John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues' patience. I hope we will all have a chance to pay tribute. As the majority leader has just said, and as we have learned in wonderful stories across the country over the course of the last weeks, my senior colleague and our good friend and colleague to all of us on both sides of the aisle celebrated his 70th birthday on February 22, last week, while we were out of session. But he also records a rather remarkable milestone together with a birthday. It is not only a celebration of 70 years of life, but it is also the milestone of 40 years of service to the State of Massachusetts and to his country here in the Senate. He started his career by setting an extraordinarily high standard in the very beginning because it was when he reached the minimal constitutional age of 30 that he first came to the Senate--one of only 16 people in the history of the Senate to reach this institution at that early and tender age. What we celebrate today, Democrats and Republicans alike, is not only the awe we have for his lifetime of achievement but really the way in which literally almost every single year that Senator Kennedy has been here there has been a milestone piece of legislation that has passed either with his significant support and input or with his outright leadership. The Boston Globe put it best, writing not long ago that: In actual, measurable impact on the lives of tens of millions of working families, the elderly, and the needy, Ted Kennedy belongs in the same sentence with Franklin Roosevelt. That sentence is not constructed lightly; it is the measure of a public servant who doesn't know the meaning of the words, ``you can't pass it,'' ``it can't happen,'' or ``impossible.'' It is the measure of a Senator who--on every issue of importance, from health care to children, education, civil rights, choice, and so on--can always be counted on to be in the lead, challenging on the issues and fighting for the principles that guide our party and lift up our country. As every single one of my colleagues here knows, Ted Kennedy is an extraordinary public servant, not only because he knows who he is personally and sticks to his guns, never bending with the political currents, but because he has in his life and in his career proven again and again that progress doesn't happen by accident, that it doesn't happen when you simply stick to the text of the latest opinion poll or the whispers of a morning focus group, it happens when leaders define and fight the fights that need fighting and when public servants of conscience and conviction refuse to take no for an answer. That is why, for Ted Kennedy, the ``cause'' has not just endured, it has triumphed--again and again. Whether you agree with him or not, we know that Ted Kennedy has never been afraid to be a majority of one. We know that he has been an extraordinary leader because he has excelled while completing his work in the Senate, where sometimes others were afraid to begin. Ironically, in being a standard-bearer for an ideal, Ted has become, as Clymer wrote in his recent book: [N]ot just the leading Senator of his time, but one of the greats in its history, wise in the workings of this singular institution, especially its demand to be more than partisan to accomplish much. His partnerships with his fellow Senators are well known and often recited--and sometimes lampooned--from Howard Baker, Jacob Javits, Hugh Scott, Arlen Specter, Dan Quayle, Orrin Hatch, Alan Simpson, and Nancy Kassebaum--Ted has never hesitated to cross the aisle in an effort to accomplish his goals and to further a common agenda--fighting always to prove that ideologies, however incompatible according to conventional wisdom, can be put aside for the greater good when it improves the lives of our fellow Americans. Ted has always done that--put aside partisanship and reached out. On a personal note--and I think there are many Senators who would say this--Ted Kennedy is remarkable. There are so many of our colleagues who have been touched in times of loss, times of distress, times of disease or sickness, before an operation, after an operation, when a child was in trouble; it is almost always Ted Kennedy who is one of the first to pick up the phone and one of the first to offer support. I remember 30 years ago when I came back from Vietnam and a group of us ragtag veterans assembled on The Mall here to try to get the country to listen to what we thought was the truth. There were not many leaders in the Senate prepared to listen, but Ted Kennedy was among the first and the few who came down to that encampment, sat during the night, listened to the stories of veterans, and came back to the floor of the Senate to be an extraordinary witness to their truth. He reached out and demonstrated in actions, as well as words, the truth for which those soldiers had fought. Now we see that in so many ways. He goes where his conscience tells him to go. He hears of children who go through their early years without health care, who come to school unable to learn, and he has made their care his crusade. So millions more children today see a doctor because of Ted Kennedy and millions more will before he is done. He hears of workers sweating it out, punching a timeclock, doing backbreaking work over the course of a lifetime, and he has made their economic security his agenda. And so many millions of workers have seen their wages increased over the course of their lives, pensions protected where others would have left it to the marketplace, and he has created a safe workplace, and the right to organize has been put back on the Nation's agenda. These issues again and again will be advanced by Ted Kennedy. That is the drive, the passion, and the special commitment we celebrate today. This is not a new ideology, it is not a new-age vision, but it is an age-old belief that Americans have a responsibility to each other, that America is still in the process of becoming, and that we are privileged to serve here to make that dream real for all Americans. These are the qualities that make our colleague the lion of the Senate and make him one of the most prolific legislators in American history. They also make him what his brother Robert said was some of the most important words in the English language: A great citizen. For that and so much more, we honor our friend and colleague Ted Kennedy today. Exhibit 1 remarks by representative