John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I do not believe there is any further debate on the amendment. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Helms be added as a cosponsor. I believe you have Senator Biden on there as a cosponsor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President. Could I just ask my colleague's indulgence for one moment?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Nebraska, and I see the Senator from Georgia is here, and he will speak momentarily. And the junior Senator from Nebraska, Senator Hagel is also here. Mr. President, each of us invested a portion of our youth in Southeast Asia, and each of us are now investing a considerable amount of our concern as U.S. Senators of both parties with events as they continue in Southeast Asia. All of us remain convinced that this is a region that is vital to our international security interests. It is an area where we have a great deal at stake, and nowhere more so, really, than in Cambodia. As everybody knows, as a matter of history, the United States played a critical role in the 1970's in events in Cambodia. And ever since then, the Cambodian people have been reaping the harvest of much of what has gone on in the region as a whole--the invasion by Vietnam, the influence of China and, most important, the terrible, terrible acts of the Khmer Rouge, the ``killing fields'' as we came to know them in this country. It is ironic that at the very moment when the Khmer Rouge is at its weakest in recent years, when Pol Pot appears to be a prisoner and when the leadership has defected, when the army, as a whole, has decided to come into the system, that the system is now itself in convulsions and rejecting the process that so many people in the international community have invested so much in over the last years. More than $2 billion has been invested in Cambodia by the international community. We have put shy of $200 million into Cambodia, but we have invested enormously in the notion that democracy can work in a region where it is important to prove that democracy can work. It is very important to all of us in the U.S. Senate and to the United Nations to guarantee that we are not now going to stand by and watch or refuse to be engaged or to take sufficient diplomatic steps to, once again, summon the energy of the world to try to help restore in this critical moment the rule of law and democracy in Cambodia. The amendment that we offer sets forth a set of specific steps that we think should be taken by the administration and others in order to try to guarantee that we do restore peace and democracy to Cambodia. Those steps are, first of all, that the parties should immediately cease the use of violence in Cambodia; second, that the United States should take all immediate necessary steps to ensure the safety of Americans in Cambodia; third, that the United States should call an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to consider all options that are available to us in order to restore peace in Cambodia; fourth, that the United States and ASEAN together should try to take all steps necessary to restore democracy and the rule of law in Cambodia; fifth, that United States assistance to the Government of Cambodia should remain suspended until violence ends the democratically elected government is restored to power, and necessary steps have been taken to ensure that the elections scheduled for 1998 are going to be held; and finally, that the United States should take all necessary steps to encourage other donor nations to stop their assistance as part of a multinational effort. Mr. President, I have traveled to Cambodia on a number of different occasions, together with Senator Smith when we were doing the work of the POW-MIA Committee, and I have traveled other than on those journeys. I met at great length with Prime Minister Hun Sen, perhaps for a longer period of time and on more occasions than anyone in the Senate, and I can say to my colleagues that he is a tough and hard bargainer and, clearly, a survivor of the wars of that region. But he is an intelligent person who, ultimately, I believe, will be committed to the restoration of the fundamentals of the process that we invested in in Paris. It would be my hope and plea that Second Prime Minister Hun Sen would respect all of the investment of outside nations and all of the energies of those nations over the years in order to try to sustain the extraordinarily important effort that we have engaged in to try to provide democracy for this region. In 1993, 90 percent of the eligible voters of Cambodia went to the polls and expressed their wish to have an elected government, and that elected government has now been rejected by violence in the last few days. There is no other word to use but to use the word ``coup.'' I know our Government has hesitated to do that, but for the last 3 days, that is what has existed. Certainly, one would hope that will not be what remains there, and there is time yet to prove to the world that this was not a successful coup if the international community undertakes an emergency momentary effort to restore order and the long- term capacity of the Cambodian People's Party and FUNCINPEC to cooperate with each other as well as with incipient new parties that want to express their political views in a democratic Cambodia. But what is clear, Mr. President, is that absent massive, urgent diplomatic energy expended by the United States and by those countries that have already invested so much, this moment could slip by, and the great tragedy would be that as the Khmer Rouge have come out of the jungle, as Cambodia has been accepted into ASEAN, as we have suddenly extended most-favored-nation status, as it has moved into this new economic acceptance and new era of possibilities, it will have reverted, by some inexorable and unexplainable force, to the very violence that characterized it for so long. That doesn't have to happen, and this amendment is an effort to guarantee that it will not happen. So my hope is that the thrust of this effort will be heard, not just in Cambodia, but in the United Nations and in our own State Department and among those nations that have already committed so much energy. We cannot and we must not allow these events to go unattended. It is my hope this expression of our views will act as a catalyst to prevent that from happening. I understand that my colleagues also would like to speak. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as I mentioned, Senator Hagel, Senator Bob Kerrey, Senator Chuck Robb, Senator Max Cleland, Senator John McCain and myself are joining together to introduce a resolution with respect to Cambodia. At this point, I will yield the floor. Senator McCain will lead off.

