John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the debate, as we have called it, over the course of the last few days, and to the comments of the Senator from New Jersey. I regret to say he is correct in saying this could have been a great debate, but it wasn't; this could have been a great bill, but it isn't. The truth is that over the course of the last days, the Senate has fundamentally avoided a real discussion and a real engagement on the subject of American education. What has happened essentially has been a very partisan and very political exercise. I do not believe that was the design of the Senator from Georgia, and I know it is not his fault. But I regret that, as I am sure he must regret it, because we know this is a bill that, in its current form, is going to be vetoed by the President of the United States, and I believe it ought to be vetoed by the President of the United States. I have previously said on the floor of the Senate that I do not think the idea of savings accounts is a bad idea, and there are ways to construct a savings account that makes sense. But if the Joint Committee on Taxation tells us, even though you can distort the figures and say, ``Well, X percentage of this is going to go to people in public school, yes, it is going to go to families whose kids are in public school''--it is still the high-income earners in America; the fact is over 70 percent of the benefits of this are going to go to the top 20 percent of income earners. You cannot rationalize that by saying, ``Well, 48 percent of it is going to go to public school people and 52 percent is going to go to private school people.'' The 48 percent of public school people who are going to get it are not the people who most need it and not the people, generally speaking, who reflect the crisis of our schools. I come to the floor perhaps from a different place than some of my colleagues, because I am prepared to say the public education system of this country is fundamentally imploding for a lot of different reasons. There are wonderful bright spots, so-called blue ribbon schools. We can go out, pin them up and award benefits to ``Teacher of the Year'' with salutations in Washington--and they are marvelous teachers, extraordinary teachers, as are the vast majority of teachers in the system. But no one can deny the hard realities of what we know is happening in the system. When you look at the fact that 2.6 million kids graduated from high school a couple of years ago, and fully one-third of them graduated with a level of reading that was below a basic satisfactory reading level and only 100,000 of the 2.6 million had a world-class reading level, how can anybody in their right mind sit there and defend that system? The Brookings Institute recently released statistics that show a very damning reality with respect to the number of people who are teaching in their fields, so to speak. The number of teachers in our public school system who are actually teaching math who majored in math or are teaching science who majored in science is deplorable. It is extraordinary. It is no wonder that all across America we have parents who are desperate about the situation, who are trying to find ways to vote with their children, in a sense, by taking them out of the public school system and putting them into parochial school, teaching them at home, or putting them into a charter school and hence there is an enormous surge in America among our parents looking for safety, looking for a sanctuary for their children, looking for the certainty of adequacy of education. Everybody in the U.S. Senate ought to admit that. But having admitted it, the question is then, what are we prepared to do about it? What we are doing here has the potential to, in fact, undermine the capacity to fix the places where 90 percent of the children of this country go to school. Ninety percent of the children of this country are in public school today. But 90 percent of the benefit of this bill does not go to public schools. A minimal percentage of the benefit of this bill is going to go to the people who most need it, in the places that they most need it, for the reasons that they most need it. It is not enough to talk about putting more teachers into our classrooms if the teachers are not the right kinds of teachers, if the teachers do not get paid the right amount of money, if you cannot attract the right kinds of teachers because you do not pay them the right amount of money, if you do not put them in a school situation where there is the minimal level of safety so they can function in a way that does not put them at jeopardy, at risk of life and a whole lot of other things that are part of the problems in the public schools of America. We have a lot of people who are prepared to abandon that because of those problems rather than try to fix those problems. But you cannot build enough charter schools, you cannot provide enough vouchers to save a whole generation from the current crisis of education in this country for that 90 percent of our kids who are in public school. You cannot do it. And what this bill amounts to is a Band-Aid, a tiny little Band-Aid on a system that needs triage, a system that is basically floundering, but part of the reason that it is floundering is because this is what we do. We come to the U.S. Senate and we do not debate the real problems of how you turn this system around. What do you do in a school that is floundering in the inner city where parents do not have the options of a private school, where there is no place to take their voucher, where there is no place for them to somehow find a place that is a sanctuary for their children? Do you abandon that school? Well, the Senator from Illinois tried to come in here and say, ``Let's not abandon that school. Let's provide the resources to guarantee that that school can be fixed up and decent.'' What did we do? The U.S. Senate rejected that. The U.S. Senate is suggesting that it is OK to help those people for whom a tax benefit is a benefit, and if you do not get the benefit of the tax benefit, too bad. Sure that is going to save some kids. I do not deny that. That is really nice for people who can take advantage of that benefit. But what about all the rest of the people who are stuck in that system who do not even have a way of filing a tax return and getting a tax credit, don't know anything about an IRA, can't put away enough money to have an IRA or who are stuck in a system, as they are in Washington, DC, or elsewhere, that just does not function? I am going to be the first person to say that we have to talk differently about the whole education system. We have to talk differently on our side of the fence about the things that we have been stuck in the cement on ideologically, about things like tenure and a whole lot of other third rails of American politics. And we also have to ask our friends on the other side of the aisle to face the reality that those 90 percent of our children who are stuck in those public schools desperately need us to help them have schools that function, that do not freeze them out of the classroom or bake them out of the classroom, to give them the opportunity to be able to learn, and that learning is a function of a whole bunch of things. Every blue ribbon school I visited, the first thing I have noticed is, boy, do they have a wonderful principal. And almost without exception, that principal is operating outside of the normal workings of the system. They work to deal with the school committee. They work to deal with the parents. They work to deal even with the union, and teachers can be moved when they need to be moved. And, by God, you get a school that works all of a sudden. What we ought to be talking about is how we make every public school in the system fundamentally a charter school within the system. We could do that if we really wanted to. We could do that if we were not stuck in this sort of, gee, we are going to fight for vouchers, and we are going to be over here, and we are going to protect the people who do not like the vouchers, and, by God, we are going to talk past each other in the most important debate that this country has faced. That is what we are doing. This is the single most important subject in front of the country, because we have kids who come to school today in the first grade who do not even have the capacity of a first-grade level to read numbers, to repeat colors, to recognize shapes. And that is where the problem for our teachers begins, with a whole different set of children. People who sit there and say, ``Gee, our school system ought to be the way it was with the little red schoolhouse,'' are not willing to acknowledge that we are living in a very different world.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I just wanted to explain with respect to my vote cast on the Coverdell amendment that I respect the notion that having a savings account is not a bad one. I want to compliment the Senator from Georgia for his efforts to create it. The problem is that the numbers I have received from CBO and elsewhere on the distribution create problems, in my judgment, in terms of fairness of that distribution. Secondly, because of the low-income reach of some of it, there are difficulties in the takeup on the available tax benefit as to whether or not it will really reach education. And thirdly and most important of all, I think that to address the question of trying to improve people's opportunities for schools in a vacuum, not to include it in the context of the place where 90 percent of our children are going to school, which is the public school system, is a mistake. Every time we come at it in one of these marginal efforts that, in a sense, gives people an opportunity to make a choice in one component but we do not address it with respect to the school system as a whole, we are diminishing the opportunities for that other 90 percent, which now may become 88 percent, but it is still the vast majority of America's schoolchildren. For that reason, while I compliment the Senator in addressing the question of savings accounts and choice--which I think is a critical element of the larger reform--we ought to be doing it in the context of a broad reform. I think until we do that, these kinds of efforts can actually wind up being harmful, well-intentioned as they are. I thank my colleague for permitting me the time to make my explanation and my vote. I yield the remainder of my time. Amendment No. 2291