markey This past week, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts celebrated the 70th Birthday of our senior senator, Ted Kennedy, and a legacy of public service unsurpassed in its benefit to the people of our state, the country and the world. Of course, his legacy grows day by day, week by week, year by year, and will undoubtedly result in the greatest record of achievement that the United States Senate has ever known. It brings to mind a recent event of importance to all New Englanders. The New England Patriots won the Super Bowl this year, one of the greatest achievements in professional sports. So great is this achievement that our regional team has accomplished this incredible feat just once in its 40 year history. When a professional football team wins more than one championship in a relatively short time frame we proclaim it a dynasty. But what if a professional football team won the Super Bowl for 40 consecutive years? How would we describe such unprecedented success? That is the challenge we face as we celebrate the achievements of Ted Kennedy, for he manages to win the legislative Super Bowl every year. He has many teammates contributing to the success of their mutual efforts from year to year, but they come and go. The one constant is Senator Ted Kennedy, a Senate giant, the quarterback, the leader. Senator Kennedy has provided a powerful and effective voice for those who do not have a high-priced and well-recognized lobby in Washington--the poor and the underprivileged. His legislative accomplishments have enhanced the quality of health care we provide our constituents, the quality of education we provide our children and the quality of life every American family enjoys in this nation by safeguarding our environment and providing protection and equity in the workplace. Collectively, Senator Kennedy's body of work has given every individual in this country an opportunity to reach their ``American Dream.'' When Senator Kennedy retires they will place his picture and biography in the dictionary next to the definition of Senator. It will be an abridged version, because they won't have enough room to describe his accomplishments of the next forty years. It is an honor to call Ted my colleague, it is an honor to call him my friend, but most importantly it is an honor to call him my Senator. remarks by representative michael capuano I would like to extend my congratulations and best wishes to Senator Edward Kennedy as he celebrates his 70th birthday. Senator Kennedy's impact on Massachusetts and on our country is immeasurable. His powerful stamp can be found on national legislation and local programs ranging from health care and affordable housing to education. He is a true champion of America's working men and women and is a strong advocate for the needs of children. In Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy's hard work is visible in so many ways. He fights to increase access to public transportation and improve and highway system. He brings federal dollars to every corner of the Commonwealth for after-school programs, teacher training, counseling and a host of important initiatives. I am proud to serve in the Congress with Senator Kennedy and have learned a great deal from him during my short time in Washington. I look forward to serving many more years with the Senator. I know that Massachusetts and our country will continue to benefit from his years of experience. remarks by representative william d. delahunt This month the family, friends and admirers of Senator Edward M. Kennedy celebrate two major milestones: his 70th birthday and his 40th year in the Senate. It is a fitting moment to take stock of what his leadership has meant for social policy in this country. Senator Kennedy's legacy in the fields of health care reform, education and civil rights is a testament to his principled commitment to making America a more just society. His success in accomplishing so much of what he has set out to do--whether in the majority or the minority--is a testament to his gift for finding common ground and his mastery of the legislative art. In no area of his work have those twin attributes of principle and pragmatism been so in evidence as in his efforts to improve the criminal justice system. As a local prosecutor for over two decades, I watched with pride as Senator Kennedy fought for sensible crime control policies at a time when many in Congress were running in the opposite direction. As his congressional colleague for the last five years, I have been gratified to be able to collaborate with him on legislation to give local law enforcement officers the tools they need to keep our streets and neighborhoods safe, while also providing resources to community-based prevention and early intervention programs that keep young people from turning to violence in the first place. Ted Kennedy has always understood that government cannot respond effectively to such complex problems if politicians are merely reactive--if they cling to failed policies and discredited theories our of fear that an opponent will label them ``soft on crime''. And no one can call Senator Kennedy soft on crime. He understands--as few people can--the terrible toll that violence has taken on our families, our communities, and our culture. His own experience has made him especially sensitive to the needs of victims of violence in all its forms. Yet the Senator has never wavered in his insistence on due process and his deep opposition to capital punishment. His principles were sorely tested as he watched his brothers John and Bobby cut down in their prime. Few would have blamed him had he sought vengeance against the assassin who took the life of Robert Kennedy. Yet characteristically, he spoke even in his grief not of vengeance but of compassion, asking the Los Angeles district attorney to retrain from seeking the death penalty. Some politicians have been tempted to cast aside the Constitution when expediency demanded it. Not Ted Kennedy. He fought for a balanced crime bill in 1996, yet voted against it when it failed to safeguard the Writ of Habeas Corpus. He has continued to stand up for the rights of immigrants, whom others have far too often found an easy target in times of trouble. He has struggled to pass federal hate crimes legislation that would curb violence and harassment against gays and lesbians--another frequent scapegoat for popular anxieties. The commitment to a