John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Arizona for his comments, for his steadfast efforts and leadership on this and, speaking for Senator Daschle who is not here at this moment and for the leadership on this side, we would like to make it very clear that what Senator McCain has said we are determined to try to help effect. We are determined that we will bring back campaign finance reform again and again and again until we have the ability to vote up or down on either McCain-Feingold or on some measure of full reform. I think Senator McCain has appropriately suggested that ultimately the will of the Senate can't be held down on a matter like this. Senators will have to vote one way or the other in order to make their positions clear, and the will of the Senate ultimately will be heard. We, on our side, are particularly grateful to Senator Feingold for his leadership, but, Mr. President, we regret enormously that the American people were not permitted to have one amendment properly voted on and debated. Not one. Not once in this important issue, where 88 percent of the American people believe we ought to have reform, was the U.S. Senate, known as the world's greatest deliberative body, able to truly deliberate. Some would argue deliberation comes in many forms and a filibuster is a form of that deliberation. But everyone knows that a majority of this Senate was prepared to vote for this bill as it is today. This bill will come back again and again until the Senate has a chance to work its will. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as the ranking Democratic member of the Housing subcommittee, I spoke earlier today about very significant housing provisions in the VA-HUD conference agreement. I would like now to address some other components of this legislation which I believe to be very important to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the nation. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work of the Chairman of the VA- HUD appropriations subcommittee, Senator Bond, and the ranking member, Senator Mikulski, in crafting a bill which gives such serious consideration to the needs of the people of Massachusetts. Mr. President, the subcommittee has allocated $50 million for the clean-up of Boston Harbor, a modest sum given the magnitude of the challenge and the scope and cost of the clean-up project. While the residents of Boston continue to face rising water and sewer rates, these rates are not nearly as high as they would be without the assistance of the federal government. The Boston Harbor clean-up project construction will be completed in the next two years. Federal assistance in these two remaining years will be crucial to ratepayers in the 43 greater Boston area communities who must shoulder most of the burden of the $3.5 billion project, which also includes the $2 billion required for combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and other water infrastructure upgrades. The President s fiscal year 1998 budget provided $200 million over the next two years for the Boston Harbor cleanup--which we anticipate will be the last increment of funding assistance needed from the federal government for this important infrastructure project. Even if this amount is forthcoming, the federal share of the Boston Harbor clean-up project still will be well below the federal share provided for many other clean water projects across the country, and is certainly well below the full federal funding called for by Congress when it passed the Unfunded Mandates Act in 1995. The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), which is in charge of the Harbor cleanup, has continually worked to reduce project costs. Last year, Mr. President, the EPA approved a revised CSO plan developed by the MWRA, with assistance from the state Department of Environmental Protection and local communities, which is estimated to save ratepayers nearly one billion dollars. During the early 1990s, under the past two Administrations--one Republican and one Democratic--the federal government provided $100 million per year to assist the citizens of the greater Boston area with this project. In FY 1996, although the President requested $100 million and I supported his request, Congress appropriated only $50 million for the cleanup of Boston Harbor. For FY 1997, while the President again requested $100 million, the Congress appropriated $75 million as the federal share. All federal assistance is needed and appreciated, so in that respect, I and the people of the Boston area are grateful for the $50 million contained in this year's VA/HUD bill. Nonetheless, we are disappointed the Congress, again, did not provide the amount contained in the President's budget. I am extremely pleased that the conference report includes $3 million for water projects for Bristol County, Massachusetts. This amount is the same as the President's fiscal year 1998 budget request and will continue the support which the Committee provided in the past two years. Both Fall River and New Bedford, two major cities in Bristol County, are implementing court-ordered construction under the Clean Water Act that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. These urban industrial communities continue to be burdened by high unemployment and an ongoing recession. In addition, Mr. President, I am delighted the conference report includes a $1.7 million appropriation for water projects in the South Essex Sewage District and surrounding communities such as Lynn, Gloucester and elsewhere. These communities are struggling with the prospect of incurring obligations from $12,000 to $22,000 per household to come into compliance with current clean water regulations. Despite successful efforts to control costs, the projected costs are still huge and growing in the South Essex Sewage District: In 1993 the projected costs were $12.6 million and now, for 1998, the projected costs are estimated at $29 million. Federal assistance is critical to ease the burden of compliance on these communities and to further the national goal of protecting our environment. Mr. President, the conference report also includes funding of $2 million for the Tapley Street project in Springfield, Massachusetts, which involves renovation of a former U.S. Postal Service distribution facility that was purchased by Springfield, in 1986 and is now vacant. This building will make an ideal site for consolidated public works operations that are currently scattered among several inadequate facilities, including a condemned yard and a makeshift garage in a different town. These deficiencies take a serious toll on city-owned public works equipment, employee morale and efficiencies of city services. The renovation will create 300 construction jobs in an area that has been hard-hit by an economic downturn and defense cut-backs. Mr. President, among the important national program in this conference report, several are of particular interest to me. YouthBuild, which is funded at $35 million in this conference agreement for fiscal year 1998, is an extremely worthwhile program and a demonstrated success. YouthBuild programs around the country have been providing disadvantaged young people with the opportunity to finish their education while also providing leadership training and job skills through work on projects producing affordable housing. I am pleased that the conference report recognizes the need to continue and fund this program. I hope that next year, the amount of funding provided for it will be much closer to the $70 million 48 other Senators joined me in requesting for fiscal year 1998 in order to enable establishment of YouthBuild programs in communities around the country where there currently is no program. Another important national program in the conference report is the Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS program, which is the heart of the federal housing response for people living with HIV/AIDS. I am pleased that HOPWA is funded at $204 million for fiscal year 1998. Mr. President, ninety percent of the HOPWA funds are distributed by formula grants to states and localities hit hardest by the AIDS epidemic; these states and localities control the use of these funds. Communities may use HOPWA funds to meet whatever housing needs they may have, from providing short-term supportive housing or rental assistance for low- income persons with