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for not to exceed 2 minutes.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to commend the extraordinary achievements of a group of Vietnam Veterans in Hyannis, Massachusetts. Five Vietnam Veterans from Cape Cod, Michael Trainor, Ray Pacheco, Woody Hoffman, Craig Morrison and Michael Williams, created the Nam Vets Association in 1983. Their mission, to provide human services to and improve the public image of Vietnam Veterans, has been courageously carried on, to this day, by John Eastman, Charlie Brown, John Ahern, Hank Tucker, Bill SilverRyder, and Randy Ritter. On Vietnam Veterans' Day, March 29, 1998, this group of dedicated men celebrated fifteen years of work on behalf of their fellow veterans. No organization provides more services to the veterans of Cape Cod and the Islands than the Nam Vets Association. It provides counseling services, housing assistance, a food pantry, employment programs, VA benefit information and, perhaps most important of all, a place where veterans and their families feel welcome. I know I did. Mr. President, at the recent Vietnam Veterans of America Convention in Kansas City, Missouri, the Nam Vets Association was selected from 700 chapters nationwide to be honored as the 1997 Community Service Chapter of the Year. This group has made a tremendous impact on the lives of many people in its community. The scholarships, youth activities, volunteer service to community events, and housing programs it provides, and the 55,000 meals it serves annually from its food pantry, give this organization great reason to be very, very proud. On its Fifteenth Anniversary, I am proud to offer my brother Vietnam Veterans in Hyannis my sincere congratulations, my heartfelt gratitude, my best wishes for further triumphs, and my promise of continuing support for their tremendous work.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to speak today regarding the nomination of James Hormel of California to be the U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. Last fall, after President Clinton nominated Jim Hormel to serve as our nation's next Ambassador to Luxembourg, the Foreign Relations Committee, on November 4, reported the nomination favorably by a vote of 16 to 2 and sent the nomination to the full Senate for consideration. During the course of this business meeting, no member of the Committee spoke in opposition to the nomination. The problem is that the Senate has not been able to consider this nomination because some of our colleagues have put ``holds'' on it. Before adjourning last year, the Senate confirmed some 50 nominees, whose nominations had been approved by the Foreign Relations Committee. The only nomination that languished was that of Jim Hormel and the reason for this is very obvious. Some of my colleagues oppose this nomination because Jim Hormel is openly gay. That means, in their view, that he is not fit to represent his country overseas in Luxembourg. It doesn't matter that government officials in Luxembourg have been eager to support this nominee. It doesn't matter, apparently, that in his correspondence with our colleague Senator Smith from Oregon, Jim Hormel went on the record--in unprecedented fashion--in saying that he would not use his position as Ambassador to push any personal agenda, that his partner would not travel with him to Luxembourg, and his public positions would be those of the United States government only. All that matters, I suspect, for some members of this Senate, is that Jim Hormel is gay, that the most private and intimate elements of his lifestyle disqualify him from public service. Mr. President, the issue is not and should not be Mr. Hormel's sexual orientation. The only relevant question here is whether he is qualified to undertake the position for which he has been nominated. The answer to that is ``yes''. He has impressive academic credentials, having received his undergraduate degree from Swarthmore College and his J.D. from the University of Chicago. He has served as Assistant Dean and Dean of students at the University of Chicago. He currently sits on the board of managers of Swarthmore. Jim Hormel is a loving father and grandfather, a businessman who ran a successful company for years, and a philanthropist who has supported, in his words but most importantly in his deeds, some of the most important causes facing this country. Outside the beltway, there's a chorus of very public support for this nominee. Those who care about autism, breast cancer research, AIDS research, religious diversity and human rights--they've all rallied together behind this nominee. The Episcopalian Archdiocese of California has called Jim Hormel ``an exemplary representative of the United States of America.'' Leaders from the business world, from the universities, and from diplomatic circles, including, I might add, former Secretary of State George Schultz, have stated publicly that James Hormel's public character and intellect make him an exceptionally strong nominee. This is not the first time that Jim Hormel has been asked to serve his country. In 1995 he was a member of the U.S. delegation to the 51st U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Last year he was nominated to serve an alternative representative of the U.S. delegation to the 51st U.N. General Assembly--a position subject to confirmation by the Senate. I want to remind my colleagues that no objection was raised to his nomination for this position, and the Senate confirmed him unanimously on May 23, 1997. In the final analysis, we've all got to make our private decisions about what we find acceptable, about which personal values we embrace. However, this Senator does not believe that private considerations should be used to deny an individual the right to hold a job for which he is qualified or to deny the full Senate its right to exercise its constitutional responsibility to act on a nomination. Those Senators standing in the way of this nomination should remove their ``holds'' and let the Senate work its will.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join Senator Mack in supporting his legislation to repeal Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. We must take this opportunity to repeal an unfair section of employment tax law which singles out only the computer and high-technology industry and makes it difficult for firms in that industry to retain the services of self-employed contractors. For many years, the common law test used to classify a worker as an employee or an independent contractor for employment tax purposes lacked precision and predictability. In 1978, in Section 530 of the 1978 Revenue Act, Congress acted to allow taxpayers, as an alternative to the common law test, to use a ``reasonable basis'' safe haven test to classify a worker. However, in 1986, Congress enacted Section 1706 which eliminated all Section 530 protections from only the technical services industry, and only in so-called ``three party situations'' in that industry in which a worker is paid by a technical service firm to perform services for a customer. I have heard from a number of computer consultants in Massachusetts who believe this unfairly discriminates against the computer consulting industry and seriously impairs the ability of legitimate self-employed computer consultants to work effectively in the marketplace. Many firms in Massachusetts will not use the services of valid self-employed contractors because they believe doing so could attract an Internal Revenue Service audit and potentially subject the companies to penalties or back tax liabilities. For many years, along with many of my colleagues in the Senate, I have worked unsuccessfully to develop and enact a new definition of ``leased employee.'' The legislation introduced by Senator Mack today is another effort to resolve this problem; it will repeal Section 1706 and thereby renew the ``reasonable basis'' safe haven test to classify workers in the computer consultant industry. A 1991 Treasury Department report stated that the tax compliance rates of computer consultants were somewhat better than those of other workers who are classified as independent contractors. That study also found that the treatment of technical service workers as independent contractors actually ``increases tax revenue'' which ``tends to offset'' any revenue loss that might result from any noncompliance by such individuals ``because direct compensation to independent contractors is substituted for tax favored employee fringe benefits.'' Repealing Section 1706 will allow companies to hire computer consultants without fearing a negative ruling from the IRS. We should take this step this year, and I look forward to working with Senator Mack to gain Congressional passage of this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join Senator Mack in supporting his legislation to repeal Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. We must take this opportunity to repeal an unfair section of employment tax law which singles out only the computer and high-technology industry and makes it difficult for firms in that industry to retain the services of self-employed contractors. For many years, the common law test used to classify a worker as an employee or an independent contractor for employment tax purposes lacked precision and predictability. In 1978, in Section 530 of the 1978 Revenue Act, Congress acted to allow taxpayers, as an alternative to the common law test, to use a ``reasonable basis'' safe haven test to classify a worker. However, in 1986, Congress enacted Section 1706 which eliminated all Section 530 protections from only the technical services industry, and only in so-called ``three party situations'' in that industry in which a worker is paid by a technical service firm to perform services for a customer. I have heard from a number of computer consultants in Massachusetts who believe this unfairly discriminates against the computer consulting industry and seriously impairs the ability of legitimate self-employed computer consultants to work effectively in the marketplace. Many firms in Massachusetts will not use the services of valid self-employed contractors because they believe doing so could attract an Internal Revenue Service audit and potentially subject the companies to penalties or back tax liabilities. For many years, along with many of my colleagues in the Senate, I have worked unsuccessfully to develop and enact a new definition of ``leased employee.'' The legislation introduced by Senator Mack today is another effort to resolve this problem; it will repeal Section 1706 and thereby renew the ``reasonable basis'' safe haven test to classify workers in the computer consultant industry. A 1991 Treasury Department report stated that the tax compliance rates of computer consultants were somewhat better than those of other workers who are classified as independent contractors. That study also found that the treatment of technical service workers as independent contractors actually ``increases tax revenue'' which ``tends to offset'' any revenue loss that might result from any noncompliance by such individuals ``because direct compensation to independent contractors is substituted for tax favored employee fringe benefits.'' Repealing Section 1706 will allow companies to hire computer consultants without fearing a negative ruling from the IRS. We should take this step this year, and I look forward to working with Senator Mack to gain Congressional passage of this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will approve a budget which will go beyond a balanced budget and create a surplus for the first time in more than a generation. This has been a key objective for me since I came to the Senate in 1985. So there is reason for some satisfaction and relief tonight. However, as we balance the budget, the picture is not entirely appealing. Unfortunately, we have failed to provide adequate support for the critical needs of our nation's children. The Federal government has run a deficit continuously for more than 30 years. It soared to dangerous levels in the 1980s during the Reagan and Bush Administrations. As a result of these deficits, our national debt has multiplied several times, exacting a toll on our economy, increasing interest rates, squeezing federal spending and making debt service one of the largest expenditures in the Federal budget. In 1993, following President Clinton's election, we began the long journey back from crushing deficits and toward fiscal responsibility by passing an enormously successful economic plan. The power of our economy was unleashed and our nation has benefitted greatly: unemployment is at record low; interest rates are subdued; the stock market is surpassing all expectations; and economic growth continues to be robust. This path culminated in last year's agreement to balance the budget and provide substantial broad-based tax relief for working American families and small businesses. The 1999 Budget Resolution is another step on the path to fiscal responsibility. I commend the leaders with key roles in bringing us to this point: President Clinton and his advisers, The Senate Republican and Democratic leadership, and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee. I strongly support the fact that the budget resolution produces a surplus which we can use to begin to restore the financial credibility of the Social Security system or pay off our federal debt. But that is far from the only measure that should be applied to a budget. Deficit elimination is a vital objective, but it is neither an economic policy nor a statement of priorities for our nation or its government. How we balance the budget is just as important as whether we do so. This budget unfortunately will leave some critical American needs unmet. It misses a unique opportunity in America's history to assist children and families and resolve many of our most pressing problems in education, child care, health care and environment. Our children face real problems, and although there are a number of areas where we could improve this resolution, I want to focus my remarks on its effect on our