just society, that combination of principle and pragmatism, are among the many reasons I am proud to call Edward M. Kennedy my senator. My constituent. And my friend. Happy birthday, Ted. remarks by representative barney frank The senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, has done more to advance fairness in American life in the past forty years than anyone else in the country. I can think of no group of people suffering from unjustified adversity of whom he has been not simply a champion, but the most forceful, passionate, and, most importantly, the most effective champion. In fact, his extraordinary lifetime work for social and economic justice is not only the most impressive in post- World War II America, it overshadows the work of all but a handful of American public officials who have gone before him. At this point, I encounter a dilemma. Having said this about Senator Kennedy's career, I find myself without anything else to say on this central point--he has been for forty years the best we have at the most important task confronting public policy makers, and there is nothing to add to that in evaluating a political leader. But to end here somehow seems inadequate--if only to guard against misinterpretation of my opinion by those who measure admiration by its length. Fortunately, there is one subordinate aspect of Senator Kennedy's record that I believe calls out for comment--his shattering of a number of stereotypes. One form of shallow analysis that plagues the study of politics in America is that which sets up a series of false choices, and insists that public figures must choose to be on one side or the other of a set of opposites. We are told that effective insiders in Congress who seek to get things done cannot simultaneously be forceful public advocates. We are told that the political world is cleanly divided between idealists, pure but impractical, and pragmatists, ever ready to trade in principle for the sake of a deal. And last in this series, Members of Congress are often divided between those who focus on broad national themes, and their opposites who spend their time and energy working on specific projects for their local constituencies. One of the things that makes me grateful to Senator Kennedy for his unsurpassed legislative work is that he defies every one of these false dichotomies. He has been for Massachusetts an extremely effective advocate without in any way holding back from being our leading national voice for economic and social fairness. Nor does this passionate national advocacy in any way diminish his impact in the Senate, where he is one of the most productive and successful legislators in that body's history. And his impact has come precisely because he is so strongly committed to a set of ideals that he understands that his obligation is to be successful in carrying them into fruition. I believe it is important to admit one's mistakes, even if it isn't a lot of fun. And there is no statute of limitations on this principle. Forty years ago, I opposed Edward Kennedy's candidacy for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate. While I continue to have an enormous amount of respect for the late Edward McCormack, who was then his opponent, I want to say here that I have never been happier to have proven so wrong. remarks by representative stephen f. lynch It is with great honor that I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary man and an exemplary public figure. For forty years, Senator Ted Kennedy has given a voice to those without one, and has stood up for all those who need it most. Senator Kennedy has been a leader for Massachusetts, and for our nation, and his work has touched the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. We all recognize his remarkable efforts in protecting the civil rights of all Americans, improving the quality and accessibility of education, and his undying commitment to extend health care coverage to every American. But I want to pay special tribute to Senator Kennedy's dedication to the working men and women of Massachusetts. As an ironworker for eighteen years, I know firsthand the pride that comes from earning a living with your hands, and the struggles a worker must face to provide for his family on a blue-collar wage. No member of the United States Senate understands the reality of working families better, and no member respects them more than Ted Kennedy. Senator Kennedy appreciates the dignity of teachers, of mechanics, of nurses, and of ironworkers. He recognizes that working Americans aren't just looking for handouts from their government--they're looking for a leg up, to help them ensure that their children have every opportunity to succeed, and they're looking for a safety net, to help them provide for their families during the most difficult times. Senator Kennedy's legislative record reflects those principles, and that is why he has been the single most effective advocate for working Americans in our time. First and foremost amongst Senator Kennedy's legislative achievements is his ongoing fight for workers' rights and protections. One of the most basic principles upon which our nation was founded was fairness, and Ted Kennedy has done everything he can to promote that in the workplace. He has fought successfully to improve workplace safety and conditions, and continues to fight for ergonomics standards today. He has fought successfully to raise the minimum wage, and lift working families above the poverty line. Additionally, he has stood on the lines with workers across the state to demand a fair wage for their work. His reputation as a trusted negotiator with both workers and management has allowed Senator Kennedy to quiet disputes and bring all sides to the table for a fair and equitable resolution during sometimes hostile labor disputes. In 1999, he intervened in the nurses strike at St. Vincent's Hospital in Worcester, and all sides came out winners when the nurses returned to work with new restrictions on mandatory overtime which improved the safety and quality of care for patients. Senator Kennedy has fought to ensure that all workers are paid an equitable wage, regardless of sex, race, or sexual orientation. he fought successfully for passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which allows workers to take unpaid leave to care for members of their family when they are ill. Senator Kennedy believes in the power of education, and