HIV/AIDS to building community residences or providing coordinated home care services. Finally, Mr. President, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and the HOME investment partnership program are arguably the most important federal programs for addressing the economic development and affordable housing needs of our nation's communities. I strongly urged the conferees to provide funding for both programs at levels at least equal to the FY 1996 appropriation of $4.6 billion for CDBG and $1.5 billion for HOME in addition to any Congressional set-asides. Both programs share the important feature of providing local flexibility within broad federal goals and purposes. The success of both programs merits continued strong federal support for CDBG and HOME even as other federal programs are being cut back. The conference agreement does, in fact, include those amounts for the two programs, but I am concerned because Congressional set-asides will be deducted from those levels. I will continue to support additional funding for both CDBG and HOME in future appropriations bills. Mr. President, in total, this conference report is a laudable effort by the subcommittee and especially its Chairman and ranking member, especially as they continue to struggle with the imperative to achieve significant spending reductions resulting from the balanced budget the Congress approved earlier this year. I appreciate their consideration for the interests of the people of Massachusetts, and am pleased to support this agreement.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the VA-HUD conference report. This bill funds many programs that are crucial to the Nation's economic vitality. For example, the funding for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation contained in this bill both expands our basic knowledge and helps promote small, innovative businesses that create well-paying jobs throughout the country. This bill also provides the funds that support important environmental programs, and, of course, allows us to keep faith with America's veterans by providing them with the health care they have earned, in some cases at great personal cost. This bill also funds the Department of Housing and Urban Development. These funds will help families struggling to attain the dream of home ownership or simply to find or maintain affordable rental housing. It provides funds for homeless programs, programs that provide both shelter and the supportive services that are so important in the effort to stabilize the lives of these most unfortunate Americans and create opportunities for self-sufficiency. I commend Chairman Bond and the ranking member, Senator Mikulski, for their efforts to serve so many important needs with so little money. In fact, Mr. President, while I support this legislation, I must point out that housing programs continue to suffer in our Nation's budget. Homeless programs continue to be funded at levels more than 25 percent below 1995 levels. We ask more from public housing authorities every day, but provide no more resources to them to do the job. We are facing an increasing housing crisis in America, but with decreasing resources, and that is an issue that we must, eventually, confront. I specifically appreciate the willingness of Senators Bond and Mikulski to work with me, Senator D'Amato, Senator Mack, and Senator Sarbanes to include in this conference report important legislation commonly known as the Mark-to-Market [MTM] legislation. Senator Mack, in particular, deserves special mention for his efforts to get this legislation passed. Passage of the MTM legislation is the first step in solving the problem that Secretary Cuomo called the biggest crisis facing HUD--the problem of over-subsidized section 8 projects that are threatened with default when their rental assistance contracts expire in the next few years. The problem is truly huge: up to 10,000 projects serving about 1.6 million families, including hundreds of thousands of elderly and disabled families, were facing possible default. This would have resulted in billions of dollars of losses to the American taxpayer through the FHA fund, and would have led to the outright loss or slow deterioration of increasingly scarce affordable housing. Mr. President, the mark-to-market legislation--Title V of the appropriations bill--will allow HUD, primarily through State and local partners, to start pushing down excess rents to supportable market levels while providing funds to rehabilitate those properties that need capital investments. The bill will eliminate bad owners from the program. In such cases, the legislation encourages HUD or the PAE's to transfer these properties to new ownership, preferably to community- based non-profits. Most importantly, Mr. President, this legislation will help preserve hundreds of thousands of units of affordable housing for the foreseeable future. As I noted, we are seeing an overall reduction in the commitment to affordable housing by the Federal Government. The legislation we are passing today represents an important exception to that disturbing trend. The clear and resounding intent of this bill is to preserve and improve this important stock of affordable housing. I applaud my colleagues and the Secretary for embracing this goal, and I wholeheartedly support it. In implementing this legislation, HUD will most often do the restructuring through a participating administrative entity, or PAE. We expect that State or local housing finance agencies, because of their experience with the financing and management of assisted housing, and their commitment to the long-term preservation of affordable housing, will typically be the PAE. At the same time, we gave the Secretary the discretion to choose the PAE. There will be thousands of projects and hundreds of thousands of units that will have to go through the restructuring process. In order to get this done in a timely and cost-effective way, the Secretary may have to reach out to more than one entity in a given area, or HUD may decide to do some of the restructurings itself. It is important to point out that the legislation requires that crucial decisions regarding the long-term disposition of the property such as, for example, whether the assistance is to remain project-based or, in a few cases, may be turned into tenant-based, shall be made by a public agency with a public mission whose interest is to preserve affordable housing. Similarly, the ongoing oversight of the projects after restructuring is completed will be in the hands of HUD or State or local HFA's. The important point here is that public funds continue to be at risk; therefore, public agencies must take the responsibility for ensuring their safety. To further ensure that HFA's are chosen to be the PAE's, I urge HFA's to strengthen their applications by creating partnerships with other experienced parties to strengthen their applications. Such partners would include community-based non-profits, residents groups, financial and other relevant experts. Mr. President, I want to emphasize that the overriding, primary goal of this legislation is to preserve affordable housing for the long term. As a result, we expect the PAE's to continue to provide project- based assistance except in certain rare circumstances. The bill provides for the final decision to be taken only after consultation with residents and owners of the projects, local government officials, and other affected parties. Moreover, the PAE must take into consideration the availability of other affordable housing in the area, the ability of tenants to use vouchers successfully, the financial stability of the project, and other factors which, when taken as a whole, would lead a PAE to conclude that project-based assistance continues to be the best choice in most cases. Mr. President, the legislation creates an office within HUD to oversee the restructuring process called the ``Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance and Restructuring'' [OMHAR]. The Director of this office will be appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation. The Director will work under the Secretary, subject to the Secretary's direction and oversight. Section 573(d)(2) of the bill gives the Director the authority to report directly to the Congress, in certain circumstances, when the Director determines, in his discretion, such a report would be