nation's children. The out-of-wedlock birth rate is too high. While the Gross National Product has doubled over the last two decades, the child poverty rate has increased 50 percent. An American child drops out of school every eight seconds, is reported neglected or abused every 10 seconds; and is killed by guns every hour and a half. As a society, we are creating these problems for our children. Yet we know that scientific evidence conclusively demonstrates that enhancing children's physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development will result in tremendous benefits for children, families and our nation. America's children especially need support during the formative, preschool years in order to thrive and grow to become contributing adults. However, adequate child care is not affordable or even available for too many families. That is why I believe we must provide more help to working families to pay for critically needed, quality child care, an early learning fund to assist local communities in developing better child care programs, and sufficient funding to double the number of infants and toddlers in Early Head Start. President Clinton shares this view and included in his 1999 budget proposal my recommendations on this issue. However, the Republican leadership rejected this approach and included no additional mandatory funding for either child care subsidies or early childhood education. Further, the resolution goes out of its way to exclude child care from the tobacco reserve fund. Instead, the budget tentatively promises a $5 billion increase only if Congress is willing to cut other worthy programs to do so. That is unacceptable to the working families in this country. I joined Senator Dodd in offering an important amendment to rectify this situation and increase funding for these crucial programs. While this amendment secured a majority vote, under Senate rules that was insufficient so the amendment did not become part of the resolution. Mr. President, we must develop an educational system which prepares our children and young people for adulthood. Today, we are failing too many of our children. Crumbling schools. Overcrowded classrooms. Inadequately prepared teachers. The federal government provides a small amount of the total funding for public elementary and secondary education--less than seven percent of total public spending on K-12 education comes from the federal government, down from just under 10 percent in 1980. We must back up our grand rhetoric with appropriate funding for these worthy programs. With my enthusiastic support, Democrats offered a number of amendments to this resolution to increase the effectiveness of our educational system. Among them were amendments to reduce class size from a nationwide average of 22 in grades 1-3 to an average of 18, to provide funds to help local school districts hire an additional 100,000 teachers, and to develop federal tax credits to pay interest on nearly $22 billion in bonds to build and renovate our public schools, many of which are in disrepair with emphasis on the 100 to 120 school districts with the largest number of low-income children. Finally, Democrats proposed a $2.2 billion increase for after school programs, education opportunity zones, and the High Hopes Initiative. I am deeply disappointed that the Republican budget resolution does not include any of these proposals and that Republicans again and again rejected these initiatives. The consequences of the Republican budget are clear. Half a million disadvantaged children will not receive the extra help they need to succeed in school. Approximately 450,000 students will be denied safe after-school care in 1999. Some 30,000 new children will be denied access to the Head Start program. Some 6,500 public schools will not have drug and violence prevention coordinators. 3.9 million attending or wanting to attend college will be denied an increase in their Pell Grants. If we are going to talk about education being a national priority, then we ought to match our grand rhetoric with real money. The budget resolution we are considering today does not meet this challenge. Access to health care in our nation is also inadequate. President Clinton proposed three initiatives to provide Americans aged 55 to 65 new ways to gain access to health insurance by allowing those aged 62 to 65 to buy into Medicare, paying a fair premium for the coverage. It also would allow displaced workers over 55 access to similar Medicare coverage. The third initiative would allow Americans over 55 who have lost their retiree benefits access to their former employers' health insurance until age 65. These proposals would give many Americans who are too old for conventional health insurance yet not old enough to be eligible for Medicare access to basic health insurance coverage. However, the Republican budget proposal rejects all those proposals even though they pay for themselves with changes to the existing Medicare program. Over the next five years, this Republican budget will spend $4 billion over five years less than President Clinton proposed for the Ryan White AIDS CARE program, drug abuse prevention and treatment, and Center for Disease Control prevention activities. Last year, I traveled to Kyoto, Japan to attend the Climate Change Conference. The vast majority of the scientific community and policy makers the world over who have carefully examined the issue of global warming have concluded the science is compelling and that it is time to take additional steps to address this issue in a more systematic way. The Republican budget proposal, however, refuses to fund President Clinton's initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions early in the next century. This is a shortsighted approach which could pose a serious threat to our environment--indeed, to the survival of our planet--in future years. We cannot afford to continue avoiding the consequences of our own actions, or condemning future generations to a despoiled planet. I am a strong supporter of President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative, an action plan to focus on remaining challenges to restore and protect our nation's waterways, protect public health, prevent polluted runoff and ensure community-based watershed management. But the Republican budget plan ignores this proposal. I am pleased and relieved the budget is balanced, but the Senate nonetheless has failed to address glaring, fundamental needs of our nation and its people. The budget could have been and should have been much, much better. For these reasons, with disappointment and regret, I will vote no on this resolution, and join others in committing to try to alter the misplaced priorities to better reflect and meet our nation's real needs.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my amendment is subject to a budget point of order. Since that is the same 60 votes that it will require to accomplish this later, I am not going to ask my colleagues to make that vote tonight. What I would ask is that my colleagues, during the break, think about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of where we are currently allocating tobacco funds. The entire purpose of the tobacco legislation is directed at stopping kids from smoking. Yet, that is going to require funding for various things, such as research and compliance. We need to assist the tobacco farmers. There are clearly a set of priorities for where tobacco money should go. I hope when we come back and take up the Commerce Committee bill, we will find it in ourselves to adopt those appropriate priorities. I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I agree with my good friend and also applaud the American Bankers Association decision not to seek action to force dropping credit union members from credit union rolls. All 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 serve as a way for people of average means, without easy access to affordable credit, to pool their savings in order to make credit available to themselves and their fellow credit union members at competitive interest rates. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for example, there are more than 300 credit unions serving approximately 1.7 million people. These credit unions have helped launch and sustain small businesses. Some of them have played a key role in the development and revitalization of economically distressed communities. In dozens of ways, credit unions have proven themselves to be a vital component of our financial services industry. We must not take precipitous action that could result in grave damage to this portion of the industry. That is especially important until the Congress can pass legislation.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer and I share her concern that the Supreme Court ruling could require some credit unions to remove some individuals from credit union membership. The credit unions operated in good faith when they extended membership to members of unrelated groups. However, the Supreme Court found that such actions have gone beyond the bounds of the Federal Credit Union Act. The U.S. District Court, to which the Supreme Court returned the case, can choose from a number of alternatives to provide the required relief in National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust et al. The Court could choose to expel current credit union members who are not affiliated with the original occupational group, grandfather all current members of credit unions but prevent credit unions from adding any new members who are not affiliated with the original group or allow credit unions to add new members from any employer groups represented by current credit union members but preclude adding members from other unrelated occupation groups. I believe the members of all current multiple-group credit unions should be allowed to continue in the credit unions they have chosen. 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 the credit unions in Massachusetts and across the nation. It would also limit the credit and financial services options for millions of working families who have come to depend on their credit unions. I am not prejudging precisely how the Congress should legislate a final resolution of this matter. It deserves careful consideration by Senators and Representatives. But, I believe strongly that until that resolution is determined and enacted into law, it would be a grave mistake for the Court to force existing credit union members out of the affiliation with their credit unions. Such a step would be counter to the public interest.