John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I ask that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, therefore, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration on behalf of myself, Senator John McCain, and Senator Bob Kerrey.

Mr. KERRY. What is the parliamentary status now?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a pillar of American history, a symbol of the proud sacrifices that forced the birth of a nation, and which makes its home in Massachusetts. I speak of course of the vessel that carried into battle the hopes of the early republic for freedom and a lasting independence, the ship that generation upon generation of schoolchildren have come to know as ``Old Ironsides''--the U.S.S. Constitution. Two hundred and four years ago, six frigates were constructed for the United States Navy. One ship remains to this day to symbolize the strength and endurance that lies at the heart of this country's experiment in democratic ideals. The U.S.S. Constitution--docked in historic Charlestown Navy Yard in Boston--is a living monument to our proud history and to the values which endure in this country. Like the Constitution written in Philadelphia that unified so many voices bound by a common spirit, this frigate itself carries in its mighty structure materials from all the original states of the union. Built by Colonel George Claghorn at Edmond Hartt's shipyard in Boston's North End, its hull of live oak, red cedar, white oak and pitch pine come from as far north as the deep woods of Maine and as far south as the forests of South Carolina and Georgia. The masts come from Maine. South Carolina pine gave the Constitution its decks, and canvas from Rhode Island formed the sails that pushed it on its historic journey. New Jersey contributed its keel and cannon balls, and the gun carriages and anchors came from Massachusetts tradespeople. We must never forget that it was Boston's Paul Revere, among the strongest voices in the chorus of revolution, who provided the spikes and copper sheathing that fortified the ship in battle. The U.S.S. Constitution belongs to all of us, from every state--and it belongs to every one around the world who believes in freedom. Although this mighty ship was officially retired from naval duty in 1881, it continues to remind us of the work ahead of us in making the world safe for those who dare to dream, who dare to give voice to new ideas. The U.S.S. Constitution is launched into a new battle each time it reminds us of the full measure of sacrifice that our love of freedom demand for its protection. For hundreds of thousands of visitors each year, the U.S.S. Constitution is an inspiration--reminding us not just of where America has been, but where America is going. With its sails filled with the winds of freedom, I know the Constitution will take us all on endless journeys towards a new horizon, with our only boundaries lying in the limits of mankind's hopes for a better world.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, countless Americans have come to understand that the health care system in this country is in a total state of disarray, if not crisis. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis of coverage, bought and paid for with hard-earned dollars from our fellow taxpayers, but a coverage that seems to disappear when you need it the most. Our fellow citizens no longer believe that their insurance companies are prepared to provide them with the quality of service or the choice of doctors that they were promised or that they paid for with their premiums. Some health insurers have put saving costs way ahead of the prospect of saving lives. I think most people in the Senate have come to understand the nature of this crisis. The impact of the decisions of the insurance companies in countless stories across America and across my State of Massachusetts is immeasurable. Americans are suffering because the system puts the choices of the insurance company administrator far ahead of the choice of a doctor. The story of Ellen O'Malley, a mother of two, from Canton, MA, underscores the full measure of the problem that we face today. Ellen passed away in the summer of 1994, a victim of breast cancer at the age of 38. Her husband, Steve, a schoolteacher in Canton, and her two daughters, could tell anybody in the Senate about the trouble that people face today as a result of the way in which choices are made for the delivery of health care. They could also tell you about the struggle of what it is like to live without a mother and wife. I think all of us understand that happens and that there are sometimes unavoidable consequences of some diseases. But clearly there are totally avoidable consequences of what kind of care is delivered to somebody in the course of an illness. The O'Malley family's story is even more tragic than the loss of Ellen because they would tell every Senator about the new language that they learned, the experience that they went through, as a consequence of her illness--a vocabulary of the HMOs. Ellen O'Malley should not have had to spend her last year of life jumping through bureaucratic hoops just to get treatment for breast cancer. She shouldn't have had to be shuttled around the city of Boston from one hospital to another hospital, from one doctor to another doctor, because an HMO refused to take the word of her own family doctor or her oncologist. Ellen O'Malley was very, very brave in facing the struggle with a killer disease. She should not have been asked to be brave in facing a different struggle with the bureaucracy. The simple fact is that health insurers should not make the decisions that are fundamentally the decision of a doctor or a trained health care professional. The truth is that in times of family crisis, people should not have to worry about whether or not a bureaucrat is going to allow them to be able to see a doctor in whom they have placed trust. That is precisely the kind of turmoil that Ellen O'Malley suffered every single day of her illness. Steve O'Malley remembers his wife hearing the promises from their HMO when they were signing up, promising that she would undergo care with her doctor, Dr. Erban, who had treated her for the past 10 years, and the promise that she would be able to continue to be treated at the New England Medical Center. But the O'Malleys found that when push came to shove, when it came time for the promise to be delivered on, the promise disappeared. Steve O'Malley knows full well about an HMO that sent Ellen all over the city, to one hospital for a mammogram, to another hospital for a biopsy, and to still another hospital for treatment. Steve O'Malley remembers hours spent painstakingly writing lengthy appeal letters to the HMO, begging them to reconsider their decisions. He also remembers what it felt like to receive a 5-line form letter rejecting his wife's appeal. Steve would tell you that the personal and painful decisions for his family were merely business decisions for the HMO, and that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for the O'Malleys, as Steve remembers his late wife saying, ``HMOs are great unless you're sick. They're fine if you have a cold, get the flu, break your arm, or stub your toe, but they are not fine if you're dying.'' Steve and Ellen O'Malley and their two daughter suffered an enormous personal tragedy when breast cancer dashed their hopes and dreams for the future. I believe they should have been able, as a family, to endure that tragedy secure in the knowledge that Ellen could make her medical decisions side by side with the doctor she trusted--not a bureaucrat who never went to medical school and, more importantly, never knew Ellen O'Malley. I believe that no HMO should rob a family of peace of mind in times of crisis. HMOs should be more than organizations that are great unless you are sick. For every person who buys into an insurance program, there ought to be the confidence that the coverage that you buy is the coverage that you will get. That is why we have proposed the Patients' Bill of Rights. We recognize we have built a system that currently puts paperwork ahead of patients and ignores the real life-and-death decisions being made in our health care system. We have to do better. All across Massachusetts, I hear from people who are angry at how hard it is to find the health care that they believe they have purchased. And they are frustrated with policies that say that our elderly can't go to the doctor of their choice. They are convinced their HMOs don't give them straight answers about their coverage, and working families across the country believe it is time to take decisions out of the hands of the insurance companies and put them back with patients and doctors where they belong. The U.S. Senate should agree with them. I believe it is vital for us to take up and pass meaningful patient protections now, in this Congress. There are judges all across the country who have watched in their courts as patients and families, victimized by HMOs, come before them, to beg for restitution, for a fair shake in getting the health care they were promised in the terms of the policy that they purchased. Those