appropriate. Mr. President, let me reiterate a point also made by my colleagues regarding tenant participation in the restructuring process. It is our clear intent that HUD and the PAE's work with tenants in a meaningful and effective way with regards to all aspects of the restructuring process. This means timely access to relevant information, adequate time to analyze such information, the right to meet with the PAE, and the right to be included in physical inspections of the property, capital needs assessments, proposals to transfer the property, and other decisions that have significant impacts on the residents. Finally, I want to point out that this bill also includes important provisions regarding the renewal of other section 8 contracts. These provisions authorize HUD to renew contracts on high-value properties that do not need to go through the restructuring process at comparable market rents. The Congress expects HUD to exercise this discretion so as to avoid displacement of current tenants and, whenever possible, consistent with the purposes of this title, to preserve the housing for the long term. In conclusion, Mr. President, I strongly support the MTM provisions in the VA-HUD conference report. They will be essential in restoring this valuable housing resource to sound financial and physical condition.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to again express my gratitude to my colleagues Senator Mack and Senator Bond for their unrelenting efforts to include the mark-to-market legislation in this bill, and congratulate them on their success. As originally passed by the Banking Committee and the Senate, the mark-to-market legislation had more detailed language imposing specific requirements on PAE's with regards to tenant participation in the decisions regarding the restructuring and ongoing treatment of eligible properties. At the request of HUD, the conference report provides for a more streamlined approach. We accommodated the administration on this issue because we do not want to unnecessarily bog down the restructuring and rehabilitation process. However, I want to make clear that the Congress fully expects that PAE's will establish procedures that ensure meaningful and effective participation for residents of the restructured projects and other affected parties, and that a streamlined process should not be construed to in any way allow the process of participation to be circumvented. Is that your understanding?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I just ask for 3 minutes or so. I want to respond to Senator McCain.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his comments and his leadership on a lot of these issues with respect to this legislation, and this issue in general. I associate myself with the comments that he has made about the impact that our current system is having on the politics of our country. That is what this debate is about. In my judgment, this is the most important debate which we will have in the Senate this year-- perhaps the most important debate and opportunity that we have had to address the concerns of the American people, and with respect to this system, in many years. I heard the Senator from Kentucky, for whom I have great respect for his capacity of advocacy and depth of his commitment to this issue. No one should doubt that he is passionately committed to the interpretation he has both of the Constitution and the issues at stake. But, as the Senator from Tennessee has just pointed out, while it sounds good to suggest to people that somehow regulating campaign finance is going to shut down debate, the fact is the Supreme Court has already approved of that kind of regulation. What we see today is an abuse of what the Supreme Court intended to take place. The Supreme Court drew a distinction between express advocacy and issue advocacy, and properly so. I am confident that the Senator from Tennessee and I would agree that both of us want a healthy and robust debate in this country and no limitation on the first amendment right to discuss an issue. But there is a distinction between an issue and what some of the money under the guise of issue expenditure is seeking to do. What it is clearly seeking to do as an abuse of what the Supreme Court established is not to simply talk about the issue but rather to affect the election and impact express advocacy. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that express advocacy is something that seeks to defeat or help a candidate. Issue advocacy can discuss Social Security, it can discuss welfare reform, and it can discuss any of the issues that we vote on and argue about in the Senate without talking about a candidate--without attacking the candidate's record--which properly ought to be left to the campaign, in the judgment of the Supreme Court. We will argue, I think, considerably over this in the next days. I am prepared as we go further in this debate to discuss at considerable length what the Supreme Court has actually said and not said and how, in fact, there is nothing in McCain-Feingold that is impermissible constitutionally. What I think we need to focus on as we go forward here is the overall disarray of the system that the Senator from Tennessee has referred to and that all of us need to address as we think about how we are going to bring people back into a good-faith relationship with their Government. There isn't anybody in politics today--neither an observer nor a critic nor a pundit nor a participant--who could properly say that the American people believe this system is on the level or believe that somehow this whole process is responsive to their real needs. The poll data show that 92 percent of Americans believe that money is what gets something done in Washington; 88 percent of the people believe that if you give money, you will get something back in return; 49 percent of Americans believe that the special interests, the lobbyists, et cetera, basically run the Government. I don't know how you can be in public life and not be concerned about that kind of impact on the body politic of our Nation. If that many people believe that their representatives are affected by money, we ought to be concerned about it. If that many people in America believe that the way you get something done is by contributing money, we ought to be concerned about it. All you have to do is listen to a fairly candid statement by one person before the committee the other day who, in giving something like $400,000 or $300,000, said that it was clearly given directly to affect that person's access and that person's ability to be able to get something done. Mr. President, this isn't the first time that we have heard this discussion here--not by any means. We have had a century of different efforts to try to plug what most people have accepted at one point or another as a series of loopholes and try to do justice to the relationship that we want to have with the voter. Mr. President, four decades ago, another Senator from Massachusetts, Senator John F. Kennedy, warned of the rising costs of political elections and the dangers they posed to the American political process. He said that there was the danger of political contestants ``becoming deeply obligated to the big financial contributors from the worlds of business, labor, and other major lobbies,'' and that there was the danger of equal access to the political system being shattered. That is what former President Kennedy said before he became President. The fact is that today equal access has been shattered. It has been shattered. The truth is today that all of us understand the impact of money on American politics, on the capacity to be elected, and on people's perceptions of our politics. Back in 1959 when John Kennedy said a solution must be found to the soaring costs of political contests, the total amount of money spent back then on all congressional races, both the House and the Senate total, was $6.3 million--on all the House and Senate races, just about 1960. The median cost of a single candidate race for the U.S. Senate today is $2.6 million. In the Presidential contest prior to Senator Kennedy's remarks back in 1959, the two Presidential candidates spent a total of $12.9 million. In the last Presidential election they spent more than $150 million just in the money that is allowed to go directly into their campaigns, and over $600 million, maybe $700 million, if you count all the soft money that flowed as an excuse to do away with the other limits that have been put in place. Mr. President, it is very, very clear that the American people have reached a point where they understand that the rising costs of campaigning is nothing less than outrageous. Last year the House and Senate candidates spent more than $756 million--a 76 percent increase just since 1990. There is nothing in our economy, nothing in the increases in the costs of campaigning, that justifies a 76 percent increase, except the Armageddon of the new arms race we have for money in campaigns. The more money you get, the more you can blast your opponent, the more you can put out whatever your message is, the more you can distort the electoral process. Last year more than $4 billion was spent on all elections, and 20 years ago it was less than $600 million. The American people, as Senator Thompson just pointed out, business people and others, are tired of having politicians call them and say, ``Well, we need $20,000, we need $50,000, we need $75,000.'' I think it is clear that the damage that such amounts of political money have done to the increase of our public cynicism is inescapable. These amounts heighten the perception that Federal lawmakers respond to the special interests and not to the public interests; that Federal lawmakers favor those who are greedy over the needy; the Federal lawmakers are, in reality, increasingly becoming Federal lawbreakers. We know that power has its own corrupting capacities. History has proven that many times over. Now we are seeing that money and power are becoming one and the same, and both together are having an increased corruptive and corrosive process on our system. Even if it were only the perception that that were happening, that perception is something that we ought to be sensitive to and willing to respond to. It seems to me that the headlines of the last months, while they have been singularly directed at our party--my party--I don't think anybody here in a candid discussion of this issue could not in fairness agree that they have embroiled both parties --all politicians; the entire system. Only a few months ago we were seeing memos circulated where leadership members of the Republican Party were chastising openly those people who give money, suggesting that they were going to get hurt in the legislative process if they continued to give to Democrats. Senator Thompson just talked about the sort of extortion air that hangs over this city and our system as a consequence of those kinds of threats. All of us are harmed by that. All of us ought to be reaching for a means of being able to get rid of the capacity of any member of the electorate to make those kinds of determinations. In the latter part of the 19th century, the chieftains of industry in this country found that the use of wealth served them well, and they used it brazenly by purchasing Senate seats from the State legislatures in Colorado, West Virginia, Illinois and Pennsylvania. The 17th amendment to our Constitution put an end to that practice, but Congress still had to use taxpayer money in order to investigate and determine the results of congressional elections in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois, and other States as a consequence of that. Abuse of campaign funds has obviously contributed to the worst scandals that we have known in this country--the Teapot Dome scandal and the Watergate scandal. And today now we are living through another investigation of the impact that money has on the political process. Mr. President, it just really is time for us to find a commonality of ground where we can come to some kind of compromise and agreement that the current system cannot continue to work. It seems to me clear that ``the power of the Government to protect the integrity of the elections of its officials is inherent.'' It is something that we ought to adhere to. That is not my comment. That was something Theodore Roosevelt said in his fourth annual message to the Congress. He said then, ``There is no enemy of free Government more dangerous and none so insidious as the corruption of the electorate.'' That is what Senator Kennedy was speaking to 40 years ago when he talked about how ``adequate Government regulation of the elective process [is] the most vital function of self-government.'' Mr. President this actually goes back to the very Founding Fathers' efforts with respect to the kind of Government they tried to put up. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison pointed out, ``The aim of every political Constitution is * * * to obtain for rulers men who possess the most wisdom to discern, and the most virtue to pursue the common good of the society.'' And the second aim he said was ``to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous while they continue to hold the public trust.'' ``Keeping them virtuous while they hold the public trust.'' I do not think they could have conceivably imagined the degree to which our capacity to go to voters and ask for their vote has become tied to our ability to be able to raise large sums of money. Mr. President, when I came to the Congress in 1985, and when I ran in 1984, I made a decision then to try to run for office without taking the larger sums of money. I did not suggest then at any time, and in debates since then on campaign finance reform I have made it very clear, that if regulation of some level of political action money were part of the reform system I would take it. I don't think there is an inherent problem with political action committee money. But I do think that what people object to is the perception that the large amounts of money are what somehow distort the system. And so I have run now for the Senate three times without taking PAC money. I may be the only Member of the Senate who has been three times elected since PAC money was allowed and not taken it. I am proud of that, but I have to say that I do not know if I can continue to do that with the current rate of escalation in the cost of campaigns. Last time I ran for office in 1996, I had the most expensive Senate race in the United States of America--$12 million. I raised more money without PAC money than any other person running for the Senate--$10 million, but obviously simple math shows that that left me a gap of $2 million. And so now in my first year of my third term in the Senate I continue to spend time raising money for the race that took place a year ago. I continue to have to try to put away a debt assumed in order to run for office. I do not think people should have to assume debt to run for office, but countless Senators have done that, countless candidates are forced into doing it. If I believe strongly in the ideas and policies I do believe in, if I want them to be heard, if I want to be able to fight for them, the way the American system is now set up, I have to do that. You have to go out and look for the money. Clearly, as we have learned, this institution is increasingly an institution which is represented by people who either have their own money or have enormous access to great sums of money. And the truth is that challenger after challenger after challenger falls short for lack of capacity to stand on the same ground as the incumbent. Now, are there examples like the Senator from Utah gave where, indeed, a challenger may be well-heeled and an incumbent does not spend as much? You bet there is. I spent less than each of my opponents when I was an incumbent because I was not able to raise as much as they were because they had their own money and they would write their own check. I believe that our system is out of kilter because of that inequity as well as the result of the amount of money that people have to go out and raise in the system. It seems to me we have an opportunity here to be able to address all of those concerns. I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a particular concern about the capacity of some of our supporters to be able to use their structure to unfairly imbalance the playing field-- specifically, obviously, the labor movement and some other entities. I would want to say that I think that is a fair concern. If we are going to approach this fairly, then we have to find some measure of defining what that fairness is and of understanding that a fair playing field is not a fair