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for the time. I also thank him particularly for his longstanding leadership in the Congress on this issue. There has been no more persevering or more eloquent voice on the subject of children than Senator Dodd. This is really the most important work we can do in America today: pay attention to our children. All across this country, on a daily basis, we pick up a newspaper and read a headline about trouble that comes from children who are not structured in their lives in the course of a day, who don't have the care they ought to have at the earliest stages of their lives. Every bit of pediatric, psychological, psychiatric, early child development evidence that we have in this country indicates that the first years of a child's life are absolutely the most important in the development of that child. You could literally have a brain that is 25 or 30 percent larger, based on the appropriate nurturing, attention, problem-solving, love, and focus that children get in the earlier stages. Why? Because that is when the brain connections are being made. We know this scientifically beyond any doubt whatsoever. In Boston the other day, I was in the Castle Square Early Child Development Center. There are 67 kids there. They are getting a nurturing, caring, structured environment which, while their parents are out at work, is precisely what we required in the welfare bill. Precisely what most Americans want most other Americans to be sharing along with them is the burden of work in America. So while they are out doing it, where are their kids? For the 67 kids in the Castle Square Early Child Development Center, there are 500 on the waiting list--500 kids who will never cross the threshold of that center by the time they reach 6 years of age and are supposed to go to school and be ready to learn. The truth is that in too many schools in America today, when kids are 6 years old and they go to school, there are among them children who cannot recognize numbers, who cannot recognize colors or shapes or forms or even perform the most simple kinds of problem- solving. Now, I know our Republican friends speak a lot about values and about the nature of parenting and the importance of it. But the fact is that, in America today, one-third of our children are born out of wedlock. They start with a single parent. In too many cases, that single parent is out in the workplace trying to make ends meet, and the child has nobody at home. I was in a middle school the other day in Boston, with kids age 10 to 14, 35 kids in a class. I asked them, ``When you go home at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, how many of you go to a house, apartment house, or whatever, where there is no adult present until around 6 o'clock in the evening?'' Fully 50 percent of the hands in that room went up, Mr. President. Whose fault is that, theirs or ours? It is ours. What the Senator from Connecticut is trying to say is, let us at least have the vision of trying to set aside a reserve fund that will permit us to be able to come down the road and say that we are going to help America do this. Out of 3 million children in the United States of America that are eligible for early Head Start, only 30,000 get it. Out of 1.6 million kids in America that are eligible for Head Start itself, only about 800,000 get it. Now, Mr. President, if we don't want to come back here and decide how many prisons we are going to build and how many drug abuse programs we need and how we are going to cope with the trauma in our streets or deal with countries that can outcompete us in the marketplace because our kids don't have the skills for the new world of globalization and technology, this is the business of America that we should be paying attention to. I think it's unconscionable that we can have a reserve fund for tax cuts but not a reserve fund for children. I can't think of anything more important in the business of the Senate than to at least say let's avoid the parliamentary chicanery of a point of order on behalf of our children. A point of order can deprive our kids of the opportunity to have child care, because I will tell you, Mr. President, there is a majority in the Senate prepared to vote for it--a majority. To steal from the majority of those Senators the right to be able to give those children that child care is to take it away from those children itself for the sake of parliamentary process and not for a future vision of this country. I thank my colleague profoundly for his willingness to bring this to the floor of the Senate.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I come at this somewhat differently from a number of my colleagues. I do not agree with those who say that the certification process does not work. I have been involved in this issue deeply for all the years that I have been in the Senate. I think the debate we had in the Senate last year sent a very clear signal to the Mexican government that we expected some real movement on the counter narcotics front this year and that certification could be in jeopardy if there was no movement. I think they got the message. Last year, I believed very strongly that the President should not certify that Mexico was fully cooperating because I believed that the Mexican government's performance did not measure up to the standard. During the Senate's debate I argued that if he was going to do anything, he should certify Mexico on the basis of a national interest waiver. That would have more accurately reflected the situation that we found ourselves in at that time and the real rationale underlying the certification decision. The President didn't do that. We had a vigorous debate here on the Senate floor and ultimately, we expressed our concern about the lack of progress through a joint resolution which was overwhelmingly supported. And I supported it. But it was because of that effort that I believe we are, in fact, in a different position this year. For those who say that the certification process doesn't work, just look at Colombia. This year the President was able to certify Colombia with a national interest waiver. Nobody is here screaming about decertifying Colombia, because, in fact, because of the prior years' decertification, we finally were able to elicit some progress from Colombia. So I am not in that camp that comes to the floor suggesting that certification has no meaning and cannot affect behavior. I am in that group that comes to the floor suggesting that the debate we had last year did send the signal to Mexico, and that, in fact, there are differences that you can measure this year, which in fairness we ought to measure and make a judgment about. I have the deepest respect for the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from California. I think they do a great service by pointing out all of the weaknesses. I think the Senator from California has done an incredible job of researching, understanding, and laying out for the Senate the very clear set of deficiencies which need to be addressed. But when we come to the floor one year and criticize them for corruption in their law enforcement agencies, and then they reconstitute their whole structure for law enforcement in an effort to reverse years of corruption, we cannot come back this year and suggest that what they have done is not enough and will not enable them to make progress on the rest of the things that we want them to do. I believe that the Mexican government has made a genuine effort over the last year and that Mexico's record has improved in a way that is measurable. By no means is Mexico's performance anywhere near perfect, but I believe that the responsible action by the U.S. Senate is to say to them that they are on the right track and to give more time to see if they can make further improvements. I believe that the balance sheet before us today is significantly different from the one before us a year ago. If my colleagues look at this balance sheet fairly, I think they will agree that decertification is not the right approach this year. As my colleagues know, last February, shortly before President Clinton made his decision on certification, Mexican authorities arrested General Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, then head of the National Counternarcotics Institute (INCD). Gutierrez Rebollo, as we now know, was on the payroll of one of Mexico's most powerful and notorious drug traffickers, Amado Carillo Fuentes. The arrest of Gutierrez symbolized the endemic drug corruption among Mexican law enforcement officials including those charged with fighting the war on drugs. As the facts of the case emerged, it became apparent that Gutierrez had arrested only those traffickers who worked for rivals of Carillo Fuentes--a development which suggested that arrests were more a product of inter- cartel rivalries than legitimate law enforcement activities. As I have said, only time and further investigation will demonstrate whether there were alliances between other senior military officials and major traffickers involved in this case. Throughout 1996 the Mexican government had taken no meaningful steps to address the problem of drug corruption within the law enforcement agencies. Although federal police officers were fired for corruption, none had been successfully prosecuted. Nor was Mexico's performance much better with respect to other indicators such as extraditions to the US, drug related arrests or implementation of laws dealing with money laundering and organized crime. The threat posed to the United States in 1998 from drug trafficking organizations in Mexico is little different from that posed in 1997. What is different, however, is the effort made by the Mexican government over the last year to deal with the primary obstacle to successful counter narcotics efforts: drug corruption within its own ranks. After the arrest of Gutierrez Rebollo on corruption charges, the Mexican government moved to reconstitute its drug law enforcement structure and to institute new vetting procedures to deal with the problem of corruption. The National Counternarcotics Institute (INCD), Mexico's leading anti-drug agency, was abolished and a new agency, the Special Prosecutor for Crimes Against Public Health (FEADS), was created under the Office of the Attorney General (PRG). A new Organized Crime Unit (OCU), established pursuant to the 1996 Organized Crime Law, has been established in the FEADs headquarters under the Attorney General's Office. When fully constituted, the OCU will have sub-units for each of the areas covered by Mexico's organized crime law including organized crime, money laundering, narcotics, kidnapping and terrorism. A Financial Crimes Unit has been set up under the Ministry of Finance, air-mobile special counter-drug units now operate under the Secret of National Defense and riverine units under the Mexican Navy. The Mexican government is also rebuilding the Bilateral Border Task Forces, although at present it is fair to say that the accomplishments in this area are few and that our own Drug Enforcement Agency refuses to allow American agents to cross the border for fear of their own security. Changing of the organizational chart means little unless steps are taken to ensure that the individuals working in these agencies are not corrupt. Since August 1996 the Mexican government has dismissed 777 federal police for corruption. Of these 268 have been ordered reinstated because of procedural errors in the dismissal process. However, it is important to note that their charges on drug corruption have not been dropped, and they have not been reassigned to counterdrug jobs. I know my colleagues who oppose certification regard these reinstatements as evidence of Mexico's failure or lack of political will to deal with the corruption problem. While I understand their skepticism, and perhaps share some of it, I believe that it is too early to rush to this judgment. Our own Civil Service law provides an appeals process for US government employees who have been dismissed, and our Foreign Service Act allows officers who have been dismissed to remain in the job throughout the appeals process. The real test on this issue is the ultimate fate of these individuals who have been reinstated and whether they are dismissed for corruption in the end and whether they are prosecuted. Last year the Office of the Attorney General opened corruption or abuse of authority cases against over 100 members of the federal judicial police and over 20 federal prosecutors. Links between the traffickers and judges as well as the judiciary's lenient attitude toward narco-traffickers and others brought up for drug related offenses are major obstacles to an effective counter narcotics effort in Mexico. The Mexican government has finally begun to deal with this problem. The National Judicial Council has recommended that charges be brought against three sitting judges for corruption and five judges have already been dismissed. The selection process for Supreme Court judges has now been changed to provide for judicial appointments based on examination. Last year the first group of judges selected by this method was seated. Admittedly these are small steps, but they are positive ones. The Mexican government has also put into place new, more rigorous processes for vetting those who will work in the newly established law enforcement structures. The Attorney General's office requires that all personnel assigned to FEADS (the Special Prosecutor's Office) pass suitability examinations. Those in sensitive units like the Organized Crime Unit are now screened through procedures which include extensive background checks; psychological, physical, drug and financial examinations; and polygraphs. According to Mexican officials, these checks will be repeated periodically during their tenure. Ultimately all employees working in the Attorney General's office are to be screened but those working in most sensitive units like FEADS and the OCU are the first to be screened. To date, 1300 have been through the screening