpasses our wildest expectations. The stock market is pushing 9,000. Unemployment is low and we are, for the first time in fourteen years, starting to see growth in real wages. We have reason to be proud. We don't, however, have reason to rest on our laurels. In this time of prosperity, our job must be to expand the winner's circle, to empower every community to participate in this economic expansion. That means we must not allow any community to be denied access to credit and capital. Destroying the development of CRA will mean access denied for our inner cities and rural areas. It would dismantle one of the most effective methods for investment in our neighborhoods and set back hard-fought development in disadvantaged areas of this country. That is why I oppose the Shelby amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it. I hope colleagues will oppose the Shelby amendment. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as Ranking Democrat on the Committee on Small Business, I wish to express my support for funding the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy at the full requested level of $1.4 million for FY 1999. The Office of Advocacy plays a vital role in the Federal government by conducting research on issues of particular importance to small business. Recently these issues have included, among other things, access to capital, procurement policy and the cost of Federal regulations. Small businesses are 99 percent of America's businesses; they created more than 90 percent of new jobs in recent years. The research performed by the Office of Advocacy is an important tool for policy makers and legislators who focus on the nation's small businesses. It deserves to be funded at the full $1.4 million, as requested by the Administration. Since the Office is typically funded from the SBA's general salaries and expenses account without specific designation, I ask for clarification from my colleagues, Senators Gregg and Hollings, Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively. Was it the Subcommittee's intent to fund the Office of Advocacy's economic research function at $1.4 million?

Mr. KERRY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KERRY. I yield myself the remainder of the time. We have the most extensive effort to account for our service people in the history of human warfare, and that effort would be significantly set back by the language the Senator from New Hampshire has put in place because the cooperation of the Vietnamese would be affected by the judgments he asks the President to make. We keep in place the current law. The current law has worked effectively. Of 196 people we last knew to be alive in Vietnam, we have received information that has told the families of what happened to all but 43 of them. We want the answers for those other 43. The way to do that is by continuing with the current law, not the new language of the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. KERRY. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I yield myself 2 minutes. Senator McCain is chairing a committee; otherwise, he would be here. Senator Hagel also wanted to speak in favor of my amendment, but he had to go away for a moment. I don't know if he will return in time. Let me say to colleagues that for the families and for the legitimate concerns of all those groups that want to make sure that this process is working properly, they can look with pride to the fact that we are engaged in the most expensive, most thorough, most effective, most extraordinary and comprehensive effort to provide for the accounting of the missing in the history of human warfare. No country has ever before, in all of human history, gone to the lengths that we have gone to, to try to account for our missing and our lost in the course of a war. That is what we are doing today. There is, in the current law, a requirement that the President certify that, based upon all information available to the U.S. Government, that Vietnam is fully cooperating in good faith with the United States in resolving discrepancy cases, live sightings, field activities, recovering and repatriating American remains, accelerating efforts to help provide documents that would lead to the fullest possible accounting of prisoners of war and the missing in action, providing further assistance in implementing trilateral investigations with Laos, and recovering all archival eyewitness accounts, and so forth. That is the current law. What the Senator from New Hampshire seeks to do is place a whole lot of new hoops in, some of which can't be met because the intelligence community itself is divided over it. Then they have a whole new way of arguing, saying that, gee, we are not doing the job. There is even a requirement in his section 405 about a specific document that has to be resolved, the main intelligence directorate and ministry of defense of the Soviet Union document of 1971. This has been analyzed extensively by our intelligence community. Let me just say that document has been found to be in error, inaccurate. And to have us now argue about it is a waste of the time, I think, of the standard. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I yield myself the balance of time. My colleagues know there is nobody in the U.S. Senate more committed to finding out what happened than our colleague, Senator John McCain, who spent 6 years-plus of his life in a prison in Vietnam. Senator McCain understands very clearly, as others of us do, that a few years ago, there were 196 individuals on the list of last known alive in Vietnam. In the last few years, because of our efforts, we have determined the fate for all but 43 of those 196. The Defense Department is opposed to the language the Senator from New Hampshire has put in the bill because they say it will set back our effort to get the answers on the other 43. The administration is opposed to it. I believe that, in good conscience, the Senate should be opposed to that language because it will set back our efforts and set back our progress.