playing field that gives our side an advantage over theirs or vice versa. But something is very clearly wrong or defined in this debate when 45 Democrats have already signed up saying we are prepared to vote for this reform and only four Republicans have joined that effort. We are now at the magic number of 49--49 Senators prepared to vote for campaign finance reform. And since the only votes left to get are votes that must come from the Republican Party, it is fair for America to ask the Republicans to step up to fair reform. It is fair for the Republican Party to be asked now to become part of this effort to reestablish a connection between the American voter and those of us elected to represent them. Hopefully in the course of this debate we can find that common ground. But let us not hide behind phony arguments about the Constitution, what it does or does not say about free speech. Let us acknowledge that the Supreme Court has already defined the difference between express and issue advocacy. Let us be honest about the fact that the Supreme Court has already said we are permitted to regulate campaigns; that we are permitted to regulate contributions. None of those things does violence to the Constitution. And let us also be fair in not having some artificial debate about the new protections for labor. No one in this country is suddenly going to believe that the Republican Party is adopting the labor movement and is going to protect every member of the unions and they are going to be the ones to come to the floor and protect them by offering some measure that somehow gives them new freedom. We are prepared to codify Beck, and we are prepared to codify the notion that people ought to be given the right to choose, but what we believe they will offer is something that seeks to go much farther than that and becomes nothing less than an effort to kill campaign finance reform. So my hope is that this opportunity will be an opportunity that the American people will ultimately be proud of and they will make a judgment that we came together in a legitimate, bona fide effort to find common ground. McCain-Feingold-Thompson and others, myself included, is not a bill that many people on this side feel goes far enough. There are many of us who have already compromised significantly in coming to the place of McCain-Feingold, which may be at the very edge of what may be permissible to get some kind of compromise. The truth is that many of us on this side of the aisle think anything that leaves you going out raising money leaves you exposed to the question: Well, who did you get it from? Why did they give it to you? What did you do after they gave it to you? That is the central question that is being asked in the hearings that we are going through right now. The fact is that is the only way you will ever get away from that question: Why did that person give you the money? And particularly if it is large amounts of money. You will continue to have the corrosive connection that makes people so apprehensive about the current system. And ultimately I personally believe America will come to a conclusion that the way you eliminate the corrosiveness is to get the special interest money out of politics, allow people time to debate, allow them time to take the issues, organize, have adequate money to run a campaign, but do not make them go out with their hands out always asking for money. That is not what we do here. We do something less than that. But the truth is that even if we were to pass McCain-Feingold as it is currently, people are going to have to go out and raise pretty large sums of money still and they are still going to be left with people asking: What did they give you? What did you do with the money? What did you do for them? I think we are better off if the question doesn't have to be asked and we do not have the suspicion hanging over our heads. In addition to that, it seems clear to me that McCain-Feingold seeks also to have increased enforcement. We have no enforcement today. People wonder why the current system is out of control. It is out of control because it is set up in a way that perpetuates a lack of control. You have an FEC that can never make a decision; they are unwilling to make a decision. It is divided up evenly between Republican and Democrat representation so there is an even number of votes, nobody can break a tie, and nobody wants to come in. If we can't have regulation of laws we put in place, of course, we are going to have violations. So all we are seeking to do in this legislation is put a little teeth into the concept of enforcement. The other thing we try to do is have some kind of limitation on the capacity of wealthy candidates to be able to simply walk in unfairly and pour enormous sums of money into the campaign. We do it in a way that is totally constitutional because they are still allowed to go out and do it if they want, do it under another structure, but it seems to me that all we do is have an incentive for them not to do it because obviously under the Constitution we cannot limit their right to spend their own money. I cannot imagine that most people believe this institution ought to be an institution exclusive to those who have enormous amounts of wealth. And there is a disproportionate representation already with respect to that relative to most of the country. And that is not, I am confident, what the Founding Fathers envisioned. The McCain-Feingold base package that has already been scaled back from the original McCain-Feingold is really already a significant compromise by many people in the effort to achieve reform, and over the course of the next week or so we will have an opportunity to test the constitutional issues, an opportunity to test whether or not anybody is left out. I might just comment about that. I heard my colleague from Kentucky talk about how people would be diminished in their ability to participate. Well, once again, I point to the experience of what happened in Massachusetts. We had a very robust debate in Massachusetts, Mr. President. Many people might say we had too many debates. We had nine 1-hour televised debates--nine of them. I think five or more were statewide televised, others were on C-SPAN, a couple of them were local. But together with the coverage of the free media, the press, which I think did a good job of trying to bend over backward to present both points of view, both sides, a side-by-side presentation of issues, there was no lack of dialog and no lack of debate. But what we did was keep the craziness out; we kept the cacophony out; we kept out of this wild extraordinary race for the extra dollar the group that distorts. We had a campaign where people could hear the issues. We had a campaign where people could listen to the candidates. We had a campaign where there was a premium for people on the ground to be involved organizing, street for street, community for community. That is what American politics is supposed to be. And I proudly say that the campaign we conducted in the State of Massachusetts for the Senate in 1996 has been written up by most critics across the country as one of the best Senate campaigns in years. I know that for myself I never ran one so-called hard negative advertisement. Every one of our advertisements was comparative, so to speak. And if I had my choice, we would have spent half what we spent on paid advertising. But I was unable to secure an agreement from the Governor that we would spend less than the amount he chose to spend. I spent twice what I have ever spent in any Senate campaign on media. My belief is that ultimately it was not money that made the difference. It was the debate and the public dialog and the capacity of our fellow citizens to learn and understand where we stood on the issues, what we believed, what we had done or had not done and what we wanted to achieve on their behalf. And so I believe there is a better standard, and I believe there is something that we can do that can be regulated here, that puts both candidates on an even keel but does not commit our entire system to a perpetual money chase and to the perpetual and increasingly corrosive perception that this system is up for grabs for the money which hurts every single one of us. It is my hope, in the course of the next days, as we debate this, that we will have an opportunity to really vote on substantive amendments, and that we can find the common ground for compromise. I have just a couple of quick comments. I know the Senator from Missouri wants to speak. I understand some of the fears that colleagues have on the other side. As I said earlier, I think, in my judgment, if we look at this fairly we ought to be able to find ways to address some of those fears. But in the end, notwithstanding some of the constitutional arguments made and notwithstanding some of the opposition that is grounded in sort of how the politics are played, it seems to me there are some people who just don't want to give up the money, who like the money, who recognize the advantage they have because of the money and who are willing to place the entire relationship of our Government and our citizens in jeopardy as a consequence of the advantage that money gives them. I hope, over the course of the next days, the American people will join this debate. Americans must make it clear that they want this change now. It is on the floor. If they are adequately forceful in letting their Senators know that this is something that does matter, I believe it can have an impact and ultimately make a difference. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator simply to acknowledge what I think he would acknowledge is the state of the law, which is that there is a distinction that the Court has drawn between issue advocacy of the kind the Senator from Kentucky was referring to--which I would not seek to restrict; I understand the first amendment--and express advocacy of a candidate. There is a clear distinction the Court has drawn between a legitimate effort to talk about an issue in the abstract and an effort to help a candidate get elected. I think that most Americans would feel, in fact, in answer to the Senator saying, ``Well, there's nothing in here that connects the amount of money to the effort to get people, you know, into the living rooms and out of their offices,'' I suggest respectfully to my colleague, there is, because the more the money, the more there is this effort to simply have these distorted 30-second advertisements, the less people feel connected or need to connect to the politician or the process and the more they are in fact alienated from it. In the experience of Massachusetts, where we set a limit on what we would do, I in fact felt an enormously greater incentive to go out and organize at the grassroots level because I knew it was that much more important. So would my friend from Utah acknowledge that in fact there is a distinction between express advocacy and issue advocacy and there is in fact a connection in the way that we can begin to bring people back into the process by getting rid of the cynicism that they have and the sense of being absolutely separated from all of this money?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his effort to have a good discussion, and I think that is a very important part of what we are trying to achieve here. I, obviously, want the Senator from Kentucky to be a part of that. The allegation has been made by the Senator from Kentucky that somehow someone is being shut up or shut out of the system. Wouldn't it be true, notwithstanding the effort to seek an injunction as to expenditure for ads under the aegis of this entity, that they would, nevertheless, be free to participate, like every other citizen, by raising so-called hard money, money for the campaign for the candidate, by participating in the campaign itself, by holding fora, by holding any kind of participatory effort that they want, which, in effect, is only limiting the clutter and the impartiality of the last 60 days of a race because of the undue influence of money. My question is, wouldn't America be better off to have a participatory process where people are encouraged to come out of their offices and into the meeting halls and candidates are encouraged to go into the living rooms rather than simply rely on money to distort the process?

Mr. KERRY. I would ask him that, now having at least established one can arrive at a control, the issue is whether or not the Government might play a role in that? I ask the Senator if he is aware that, in a number of States and in a number of cities, they have in fact passed legislation where there is an accepted regime of control for how much is spent in a campaign, or for the mechanism for raising it? The city of New York, State of Maine, a number of other States have accepted this. So, really, the question is not whether or not you can do it, I would submit to my friend, it is whether or not one is willing to do it, whether you have the desire of doing it. That is really the bottom-line question, I would suggest.

Mr. KERRY. Will my friend yield for a further question?

Mr. KERRY. That is fair, Mr. President. Let me nevertheless ask the same question I was going to ask, because I think it is relevant. Last year in Massachusetts, Governor Weld and I agreed on a fixed amount of money that we would spend in our race. We agreed on a fixed amount of money for our media, and a fixed amount of money for the campaign on the ground, so to speak. We agreed, both of us, to have no money from the national political parties and no money from independent expenditures. We set up a mechanism whereby we were able to control not having those independent expenditures come in. In the end, we had a campaign that had no national money, no independent expenditures, and we spent the fixed amount of money that we said we would. So I ask my colleague, how it is he can say that you can't control it when in fact there is evidence of it having been controlled in that race, as well as in Governor races and other races in the rest of the country where they have accepted limits?

Mr. KERRY. Will my friend yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY. As I listened to my colleague suggest that you cannot control money, I can't help but think back to----

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. The committee report, on page 15, indicates that both the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] and HUD's inspector general pointed out that under the current performance evaluation [PHMAP] system, a PHA can escape ``troubled'' designation even though a substantial portion of its units would not meet basic housing conditions. This seems totally unacceptable. Will the proposed amendment in section 107(d) of S. 462 allow HUD to give this performance indicator enough weight to solve this problem? Will that approach assure that we do not have authorities that are deemed acceptable performers even though they offer widespread substandard housing conditions?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have a question regarding section 107(d) of S. 462, which adds a new performance indicator for the extent to which the public housing agency is providing acceptable basic housing conditions. I do not see what could be much more fundamental to a housing authority's performance than offering its tenants decent housing conditions in which to live.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 462 and urge all my colleagues to support this public housing reform legislation. I want to thank Senator Mack, chairman of the Housing Subcommittee and his excellent staff for their great work on this legislation. Senator Mack has proved to be a tireless partner in trying to put together a consensus piece of legislation. I also want to thank Senator Sarbanes for his active participation in drafting the current compromise language. Finally, I want to congratulate Senator D'Amato for shepherding this important piece of housing legislation through the Senate for the second year in a row. He has taken an active interest in this and other housing legislation which helps to put our Nation's housing policy on a more sound and fiscally responsible foundation. This is an important piece of legislation. It contains many of the key ingredients needed to bring the public housing program back to health. It includes many important management reforms requested by Secretary Cuomo that will make HUD a more efficient and responsive organization, a direction in which we can all agree the Department must move. The bill gives local public housing authorities both new powers and new flexibility to define and meet local housing needs. At the same time, it makes the consequences for failing to meet those needs more certain and more