Mr. KERRY. I understand there is no controlled time at this point.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, are we now open to amendment?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, is it appropriate at this point --I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time--

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, a number of us will be proceeding, momentarily, on an amendment with respect to Cambodia. I am just waiting for the language to arrive. Mr. President, I understand, under parliamentary procedure, the time is controlled?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if one looks back in our Nation's history, one cannot help but see numerous examples of both the great strengths and weaknesses of representative democratic government. Compared to other nations and societies in the world, it is more difficult for us to hide or camouflage our mistakes to a considerable degree. If we look closely, we can identify indicators for which we in public service should be watchful, lest we repeat our errors. I fear we are repeating errors we have made in the past as the Senate passes the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997, and the intimately related budget reconciliation Bill that passed earlier this week. For all of us who are politicians and who hold or seek elective office, it is often difficult, Mr. President, to resist the temptation to play to the gallery--to do the popular thing. And there are few things that get political juices flowing more readily than cutting taxes. If one looks only skin deep, a tax cut of almost any kind looks appealing. After all, those who benefit will be pleased to accept the benefit. And a tax cut does not directly take anything away from others. As is not infrequently the case, however, an honest analysis must look beyond that kind of ``quick-and-dirty'' first appearance. Tax policy has two dramatic effects on the Nation and its people. It inescapably is the determinant of the resources the Federal Government will have to meet national needs, ranging from defending our national security to preserving the environment to ensuring health care is available to those who need it to managing our national parks and forests to deterring criminal acts and identifying, pursuing, arresting, convicting, and incarcerating those who commit crimes against society. Mr. President, when the Senate took up the package of two bills produced by the Senate Finance Committee to implement the so-called budget deal that had been negotiated by the White House and the congressional leadership, again and again I was brought back to two stark conclusions. First, I was terribly disappointed that, once again, the Congress seemed to lose sight of the original objective. We started out on this budget track with the objective of putting in place a fiscal plan that would take us to a balanced budget in 5 years. We knew that, in order to do that, we would have to obtain economies in many important Government services and programs on which Americans in all walks of life depend. Incongruously, somewhere along the way, the urge to take the easy way to political popularity took over, and the effort to develop the budget deal and then the legislation to implement the budget deal was consumed by the passion of making huge tax cuts. At a time when we have agreed that the route to a balanced budget is so painful that we cannot accomplish that objective in less than 5 years, those who developed the plan and the legislation insisted that we cut taxes by $135 billion in gross and $85 billion in net over that period. Mr. President, a student will not even be out of elementary school mathematics before he or she has the capacity to know that tax cuts of that magnitude represent movement in precisely the opposite direction to the goal of obtaining a balanced budget while not hurting our nation's ability to meet its national needs. I want to emphasize immediately that I am not categorically opposed to tax reductions. To the contrary, I favor targeted tax cuts of reasonable dimensions designed not just to slash federal revenues but to achieve purposes that are in the Nation's interest. I was a leader in Democratic efforts here on the Senate floor to pass a tax reduction package--a much fairer package than the one presented to the Senate by the Finance Committee and a package that identified clear national interest objectives and devoted its resources to meeting those objectives. I will have more to say about that in a moment. Second, I was terribly disappointed when I examined the specifics of the budget proposals to see the extent to which its benefits were skewed to those in the highest income brackets. The past several years have been extremely kind to the well-off in our Nation. Those who already possessed a disproportionate share of capability, capital, and opportunity have prospered mightily. Those who crafted this budget package provided the greatest share of its benefits to this privileged portion of our population. Those at the other end of the economic spectrum--those who struggle the hardest to make ends meet, and for whom life is far more of a challenge--would receive virtually nothing, or nothing at all, of its benefits. The word ``unfair'' is not sufficiently stark to adequately describe the overall effect of this package. For those of us who, over time, have made the hard judicious, moderate, measured choices to bring the Federal budget into balance, there is tremendous disappointment in this outcome. When this budget process began this year, I enthusiastically wanted to participate in the process and support its outcome. I have long called for our political