Mr. KERRY. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY. Twenty minutes equally divided. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may use. I ask that the Chair let me know when I have used 7 minutes. Madam President, for the past 3 years we have had language in the appropriations bill that prohibits funding for the expansion of our diplomatic presence in Vietnam unless the President of the United States certifies that Vietnam is cooperating on the POW/MIA issue. The fact is that the standard currently in law requires a tough certification by the President. The President has to certify that Vietnam is fully cooperating. The President has to certify that in good faith Vietnam is cooperating in four specific areas: resolving discrepancy cases, live sightings and field activities, remains recovery and repatriation, providing documents, and assisting in the trilateral investigations with Laos. That is a fair and a sensible standard, Madam President. However, section 405 of the pending bill that has been put into the bill creates a whole new standard. It creates a standard of significant increased capacity for subjectivity and for distortion and, frankly, for an unreasonableness, which, if adopted, would set back our relationship and our capacity to build the progress and relationship not just on POW/MIA but on human rights and other issues where we have been making progress. The amendment that I offer with Senator McCain from Arizona and Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska would strike section 405, replacing it with the language in the current law that requires a certification from the President, and requires the same standard of certification that we have had over the course of the last years. In our judgment, section 405 will not only undo much of the cooperation that we have but could conceivably set back our capacity to be able to find answers on the POW/MIA issue. We believe it would undermine the policy of normalization and it would create an unreasonable certification standard in an effort to prevent the expansion of our diplomatic presence and, thus, our relationship. Current law requires the President to certify whether or not Vietnam is cooperating in good faith. I want the Senate to know that the President made that certification on March 4 of this year, as he has for the past 2 years. Section 405, however, in the legislation that we seek to strike, incorporates a standard that requires the President to somehow say that they are fully forthcoming, fully cooperating in good faith, and the words ``fully forthcoming'' present all kinds of complications about what is possible to give, what is not possible, what documents somebody may have, whether or not it is possible to give them, and raises issues that the POW/MIA committee and those who have been involved in this issue for a long period of time have argued for some period of time and resolve with the language that is currently in the law. Over the many years that I have been involved in this issue, we have always had a struggle over this central question of what they have, what they don't have, who may have it, who has control of it, and if you get caught in the total subjectivity of a standard that no one in the intelligence community or elsewhere believes they can possibly meet, all we do is create a mischief in the process. There is no question that we need to keep pressing for documents. We are. We just had a whole new slug of documents turned over that we are in the process of translating. We discovered new items from many of these unilateral turnovers of documents. The point is, they are happening because there is a cooperative effort, because we are engaged in marching down a road together in order to try to assert the truth here. I think we also have to recognize that just as we deem certain documents pertaining to the military and to our country's national security as being classifiable or sensitive, so do they. We may not view it the same way, but clearly they are going to present, and their agencies--whether the defense agency, the interior agency--will argue that one document or another represents a security risk. So we have to work through the process of that. If we hold ourselves accountable to a standard where we are subject to some agency or bureaucrat being less than forthcoming in that regard about a document we don't even know they have, it seems to me we are creating an impossible situation and an impossible standard. In addition to that, section 405 also adds other new conditions to the process. It requires Vietnam to resolve hearsay reports which pertain to the possible or confirmed prisoner of war/missing in action. Apart from the question of how anyone resolves a hearsay report, this requirement would add an enormous burden to both the American and Vietnamese teams, who are on the ground, who are pursuing nonhearsay reports. They are already tasked on a very clear schedule of trying to determine every single nonhearsay report, absolutely certain evidence they have, which requires them to go out into the field, interview, dig, do a whole host of other very time-consuming efforts. To suggest that every single hearsay report has got to be resolved to the exclusion of the confirmed reports that they are already pursuing is to, again, raise this to a standard of absurdity. The fact is, we have made enormous progress on the POW/MIA issue precisely because of Vietnamese cooperation. In the last 5 years, American and Vietnamese teams have concluded 30 joint field activities in Vietnam; 233 sets of remains have been repatriated, and 97 have been identified.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, are we operating under a time agreement on this?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to direct a few comments to Senator Kyl's amendment adding the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act to S. 2260, the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill. I join with my colleague in opposing unrestricted gambling on the Internet, and I support the adoption of his amendment. However, there are often a variety of reasonable approaches to a problem, and we should be careful not to over-legislate. This is true especially with respect to a vital new medium like the Internet which promises to be an engine of growth for our economy and a source of unprecedented benefits to our citizens for years to come. We need to think carefully before government commandeers the electronic network, through online service providers, in the pursuit of conduct we don't like. While I do not object to asking service providers to cooperate in ways that do not involve significant expense or retard the growth and flow of Internet traffic, I am not convinced that the provisions of the current proposal strike the proper balance. In addition, there is a high risk that we may inadvertently sap the vitality of the Internet if we start to require service providers to serve as an arm of our law enforcement agencies. It is my hope that we can address these concerns as we go to conference with the House.