judges were helpless because they didn't write the laws that limit the ability of working families to appeal the decisions by HMOs. In Boston, we have a U.S. district judge, William Young, a Reagan appointee to the bench, who ruled on an HMO case not very long ago. Judge Young knew the law and he knew that insurers could, in our current structure, put paperwork and profit ahead of patients. He knew he could send a message to those of us who write the laws in this country. That is why he wrote in his highly publicized decision in Clarke v. Baldplate Hospital that ``while the insurer's conduct is extraordinarily troubling, even more disturbing to the court is the failure of Congress to amend the laws.'' Judge Young was challenging us to act on behalf of hundreds of thousands of families left unprotected today. He had never met Ellen O'Malley, but he challenged the Congress of the United States to stand up for her. Mr. President, we have the Patients' Bill of Rights, S. 1890, which would prevent senseless tragedies in the health care system from happening. Under our plan, Ellen O'Malley would have been able to immediately appeal her insurer's rejection of her doctor's prescribed treatment. Under our plan, the decision of Ellen O'Malley's doctors would have come first in the insurer's decisions. There is little, obviously, we can do for the O'Malley family, except to perhaps in her memory pass a bill that will change the way in which all of these choices are made in the future. We could pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. The clock is ticking. I hope this Congress will do so in the next days. I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to yield myself 10 minutes of the time of Senator Dorgan.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor so quickly and with such widespread support. It is a good bill--one which balances a number of competing demands while reinforcing the Senate's commitment to create new affordable housing and community development opportunities. This is not an easy task, and they deserve congratulations for successfully juggling many differing needs and interests. While I wish that it could be more, I was pleased that President Clinton requested $50 million in funding for the cleanup of Boston Harbor. I am disappointed that the bill does not allocate funding for this project and other important water and sewer projects in Massachusetts. However, I am pleased that the House of Representatives has funded four important water and sewer projects in Massachusetts. I will be working to ensure that funding for Boston Harbor and other important water and sewer priorities are included in the Conference Report. I believe that the overall budget for the Environmental Protection Agency is adequate. However, I am disappointed that bill does not include $600 million in funding to accelerate the cleanup of superfund sites which protect the public health. I am also delighted that the bill includes a $500,000 appropriation to undertake interior restorations of Symphony Hall in Boston. For almost a century, Symphony Hall has been among the finest concert halls in the world and has been the center for classical music for the City of Boston and the New England region. These funds will be used to undertake interior renovations of Symphony Hall, including updating of the electrical, climate control, and fire protection systems. I am pleased that the bill increases the level of funding that would be made available for medical care, benefits, pensions, and assistance programs to our nation's veterans in Fiscal Year 1999. I strongly believe that the administration's budget request for veterans-- especially for VA medical care--sorely shortchanged the medical care needs of our veteran population as it is increasing in age and requiring additional health care attention. We have a moral obligation to ensure that all 25 million American veterans have adequate benefits and access to the best possible health care available. I will continue to work diligently with my colleagues to find effective means to compensate veterans for smoking related illnesses and disabilities that directly resulted from the use of tobacco products during the veteran's active military service. Regrettably, the amendment raised by Senator Wellstone--that would have restored the ability of veterans to receive tobacco-related benefits eliminated with the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century-- did not pass. I cosponsored this amendment with the strong belief that the VA must retain this compensatory authority so that our veterans no longer are betrayed in underhanded attempts to secure funds for unrelated programs. There is no parliamentary procedure or backdoor maneuver that can disguise the intention of the administration and many members of the Senate to deny veterans the ability to apply for these compensation benefits and the ability to receive health care treatment for them. America's veterans are painfully aware of these attempts. It is clear that our government actually contributed to the use of tobacco by service members when it supplied tobacco products free or at reduced prices. It is equally clear that our government has the responsibility to compensate them for the suffering they have incurred as a direct result. I remain committed to our nation's veterans and will do all I can to see that they receive the health care and attention they rightfully deserve. There are many who would argue that the government no longer needs to focus its energies on housing and economic development initiatives. They say that the economy has never been stronger. They will site seven consecutive years of economic expansion. They will site growth in the GDP of 3.9% last year--the best showing in a decade. They will point to the lowest unemployment rates in 24 years and to the more than 14 million new jobs that have been created since 1993. And indeed, these are tremendous accomplishments for which the Clinton Administration is due a great deal of credit. But to assume that all communities and individuals are benefiting from this growth would be a grave mistake. Nationwide the poverty rate in cities increased nearly 50% between 1970 and 1995. In all metro areas, central city unemployment rates are at 5.1%, a full one and a half points higher than their suburbs. It has also been estimated that only 13% of the new entry-level jobs created in the early 1990s were created in central cities. And tragically, while the nation is experiencing record levels of home ownership, there are still two million Americans who will experience homelessness in the next year. This growing discrepancy in economic opportunity argues for a renewed commitment to funding for The Department of Housing and Urban Development programs. Unfortunately, over the past few years, the exact opposite has occurred. Since 1995, more than $11 billion has been cut from the HUD budgets. During this same period, HUD has instituted programmatic reforms that have produced savings of more than $4.4 billion. In other words, HUD has contributed more than $15 billion in savings and deficit reduction to the Federal government during a time when demand for its programs is growing. Now that the budget deficit has been eliminated, and there are projections of budget surpluses for the next decade, it is time to start reinvesting in housing, job creation and economic development for all Americans. I believe that this bill takes a step in the right direction. On the whole, it provides additional funding for HUD above what was appropriated in FY 1998. $40 million has been appropriated to fund roughly 7,000 to 8,000 welfare-to-work vouchers. These vouchers establish a crucial link between housing and employment opportunities, while simultaneously helping those who are making a concerted effort to get off of welfare assistance. They are important tools whose significance cannot be understated given the uncertainty of welfare reform. It is unfortunate that the subcommittee was not provided enough funding to fully support the Administration's request to fund 50,000 welfare-to-work vouchers. It is also unfortunate, given these funding limitations, that the committee chose to earmark the vast majority of these vouchers for communities which may not have the greatest need. I want to applaud the committee for striking a provision in previous appropriations bills which required housing authorities to delay the reissuance of vouchers and certificates for a three month period. The three-month delay meant that about one-fourth of all vouchers and certificates were taken out of circulation each month. As a result of the effective leadership shown by Senators Bond and Mikulski, repeal of the three-month delay provision means that approximately 30,000 to 40,000 more low-income families will be provided with housing assistance each year. The committee is also to be congratulated for enhancing the commitment to fighting homelessness. This bill provides $1 billion in homeless assistance, a 22% increase over the $823 million appropriated for FY 1998. This money will be used by municipalities and non-profit organization to fund a variety of activities, locally