structure to demonstrate the fiscal discipline to balance the Federal budget, and have insisted that we do so in a way that is fair, and in a way that recognizes the Nation's fundamental needs and does not emasculate our Government's ability to address them. I and many others have worked arduously to break the spiraling deficits which plagued our Nation for a decade and to provide a solid economic foundation for our Nation as we move into the 21st century. We made a very important installment payment toward this goal in 1993, when Democrats in the Congress, with the leadership of President Clinton--and without a single Republican vote in either House--passed legislation that dramatically cut the deficit and put us in striking range of where we find ourselves today. I have long waited for the day when the benefits of our hard work would be as obvious as they are today. In the four years since that action in 1993, we have witnessed prosperity unprecedented in recent years. In five years, we cut the deficit from $290 billion to $67 billion. Interest rates are subdued. We are seeing the lowest unemployment and inflation rates and the largest drop in poverty rates in a generation. Consumer confidence has shown the greatest improvement since the Eisenhower administation and the value of the stock market has doubled since 1993--the fastest growth since the Second World War. By enactment of the 1993 budget legislation, Democrats proved that it is possible to take a fiscally responsible course toward a balanced budget and extend health care to children, provide broader educational opportunities, ensure the future for our senior citizens, and safeguard our environment. This certainly is not a picture which is without its problems, and we must address those problems. But the overall picture is a very appealing one, indeed. Even the possibility of the legislation before us now--a conceptually balanced budget with tax breaks--is testament to the application of Democratic ideals to fiscal policy. We have been successful because, since the Great Depression, our party has stuck by the fundamental belief that sound economic and social policy go hand-in-glove, that our Nation is stronger when all Americans have equivalent economic opportunity. Thomas Jefferson taught us that ours is a n ation of the common man and enshrined this belief in one of our most treasured documents when he wrote of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Andrew Jackson echoed this creed when he restated the party's commitment to the ``humble members of our society--the farmers, mechanics and laborers.'' That commitment, that core set of beliefs, is, in fact, Mr. President, the essence of the American dream and the foundation of what has become the greatest contribution this Nation has provided to the world's social economic history--the growth of a vibrant middle class. Universal economic opportunity, sound fiscal policy based on equitable distribution of benefits and assistance to those most in need--those are the fundamentals of Democratic economic policy. That is the goal of the program we put in place in 1993, and that is the end to which our fiscal policies are directed. Franklin Roosevelt reminded us of our commitment to expanding opportunity when he said: ``the spirit of opportunity is the kind of spirit that has led us as a nation--not as a small group but as a nation--to meet very great problems.'' Mr. President, as Democrats, we believe that deficit reduction is a means to an end. We believe that tax breaks are a means to an end. But, unlike the Republicans, we do not subscribe to the callow notion that deficit reduction is an economic policy in and of itself or that tax breaks are an end which justify any means. We do not believe that cutting vital programs is a courageous or visionary act. We believe that courage lies in advancing economic opportunity: this requires wisdom, innovation, and conscience. It is chilling that this dichotomy of political and economic philosophy remains as obviously demarcated today as it was 100 years ago. Yesterday I re-read the cogent description by William Jennings Bryan of the two opposing ideas of government. He separated the parties into those who ``legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous and wait for their prosperity to leak through on those below, or those who legislate to make the masses prosperous and ensuring that their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.'' Mr. President, as a U.S. Senator, I have an obligation to the constituents who elected me to represent their interests, to act on their behalf and to present their views to this body. I cannot turn away from the long history which has shaped my core sense of fairness, my overarching insistence on making Government work for the common good and the needs of my constituents--all in order to satisfy the parameters of a political deal. Mr. President, for that reason, I voted against the tax portion of the reconciliation bill as I voted against the spending portion. The problem, when distilled to its essence, Mr. President, is that this legislation, which has been called by some the Tax Fairness Act, would be better called the Tax Unfairness Act. Mr. President, I have great admiration for the work of the Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth, who chairs the Finance Committee and my friend from New York, Senator Moynihan, who serves as that committee's ranking member. They produced a tax bill that is improved considerably from the gravely flawed piece of legislation passed by the House of Representatives. But, Mr. President, without additional improvements I cannot support it or its companion