knows that it is essential to providing children and adults alike with the opportunity to succeed. In today's marketplace, employers require a higher level of skill and training than ever before. That is why Senator Kennedy's efforts to expand opportunities for job training centers and career counseling services have had such an impact for workers who have been laid off, or who are looking to take the next step in their careers. In this time of economic recession, more and more workers are laid off and need a temporary boost to help them continue to provide for their families. It is in times like these when Senator Kennedy's most significant impact becomes clear. Because of his work in championing benefits for the unemployed, and in providing transitional assistance to workers, millions of Americans have the ability to take the time to retrain themselves, and re-enter the workforce sooner. And, because of his work to extend health care coverage to those who have recently lost their jobs, the health and safety of their children need not be put at risk while they're looking for a new job. Senator Kennedy's efforts to protect and support working Americans have been felt far and wide. As a former union president and head of a working family, I cannot express how grateful I am to him for his courage, his voice and for his support. I wish Senator Kennedy all the best on the occasion of his 70th birthday, and hope for all Americans, that he will continue to serve this nation for many decades to come. remarks by representative james mc govern I rise today to pay tribute to a true champion of Massachusetts, Senator Ted Kennedy. As many Members of the House know, the Senator is celebrating his 70th birthday this year. For most of those 70 years, Senator Kennedy has been a voice for the voiceless, a champion of working families, a force for peace and justice at home and around the world. It is nearly impossible to find a major piece of domestic legislation over the past two generations that has not been shaped by the Senator's drive, courage, tenacity and collegiality. From making health care more affordable to raising the minimum wage; from civil rights for all Americans to fair and compassionate treatment of immigrants; from Biafra to Bangladesh to Belfast--Senator Kennedy has led the charge. But though he has reached the pinnacles of power, Senator Kennedy has never forgotten the people of Massachusetts who have elected him over and over again. One only needs to drive through the 3rd Congressional District to see his handiwork. Dozens of economic development projects simply would not have happened without him. The Kennedy name, of course, is synonymous with service in Massachusetts. Senator Kennedy not only survived almost unimaginable personal tragedy, he persevered. He persevered because for him, public service is not a job--it is a calling, a mission, a vocation. And on a more personal level, Senator Kennedy has been an amazingly generous friend to me and my family. I have learned a tremendous amount from him, and I am honored to call him a colleague. I know that all of my colleagues in the House join me in wishing Senator Ted Kennedy a very happy 70th birthday, and many more happy birthdays to come. remarks by representative marty meehan I rise to honor Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Senator Kennedy celebrated his 70th birthday on Friday, February 22, 2002. For nearly 40 years, Senator Kennedy has dedicated his energies and remarkable abilities to making our communities, our Commonwealth, and our nation a better place to live. The fruits of his efforts are evident throughout Massachusetts' Fifth Congressional District. From the redevelopment of the former Ft. Devens military base to the preservation of the Watt Farm in Harvard, from the construction of a new bus operations and maintenance facility in Lowell to the renovation of the Marlborough Hospital's Emergency Department, from the Merrimack Valley to the Metrowest area, Senator Kennedy has delivered for the residents of the Fifth District. Senator Kennedy's record of accomplishment doesn't end at the borders of the Fifth District or even the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In fact, it just begins. On every important fight waged for the working families of our nation, Senator Kennedy has been our leader. He has fought tirelessly for civil rights on the home front and human rights around the globe. He has worked to improve our public schools, to make college more affordable, and to give workers the resources they need to upgrade their skills. He has waged an endless battle to make work pay by pushing for an increase in the minimum wage. And his leadership on health care has made health insurance a reality for the poorest children of our nation and focused us all on the need for meaningful managed care reform. And I believe that when Congress passes legislation to create a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors, we will have Senator Kennedy to thank for that. On July 15th, 1960, Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy issued a challenge to a generation of young Americans. ``The New Frontier of which I speak,'' he said, ``is not a set of promises. It is a set of challenges. It sums up not what I intend to offer the American people, but what I intend to ask of them.'' On June 6, 1966, Senator Robert Francis Kennedy spoke in Capetown, South Africa about the nature of the challenge his older brother issued our nation: ``Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of those acts will be written the history of the generation . . . It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.'' That call to service, to courage, to secure universal justice, inspired generations of Americans to change the world around them--including the oldest son of a working- class family on 22 London Street in ``the Acre'' section of Lowell. Along with millions of Americans, my ideals, my values, and my vision for a great and just America were inspired by Senator Kennedy's brothers. I serve in Congress today--and strive to make a difference--because of the Kennedy family. While his brothers continue to inspire us all, it is Senator Kennedy's endless determination, boundless compassion, selfless commitment, and knowledge about how to get things done, that has made their vision a reality. When the history books are written, it is certain that the career of Senator Edward M. Kennedy will stand as one of the most productive and important of all time. Senator, you are one of Massachusetts' greatest treasures. Happy 70th Birthday, and thank you for 40 years of service in the United States Senate.