process. US law enforcement agencies including DEA, the FBI and the Customs Service are assisting the Mexican government, at its request, in establishing comprehensive vetting processes and training those who conduct polygraphs and other technical examinations. For example, according to DEA Administrator Constantine, DEA has provided assistance to the Organized Crime Unit in the development of personnel selection systems and provided extensive narcotics enforcement training to the new OCU agents. I believe the very fact that US law enforcement agencies are working closely with Mexican government officials on this vetting process is enormously important to the ultimate goal of establishing corruption- free law enforcement agencies in Mexico. That cooperation could be seriously jeopardized if we decertify Mexico at this point. Since the Mexicans have chosen to put thorough screening processes in place, these new law enforcement entities are not fully staffed, and as a result their capacity to undertake investigations is somewhat limited. Nevertheless, by the end of last year, FEADS was conducting investigations and enforcement actions both unilaterally and in conjunction with US law enforcement agencies. Only time will tell whether these entities will be up to the task and whether the vetting processes now being followed will eliminate the corruption that has thwarted the Mexican government's ability to deal with drug traffickers effectively. However, I believe fairness requires that we recognize the effort Mexico has made in this last year to revamp its structure and personnel and that we give it some time to produce results. This year, in my judgment, is a transitional year for Mexico. If these entities are not fully staffed and functioning and if they fail to make some major inroads on the trafficking problem, then this Senator, for one, will find it very difficult to support certification next year. I know that many of my colleagues who oppose this year's certification make the argument that Mexico's cooperation is only at the political level and that at the working level, it is simply insufficient to warrant certificates. They cite various arguments including the fact that Mexico has not extradited and surrendered one Mexican national to the US on drug charges, that none of the top leaders of the Carrillo-Fuentes, Arellano-Felix, Caro-Qunitero or Amezcua-Contreras cartels have been arrested; and that seizures of heroin and methamphetamines and its precursor chemicals are down. I totally agree with their argument that Mexico needs to do more in these areas, but I believe if you look at the overall record, it is mixed. Take extraditions. In 1997 Mexico ordered more extraditions to the United States (27) than in the previous two years--a positive step. Fourteen of these are fugitives, whose extradition has been complicated by pending appeals or the need to complete sentences. Five of the 14 are Mexican nationals wanted for drug crimes but none of these have yet been surrendered. Notwithstanding these circumstances, the fact remains that Mexico has yet to turn over a Mexican national wanted for drug crimes to the US. Clearly we need improvement in this area. Turning to the question of arrests, it is true that Mexican officials have not apprehended the leadership of the major trafficking organizations. However, it is also true that pressure from Mexican law enforcement agencies forced the head of the Carriillo-Fuentes organization, Amado Carrillo-Fuentes, to disguise his appearance through cosmetic surgery--an operation which resulted in his death--and move some of his organization's operations. Mexican law enforcement operations, many in cooperation with US law enforcement officials, have resulted in the some significant arrests of middle level cartel operators, such as: Oscar Malherbe de Leon, operations manager for the Gulf cartel; Adan Amezcua Contreras, a lieutenant in the Amezcua organization which trafficks in methamphetamine; Jamie Gonzales-Castro and Manuel Bitar Tafich, middle manager and money launderer respectively of the Juarez cartel; and Arturo E. Paez-Martinex, a key lieutenant in the Tijuana cartel. While these individuals are not the kingpins, their apprehension has kept some pressure on the cartels and caused some disruption. Another test for Mexico's new law enforcement institutions in the next year will be their ability and willingness to go after the kingpins. I have always been skeptical of seizure statistics because they are valid only if one knows the universe of product available and often we do not. Nevertheless, the conventional wisdom seems to be that statistics have a story to tell so I will take a moment to review some of the statistics relevant to this debate. Although heroin seizures were down last year, seizures of opium increased. Mexican eradication efforts led to a decrease in the number of hectares of opium poppy and consequently the potential amount of opium and heroin on the market. Mexican efforts to deal with marijuana production are similar. Mexican eradication efforts decreased the number of hectares of marijuana dramatically; at the same time, seizures went up to the highest level ever. Seizures of cocaine increased by 48 percent in 1997 as well. What is noteworthy in all of these areas is that Mexican efforts demonstrate a positive, upward trend. However, the statistics for seizures of methamphetamine and ephedrine, its precursor chemical, are down, as some of my colleagues have pointed out. Given the growing methamphetamine market in the US, we must insist that Mexico's efforts in this area improve. I, for one, am persuaded that seizures alone will not address the problem. The producers and traffickers must be targeted. Mexico has taken some steps to improve its ability to deal with money laundering, including the passage of a money laundering law and the subsequent promulgation of regulations for currency transaction reports. Regulations to deal with suspicious transactions are said to be imminent. Laws and regulations, regulations are meaningful only if they are implemented. Mexico has reopened some 70 cases and entered into 16 joint investigations with the US. I am prepared to give Mexico some time in this area, with the caveat that we must see some results by this time next year. Mr. President, last year, when the certification of Mexico was allowed to stand, we made it clear that genuine progress had to be made in 1997 if Mexico was to be certified again this year. On balance, I believe that Mexico has made progress and that fairness requires us to recognize that fact. If we decertify Mexico now, in the face of that progress, we run the risk of jeopardizing that progress and of cutting off the very cooperation with US law enforcement agencies that has encouraged and helped Mexico to make progress this year. That outcome makes no sense in terms of our counter narcotics goals. I am prepared to see the President's certification stand this year. However, it is essential that we make it clear that this is a transitional year for Mexico--a year in which to build its new law enforcement agencies into effective institutions unaffected by drug corruption and dedicated to making some serious progress on the ground. The vetting process must be accelerated. Greater efforts must be made to target the leadership of the cartels. The problem of security for US agents working across the border must be adequately addressed and the border task forces must be reconstituted in a meaningful, productive manner. Prosecutions of those charged with drug corruption or drug related crimes must take place and efforts to root out drug corruption in all Mexican agencies dealing with counter narcotics activities must be accelerated. Absence progress in these critical areas, it will be difficult for Mexico to be certified next year.

Mr. KERRY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Is the remaining time divided between proponents and opponents, or Democrats and Republicans?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senators from West Virginia and Maine as a co-sponsor of this very important legislation on behalf of America's children. Senators Rockefeller and Snowe have long been leaders in the effort to crack down on delinquent parents who would deny their children the much- needed financial support to which they are entitled. I commend their dedication to this worthy cause. Each year, as much as $15 to $25 billion in child support remains uncollected. Of the 5.4 million single mothers who were owed child support in 1994, slightly more than half received the full amount due, while one quarter received partial payment and one quarter received not a penny. The delinquency of deadbeat parents is not only a disgrace, but also an emergency, as it primarily impacts the neediest children of this nation. One of every four children in America lives in a single parent family, 18.7 million children in all. Half of these children live at or below the poverty level, compared with only slightly more than one out of every ten children in two-parent families. The Rockefeller-Snowe-Kerry Child Support Performance Act of 1997 aims to restructure and improve the federal performance incentive system for state collection of child support. It does so by replacing the system's current emphasis on the cost effectiveness of state programs with one that recognizes substantive achievements. Moreover, the bill requires states to use federal incentives payments to supplement, not supplant, existing state expenditures to enforce child support orders. I am particularly committed to working toward the goal of passing the medical support component of the Rockefeller-Snowe-Kerry bill. Although federal law requires state child support enforcement agencies to pursue medical support--particularly, health insurance coverage--when it is available to non-custodial parents at a reasonable cost, only 60 percent of established child support orders included medical support in 1995. Moreover, the General Accounting Office has reported that as many as 20 states were not enforcing existing medical support orders. This legislation addresses the inability of children of single parents to receive this crucial form of support by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop and implement a medical support performance factor. Enabling child support agencies to enforce the requirement for medical support through ERISA-protected plans would shift many of the 700,000 children who currently receive public health coverage to private health insurance, thereby reducing significantly the cost to the public. Mr. President, my colleagues and I are determined to ensure that the millions of American children who are being short-changed by the non- payment of child support, and medical support particularly, get help in the form of stricter enforcement. We are confident that the Rockefeller-Snowe-Kerry approach will make great strides toward this end and urge all of our colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Absolutely. I suggested I would wrap up quickly when Senators came to the floor, and I will do that right now. What I am saying is it is obvious to me and many others that you cannot go on with the current model of what is happening in our public school system. It is absolutely clear to me that we need greater accountability. In many States people are working to do that through testing, through standards, through teacher standards, new qualifications--a whole set of things that I, again, will talk about at another time. The bottom line is that you cannot come here and not recognize that there is no way, even if you embrace charter schools, that you could create enough charter schools fast enough to save a generation. The fact is that 90 percent of our kids are in a system that provided the generation that brought us through World War I and World War II, that created the greatness of this country during the course of this century. I can take Senators to any number of schools, as they could go to in their own States, that are wonderful public schools, that work. They work because they have great principals, great teachers, great resources, and a great commitment from parents. And they are accountable. Then we can go to pure disasters in other parts of all of our States. What we ought to do is come to the