spending programs reconciliation bill. During the course of debate this week, we attempted to shape the legislation so it would address more of the problems of more Americans, and thereby become a fairer piece of legislation, but time and again we were rebuffed by the Republican majority. Some of my colleagues, who share many of my concerns about the bill and my judgment that, in its current form, it neither is fair nor will in the long run prove beneficial to our Nation, chose today to vote for the tax bill, hoping devoutly that with the President's active involvement in the conference committee that will convene to resolve differences between the Senate-passed bill and the bill the House passed earlier, a better, fairer bill will emerge and will come back to the Senate for its approval. But I believe that the product before us today is so flawed in such critical respects that I could not vote for it in its current form. I join my colleagues who hope for it to be improved in conference committee. I want to be able to vote for a bill that provides tax reductions that will benefit Americans fairly, and will not concentrate its benefits on those who least need them while totally excluding those hard-working, tax-paying Americans who most need the additional assistance. The Democratic alternative to the Finance Committee's bill which I joined the Democratic leader and other Democratic Senators in offering yesterday was designed so that our education tax breaks, our capital gains and estate tax reductions and our child credit corrected the basic inequity found in the Finance Committee proposal: the flow of benefits chiefly to the wealthiest Americans. In the committee's package, nearly 43 percent of the breaks go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans--those who earn more than $120,000. In its plan, Mr. President, 60 percent of hard-working poor and middle class Americans get only 12.7 percent of the tax breaks, while the richest 1 percent of Americans get 13 percent of the benefits. Mr. President, in the Finance Committee proposal, the poorest 60 percent get only as much in aggregate as the richest 1 percent. This is a new standard of unfairness. This is anathema to the party of Jefferson and Jackson and Truman and Roosevelt. During the course of the debate, I heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle justify this counterintuitive distribution by arguing that since the rich make the most money, the rich will necessarily benefit the most from a tax cut. But this skewed distribution is not necessary. In our alternative, Democrats showed that it is indeed possible to craft a tax package which is targeted to those who need help and not lavish more on the rich. We designed tax breaks which are affordable and which meet a common-sense and economic test of basic fairness. In the Democratic alternative, the poorest 60 percent of Americans would have received 46 percent of the tax cuts. These are the same Americans who receive only 13 percent of the breaks in the Finance Committee's plan. In the Finance Committee proposal, middle class Americans--those earning between $30,000 and $85,000--receive a scant 30 percent of the benefits. Under our plan, these middle class Americans would have done twice as well: 57 percent of the benefits in our plan go to hard-working, middle class Americans. The Democratic alternative would have helped those who actually need a tax break to raise a child, to go to college, to start a business, to generate high-wage 21st century jobs and to grow our economy. Our alternative was based on principles which have guided our party for two centuries, and followed the basic economic philosophy which has served our Nation so well since 1993. Another feature of the Finance Committee's plan troubles me immensely, and I believe it should trouble all Americans. According to the computations of the Joint Tax Committee and other reputable projections, the cost of the tax cut explodes in future years--it is a fiscal timebomb. In the first 5 years, the cost of these inequitable cuts is $85 billion. I believe we can afford a cut of that size and have stated so publicly--if it is carefully structured, usefully targeted to need and social benefit, and fairly distributed. But, Mr. President, in the second 5 years of the Finance Committee's plan, the cost of these cuts will escalate to $250 billion. And, in the 10 years after that--when baby boomers will be retiring and straining Medicare and Social Security coffers--the cost will be between $650 to $700 billion. That is exactly the type of fiscal irresponsibility we avoided in our alternative. I was not here in 1981 when the Congress passed a large tax reduction bill, Mr. President. But the entire time I have served here--since 1984--the Congress has struggled to deal with the history-making deficits and resulting all-time-high national debt that resulted from that irresponsible tax cut. I cannot support legislation that, even if of a lesser magnitude as this bill surely is, will have an out-years explosive effect that will saddle Americans in future years, and their elected representatives, with a recurrence of the deficit and debt problems that have beset us for nearly two decades. Most destructively, this explosion will occur just as the baby boomers are reaching retirement age and beginning to place an unprecedented demand on retirement and medical programs and other governmental services. It is a looming problem universally acknowledged. Yet instead of doing everything in our power to reduce its severity and to take gradual steps to resolve it, we are considering and passing legislation that will dramatically increase its