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that the remarks of Senator Kennedy's House colleagues be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I should announce we have gone overtime. The Senator from Connecticut needs to move forward. That is where we will wind up.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for those special comments. I recognize the Senator from Tennessee for 3 minutes and then the Senator from Washington for 2 minutes or such time as she may use.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for setting aside this time. I am particularly grateful to all my colleagues who have taken part in this special tribute. I am quite confident that my colleague would think otherwise, but I don't think there has been a word of excess. There has been an extraordinary commonality in the comments of everybody, a sense of the Senator's instinct for this place, a sense of the Senator's obvious accomplishments through the years he has been here, his commitment, his passion, his effort to change things for the better for other people. But through everybody's comments, in the end I think what is most striking and perhaps most important, and most important for us to think about as Senators, is the humanity and the way in which he has touched the lives of citizens and the lives of his colleagues. We are very grateful. I am confident all my colleagues will join me in saying if you think the last 40 have been pretty terrific, you probably haven't seen anything yet. As Senator Dodd said, there is a lot of territory yet to be covered. We are grateful that Senator Kennedy is going to be there to cover it.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island and recognize the Senator from Connecticut for such time as he may use. I understand Senator Biden may be on his way.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his comments. Let me say, we on our side will forgive him for his complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of our party, precisely because of his affection and respect for our good friend, Senator Kennedy. We thank him for that. I will recognize the Senator from New Jersey for such time as he will consume, and then the Senator from Georgia, and, finally, the Senator from Rhode Island. We will close with the Senator from Connecticut. I know we are out of time. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for such time as we need to complete these remarks.

Mr. KERRY. I am grateful to the Senator for her remarks, and I recognize the Senator from New York for such time as she consumes.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for very thoughtful and personal comments. It is not inappropriate that the last speaker will be one of those other Senators who was among the 16 U.S. Senators ever to join this body at the age of 30. I yield to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New York for her spirited and wonderful comments about our colleague. I yield the Senator from Maryland 4 minutes and the Senator from Utah 6 minutes.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from New York is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his enormous courtesy. I thank the majority leader for his wonderful comments about our colleague.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning my amendment No. 2852 to the farm bill, S. 1731. As chairman of the Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee I am pleased to be joined by my ranking member, Senator Snowe, in offering this amendment. In addition, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy and Collins, two other New England Senators, who know all too well the problems that our fishermen face in New England. This amendment will permanently revoke Northeast multi-species fishing permits using a ``reverse auction,'' a measure that has been developed to ensure we remove the maximum amount of capacity from the fishery at the lowest possible price to the taxpayers. We have more than 1,600 permits in New England. Approximately two-thirds of these permits allow fishermen to fish for only 88 days each year. The remaining fishermen can fish, on average, 130 days a year based on historical days-at-sea usage. As a result of a similar provision we secured in July of 2000, the National Marine Fisheries Service has begun the process of reducing latent capacity in this fishery, but recent events have indicated the need to expand the program further. While the New England stocks are slowly recovering after years of substantial restrictions, additional limits are coming. The most recent scientific advice suggests that we need to cut days-at-sea by 65 percent in order to meet our 10-year rebuilding targets for Gulf of Maine cod. Basically, two-thirds of New England fishermen could be down to 31 days a year of fishing, from the 88 days they are allotted today. Obviously working families would be severely affected by such cuts. We also desperately need to reduce capacity so that the size of the fishery is in proportion to the available resource. The current latent permit capacity reduction program will help tremendously, but I am convinced a second round is needed to build a sustainable fishery. To add pressure to this already difficult situation, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will shortly be issuing its determination on additional management measures that must be taken in this fishery to meet Federal legal requirements as the result of a lawsuit filed by a number of conservation groups against the National Marine Fisheries Service. The plaintiffs have already prevailed in that case, in which the court found unequivocally that the Federal Government, which has the authority to approve or disapprove plans developed by the New England Fishery Management Council, had not ensured that these plans included rebuilding measures required under the management plan nor measures to limit the bycatch of fish. In this fishery, bycatch largely results from vessel-specific mortality controls called ``trip limits.'' I must agree, as does every fisherman I know, the idea of throwing fish overboard in order to meet management goals designed to increase fish abundance is both counterintuitive and wasteful. In order to fix the problem we need to increase the trip limits for our fishermen so they no longer have to waste good fish in order to make a day's pay. However, we cannot increase these trip limits until we have reduced the number of permits available for this fishery. This is unfortunately a long-term problem for many traditional fishing communities in New England. This money will allow some fishermen to retire with dignity, others no doubt will seek job retraining and enter another profession. I am grateful to the managers of this bill, Senators Harkin and Lugar, for agreeing to a voice vote on this amendment. I am confident that this money will allow us to build both sustainable fisheries and sustainable fishing communities in New England in the years to come.