severe. This bill eliminates many of the provisions of current law that numerous critics have pointed to as causes for the decline of public housing, provisions such as Federal preferences and one for one replacement. While well-meaning, these laws have had the unintended consequence of contributing to an image--and in some cases the reality--of public housing projects as islands of desperate poverty, ridden by crime and joblessness. By repealing these laws, the Senate bill gives local housing officials much more independence. They will have to identify the housing needs in their communities and address them in a more effective way that avoids the pitfalls of the past. This is a significant new responsibility. Many housing authorities have already proven to be extremely creative and innovative. For those, this bill will prove to be a huge benefit to the residents, the PHA's, and their communities as a whole. As part of this bargain, we now require housing authorities to devote a greater number of the rental assistance vouchers to serve extremely low income families. This is an important improvement that has been made in the legislation since the committee approved it, and I thank Chairman Mack for his cooperation in achieving this goal. We have also expanded and improved the opportunities for residents to be informed about and participate in the public housing planning process. Residents will be able to take a more active role in the provision of services to other public housing residents. I strongly support these initiatives. Other PHA's will have a more difficult time with the transition to greater independence. HUD will have to continue to have a significant oversight role in these areas. But as HUD's staff and authority diminish, I look to the residents of public housing to exercise their voices and participate enthusiastically and aggressively in the PHA's plans and activities, along the lines established by this bill. In the long run, it is the residents who will be the best watchdogs. We must make sure they are adequately empowered to exercise this function effectively. In the long run, Mr. President, I hope this bill, when enacted into law, will make public housing the kind of showcase to which we can proudly point to in seeking the additional resources we need to really start addressing the affordable housing crisis affecting so many of our States, from my own State of Massachusetts, to New York, California, Utah, and elsewhere. That will be the measure of success I will use in the years to come.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the efforts of my esteemed colleagues, particularly the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and to cosponsor the Oceans Act of 1997. I have great respect for Senators Hollings and Stevens and their stewardship of our ocean and coastal resources. Since the day I first arrived in the Senate nearly 12 years ago, I have worked hard to address the many challenges confronting our common ocean and coastal resources. I have led this effort principally through my participation and leadership on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and particularly as ranking member on the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee and as cochair of its predecessor, the national ocean policy study [NOPS]. Over the last 25 years, Congress has worked to develop innovative policy solutions to enable the long-term protection, conservation, utilization, and management of our vulnerable marine resources. We have acted to ensure strong coastal economies in Massachusetts and a clean, healthy coastal environment from the Gulf of Maine to the Gulf of Alaska. In that vein therefore, I believe that it is time for us, like the Stratton Commission did over 30 years ago, to take an inventory of where our Nation has been and where we are going regarding the great responsibility of stewardship of our coastal resources. The Oceans Act of 1997 will provide the framework for that effort. The bill contains three major provisions. First, it calls for development of a national ocean and coastal policy to provide for protection from natural hazards, stewardship of fisheries and coastal resources, protection of the marine environment, enhanced marine transportation and security, continued investment in marine technologies, ocean monitoring and exploration, Government cooperation and coordination, and continued U.S. international leadership. Second, it establishes a Commission on Ocean Policy to complete an 18-month examination and evaluation of ocean and coastal activities and provide recommendations for national policy. Third, it creates an interagency National Ocean Council, headed by the Secretary of Commerce to advise the President and serve as a forum for developing and implementing ocean and coastal policy programs, designate funding responsibilities, provide coordination of Federal budgets, and work with non-Federal organizations to periodically review the Nation's ocean and coastal policy. The time for this legislation is now, the world population will double to over 10 billion by the middle of the next century. Today over 50 percent of world population resides in coastal areas. The United States and its insular areas have more than 95,000 miles of coastline and the offshore U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ] encompasses more than 3.4 million square miles, nearly equal to the land area of the United States. Over the last 30 years the coastal area populations have increased from 80 to over 110 million and is projected to reach 127 million by 2010. If these trends continue, much heavier demands will be placed on ocean and coastal resources, that is, need for food from the sea for world protein requirements and energy and mineral production from offshore deposits. Ocean threats from this vast expansion include; sewage, chemical, and garbage disposal, runoff from agricultural and forested lands, exploitation of fisheries resources, development of energy and mineral resources, and coastal infrastructure development. Moreover, recent years have yielded a degradation of coastal water quality, loss of wetlands, closure of beach and recreational areas, pollution of fishery and shellfish management resources that diminish the resource base, contaminate seafood, and endanger human health. In fact over 70 percent of U.S. commercial and recreational fish and shellfish depend on estuaries at some point in their life cycle. Toxic chemicals and sewage dumped have contaminated the Nation's harbors and waterways. More than 20,000 combined sewer overflows [CSO's], sewers that combine storm water and sanitary flows empty directly into rivers and coastal waters. In 1992 heavy rains and flooding caused severe CSO overflows in Los Angeles which forced the temporary closing of over 70 miles of adjacent coastal areas. Coastal area real estate development has accelerated to the point that over 50 percent of annual U.S. residential construction during the past two decades has occurred in coastal areas. This trend is expected to continue and is expected to stress coastal ecosystems even further mostly in California and Florida, two of the Nation's most productive coastal areas. This also increases risk to life and property due to hurricanes and other major storms. For example the price tag for Hurricane Andrew, one of the largest storms in history, was estimated to be $25 to $30 billion. Further sea level rise from global warming will exacerbate this already growing problem. Further, as the world population grows, we will become more and more dependent on food from the sea. Since 1977 total fish harvest from the EEZ increased more than 325 percent to a peak of 6.65 billion pounds annually in 1986-88, but has subsequently declined--only 6.32 in 1993. Alaska pollock and Gulf of Mexico shrimp were the leading fisheries in 1993. Imported seafood comprised 57 percent of U.S. consumption during 1996, a 3 percent increase from 1995. Many problems exist however in the way we manage the world's fisheries. A Time magazine article of August 11, 1997, on the world overfishing problem, stated that ``fish of all kinds are being hauled from the sea faster than they can reproduce.'' We addressed many of those concerns with the passage of ``Sustainable Fisheries Act'' last year. With a focus on overfishing, we established National goals to rebuild most currently overfished stocks in 10 years, provided for the protection of fish habitats and Pacific Insular Areas, established a by-catch reduction program, and encouraged the development of underutilized species. However, more can be done, particularly on an international level. Fish stocks migrate across jurisdictions. Nations approach fisheries conservation and manage differently. Development of conversation objectives of nations harvesting common fish stocks often clash, and overcapitalized fleets are over-harvesting the available resources in many areas. Again, much work remains and we must be vigilant in our duty to preserve and protect the oceans and coastal resources as we start the next century.