dimensions, narrow the range of solutions, and complicate the task of addressing it. That is not leadership, Mr. President. That is folly. In the Democratic alternative tax proposal, we attempted to reduce the capital gains taxes in a measured way. In the past, broad capital gains tax cuts have been used to spur economic growth when the economy was lagging. In the past, across-the-board capital gains cuts have been used to encourage the movement of capital into investment that would create jobs because unemployment was high. In the past, broad capital gains tax cuts have served as a shot of adrenaline for an ailing economic system. But today, such emergency measures are neither needed nor appropriate. Mr. President, as a question of fundamental economics, there is no justification for broad capital gains tax cuts at this time. There is no need to expend precious budget resources to reward the wealthiest American families for the sale of art work or Persian rugs or luxury goods they have held for a generation. Again, Mr. President, I am not saying that we cannot afford a capital gains tax cut. For years, I have believed that a targeted tax break can shape economic policy and can display economic vision. But, I ask, what is the benefit to our economy if a wealthy American only has to pay 20 percent instead of 28 percent on the gains he accrues from selling his yacht? Where is the economic vision in that kind of a Tax Code change? Mr. President, there are ways to aim a capital gains tax cut-- targeted, sensible ways--to use taxation of capital to leverage growth and job creation in those areas. That is a tax policy with vision, with a goal, with an economic priority. The economic priority, Mr. President, is not an across-the-board capital gains cut such as the one presented by the Finance Committee. The priority is a targeted tax cut in areas which could use the added economic stimulus, such as emerging small businesses, or start-up companies, or parts of the inner cities and rural areas which could use the jobs. That is what we Democrats included in our tax proposal. And that is a policy which I have fought for--along with the senior Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers and other Senators--for nearly a decade. Mr. President, our plan would have improved on a provision we passed in 1993 by allowing a 50-percent exclusion for capital gains on qualified small business stock held for at least 5 years. Qualified small businesses under this proposal would be defined as having $100 million in assets and would be start-up, small, high-technology ventures. Our plan would have cost $10 billion--it did not break the budget in the future like the capital gains provision in the Finance Committee plan. Mr. President, more than 90 percent of the cost of the Republican capital gains plan comes after 2002. To use computer terminology, Mr. President, this is a latent virus--it will emerge full blown in later years to exact a terrible toll on those who at that point will have the responsbility for delivering essential services to Americans while operating a balanced Federal budget. Mr. President, while the Finance Committee plan does a great deal to help wealthy Americans in its capital gains and estate tax cuts, it does not extend the same broad-based cuts to help hard-working middle class families raising children. Our alternative would have done more for precisely those families who can use the help the most. And those are the families--young families with young children--who will be doing the most for our country in the future. Today, Mr. President, I attempted to correct this basic inequity by offering an amendment which would have improved the bill by transforming the child tax credit so that it would be refundable against payroll taxes paid by all working families. Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. Income taxes have remained stable for most Americans in the past 10 years while payroll taxes have increased 17 percent. Allowing Americans to offset the credit against these payroll taxes would have broadened its application to many additional American families--hard-working families at the lower end of the economic spectrum. This is in distinct contrast with the Finance Committee plan under which nearly 40 percent of America's children are excluded from the tax credit. Those 40 percent are the children of the poorest families in the Nation. The judgment I reached on Wednesday about the reconciliation bill that applies to mandatory spending programs was similar and related, Mr. President. It is painfully apparent that we must take prudent, fair steps to restrain the growth of some of our so-called entitlement programs so that they do not rage out of control and threaten our ability not only to meet the needs they are designed to meet but the host of other critical national needs to which discretionary programs are addressed. But the objective was lost in the stampede to provide a huge tax cut to upper-income Americans. The spending programs reconciliation bill cut far more deeply into critical programs like Medicare and Medicaid than was required to achieve necessary savings. And for what purpose? To provide the cushion enabling Republicans to increase the size of the tax cut to the wealthy by scores of billions of dollars. The worst part of this spending bill is the increase in the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. This will cause the number of uninsured older Americans to increase substantially, moving the United States even further away from the goal of universal health coverage. For many seniors age 65 to 67, this will make purchasing private health insurance unaffordable--especially