floor with a responsible effort that tries to address how we are going to provide the structure and the resources to deal with the problem schools while not pulling the rug out from under those schools that work. That is why I think it is so important to look for an alternative, or at least work out some kind of compromise to what the Senator from Georgia is proposing. I thank my colleague for his courtesy, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is an enormous amount of rhetoric today at many different levels of Government about education. There is also a lot of good, genuine effort in many States, literally, as well as here at the national level, to try to address some of the very real questions about education. What is clear to me, though, and I think to other Members, is that there is still an enormous gap between the reality of what is happening in many of our schools and those things we are choosing to do at the national level. It seems clear to almost everybody who talks about education that nothing is more important than providing the children of America a system with opportunity that is second to nobody in the world. But as the test scores and other aspects of our education system are indicating, we really lag way behind the full measure of the ability that we have as a country to do that. We are failing too many of our children today. We have too many crumbling schools. We have too many overcrowded classrooms. We have too many inadequately prepared teachers. And, regrettably, the bill on which we will be voting on a motion to proceed later this morning, while I think it has good intentions and even some good components that, if they were part of a larger effort, might make sense, simply does not do anything to address the fundamental problems that we have in the country. Perhaps I should amend that. I guess it is not fair to say it doesn't do anything. It certainly puts money in the hands of a certain group of people, and for them there is a benefit. So you cannot say it doesn't do anything. But the question you have to ask is, is that the first place we ought to begin with some kind of Band-Aid solution to a much larger problem? And is that the solution that the U.S. Senate ought to adopt in a free-standing effort? I respectfully suggest to my colleagues that as legitimate as the fundamental concept of some kind of savings account might be, this particular bill, this particular set-aside, this particular savings account, does an injustice to the rest of the education needs of the country, and it also serves those people who are already doing pretty well and not those in need or for whom there is a much more serious set of remedies needed. In many ways what the Senator from Georgia is proposing could wind up inadvertently making things far worse for the overall educational system. I want to make it clear, and I will be trying to do this more and more in the next weeks, that I think there are some enormous fundamental flaws in the educational system of the country. Notwithstanding 20 years of discussions in various national fora that have brought the governments together with Presidents and otherwise, and notwithstanding all of the outside reports that have been commissioned with respect to our education system, the truth is that today the system continues to implode, almost. Also, notwithstanding the remarkable efforts of individual teachers and individual schools, the fact is there are more and more poor young people in America, there are more and more pressures on the education system, and there are more and more difficulties that teachers need to deal with and principals need to deal with, particularly in inner cities and also in some rural areas. Our schools are attempting to do what no other school system on the face of the planet attempts to do, which is to bring so many different people of different languages and different cultures and different races together under one roof, too often with total inadequacy of resources and structure. I don't think it's that hard, frankly, to analyze what is wrong. What appears to be hard is the building of a consensus, a coalition that is willing to tackle the things that we know are wrong. I will also be saying a lot more about that in the days ahead. But the problem with the Coverdell bill is what we really need is an overall approach that deals with the problems where 90 percent of our children are being educated. Mr. President, 90 percent of America's children are in the public school system. What we are witnessing in the Coverdell bill is an approach that drains away from that 90 percent a certain amount of the existing support and permits those people who get the benefit of the money that is drained away to be able to do what they want with it. That is a very nice idea. I do not object, as I say, in principle, to allowing people to have choice within the education system, and also to have some choices about the quality of where they are going to send their kids to school. But the Coverdell bill expands the tax-free education savings accounts to a level, $2,000 a year, replacing the current $500 cap, which would also expand the allowable use of those funds for education expenses for public, private, and religious schools, which obviously raises another subset of questions. But the great majority of families--and here is the most important point--the great majority of families would get little or no tax break from this legislation. We have to ask ourselves some tough questions as we make some choices here in the Senate and in the budget process about where we spend our money. I do not think it's that tough a choice to ask what is the justification for providing 70 percent of the benefits of this effort to families in the top 20 percent of income in America? I do not understand that. We know we are creating more poor people. We know the public schools that are hurting the most are the public schools where there is the least amount of property tax base. We know the public schools that are hurting are schools where they do not have enough money to pay teachers enough or they do not have enough money to put the computers in or enough money to fix roofs that are leaking or to have air-conditioning so kids have a decent environment to learn in, or even to have some of the important programs that ought to be part of learning--whether it's sports or music or a new science laboratory or art. These are all things that have been cut in recent years, and predominantly cut in those school districts that cannot afford to keep them because they do not have the tax base. So what are we doing? We are going to talk about turning around and giving 70 percent of revenue that we are going to give up, $1.6 billion we are going to give up, in order that people in the top 20 percent of income-earners in America can do better. When you are asking Americans to tighten their belts, and you are asking Americans to come together around notions of fundamental fairness, it is pretty hard to say to them that in the midst of some of the chaos that we see in the public education system, the first thing we are going to do is turn around and allow the people who are doing the best in America to take the most amount of money from our first effort. The fact is people earning less than $50,000 would get an average tax cut of only $2.50 from this legislation. How do you justify that? There is not a Senator here who does not come to the floor at one time or another and talk about the problems of youth in America, the problems of illegitimacy, of births out of wedlock, the problems of kids who have no place to go after school, of kids who wind up smoking cigarettes or doing drugs and getting into trouble. We spend billions of dollars every year in order to address those after the fact, and here we are about to consider a piece of legislation that suggests that we ought to take the money out of the current expenditure that we put in the Federal level and give it to people who are earning the most money in America, a $1.6 billion price tag over the next 10 years. The Joint Committee on Taxation has found that half of the benefits would go to the 7 percent of families with children in private schools--half of the benefits of the $1.6 billion will go to the children and their families who are already in private schools. You know, it's one thing to criticize our public schools; it's another to suggest that they are responsible for their own faults when they depend upon the public dollar. If we take the public dollar away from them and then we turn around and just criticize them, it seems to me we are building the capacity for failure into the system. As I said before the Senator who proposed this came to the floor, I think there are merits in the concept of a savings program. I am perfectly happy to embrace a legitimate effort to create a private savings capacity to encourage people to be able to put money away to send their kids to school. That is a legitimate goal. But surely we have the ability to do it in a way that spreads the benefit more evenly across the need in this country. You simply cannot ignore as the country has been getting richer and richer in the last 10 or 15 years, we have more and more poor people, particularly poor children. The number of poor children in America is going up, as is the number of children in need within our inner cities who deserve equally as good an opportunity at a decent school as the kids of these other parents, and they ought to get one. So I am perfectly prepared to embrace the concept, but I want to do it in a way that is part of an overall effort that suggests that we understand the larger question of what our public education system needs. We Democrats would like to be able to propose a substitute and some alternatives that would help the vast majority of working families. Our bill would provide tax credits to subsidize school modernization bonds to enable States and local public school districts to provide safe and modern schools that are well-equipped in order to provide students with educations for the 21st century. One-half of the funds in our bill would be targeted to schools with the greatest number of low-income children, and States would be permitted to decide where to distribute the remaining half of those funds. Our bill would help more than 5,000 schools modernize so we can reduce class size and provide a safer environment. Let's be honest. It is not hard to figure out why so many parents are looking for an alternative to some of the public schools. I am a parent. I have two kids who we chose, ultimately, not to send to a public school because we did not have confidence, as a lot of parents do not, for one reason or another. I regret that. I actually moved where I moved with the hopes that we would send them to the public school system. You know, all of us are faced with this choice. Probably too many of us in the U.S. Senate who have had kids have opted for something else, and we have been able to do that. That, frankly, increases the burden on us, not decreases it. It increases the burden on us to understand what most American parents are thinking as they make choices about their kids. So, today, people are voting with their feet. They are voting with their feet. They want vouchers; they want charter schools; they are even opting for home teaching.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that at 11 o'clock Members from the other side of the aisle will be coming in. I think the moment is close to that. I do not have that long a presentation, but I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for such time as I need, which will not be very long.