determined, which address the needs of homeless Americans. This bill also includes a recommendation that at least 30% of these funds be used in support of permanent housing activities. Homeless providers and policy experts are nearly unanimous in their support for this set-aside. Permanent housing is the only long term solution to the homeless problem. I regret that the committee could not fund the Administration's request for 34,000 Section 8 vouchers for the homeless, but on the whole this bill reaffirms the Senate's commitment to ending homelessness. It funds the Community Development Block Grant program at $4.75 billion, or $75 million more than was appropriated in FY 1998. These additional funds will help communities fund economic development projects in distressed neighborhoods. Included in this appropriation is a $40 million set-aside for the Youthbuild program. I am the primary author of the YouthBuild legislation in the Senate. Youthbuild provides on- site training in construction skills, as well as off-site academic and job skill lessons, to at risk youth between the ages of 16 and 24. Approximately 7,300 young people have participated in Youthbuild programs to date. By increasing funding for this program by $5 million over what was enacted in FY 1998, the Senate has demonstrated a firm commitment to this very important program. More is needed, however, to help this program grow to meet the demand for these services. I will be working to increase the funding for this worthy program to $70 million in the Conference Report. It is unfortunate that the committee could only make $85 million available for the Economic Development Initiative, another very important set-aside under CDBG. The EDI supports grants and Federal loan guarantees which allow municipalities to leverage private capital to promote economic development. HUD requested $400 million for EDI in FY 1999. At this higher level of funding, the EDI fund could serve as a mechanism for providing incentives for standardization of economic development loan criteria. Such standards could eventually serve as the foundation for development of a private secondary market for economic development lending--a step whose significance cannot be overstated. Our mortgage markets are the envy of the world because of their depth and liquidity--neither of which would be possible without the existence of government-sponsored secondary markets. These principles should be applied to economic development lending, and an enhanced EDI fund could provide the crucial first step. I hope that this need can be better addressed in conference. We are currently seeing record levels of home ownership in this country, and HUD should take great pride in this accomplishment. The committee recognized the importance of home ownership, and has expanded the FHA single family mortgage insurance program to better reflect today's housing prices in high cost urban and rural areas. I support this provision. The FHA program is one of the most effective tools the government has for assisting low-income, minority and first time home buyers, and the modest expansion proposed by appropriators will help more middle income Americans realize the dream of home ownership. But we need to ensure that all who qualify for home ownership, regardless of race, creed or color, are afforded an opportunity to purchase a home in the neighborhood of their choice. Discrimination, as intolerable and deplorable as it is, is still a significant problem in this country-- especially in the home purchase and rental market. That is why it is important to promote HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. The programs run out of this office support investigations, training, technical assistance, lawsuits and other locally developed initiatives that target and eliminate housing discrimination. Unfortunately, this bill falls considerably short of the Administration's request to fund these programs at $52 million for FY 1999. Worse yet, it institutes an onerous policy development requirement which may actually diminish FHEO's capabilities to protect Americans against housing discrimination. I believe the Department's fair housing policy is best set through the regular notice and comment rulemaking process, which takes into account the views of the public and the Congress. Adding additional requirements beyond this process will burden FHEO and hamper their vital mission. Mr. President, this appropriations bill is not perfect. In addition to some of the shortcomings I've already highlighted, S. 2168 contains a significant cut in the public housing operating fund and continues to starve public housing of much needed capital funds. It does not fund HOME, lead-based paint initiatives, or homeless assistance at the levels requested by the Administration. Nonetheless, the bill has managed to increase funding for a number of very important HUD programs, which is no small task in a resource-starved environment. This bill places housing and economic development issues in the forefront of public debate, and takes a step in the direction of helping those who have yet to benefit from our nation's recent economic growth. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Amendment No. 3199

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to share my views on the amendment of the Senator from Indiana which was voted upon earlier this evening. I agree with those of my colleagues who have argued that we have too many unilateral sanctions in place, many of them mandated by Congress, and that often these sanctions fail to achieve the stated foreign policy objectives while hurting American business and competitiveness. I support the overall objective of the amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana--to provide a rational framework for the imposition of sanctions by both the Congress and the President. However, some aspects of this legislation concern me, in particular the broad definition of the term ``unilateral economic sanction'' and the extensive process which is to be exhausted before sanctions are imposed. I have always believed that sanctions are most effective when they are multilateral not unilateral, but I also recognize that there may be circumstances in which we need the option of imposing sanctions unilaterally, for example to send a message of disapproval of a given regime as we did with respect to the military junta in Burma, or to respond to a horrific event such as the use of force against those protesting for democracy in Tiananmen Square in 1989. I recognize that the legislation of the Senator from Indiana does not prevent us from imposing sanctions in these cases but I fear that the process in the bill would make it more difficult to do so expeditiously. In light of these concerns and the fact that the Senate Task Force on Sanctions, of which I am a member, is trying to address the question of unilateral sanctions and is going to begin hearings later this month, I voted to table the amendment of the Senator from Indiana at this time. However, I believe there is much of worth in this legislation, and I would like to work with him and others who believe, as I do, that we must reign in the tendency to address every foreign policy problem with a sanction. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in support of the Conference Report on the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. This legislation is a victory for the American taxpayer, and I applaud the work of my colleagues, Senators Roth, Bob Kerrey, Grassley, and others, who have demonstrated such determination, vision and leadership on this important issue. I believe that the average American taxpayer is fundamentally honorable, willing to play by the rules and carry his or her fair share of public obligations. Most public servants at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) perform their jobs responsibly. But, sadly, there are exceptions on both sides of this equation, and those exceptions lead to contentious circumstances which must receive careful IRS management attention. Regrettably, that has too often not been forthcoming. It is clear that the Internal Revenue Service is subject to some difficult challenges. After downsizing in recent years, the remaining IRS agents are strained as they try to meet the demands of increased audit and collection work. The management structure within the IRS has made these problems even more difficult to solve. Regardless of the reason, the abusive and humiliating tactics which were brought to light during the Senate Finance Committee hearings are intolerable and must be stopped. This legislation is an important step in the process of reinstituting control at the IRS. I have previously supported reform efforts that were intended to make tax collection fairer, and the IRS more accountable. In 1988, I cosponsored the Taxpayers Bill of Rights which expanded the procedural and disclosure rights of taxpayers when dealing with the IRS, prohibited the use of collection results in IRS employee evaluations, and banned revenue collection quotas. During the 104th Congress, I cosponsored the Senate version of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights II, which created the Office of Taxpayer Advocate, allowed installment payments of tax liabilities of less than $10,000, and imposed notification and disclosure requirements on the IRS. Last year, we enacted the Taxpayer Browsing Protection Act, which imposes civil and criminal penalties on Federal employees who gain unauthorized access to tax returns and other taxpayer information. The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 will restructure and reorganize the Internal Revenue Service. It will create a new IRS Oversight Board to review and approve strategic plans and operational functions that are crucial to the future of the agency and will ensure the proper treatment of taxpayers by the IRS. It would allow taxpayers to sue the IRS for up to $100,000 in civil damages caused by negligent disregard of the law. It also expands the ability of taxpayers to recover the costs of such litigation, including the repeal of the ceiling on hourly attorneys' fees. The Conference Report expands the protections provided to ``innocent spouses'' who find themselves liable for taxes, interest, or penalties because of actions by their spouse about which they had no knowledge and could not have reasonably expected to know. I remain concerned about the provision included in the Conference Report that shifts the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS in court if the taxpayer complies with the Internal Revenue Code and regulations, maintains required records and cooperates with IRS requests for information. This provision could give comfort to a small number of Americans who will do anything to avoid paying their taxes but may make the system of tax collection even more complicated. I support the idea of expanding every American's ability to save for retirement and I was a cosponsor of the Roth IRA bill to promote savings for every American. However, I am concerned that the proposed changes to the IRS included in the Conference Report are being paid for not by reducing spending or by eliminating an unnecessary corporate tax break, but instead by giving a tax reduction to allow some elderly taxpayers to convert their existing Individual Retirement Accounts into Roth IRAs. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this tax change will not provide enough revenue to cover the cost of IRS reform after the year 2007. I would have preferred that a more suitable offset were included to pay for the important changes in this Conference Report and I believe that this offset should have been included in a tax bill. Americans merit an efficient and a respectful government. In the course of history, we have fought for freedom from despotic bureaucracies. At the essence of our democracy is our right to alter any public institution which fails significantly to deal respectfully and competently with American citizens. I believe the changes this legislation will make will regain the balance that has been lost in the relationship of the taxpayers to the IRS while permitting the IRS to do the difficult job it was created to do. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would simply ask the minority leader if he might draw any parallel or distinction between the way this bill is now being handled and other bills are handled, versus the tobacco legislation and the question of cloture on that?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Last week I joined Senators Kennedy, Domenici and Bingaman in introducing a bill to establish the PRIME program for investment in microenterprise. I applaud Senators Kennedy and Domenici for their work in developing this legislation and welcome their efforts in supporting the development of business skills for micro- entrepreneurs. Access to education and training is critical for the development of small businesses in the United States. Developing microenterprise is crucial to the financial health of our nation. Small businesses have been the engine of growth in our economy and have provided virtually all of our country's net new jobs. Very small businesses, those with four or fewer employees, created more jobs from 1992 through 1996 than large businesses employing more than 500 workers. However, many of those who yearn to turn an innovative idea into a marketable product need assistance in developing the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in today's competitive marketplace. That is why, as Ranking Democratic Member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I have been such a strong supporter of programs to assist microenterprise development, especially through the microloan program within the Small Business Administration. This program has provided $67 million in microloans to very small businesses in every state. A great percentage of microloans have gone to traditionally underserved groups, including 43 percent to women-owned businesses, 39 percent to minority- owned businesses and 11 percent to veteran-owned businesses. I am committed to seeing this and other programs that assist microenterprise grow and thrive. The Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) fund represents another type of community investment initiative. It uses limited federal resources to invest in and build the capacity of private, for profit and nonprofit financial institutions, leveraging private capital and private-sector talent and creativity. The fund's main program allows local CDFIs to apply for financial and technical assistance. This funding can be used to support basic financial services, housing for low-income people, businesses that provide jobs for low-income people and technical assistance for capacity-building, training, and development of programs, investments or loans. The CDFI fund offers a combination of increased access to capital and institutional capacity building that is vital to low-income communities, and fill a need that the marketplace is not meeting. We have all heard a lot about the need for individual responsibility, family responsibility, and community responsibility. The microenterprise program within CDFI give us an opportunity to lend a helping hand to those in need of financial aid and technical assistance so they can fulfill their personal, family, and community responsibilities. It has given many a chance to break the cycle of poverty and welfare and move toward individual responsibility and financial independence. The PRIME bill introduced last week seeks to increase CDFI's funding for technical assistance to give micro-entrepreneurs access to information on developing a business plan, record-keeping, planning, financing and marketing that are crucial in the development of a small business. Furthermore, this legislation will sponsor research on the most innovative and successful ways of encouraging these new businesses and enabling them to succeed. This legislation will allow organizations which assist microenterprises to develop new products and services for their customers and expand on existing services. In Massachusetts, Working Capital, a recipient of a Presidential Award for Excellence in Microenterprise Development in 1997, currently offers three complementary programs to its microenterprise customers which could be eligible for additional funding under the PRIME legislation. First, Working Capital provides business credit to micro-entrepreneurs. Second, they provide business education and training on how to draw up business plans and prepare financial projections, and how to use these tools in managing their businesses. Third, they offer networking opportunities to connect micro-entrepreneurs to each other and give them a sense of belonging within a community which faces the same challenges. The PRIME legislation will assist in the development of programs such as those offered by Working Capital in Massachusetts and similar organizations across the country and will assist more Americans in taking a chance on the American dream of owning their own small business. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that will relieve the hiring freeze on the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), that was first imposed following the 1995 National Performance Review. I want to thank Senators Snowe, Hollings, and Stevens, who have joined me in cosponsoring this legislation, for their continued leadership on this issue. This legislation represents another milestone in their consistent stewardship of the NOAA Corps and the very important part it plays in NOAA and to our Nation. This legislation will restore stability and renew the good faith contract made with the men and women that make up the NOAA Corps by establishing a minimum and maximum authorized strength for our nation's seventh uniformed service. The NOAA Corps is an indispensable part of NOAA: a pool of professionals trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology, fisheries science, and other related disciplines. Corps officers serve in assignments within the five major line offices of NOAA. They operate ships, fly aircraft into hurricanes, lead mobile field parties, manage research projects, conduct diving operations, and serve in staff positions throughout NOAA. They operate the ships that set buoys used to gather oceanographic and meteorological data on unusual weather phenomena such as El Nino. They fly research aircraft into hurricanes that record valuable atmospheric observations. They conduct hydrographic surveys along our nation's coast in order to make our waters safe for maritime commerce. Over three years ago, the Administration proposed that the NOAA Corps be disestablished and unilaterally imposed a hiring freeze. This action was based on flawed recommendations by the President's National Performance Review. A thorough review of the cost studies associated with the dissolution of the NOAA Corps clearly reflects that no real savings will be achieved over either the short or long term. In fact, without commissioned officers, NOAA may incur significant additional costs in the acquisition of data to fulfill its statutory missions. Further, recent data indicate that factors such as tort liability were not even considered as part of the total cost-benefit analysis. The Administration has ignored the fact that Congress alone has the authority to set the duties and strength of the uniformed services and Congress alone must act for the NOAA Corps to be disestablished. I am convinced that the preponderance of evidence supports the need for the NOAA Corps to be retained, not disestablished. This legislation will ensure that the pearl of expertise that resides in the men and women who make up the NOAA Corps is retained for the nation. The NOAA Corps hiring freeze has been tantamount to slow motion dissolution of our nation's seventh uniformed service. At the time the freeze was imposed, the NOAA Corps had a strength of 411 officers. At the end of this fiscal year, the projected on-board strength will be 235 officers. Through this three years of adversity, the NOAA Corps has heroically continued to sail NOAA's fleet and fly its aircraft. At its current diminished personnel levels, I have become deeply concerned regarding the NOAA Corps' ability to carry out its mission. In addition, I am also concerned about the safety of the men and women aboard NOAA ships and aircraft. Last week, Dr. James Baker, the Administrator of NOAA, announced a plan for restructuring the NOAA Corps. This plan calls for a further reduction of the Corps strength from its current level of 248 officers to 240 officers. In addition, it calls for a civilian Senior Executive Service member to manage the Corps. This restructuring plan will maintain a cloud of uncertainty over the future of the NOAA Corps, diminishing its viability and culminating in its ultimate elimination. The proposed level of 240 officers will be inadequate to staff NOAA ships and aircraft. There are currently 70 officer billets aboard NOAA vessels. Assuming that a NOAA Corps officer spends one third of his or her career at sea, which is the norm in other seagoing services, a requirement exists for 210 seagoing officer billets. Likewise, there are 36 billets aboard NOAA aircraft. Assuming that an officer flies for two years and is moved to an office support billet for one year, a requirement exists for 54 aviator billets. Therefore, the minimum staffing requirement to maintain a viable NOAA Corps is 264 officers. All services allow for 10 to 15 percent of their personnel to be in a general detail status (i.e. training classes, travel and temporary duty). Therefore, I endorse staffing the NOAA Corps at a floor of 264 and a ceiling of 299 officer billets which corresponds to a general detail percentage that is consistent with the practices of other uniformed services. This level is consistent with the already-achieved reduction of 130 billets that was recommended by the National Performance Review. The proposal to establish a civilian position to manage the NOAA Corps in place of the current flag officer creates an extra layer of management that is not required. A NOAA Corps flag officer is required to carry out NOAA fleet business with flag officers of the other services. As the civilian Administrator of NOAA, Dr. Baker is in a position to oversee the NOAA Corps, working with its senior flag officer. Mr. President, this legislation will establish staffing levels for the NOAA Corps that will provide some assurance of long term viability. It will establish a floor strength of 264 officers with a ceiling of 299 officers. It is time that we reaffirm our commitment to studying the earth's oceans and atmosphere by insuring that the NOAA Corps is staffed at the appropriate level. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that will relieve the hiring freeze on the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), that was first imposed following the 1995 National Performance Review. I want to thank Senators Snowe, Hollings, and Stevens, who have joined me in cosponsoring this legislation, for their continued leadership on this issue. This legislation represents another milestone in their consistent stewardship of the NOAA Corps and the very important part it plays in NOAA and to our Nation. This legislation will restore stability and renew the good faith contract made with the men and women that make up the NOAA Corps by establishing a minimum and maximum authorized strength for our nation's seventh uniformed service. The NOAA Corps is an indispensable part of NOAA: a pool of professionals trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology, fisheries science, and other related disciplines. Corps officers serve in assignments within the five major line offices of NOAA. They operate ships, fly aircraft into hurricanes, lead mobile field parties, manage research projects, conduct diving operations, and serve in staff positions throughout NOAA. They operate the ships that set buoys used to gather oceanographic and meteorological data on unusual weather phenomena such as El Nino. They fly research aircraft into hurricanes that record valuable atmospheric observations. They conduct hydrographic surveys along our nation's coast in order to make our waters safe for maritime commerce. Over three years ago, the Administration proposed that the NOAA Corps be disestablished and unilaterally imposed a hiring freeze. This action was based on flawed recommendations by the President's National Performance Review. A thorough review of the cost studies associated with the dissolution of the NOAA Corps clearly reflects that no real savings will be achieved over either the short or long term. In fact, without commissioned officers, NOAA may incur significant additional costs in the acquisition of data to fulfill its statutory missions. Further, recent data indicate that factors such as tort liability were not even considered as part of the total cost-benefit analysis. The Administration has ignored the fact that Congress alone has the authority to set the duties and strength of the uniformed services and Congress alone must act for the NOAA Corps to be disestablished. I am convinced that the preponderance of evidence supports the need for the NOAA Corps to be retained, not disestablished. This legislation will ensure that the pearl of expertise that resides in the men and women who make up the NOAA Corps is retained for the nation. The NOAA Corps hiring freeze has been tantamount to slow motion dissolution of our nation's seventh uniformed service. At the time the freeze was imposed, the NOAA Corps had a strength of 411 officers. At the end of this fiscal year, the projected on-board strength will be 235 officers. Through this three years of adversity, the NOAA Corps has heroically continued to sail NOAA's fleet and fly its aircraft. At its current diminished personnel levels, I have become deeply concerned regarding the NOAA Corps' ability to carry out its mission. In addition, I am also concerned about the safety of the men and women aboard NOAA ships and aircraft. Last week, Dr. James Baker, the Administrator of NOAA, announced a plan for restructuring the NOAA Corps. This plan calls for a further reduction of the Corps strength from its current level of 248 officers to 240 officers. In addition, it calls for a civilian Senior Executive Service member to manage the Corps. This restructuring plan will maintain a cloud of uncertainty over the future of the NOAA Corps, diminishing its viability and culminating in its ultimate elimination. The proposed level of 240 officers will be inadequate to staff NOAA ships and aircraft. There are currently 70 officer billets aboard NOAA vessels. Assuming that a NOAA Corps officer spends one third of his or her career at sea, which is the norm in other seagoing services, a requirement exists for 210 seagoing officer billets. Likewise, there are 36 billets aboard NOAA aircraft. Assuming that an officer flies for two years and is moved to an office support billet for one year, a requirement exists for 54 aviator billets. Therefore, the minimum staffing requirement to maintain a viable NOAA Corps is 264 officers. All services allow for 10 to 15 percent of their personnel to be in a general detail status (i.e. training classes, travel and temporary duty). Therefore, I endorse staffing the NOAA Corps at a floor of 264 and a ceiling of 299 officer billets which corresponds to a general detail percentage that is consistent with the practices of other uniformed services. This level is consistent with the already-achieved reduction of 130 billets that was recommended by the National Performance Review. The proposal to establish a civilian position to manage the NOAA Corps in place of the current flag officer creates an extra layer of management that is not required. A NOAA Corps flag officer is required to carry out NOAA fleet business with flag officers of the other services. As the civilian Administrator of NOAA, Dr. Baker is in a position to oversee the NOAA Corps, working with its senior flag officer. Mr. President, this legislation will establish staffing levels for the NOAA Corps that will provide some assurance of long term viability. It will establish a floor strength of 264 officers with a ceiling of 299 officers. It is time that we reaffirm our commitment to studying the earth's oceans and atmosphere by insuring that the NOAA Corps is staffed at the appropriate level. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I almost hate to break the sort of magic, if you will, of those moments, but I want to say a few things, if I may, about the proposal yesterday of the Speaker of the House with respect to the principles that the House and he will pursue in trying to put forward tobacco legislation. Many people in the press have been busy writing that the tobacco bill is dead, and a great number of people have suggested, even in this body, that tobacco is dead as an issue for this year. I wish to make it very clear that, if anything, the proposal by the Speaker makes it clear that not only is it not dead but the Republicans feel compelled to somehow create some sort of cover for the efforts that took place in the Senate over the course of the last weeks to stop a particular piece of legislation. I think the headlines that ran across the country saying ``Republicans Killed Tobacco Bill''; have stung more than some people want to suggest, and the evidence of that is the fact that the Speaker saw fit to provide this figleaf to the party. It is a figleaf, and I think it has to be put in the context of Speaker Gingrich's own $50 billion tax credit that he snuck for the tobacco industry into the balanced budget legislation. No one should forget that only a year ago the Speaker of the House provided the tobacco industry of this country with a $50 billion tax credit and now he is providing another gift to the industry and a disaster for children and for public health. As Surgeon General Koop said yesterday about the Gingrich proposal: Instead of doing something serious about reducing the number of children who smoke, these Members of Congress have created a bill that they can hold up for a photo opportunity and a sound bite. If the House Republicans try to call this a bill to limit the damage that tobacco does to the Nation's health, that's false advertising. Then Surgeon General Koop said: I'm glad they feel they have to do something. I'm sorry they think they can do so little. Mr. President, let me say specifically what the great flaws are in the outlined proposed by the Speaker. First of all, rather than expand FDA authority over tobacco, it actually restricts authority. By restricting the FDA to only being able to regulate the manufacture of cigarettes, it actually strips the FDA of most of its regulatory authority. And that is directly contrary to what the Senate accepted in the proposal that came from the Commerce Committee by a vote of 19 to 1, and it was never contested in this Chamber that that authority ought to exist. The House, under the Gingrich proposal, would even curtail the FDA's ability to restrict the illegal sale of tobacco products to children. That is extraordinary, and also it lacks any common sense whatsoever. Furthermore, the Gingrich proposal provides no tough penalties whatsoever on the tobacco industry if they are to continue to market to kids. There is not any one of us who does not know the long history of the tobacco industry marketing to kids. Here is the memo from R.J. Reynolds Company: They, i.e. young people, represent tomorrow's cigarette business. As this 14-24 age group matures, they will account for a key share of the total cigarette volume for at least the next 25 years. In the course of the debate, we made it very, very clear, through their own words, the degree to which tobacco companies targeted young children and the degree to which they created a strategy to try to addict young people to cigarettes, to tobacco. There is no effort whatsoever in the Gingrich approach to try to hold the tobacco companies responsible, not only to the programs that might reduce children from smoking but also to tough provisions that would hold them accountable if they do not meet the reduction in teenager smoking. The tobacco industry has preyed upon children for decades. The Republicans in the House evidently are prepared to let them continue to do that, and the Senate I know will find that unacceptable. Furthermore, the Gingrich approach lays out a series of very tough, punitive measures for teenagers without being punitive on the companies themselves. They are tougher on the kids who wind up subjecting themselves to the lure of the tobacco companies than they are on the tobacco companies themselves. That is absolutely extraordinary and totally unacceptable. Obviously, there ought to be some penalties with respect to teenage purchase if it is against the law to purchase, but the answer to reduce youth smoking is not a solely punitive bill on children, it is to include the tobacco companies. If anything ever stood for the degree to which the Republicans in the House, and maybe elsewhere, are prepared to stand with the tobacco companies, it is an outline for a tobacco bill that holds the children liable and lets the tobacco companies go free. In addition to that, there is no price increase whatsoever for the effort to reduce youth smoking. We can argue about what this level ought to be. The Senate rejected the notion that it ought to be $1.50, but the Senate did accept the notion that $1.10 seemed to make sense. At least no one voted to strip that $1.10, and I doubt that they would. So it is clear, all of the evidence thus far makes it clear, that raising the price has some impact on smoking. Let me quote from Philip Morris. You don't have to believe the Senate debate, but this is Philip Morris speaking, this is an internal document from the Minnesota trial: You may recall from the article I sent you that Jeffrey Harris of MIT calculated . . . the 1982-1983 round of price increases caused two million adults to quit smoking and prevented 600,000 teenagers from starting to smoke. In 1982, the tobacco companies took note themselves of the fact that a price increase prevented 600,000 teenagers from starting to smoke: Those teenagers are now 18-21 years old, and since about 70 percent of 18-20 year-olds and 35 percent of older smokers smoke a [Philip Morris] brand, this means that 700,000 of those adult quitters had been [Philip Morris] smokers, and 420,000 of those non-starters would have been [Philip Morris] smokers. Thus, if Harris is right, we were hit disproportionately hard. We don't need this to happen again. Philip Morris says, ``We don't need this to happen again.'' Evidently, Newt Gingrich agrees with him because he has come up with a proposal that allies himself directly with the tobacco companies and with that memo. Mr. President, it is clear we need serious legislation. We have made it clear that we are going to return on future pieces of legislation to try to pass tobacco legislation in the Senate. Let me be clear. If we were to simply come back with the same bill that was defeated, I think we would be both stupid and we would deserve a vote of rejection by the Senate. So it is clear that we need to rethink how we do this in an intelligent way. The Senate found cause to cite specific kinds of problems with the last piece of legislation. I am not going to disagree that there were not legitimate problems. I do disagree that we could not have cured them in a legitimate legislative process. But it is clear that, if we put our minds to it, we can constrain a piece of legislation so it adequately is tailored to meet the needs of reducing teenage smoking and of creating a sufficient amount of funding, if you will, of the States' needs with respect to the settlement process. After all, the tobacco companies and the States agreed to a $368 billion base over 25 years, and that provided about $200 billion to the States to be able to settle. They came to agreement on that. It would seem to me we ought to be able to ratify something in the Senate that establishes a comprehensive proposal to have a State settlement at the same time as we meet the needs of health care with respect to reducing the number of kids smoking at the same time as we meet the needs of farmers. So, we will be able to test that, in the next weeks, through a proposal that I and others will make, which ought to be able to address the most critical concerns that were expressed by Senators in opposition but at the same time provides us with something completely different from what Speaker Gingrich is talking about. We do not need a figleaf. We do not need a photo opportunity. We need a serious piece of legislation that will allow the States to be able to do what they need to do to provide counteradvertising and cessation efforts to address the health care needs of our country and to reduce teenage smoking while simultaneously allowing us to come to a global settlement. I believe that is achievable. I hope when we return the Senate will act seriously to make that happen. I look forward to the U.S. Senate sending over to the House a serious piece of tobacco legislation that will provide the country with an opportunity, in bipartisan form, to be able to deal with this important problem. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in expressing my admiration and respect for the senior Senator from West Virginia, for the extraordinary comments he made on behalf of Senator Lott. I was equally touched I think by the honest, open response of Senator Lott to the emotions that he felt with respect to the birth of his grandson. I think we can all sense, at least those of us who have had children, the enormous emotional wave of that particular moment. So we salute both of those colleagues of ours. I thank Senator Byrd for taking the time to share with the Senate those important thoughts.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to share with colleagues the feelings expressed both by the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Virginia. In the course of the last months, I heard from an extraordinary number of our people in uniform who are increasingly pressured in ways that I think a lot of us have not necessarily been particularly sensitive to or yet taken into account. The operations pace, the pace of employment is such that even those Reserve units that get called up and taken over to whether it is Bosnia or elsewhere, find themselves reassigned in certain ways that suddenly put them out on unemployment again. The tension on families is having a profound impact on morale through all the services. But in addition to that, the retention rate for some of our most highly trained, highly skilled personnel is on a rapid declining trend. I think we have an enormous amount of bipartisan thinking to do about how we are going to address this new structure and these new demands. It is service by service. The Coast Guard--Admiral Kramek, who retired a few weeks ago, made very profound comments about the tensions in the Coast Guard with the increased duties they have. I think that is service to service. I simply say this is something we need to consider. It has a profound impact on all of us, and I suppose we will. I guess the other question I have is how the other 10 percent got in there.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I simply say to my friend from Georgia, I hope the time will come that we will get both sides of the fence here talking about real, broad, systemic reform that will save the public school system of this country.

Mr. KERRY. So I used all the time available?

Mr. KERRY. I have used--

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I just heard the majority leader call this one of the most important bills for education that the Senate could pass, and he hoped that the President would sign it. I regret that I must disagree with the judgment of the majority leader. This could have been one of the most important bills that we pass. We had an opportunity in the Senate to be able to really deal with the broad issue of education reform and the education needs of our Nation, but this bill does not do it. What it does do, it does in a way that winds up being a perpetuation of the divisions in our country between those who have and those who do not, and a division between our school communities in what is available to our children to be able to get the best education in our country. So I would not only say to the President don't sign it, I would say veto it. This is a bill that, in its current form, deserves to be vetoed. Why? The bill is definitely better than the bill that left the floor of the Senate. It is better because the Gorton amendment, which put all of our education assistance into a block grant, is gone. It is gone for good reason, because it would be an enormous mistake to make that judgment in the country where education is in such enormous need of help. Education now, obviously, is the most important focus of the Nation in terms of revitalizing our democracy, making a skilled labor pool available to all facets of our high value-added job base, to the technology future we know is coming, and to the management of information, all of which requires a first-rate elementary and secondary school system. This bill, regrettably, through the Gorton amendment, would have diminished our ability to achieve that. The bill, also, in its current form, doesn't do any of that--and I will speak to that in a moment. The second reason why it is better in its current form is that the bill no longer has a prohibition on the ability of people to implement testing standards. Obviously, at a time when our schools are struggling to be able to produce a verifiable and accountable product, it is critical for us not to deprive those schools of the ability to adhere to some kind of national measurement of what we are and are not achieving. Parents all across this Nation want to know that their children are, indeed, learning something. So it is important that we now have empowered the schools to be able to conduct some kind of a test that measures that, on a voluntary basis. It allows them to say, ``Here is what they are accomplishing in California, here is what they are doing in Massachusetts, here is what they are doing in Georgia. Is there something that we are not doing in our State that maybe we ought to that would allow us to be able to do a better job?'' So that is why it is better. The answer to the question why this particular bill still deserves to be vetoed is very simple. I am in favor of a savings program for our parents to be able to send their kids to school, and particularly to a school of choice. This bill, in wisdom, says: Private, parochial, public--you choose. That is good. That is part of what this country is. But the basic choice that it is giving to those parents is, in my judgment--I say this respectfully to my friends who support it--fundamentally flawed because, according to the Treasury Department, 70 percent of the benefit of the savings account given in this bill will go to the top 20 percent income earners in America. I know my colleague will try to refute that, but the facts are the facts. If you earn $45,000 or less in this country, the tax benefit to you through this bill is $2.50, on average. But if you are in the higher income-earning area, because of the benefit of a tax credit, you will get upwards of $96 or so. So what this bill does is comfort the comfortable and do very little to assist the problems of those who are in the most challenged areas of our school system in this Nation. And that is wrong. I asked my colleagues how they can come to the floor of the U.S. Senate for the last 3\1/2\ weeks--the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, the Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft--with this extraordinary concern for the working poor of America. By God, we weren't going to pass a tax bill in this Senate that somehow fell disproportionately on blue-collar, working-class people who went out and bought a pack of cigarettes. For weeks the Senate was subjected to the notion that our friends on the other side of the aisle really do care about working people and the burden that they bear. And the first bill to come along after that debate turns around and offers a classic Republican giveaway to those who are already earning the most in America. The second reason why this bill, I think, deserves to be rejected is it really does not deal with the problems of our school system today. It just does not deal with them. It is all well and good to say to a parent: ``We are going to give you this tiny little bit of savings. If you earn less than $45,000 a year, you are going to get $2.50.'' That is amazing. You are not going to be able to do much with that. And if you are even in the upper end, let's look at what they get. On an annual basis maybe in the $90 range, somewhere like that--$96. What is lacking in our schools is far more profound than what this bill is ever going to address. All across this country we have secondary and elementary schools that are failing. We also have some extraordinarily successful public schools in the country. We designate some of them annually as blue ribbon schools, and the Department of Education singles them out and gives them an award for being a very special school. I have taken some time to go into those schools to try to find out why is one school a blue ribbon school and another school, maybe 10 blocks away or two districts away, is failing. Almost invariably you will find in the school that is a success a hybrid relationship that has been built up between the school committee and the school board and the teachers and the principal. And absolutely