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to establish the Freedom's Way National Heritage Area in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The bill is cosponsored by Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg. The bill proposes to establish a national heritage area including 36 communities in Massachusetts and six communities in New Hampshire. The area has important cultural and natural legacies that are important to New England and the entire Nation. I want to highlight just a few of the reasons I believe this designation makes sense. The Freedom's Way is an ideal candidate because it is rich in historic sites, trails, landscapes and views. The land and the area's resources are pieces of American history and culture. The entire region, and especially places like Lexington and Concord, is important to our country's founding and our political and philosophical principles. Within the 42 communities are truly special places. These include the Minuteman National Historic Park, more than 40 National Register Districts and National Historic Landmarks, the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Walden Pond State Reservation, Gardener State Park, Harvard Shaker Village and the Shirley Shaker Village. In addition, there is strong grassroots support for this designation. The people of these communities organized themselves in this effort and have now turned to us for assistance. I hope we can provide it. Supporters include elected officials, people dedicated to preserving a small piece of American and New England history, and local business leaders. It is an honor to help their cause. Finally, I am very pleased that Senators from both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have embraced this proposal. I thank Senators Kennedy and Gregg.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to establish the Freedom's Way National Heritage Area in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The bill is cosponsored by Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg. The bill proposes to establish a national heritage area including 36 communities in Massachusetts and six communities in New Hampshire. The area has important cultural and natural legacies that are important to New England and the entire Nation. I want to highlight just a few of the reasons I believe this designation makes sense. The Freedom's Way is an ideal candidate because it is rich in historic sites, trails, landscapes and views. The land and the area's resources are pieces of American history and culture. The entire region, and especially places like Lexington and Concord, is important to our country's founding and our political and philosophical principles. Within the 42 communities are truly special places. These include the Minuteman National Historic Park, more than 40 National Register Districts and National Historic Landmarks, the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Walden Pond State Reservation, Gardener State Park, Harvard Shaker Village and the Shirley Shaker Village. In addition, there is strong grassroots support for this designation. The people of these communities organized themselves in this effort and have now turned to us for assistance. I hope we can provide it. Supporters include elected officials, people dedicated to preserving a small piece of American and New England history, and local business leaders. It is an honor to help their cause. Finally, I am very pleased that Senators from both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have embraced this proposal. I thank Senators Kennedy and Gregg.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator Dorgan's amendment to the farm bill, S. 1731. This amendment closes a loophole that in the past allowed people who were not farmers to collect subsidy payments. I support farm policy that requires a farmer to supply at least 50 percent of the labor or 1000 hours of work, whichever is less, in order to collect a farm subsidy. In addition this amendment includes a net income test so that farmers who have adjusted gross income of over $2.5 million three years in a row are not eligible for federal payments. Senator Dorgan's amendment ensures that farm aid will target the people who need it the most, the small family farmers that actually work the land and are the lifeblood or our rural communities. It is a pleasure to support this amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Motor Carrier Fuel Cost Equity Act, which is much-needed legislation. My bill is designed to improve the ability of independent truck drivers to recoup losses from high fuel costs by requiring that motor carriers charge a fuel surcharge when the price of diesel fuel rises above $1.15 and pass-through this surcharge to the payer of the fuel costs. My bill will level the playing field for small operators, which comprise nearly 80 percent of the motor carrier industry, without any cost or regulatory requirement for the Federal Government. There are approximately 350,000 independent truck drivers, known as owner-operators, who haul freight either on a per-load contractual basis or by leasing their truck and driving services to a motor carrier, freight forwarder or other shipping broker. Owner-operators essentially are independent contractors. Sometimes they provide their services directly to a shipper, but more often owner-operators contract out their services to a motor carrier company which negotiates its own contract with a shipper and then pays the owner-operator to provide the transport service. Fuel surcharges are a long-established method of permitting motor carriers, airlines and even