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Pennsylvania for introducing this resolution, which I supported when it was considered by the Committee on Foreign Relations and again supported on the vote just taken. Our world has come a long way since the dawn of civilization. As human beings have evolved biologically and eventually socially, we have come to realize that we can safely and happily live together on this globe only if we abide by certain rules of behavior. The course of civilization is, in large measure, the history of humankind's increasing and increasingly sophisticated efforts to define acceptable and unacceptable behavior--for individuals, groups, and nations, and our successes and failures to abide by those definitions and the consequences of those successes and failures. Other Senators, Mr. President, particularly the resolution's principal sponsor and a key cosponsor, the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], have set forth in considerable detail the bill of particulars against the dictator of Iraq. Those include documented chemical weapons attacks against Iranian troops and civilians in the Iran-Iraq War. They include chemical weapons attacks against Kurds in Iraq--Iraqi citizens, keep in mind--leaving behind the most revolting human injuries imaginable. Men, women, children, infants--no one was spared. Many died immediately. Many who managed to survive wished they had died. Some of them died later with no interruption in their agony-- blindness, peeling skin, gaping sores, asphyxiation. And others, even if they did not evince the same signs of injury, have transmitted the horror of those attacks across time and even generations. Terrible birth defects have afflicted the offspring of many who survived Saddam Hussein's attacks. The rate of miscarriages and stillbirths has soared for those survivors. We do not know why Saddam Hussein chose not to use these weapons against the Coalition troops in the Gulf War that resulted from his invasion and occupation of Kuwait. We do know that he had them in his inventory, and the means of delivering them. We do know that his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons development programs were proceeding with his active support. We have evidence, collected by the United Nations's inspectors during those inspections that Saddam Hussein has permitted them to make, that despite his pledges at the conclusion of the war that no further work would be done in these weapons of mass destruction programs, and that all prior work and weapons that resulted from it would be destroyed, this work has continued illegally and covertly. And, Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. Saddam Hussein has not limited his unspeakable actions to use of weapons of mass destruction. He and his loyalists have proven themselves quite comfortable with old fashioned instruments and techniques of torture--both physical and psychological. During the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Kuwaiti women were systematically raped and otherwise assaulted. The accounts of the torture chambers in his permanent and makeshift prisons and detention facilities are gruesome by any measure. Mr. President, Saddam Hussein's actions in terrorizing his own people and in using horrible weapons and means of torture against those who oppose him, be they his own countrymen and women or citizens of other nations, collectively comprise the definition of crimes against humanity. I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally- recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the weapons inspection standoff--and I will say clearly that I cannot conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point--we must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses. But the vote this morning was about a different albeit related matter today. It was about initiating a process of bringing the world's opprobrium to bear on this reprehensible criminal--to officially designate Saddam Hussein as that which we know him to be. We are realists, Mr. President. Even if this process leads as we believe it will to the conviction of Saddam Hussein under international law, our ability to carry out any resulting sentence may be constrained as long as he remains in power in Baghdad. But Saddam Hussein will not remain in power in Baghdad forever. Eventually, if we persist out of dedication to the cause that we must never permit anyone one who treats other human beings the way he has treated tens of thousands of human beings to escape justice, we will bring Saddam Hussein to justice. And in the meantime, his conviction on these charges may prove of benefit to our efforts to isolate him and his government, and to rally the support of other nations around the world to the effort to remove him from power. I am pleased, Mr. President, that this resolution was agreed to unanimously, and hopeful that soon the machinery of international law will be applied as it was designed to label Saddam Hussein as the horrific murderer and torturer he is, recognition he richly deserves.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself, with the permission of the manager, such time as I may use. I have listened carefully now to a number of the arguments for the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, and I am confident that a good many of my colleagues will join me in adamantly opposing this amendment and, most important, the arguments and the approach that underlie it. This is a very, very significant debate for the Senate, and it is the first very significant confrontation, though it will probably--not probably, certainly--not be the last on the issue of race. This is a fundamental challenge to an effort that this country has undertaken to make real the promises of our Founding Fathers and the fundamental values of our Nation: economic opportunity, equal opportunity, a chance to be able to share in the remarkable assets of our Nation. I listened carefully to the Senator from Missouri, and one phrase in particular in his comments that he kept repeating was that the economy of America doesn't make decisions based on race; let me repeat, the economy of America doesn't make decisions based on race. First of all, I respectfully submit to my friend from Missouri, the economy, per se, doesn't make the decisions; people make the decisions, people within the economy, CEOs of companies, boards of directors, shareholders, whole companies, individual employers, wholly owned subsidiaries. But it is individuals, it is the bosses who hire, it is the individuals who commit a company to a particular direction. The fact is that individuals in America discriminate. Even in 1998 they discriminate, and anybody who believes that there is not sufficient level of discrimination with respect to women-owned businesses and minority-owned businesses, minorities themselves or women themselves within the marketplace is not looking at the statistics, is not looking at the cases, is not looking at the evidence which clearly documents the existence of that discrimination. I will say more about that in a minute, Mr. President. There are three fundamental reasons why we should not accept the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. Reason No. 1 is the program for disadvantaged business enterprises, the DBE Program, is constitutional. It will pass constitutional muster, contrary to the arguments that are being set forth. Secondly, because of the discrimination that I have just broadly pointed to, it is necessary. And thirdly, Mr. President, it works; it works brilliantly. There is no reason that we should take a program which already reaches out to a very small group of disadvantaged people and broaden the definitions so as to give more of the very little that goes to the disadvantaged to the vast majority who are already getting the vast majority of what the Federal Government expends in its programs. I might add, there is, indeed, a compelling interest in the Federal Government making this kind of choice about how the Federal Government will expend Federal dollars. Mr. President, let me point out, first of all, this is not a quota. It is a set-aside of a specific amount of money, but there is no specific direction as to who gets that amount of money. There is no quota of numbers of women, no quotas of numbers of particular races. It is open to any disadvantaged business enterprise. And while we set aside a very specific sum of money, we do not allocate it with specificity. We set a national goal. And it is appropriate in this country to set national goals for what we will do to try to break down the walls of discrimination, the barriers against equal opportunity, in order to give people an opportunity to share in the full breadth of the upside of the economy of our Nation. Mr. President, this goal is renegotiated annually. And it has worked very well to encourage disadvantaged business participation in these contracts. I add, most States have exceeded the 10 percent goal, but there is flexibility where it is needed. And existing law authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to lower that goal in order to respond to local conditions. So when my colleague says that there has to be a level of flexibility, and it has to be narrowly defined, I respectfully suggest that part of that narrowness is met by the fact that the Secretary of Transportation has the ability to lower that goal under very clear circumstances. I point out to my colleagues that since this program began, first as an administrative initiative in the late 1970s, and later by statute in 1982, it has been an extraordinarily successful tool for leveling the playing field in Government contracting and for remedying racial and sex discrimination, which still persist. I add to my colleagues, where you have a showing of clear cases or a history or a pattern or instances of this kind of discrimination, we have an affirmative obligation, both a statutory one and a moral one, to make certain that we are going to do something very specific to respond to that kind of discrimination. And, as I will show, the evidence is so overwhelming as to what happens when you do not have it, that it is clear why there is a compelling interest for the Government to put this kind of effort into place. Many of the firms that have been able to use the program, the women- owned firms or minority-owned businesses, literally would have been excluded from doing so altogether were it not for the DBE program. And it is not, as my colleague from Missouri said--he kept saying that since we set up this kind of goal, some people of race believe that they are at a disadvantage because of their race. Ask people who participate in the program. There are countless people who will tell you they never believed they were disadvantaged. They do not think they are disadvantaged today. And, in fact, it is only because of the existence of the program that they have been able to prove to people that not only do they not believe they are disadvantaged, but they are not because they can perform equally as well as any majority firm. And that, in fact, has been a record which has prompted many States to come back and be extraordinarily supportive of the program. In 1996, I am pleased to say, Massachusetts exceeded its goal of providing 11 percent of the Federally assisted highway dollars to DBEs by providing about 13.6 percent in total to DBEs. And I add, in one multi-year project alone, Massachusetts provided 147 women-owned businesses and 227 minority-owned businesses with an aggregate amount of some $500 million of contracts. And the program has been an enormous success and very well received, Mr. President. So, let me look at the constitutional issue for a moment, if I may. Contrary to the arguments of the Senator from Missouri, and others, I believe that a careful examination of the Adarand case will show that the Court made it very clear that ``strict scrutiny,'' as he said, is the appropriate constitutional review standard. But that means that you then look to the ``compelling State interest'' and to the ``narrowly tailored'' definition in order to see whether or not it will pass muster. Unfortunately, Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, there are just countless examples across the country of what happens when you do not have this kind of effort. Although minorities make up over 20 percent of the population, minority-owned firms constitute only 9 percent of all U.S. construction firms, and a mere 5 percent of Federal construction receipts. So you can see the sort of downward curve between total levels of population, levels of construction, and then levels of receipts with respect to the outlays by the United States to those firms. Women own approximately 9.2 percent of the Nation's construction firms, but according to the Urban Institute's recent study, their companies earn only half of what is earned by their male-owned counterparts. Now, let us look at this question of ``narrowly tailored,'' Mr. President. The