without fail, in the school that is very successful you will find a principal who is extraordinarily capable, energized, very skilled in leadership capacity, who has worked out a very special relationship with the school board so they can move teachers who need to be moved who are not performing correctly, who has brought parents into the school, and who has created a dynamic in that school that makes it special. In effect, what has happened is that in those successful schools, you have effectively created a kind of charter school. What I proposed last week in some public comments is the notion that what we really ought to be doing, if we are going to talk about education reform, is figure out how we stop talking past each other in the U.S. Senate, how we stop bringing these sort of Band-Aid, stop-gap measures to the floor, pretending that we are dealing with education reform in America with $2.50 to $96, when the real issue of education reform is how do you create accountability in a system that is imploding on itself? How do you create a system where teachers can be brought in, even from the liberal arts, rather than just from the education monopoly that we have created? How do you create a system where we are going to attract a whole new wave of principals with the capacity to offer the kind of leadership I have talked about? How do you create a system where you can move those teachers out of the system who are burnt out, or who are unwilling to improve sufficiently to raise our kids to the standards that we want? These are the real issues of education reform. We are going to lose 2 million teachers in America in the next 10 years. We have to hire an additional 2 million teachers. If we are reduced to hiring from the current pool that is available, a pool where we know the SAT scores and the ACT scores are universally lower than in any other discipline that tests in the United States--that is the pool--and that we lose 40 percent of those teachers in the first 4 years, we are asking ourselves a set of very serious questions that are not being asked on the floor of the U.S. Senate. You cannot attract teachers out of most of the colleges that I represent in Massachusetts, whether it is the University of Massachusetts or BU or MIT or Boston College or any number of schools--Clark University, you name it. We have 136 of them in our State, one of the best networks of universities and colleges in America. But when I go to those campuses, and I turn to the kids, and I say, ``Are you thinking of teaching?'' I might get one hand raised out of 150. And one of the primary reasons for that is, you cannot tell a kid who has $20,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 worth of student loans that it is of value to them to go teach when they are going to be fundamentally indentured servants for the rest of their lives. If they get a master's degree and maybe even a Ph.D., they can eke their way up into the high forties, fifties, sixties in some school systems, but their peers are going to be earning a lot more than that. We do not value teaching in America. We pretend we do, but we do not value it. We have left our schools in a state of chaos, where they are competing with districts that have a lot more money, a lot more security, a lot more capacity to make ends meet. And then we wonder why things are imploding. This bill does not do anything to really help that, except, I might add, to encourage the flight from the school system that is already in trouble. Mr. President, I have news for my friends in the U.S. Senate. There are not enough vouchers, there are not enough savings programs to go around to save the public school system, which is the place where 90 percent of the children of America go to school. So you give a few vouchers and you give a few savings plans, and a few kids are going to opt to go to a parochial school or somewhere else, but, meanwhile, what is happening to pull that other system back from the brink? I have heard people make the argument, it is immoral to leave 1,000 kids in the Washington, DC system, for instance. And the answer is, yes, it is. But it is even more immoral to say that we are satisfied, as the richest Nation on the face of the Earth, to simply save the 1,000 and not do something for the other 4,000 that are left behind. That is essentially what this bill says. It says that it is OK to come along and offer the wealthiest people in America, who already have the best school systems, a little more help to take their kids out of the system that most needs help today. I think we ought to find ourselves in a middle ground. I believe the whole teacher certification process needs change. If we are going to attract 2 million new teachers of the quality that we want, we need desperately to change the way in which we have created this education monopoly within the teacher certification process. We need to be able to attract even liberal arts graduates, people out of government, people out of corporations, and bring them into the system and let them teach. We need to liberate our principals from the layers of bureaucracy that are literally snuffing out creativity in too many of our schools. We need to encourage the capacity of teachers who have burnt out or do not want to pursue further skills and raise the standards of the schools. We need to find ways to encourage them, decently and in a humane way, to move to some other discipline or at least to raise the standard within that school. And we clearly need to provide principals the ability to be able to manage locally and make things work. You look at what is happening out in Chicago with Mayor Daley who has instituted a tough system. If kids fail a class during the year, they take summer school. And if they fail the summer school, they repeat the grade. And the way he did it was by breaking through bureaucracy and breaking through the system and making certain that he was going to be able to institute that as the mayor, regardless of where the politics of the school board and everybody else were. I believe that that is the kind of effort that the U.S. Senate ought to be encouraging broadly across this country. That is the kind of real reform that is going to make a difference in teacher tenure, which needs to be changed. Teacher certification needs to be changed. Teacher pay needs to be changed. Principals and accountability need to be changed. Recruiting of teachers across the country needs to be changed. How much time have I used?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding I have available some leadership time, so I yield myself additional time, if necessary, under the leadership time.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, two years ago Senator McCain and I offered legislation, enacted as part of the FY 97 Defense authorization bill, to reimburse some 500 Vietnamese commandos who were funded and trained by the United States and infiltrated behind enemy lines to perform covert operations during the Vietnam War. Many of them were captured and incarcerated by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam for years and ultimately removed from the payroll by the U.S. government. Our legislation authorized $20 million for reimbursement of the commandos for their years of imprisonment in North Vietnamese prisons and mandated that a lump sum be provided to each claimant determined eligible by the Secretary of Defense. Pursuant to this legislation a commission has been established in the Defense Department and is now in the process of reviewing claims. Today I am offering three amendments, with Senators McCain and Smith (of New Hampshire) related to the commando issue. The first amendment, number 2943, is identical to language in the House-passed Defense authorization bill for this year. This amendment recognizes and honors the commandos for their heroism, sacrifice, and service to the United States during the war. The second amendment, number 2944, is largely technical and is designed to assist the commission by clarifying the intent of the original legislation with respect to the payment process. The third amendment, number 2945, rectifies an oversight in the original legislation. Under current law, a commando can bring a claim, or if the commando is deceased, his spouse or children may bring a claim. Through an oversight we failed to consider the possibility that a commando may never have married. The amendment that I am offering resolves this problem by stipulating that the parents, or if they are deceased, the siblings of an unmarried commando may bring a claim. Since the $20 million originally authorized and appropriated for payment of these claims was based on the entire known universe of commandos, no additional funding will be needed to implement this amendment. Nor will this amendment put an additional undue burden on the commission. Our original intention in authoring the commando legislation was to make restitution to all the commandos who served us so faithfully, even when we walked away from them. This amendment ensures that we do that. Mr. President, these amendments are straightforward and noncontroversial. They are good amendments and I urge their adoption.