taxis to recover high fuel costs. But because of intense competition in the industry, owner-operators have little ability to negotiate terms of transport with a motor carrier, and in virtually no circumstance are they able to pass along the increased costs of fuel to the shipper. The inability of independent truck drivers to pass along the higher fuel costs of the last two years has resulted in the bankruptcy of 7,000 trucking companies, nearly all small businesses, and the repossession of nearly 200,000 trucks. I'd like to make clear a couple of additional points about the legislation: First, the bill would not affect less-than-truckload carriers, such as package delivery services. Many of these services are already imposing surcharges and they don't face the same unique situation that confronts the independent trucker. Second, my bill allows the parties to set their own surcharge formulas, but the surcharge must be sufficient to fully compensate the person who pays for the fuel. That's only fair, but it allows the motor carriers and truckers the greatest degree of flexibility in negotiating the terms of transport. While national diesel fuel costs have recently fallen below the $1.15 threshold, we know well that fuel costs can increase suddenly. America's independent truckers, which form the backbone of truck transportation in this country, deserve the ability to protect themselves during these periods of high diesel fuel prices. I am proud to be joined by Senator Bond in introducing this bill today. I am also pleased that Congressman Rahall has introduced similar legislation on the House side. He has worked hard on this bill for several years now, and I look forward to working closely with him as we move forward on this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Motor Carrier Fuel Cost Equity Act, which is much-needed legislation. My bill is designed to improve the ability of independent truck drivers to recoup losses from high fuel costs by requiring that motor carriers charge a fuel surcharge when the price of diesel fuel rises above $1.15 and pass-through this surcharge to the payer of the fuel costs. My bill will level the playing field for small operators, which comprise nearly 80 percent of the motor carrier industry, without any cost or regulatory requirement for the Federal Government. There are approximately 350,000 independent truck drivers, known as owner-operators, who haul freight either on a per-load contractual basis or by leasing their truck and driving services to a motor carrier, freight forwarder or other shipping broker. Owner-operators essentially are independent contractors. Sometimes they provide their services directly to a shipper, but more often owner-operators contract out their services to a motor carrier company which negotiates its own contract with a shipper and then pays the owner-operator to provide the transport service. Fuel surcharges are a long-established method of permitting motor carriers, airlines and even taxis to recover high fuel costs. But because of intense competition in the industry, owner-operators have little ability to negotiate terms of transport with a motor carrier, and in virtually no circumstance are they able to pass along the increased costs of fuel to the shipper. The inability of independent truck drivers to pass along the higher fuel costs of the last two years has resulted in the bankruptcy of 7,000 trucking companies, nearly all small businesses, and the repossession of nearly 200,000 trucks. I'd like to make clear a couple of additional points about the legislation: First, the bill would not affect less-than-truckload carriers, such as package delivery services. Many of these services are already imposing surcharges and they don't face the same unique situation that confronts the independent trucker. Second, my bill allows the parties to set their own surcharge formulas, but the surcharge must be sufficient to fully compensate the person who pays for the fuel. That's only fair, but it allows the motor carriers and truckers the greatest degree of flexibility in negotiating the terms of transport. While national diesel fuel costs have recently fallen below the $1.15 threshold, we know well that fuel costs can increase suddenly. America's independent truckers, which form the backbone of truck transportation in this country, deserve the ability to protect themselves during these periods of high diesel fuel prices. I am proud to be joined by Senator Bond in introducing this bill today. I am also pleased that Congressman Rahall has introduced similar legislation on the House side. He has worked hard on this bill for several years now, and I look forward to working closely with him as we move forward on this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I salute the New England Patriots for their amazing win in Super Bowl XXXVI. We are so proud of our Patriots for bringing home this championship and for the manner in which they achieved it: through determination, class and teamwork. Some followers of the Pats through their startling season have deemed New England a team of destiny. I agree with that characterization if one defines team of destiny as a collection of individuals who worked together as an efficient, loyal combination in the face of adversity and doubt. From Fort Kent, ME, to Waterbury, CT, from Williamstown to Wellfleet, New England sports fans have hungered for a sports title since 1986. Few would have guessed that it would be the Patriots who would end this drought by bringing home their first championship. Although blessed with four decades of star players such as Gino Cappelletti, Jim Nance and Babe Parilli in the 1960s; Sam (Bam) Cunningham, Russ Francis, and Jim Plunkett in the 1970s; John Hannah, Mike Haynes, and Stanley Morgan in the 1980s; and Irving Fryar, Curtis Martin, and Chris Slade in the 1990s, the Patriots had never won the big game. Thanks to the dedicated ownership of longtime season ticket holder and local philanthropist Bob Kraft and his family, however, the Patriots became a better, stronger franchise both off and on the field. Faced with an untenable stadium situation, Kraft, using his own money, eventually built a wonder in CMGI Field, which will open this fall as the new home of the new world champions. Forced to replace the legendary coach Bill Parcells, Kraft eventually hired Bill Belichick, a low-key mastermind who has justly earned a reputation for devising