DBE program is a very flexibly defined program. It allows for each State to respond to local conditions. And, by definition, by allowing each State to respond to the needs of that State, it becomes very narrowly tailored. In the implementation, the DBE program has authority to waive the DBE goal. It can waive it completely where it is not possible to achieve the goal in a particular contract or for a given year. In addition, the Department of Transportation recently proposed regulations to modify the program even further so as to help with compliance with the Adarand test. So you cannot come to the floor of the Senate and measure the program exclusively by what might have been in place several years ago, since already proposed are a set of requirements that respond very specifically to the requirements of the Adarand test. In fact, the Department of Transportation has received over 300 public comments in response to the proposed rules. And the States that commented on the rules overwhelmingly supported the Federal DBE program. Let me call the Senate's attention to the specific regulatory changes which deal with this question of ``narrowly tailored'' and of ``flexibility,'' and which clearly bring it within constitutional muster. First of all, the Department of Transportation is building even more flexibility into the program by setting goals that reflect the availability and the capacity of DBEs in a given market. And the contract recipients will be allowed greater flexibility to consider local circumstances in formulating their plans to achieve DBE participation. Second, states and localities implementing the DBE program will be directed to use race neutral--let me emphasize this. The Senator from Missouri kept saying the decision will be made on the basis of race. In fact, there are specific race-neutral aspects to the program, such as outreach, training, technical assistance, and simplifying bonding or surety costs in the bid preparation. And those are used in order to achieve as broad a DBE participation as possible before any race-based aspect of the program is used. So the race-based aspect is pushed way down to the bottom of the list of criteria--only if you cannot satisfy the goals by virtue of those original considerations. Third, the new regulations will reinforce existing provisions to ensure that firms owned by wealthy individuals are not certified as DBEs and to clarify that non-minority individuals who have suffered discrimination can be certified as DBE owners and become eligible to receive the same program benefits as minority-owned DBEs. Now, I do not see how anybody, examining those three regulatory changes as a consequence of the Adarand decision, could say that that is not a legitimate effort to meet the standards of ``narrowly tailored'' and of ``flexibility.'' Mr. President, let me turn to the question of ``compelling interest'' and of ``need.'' Because in addition to being constitutional on its face, it is my judgment that only at peril could you turn your back on the reality of what has happened in many parts of our country. In some States, the State DBE goals were repealed. So let us look at what happened where they were repealed, Mr. President. Was it a neutral reaction? No. Was it a marginal reaction? No. In point of fact, it was a draconian step backwards. Without a State goal for DBEs, the contracts to women-owned and minority-owned construction businesses in a number of different States plummeted. We see prime contractors that use DBEs on Federally-assisted construction projects which had DBE goals often excluded DBE goals on State projects where there were no State goals. So in other words, you could have a company come in and they would be adhering to the Federal standards, but where there was no State goal they made absolutely no effort whatsoever in order to try to reach out to a disadvantaged businesses in their State-sponsored contracts. In Michigan, just to take one example, within 9 months of ending the State DBE program, minority-owned businesses were completely shut out of the State highway construction projects. They received no contracts at all. By 1996, there was a tiny rebound to 1.1 percent, representing only 31 subcontracts. This compared to Michigan's Federal DBE participation of 554 subcontracts worth 12.7 percent. That is the difference, Mr. President--12.7 percent versus first none--zero; then creeping up to 1.1 percent. Louisiana experienced a similar disparity between Federal DBE participation, where the 1996 DBE negotiated goal was 10 percent, and State participation where there was no State DBE program. In Federally assisted projects, disadvantaged women-owned and minority-owned contractors received 160 prime and subcontracts worth 12.4 percent of Louisiana's Federal contract dollars, compared to a State participation in a mere two prime contracts and 12 subcontracts. That was worth only .4 percent of the State highway construction dollars. In Hillsborough County, FL, awards to minority-owned contractors fell by 99 percent--99 percent--after the minority contracting program was ended. In San Jose, CA, suspension of the city's minority contracting program in 1989 resulted in a decrease of more than 80 percent in minority business participation in the city's prime contracts. Now, I ask my colleagues, is that just the economy of our country speaking, an economy at one moment that is capable of having 12 percent and at another moment, where they lose the incentive to do it, to drop down to zero, to drop down by 99 percent, to drop down by 80 percent, to have .4 percent at the State level while at the Federal level there are 12 percent? You could not have a more compelling interest if you tried, for understanding why it is that in this country we need to continue to break down those barriers of resistance. And there is nothing compelling in the proposal to take away from that marginal percentage and give it to those majority contracts and contractors who already are getting the lion's share of what we expend for transit and highway construction at the Federal level in this Nation. Mr. President, as the Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, I find two aspects of this McConnell amendment particularly troubling. First, the amendment expands the definition of who is eligible for help to include the vast majority of construction firms. Now, I am in favor of helping small businesses. We have done a lot in the Small Business Committee to make sure that they are helped. As a group, they ought to receive a greater percentage of Federal contract opportunities. And I want them to. All of the growth in our economy comes from small businesses. In fact, I cosponsored a bill with Chairman Bond last year that raised the small business Federal contracting goal from 20 percent to 23 percent. But this program is intended to help level the playing field for businesses owned by individuals that have historically suffered racial, ethnic or sex discrimination in Federal construction contracting and that continue to suffer that kind of discrimination. It helps women- owned businesses, minority-owned businesses, and majority-owned businesses that have suffered discrimination. They receive about 15 percent of the Department of Transportation-assisted contract dollars. Mr. President, the other 85 percent still goes to nondisadvantaged majority-owned companies. To increase the assistance to that universe of businesses that, according to the Federal Procurement Data Center, now receive 62 percent of contracts above $25,000, and a higher percentage of those below, would dilute the very salutary effects of the program on companies owned by truly disadvantaged individuals. Second, and finally, the amendment proposes that the Senate substitute requirements for outreach compilations and directories of assistance and surveys of existing emerging businesses for the national DBE goal and the current DBE program. The proposed substitute program will be expensive to implement because of the detailed requirements for compilation and directories and the frequency with which updates have to be performed. In addition to being expensive to implement, much of what is proposed as the substitute for the DBE program is simply duplicative of aspects of the existing DBE program and many of the Small Business Administration's programs that are already in place. Each year, the SBA provides outreach, training, technical, bonding, and surety assistance to thousands of Federal contractors through a wide variety of programs. Those programs include the SBA's procurement center representatives, its more than 950 Small Business Development Centers, its Women's Business Centers, and assistance provided through the procurement and minority small business staff in SBA's network of 69 offices throughout the country. It is hardly necessary to duplicate that or to come at it with some kind of add-on program. Mr. President, time has shown that the DBE program works. It is a program that meets constitutional muster. It is a program that has a rational, national compelling interest. I hope that my colleagues will not undo what has proven to be of enormous benefit to countless minority- and women-owned businesses in the country. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join Senator Moynihan in supporting his legislation to designate the headquarters building of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in Washington, D.C. as the ``Robert C. Weaver Federal Building.'' Robert Weaver was a stalwart leader in the fight to build a society free from racial prejudice and discrimination. He spent his life in a pursuit of equality and a campaign to end all forms of discrimination based on race. Dr. Weaver was a member of ``the black cabinet'' which sought to ensure that the new government projects of the New Deal applied to and benefitted minority groups during the Roosevelt Administration. His personal crusade led for civil rights led to the selection of the first African-American to be a general in the Army, the naming of the first African-American to be a civilian aide to the Secretary of War, and the appointment of the first African-American to be a high-ranking aide to the head of the Selective Service. In 1955, Dr. Weaver began a long career in housing when he was appointed Deputy Commissioner of Housing for the State of New York. Later that year, he became the state rent administrator. In 1960, Dr. Weaver was selected to be the vice-chairman of the New York City Housing Redevelopment Board, a three-member body responsible for administering the city's urban renewal and moderate-income housing programs. Dr. Weaver's reputation as a skilled housing policy and program practitioner soon extended well beyond New York. President John K. Kennedy named Dr. Weaver as Administrator of the Federal Housing and Home Finance Agency, and President Lyndon Johnson nominated him to be the first Secretary of Housing and Urban Development when the Department of Housing and Urban Development was formed in 1966. Dr. Weaver's leadership and vision set the course for the future of the housing and urban redevelopment industries. Past Federal housing programs had focused largely on ``bricks-and-mortar'' policies, but Dr. Weaver believed that ``you cannot have physical renewal without human renewal.'' His principal concern was to raise the standard of urban housing and to move away from the bleak high rise projects that scarred the urban landscape and were the origins of many inner city social problems that were just beginning to be recognized. He used all of his various positions and considerable experience to advocate effective public programs to house all Americans and to revitalize communities. He was a true visionary who fought to expand the possibilities of all Americans. I can think of no better person to name the first building to house the Department of Housing and Urban Development than Dr. Robert Clifton Weaver, the first African-American Cabinet member in New York State, the first African-American member of a President's cabinet, and the federal government's first Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. This tribute is even more fitting because Robert Weaver, along with then Vice-President Hubert H. Humphrey and others, laid the cornerstone of this building during his tenure as Secretary.