those who have pre- existing conditions. Private policies cost seniors approximately $6,000 a year, and more than $10,000 if they have any pre-existing conditions--if they are able to get insurance coverage at all. Mr. President, raising the eligibility age is bad policy because most seniors do not have access to employer-provided private health insurance now and the problem is getting worse: according to a recent Commonwealth Fund study, the number of retirees with health insurance from a previous employer decreased from 44 percent in 1988 to 30 percent in 1994. Although some argue that this increase in the eligibility age is similar to the increase in the age for Social Security eligibility that is being phased in, Social Security still provides early retirement benefits at age 62. Medicare, on the other hand, will not provide an option for health care coverage for early retirees, many of whom have not retired voluntarily. Finally, businesses correctly oppose this provision because they realize the huge cost it will impose upon them. Eighty major corporations and the National Association of Manufacturers recently wrote to the Senate to ask it not to raise the eligibility age. I am also opposed to the $5 home health visit co-payment which was not part of the balanced budget agreement with the President. This co- payment will primarily hurt elderly women who need this help the most: over half of the group who would no longer be able to afford home health services are women age 75 and older who have incomes below $15,000. I am also concerned that increasing the cost of home health visits is not cost-effective because many poor seniors will be forced into institutions at much greater public cost than continuing to stay at home. I also oppose the Medical Savings Accounts [MSAs] provisions in the bill. Although the number of MSA enrollees would be limited to 100,000, there is no reason to test MSAs beyond the study begun in the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. We are spending $1.5 billion through that bill and at the very least we should wait to see the results from that study before we authorize more demonstrations. I am also deeply concerned about the cuts in the Medicaid Program which is the bedrock health program for children, disabled people, and poor seniors. The spending bill would cut $13.6 billion from the program, the bulk of which comes from cutting payments to hospitals that treat a large number of uninsured patients. These payments, called Disproportionate Share Hospital [DSH] payments, are essential to many hospitals across this country that provide health care to our poorest citizens. Although it may be necessary to more effectively target these funds, this funding has enabled hospitals to continue their role as an institutional safety net for those with no other access to health care. Mr. President, there unquestionably are some sound provisions in these two bills. There are provisions I strongly support. But my job as the Senator elected by the people of Massachusetts is to examine the overall effects of the legislation the Senate considers and to determine if, on balance, it serves the interests of the Commonwealth and its citizens, and the people across our United States and their interests. I would like to support a budget package that will reach balance in 2002 since I have long advocated such a step. I would like to support a bill that achieves economies in mandatory spending programs to put us on a pathway toward balance. I would like to support a tax bill that targets tax reductions to Americans who need them and that will help create jobs and extend our current situation of economic strength. I still hold out hope that I will be able to do so when these bills return from conference committee. But, sadly, they did not pass that test as they came before the Senate for final passage, and I was constrained to vote against them.

Mr. KERRY. And it extends it to 7 million additional children. You cannot say you are covering working children in America if a working family is not able to take advantage of the credits.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just say to my colleagues this does not cost one penny additional because we change the phase-in. It is $100,000 plus that you extended to the people in the Finance Committee. I put the phaseout at $65,000 to $70,000, and we phase in the children by age. So there is no impact on the budget. It is revenue neutral. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is revenue neutral, and I move to waive the Budget Act to accept a revenue neutral amendment.

Mr. KERRY. Only by the Contract With America provision can we expand the number of children.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we just heard the Senator from Texas talk about getting a child tax credit for children. Under the child tax credit as it is written in the Finance Committee bill, 99 percent of the children eligible in the lowest 20 percent of income will not get it; 86 percent of the children in the next quintile will not get it. This is because, as we all know, most people in America pay their taxes by the payroll tax. What I do in my amendment is take the Contract With America provision that was supported by Senator Gramm, Senator Lott, and Senator Coats and apply a refundable tax credit so that we expand by 7 million the number of children who will be given a tax credit. If we really want the working people of America to get this credit, it is appropriate that a working family that is earning $22,000 with two parents and two children be able to get the credit. Under the current legislation, they would not get the credit.