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the efforts of my esteemed colleagues, particularly the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and to cosponsor the Oceans Act of 1997. I have great respect for Senators Hollings and Stevens and their stewardship of our ocean and coastal resources. Since the day I first arrived in the Senate nearly 12 years ago, I have worked hard to address the many challenges confronting our common ocean and coastal resources. I have led this effort principally through my participation and leadership on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and particularly as ranking member on the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee and as cochair of its predecessor, the national ocean policy study [NOPS]. Over the last 25 years, Congress has worked to develop innovative policy solutions to enable the long-term protection, conservation, utilization, and management of our vulnerable marine resources. We have acted to ensure strong coastal economies in Massachusetts and a clean, healthy coastal environment from the Gulf of Maine to the Gulf of Alaska. In that vein therefore, I believe that it is time for us, like the Stratton Commission did over 30 years ago, to take an inventory of where our Nation has been and where we are going regarding the great responsibility of stewardship of our coastal resources. The Oceans Act of 1997 will provide the framework for that effort. The bill contains three major provisions. First, it calls for development of a national ocean and coastal policy to provide for protection from natural hazards, stewardship of fisheries and coastal resources, protection of the marine environment, enhanced marine transportation and security, continued investment in marine technologies, ocean monitoring and exploration, Government cooperation and coordination, and continued U.S. international leadership. Second, it establishes a Commission on Ocean Policy to complete an 18-month examination and evaluation of ocean and coastal activities and provide recommendations for national policy. Third, it creates an interagency National Ocean Council, headed by the Secretary of Commerce to advise the President and serve as a forum for developing and implementing ocean and coastal policy programs, designate funding responsibilities, provide coordination of Federal budgets, and work with non-Federal organizations to periodically review the Nation's ocean and coastal policy. The time for this legislation is now, the world population will double to over 10 billion by the middle of the next century. Today over 50 percent of world population resides in coastal areas. The United States and its insular areas have more than 95,000 miles of coastline and the offshore U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ] encompasses more than 3.4 million square miles, nearly equal to the land area of the United States. Over the last 30 years the coastal area populations have increased from 80 to over 110 million and is projected to reach 127 million by 2010. If these trends continue, much heavier demands will be placed on ocean and coastal resources, that is, need for food from the sea for world protein requirements and energy and mineral production from offshore deposits. Ocean threats from this vast expansion include; sewage, chemical, and garbage disposal, runoff from agricultural and forested lands, exploitation of fisheries resources, development of energy and mineral resources, and coastal infrastructure development. Moreover, recent years have yielded a degradation of coastal water quality, loss of wetlands, closure of beach and recreational areas, pollution of fishery and shellfish management resources that diminish the resource base, contaminate seafood, and endanger human health. In fact over 70 percent of U.S. commercial and recreational fish and shellfish depend on estuaries at some point in their life cycle. Toxic chemicals and sewage dumped have contaminated the Nation's harbors and waterways. More than 20,000 combined sewer overflows [CSO's], sewers that combine storm water and sanitary flows empty directly into rivers and coastal waters. In 1992 heavy rains and flooding caused severe CSO overflows in Los Angeles which forced the temporary closing of over 70 miles of adjacent coastal areas. Coastal area real estate development has accelerated to the point that over 50 percent of annual U.S. residential construction during the past two decades has occurred in coastal areas. This trend is expected to continue and is expected to stress coastal ecosystems even further mostly in California and Florida, two of the Nation's most productive coastal areas. This also increases risk to life and property due to hurricanes and other major storms. For example the price tag for Hurricane Andrew, one of the largest storms in history, was estimated to be $25 to $30 billion. Further sea level rise from global warming will exacerbate this already growing problem. Further, as the world population grows, we will become more and more dependent on food from the sea. Since 1977 total fish harvest from the EEZ increased more than 325 percent to a peak of 6.65 billion pounds annually in 1986-88, but has subsequently declined--only 6.32 in 1993. Alaska pollock and Gulf of Mexico shrimp were the leading fisheries in 1993. Imported seafood comprised 57 percent of U.S. consumption during 1996, a 3 percent increase from 1995. Many problems exist however in the way we manage the world's fisheries. A Time magazine article of August 11, 1997, on the world overfishing problem, stated that ``fish of all kinds are being hauled from the sea faster than they can reproduce.'' We addressed many of those concerns with the passage of ``Sustainable Fisheries Act'' last year. With a focus on overfishing, we established National goals to rebuild most currently overfished stocks in 10 years, provided for the protection of fish habitats and Pacific Insular Areas, established a by-catch reduction program, and encouraged the development of underutilized species. However, more can be done, particularly on an international level. Fish stocks migrate across jurisdictions. Nations approach fisheries conservation and manage differently. Development of conversation objectives of nations harvesting common fish stocks often clash, and overcapitalized fleets are over-harvesting the available resources in many areas. Again, much work remains and we must be vigilant in our duty to preserve and protect the oceans and coastal resources as we start the next century.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will not object either. I just want to ask the majority leader a couple questions. Mr. President, I ask, is it possible for the majority leader to share with us any little bit deeper what his thinking might be as to when he thinks it might actually come? I know he cannot be precise, but is there some variation here in the course of the next 3 weeks, Mr. President?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I could ask, in furtherance of the effort here to keep the bipartisanship and discussions going, would it be possible in the near term for us to learn the content of that other amendment, of the amendment of the majority leader, so that we might be able to have something competent to be able to meet on and discuss?

Mr. KERRY. With a second degree?

Mr. KERRY. Followed immediately by an amendment from the majority leader; is that correct?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for the breadth of that. I think it is very helpful to have that on the Record. Secondly, I want to ask him just with respect to my own understanding of the request, the first amendment is the amendment from Senator McCain.