Mr. KERRY. May we have order, Mr. President.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, may we have order.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was given the opportunity recently to read a speech prepared by my Executive Assistant, Patricia Ferrone, on the occasion of her graduation from the University of Maryland University College. I think this speech embodies many of the ideals we often talk about here on the floor of the United States Senate, and I commend all of our colleagues to take a moment and read her very thoughtful and insightful perspectives on education today. I ask it be printed in the Record. The speech follows: Commencement Address, University of Maryland Class of 1997 My name is Patricia Ferrone, and two years ago I enrolled in the Open Learning program at the University of Maryland University College. Today, I am thrilled to be a member of the University of Maryland's class of 1997. Twenty years ago, I adhered to a strict interpretation of Mark Twain's adage that you should never let schooling interfere with your education. After all, how in the world was I to get on with my life if all I did was go to school? How could I find a good job, make a living, and gain experience if all I did was sit in a classroom? What I didn't realize then was that education is not designed to limit our experience, but to broaden our perspective. I didn't realize that education is a rite of passage from darkness to light, from ignorance to analysis, from having a narrow vision to acquiring a sweeping view of the immense, rich, and colorful world around us, and from living in one moment in space and time to understanding ourselves and our place in history and in the universe. Twenty years ago, I didn't realize that education is much more than day to day experiences in a limited world. But today, I know that education is the difference between being and becoming; it is discovering that the world I live in is not the only world that exists. Today I know that education is timeless, and I've learned that education is a rite of passage to a true understanding of society, the world, and ultimately of ourselves. The education we've been lucky enough to receive here at the University of Maryland, has not been about sitting in a classroom and learning to parrot mathematical functions or names and dates, or other people's ideas. It is more fundamental. Here, we have been taught how to think for ourselves and how to look into ourselves and our history and learn the reference points of civilization so that we fully comprehend and appreciate the times in which we live. Therefore, it is important for all of us to understand that the education we have acquired here is not some kind of job training program. Because if we think it is, if we treat it like it is, then we will have failed, for we will have trapped ourselves in our time, never understanding that civilization is a continuing journey, and that there is a precedence for our failures and our success, and we must learn what they are. Our society and our personal lives will always contain areas of uncertainty and confusion; we will always be confronted by more questions than answers. Education alone will never be a panacea for curing society's ills or for defeating our own personal challenges. But I am convinced that obtaining an education is a moral imperative for improving the quality of our own individual lives and, ultimately, improving the quality of life around us. Today I am certain that education is the key to the treasures of the universe, and it is also the key that unlocks the riches that lie inside each of us. Over the past several years, we have all worked hard to earn our degrees. During the process, we were confronted by the anxieties of new possibilities, but our commitment to our goal inspired us to meet the challenge. We all refused to believe that we had limitations. So our graduation today is a personal rite of passage that we should all be proud of and should celebrate. But, my hope for all of us is that the passion that drove our commitment does not end here. I can stand before you now and say with certainty that Mark Twain and I were wrong. It is through schooling that we learn the broader view of where we have been, and therefore understand where we are, so that we can logically think about where we want to go. I know the education I have received here has been my compass. It has set me on course and given me direction. I am eternally grateful to all my instructors and to the University of Maryland University College for making this experience one of the richest and most profound learning experiences of my life. Now I understand that education is the catalyst that turns knowledge and experience into wisdom--and gaining wisdom is more than a rite of passage, it is a lifetime process.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Well, Mr. President, I have been informed that Senator Kennedy now does not wish to use his time. I ask unanimous consent that the balance now go to Senator Dodd, at which point it would revert to the other side.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it may be that the Senator from Indiana missed it, but I asked unanimous consent at the opening of my comments, when I was yielded the full amount of time, that the balance of time that I didn't use be divided equally, and that consent order was entered into. I might add, if the Senator was correct, it was all of our understanding that after the expiration of all the time on the bill, the Senate would go into morning business, during which time Senators would have the opportunity to speak for as long as they wanted. So there is not in effect a time limitation with respect to the after period of the bill.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.