pro football's most devious defensive schemes. Still, in spite of Coach Belichick and his team of heady assistants coordinated by Romeo Crennel and Charlie Weis, few expected the Patriots, 5-11 last season, to even contend for pro football's ultimate prize. Indeed, the Pats stumbled to an 0-2 start, lost franchise quarterback Bledsoe, and appeared, behind unheralded Tom Brady, a sixth round draft choice who had begun 2001 as a third-string quarterback who had thrown but three passes as a rookie, about to fall to 1-4 against San Diego. But Brady led a remarkable comeback to overcome San Diego and its Massachusetts quarterback Doug Flutie of Natick and Boston College. This turnaround heralded a season in which the Patriots would overcome obstacles in step-by-step fashion. After falling to the St. Louis Rams 24-17 in Foxboro, the Pats refused to lose again, reeling off six regular season and three playoff wins in shockingly methodical succession. Rather than serving as a distraction, a healthy Bledsoe served as a rallying point for Belichick to demonstrate his decisiveness, Brady to show his skills, and Bledsoe to reveal his class. Haunted by the phantom roughing-the-passer call against Sugar Bear Hamilton in a 1976 playoff and the paralyzing of Darryl Stingley in a 1978 exhibition, the Patriots overcame their old AFL foe the Oakland Raiders at Foxboro Stadium's final contest. Truly a win for the ages and the region, the overtime thriller took place in several inches of snow and ended in the Pats' favor thanks to the clutch receiving of East Boston's Jermaine Wiggins and the boot of Adam Vinatieri, pro football's best pressure kicker whose playoff beard had begun to resemble that of former Boston Bruins great Raymond Bourque. As the clock neared midnight on that snowy Saturday, the Patriots celebrated their 16-13 sudden-death comeback with long snapper Lonie Paxton making snow angels in the end zone. In spite of these heroics, critics downplayed the Pats' chances against the number-one-ranked defense of the Pittsburgh Steelers in Heinz Field, their fine new facility. The all-around special play of the overlooked but record-setting receiver and returner Troy Brown put the Patriots on the scoreboard first, but then disaster seemed to strike in the form of an ankle injury to Brady. Fortunately, Bledsoe, although inactive for more than four months, came off the bench to spark the Patriots to an upset that returned them to the Super Bowl in New Orleans for the third time. Backed by Bledsoe and Brady, the strongest QB combination that the NFL had seen since the Rams rotated Norm Van Brocklin and Bob Waterfield in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Patriots nevertheless found themselves an overwhelming underdog to lose by double digits to the record-setting St. Louis Rams and their offensive machine. But Tedy Bruschi, Ty Law, and Lawyer Milloy led a hard-hitting defense. Brady, David Patten, and Antowain Smith controlled the ball on offense, and the Patriots led their fine and worthy opponent for most of the game. When the Rams tied the score with 90 seconds to go, other teams might have lost their composure and the game. But not this club. The Patriots played with poise, relying on the youthful Brady to sling the short passes that put the Pats in position for another heart stopping kick by Vinatieri. For the first time in Super Bowl history, a game ended with a winning offensive play, a field goal. While worth just three points, this kick meant so much more, a Super Bowl win for the players, coaches, owners, and fans of the Patriots, and a reminder of the timeless value of believing in yourselves and your teammates. Mr. President, I commend the champion Patriots and the runner-up Rams for their achievements.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, each year, the United States economy generates 600,000 to 800,000 new businesses. While many of these businesses will succeed, some of them will fail. Whether they succeed or not, one fact is without question: the entrepreneurs building these small businesses lay the foundation for our Nation's productivity gains, employment growth, and economic progress. In fact, although specific estimates vary, economists generally agree that small, entrepreneurial companies generate the majority of the Nation's new jobs. The legislation I am introducing today, the Business Retained Income During Growth and Expansion, (BRIDGE), Act, will help ensure that rapidly expanding, entrepreneurial businesses have access to the capital they need to continue creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Most new business start small and stay small. A portion, however, evolve into fast-growth companies with the capacity to propel the economy forward. For these companies, access to financing presents a pivotal challenge. A typical small business may open its doors with a combination of personal savings, credit card borrowing, and family lending. Informal investors, family, friends, and work associates, contribute the vast majority of the $56 billion of estimated initial funding for new businesses. If a business is successful, it moves to the next stage of development. Unfortunately, emerging growth companies will often outstrip the capital financing available based solely on the personal credit or assets of the entrepreneur. Capital funding gaps frequently prevail when a firm seeks financing in the range of $250,000 to $1 million, a period when the business is particularly vulnerable. Funding needs below $250,000 are often fulfilled by family, friends, credit cards, home mortgages, and home equity lines of credit. Beyond $250,000, businesses typically turn to so-called ``angel'' financiers; high-interest borrowing; and in limited cases, Small Business Investment Companies. Venture capital is usually not an option for these companies because initial venture investments generally begin at approximately $3 million, which is far more than most early- stage growth companies need or warrant. When sales reach $10 million, the company is better able to attract external financing at a reasonable cost based on the business's underlying assets. Congress should take steps to ease the credit crunch for small businesses climbing the economic ladder from small to medium-size enterprise. When the lack of available financing prevents a growing, successful firm from expanding into new markets, we miss an opportunity to create new jobs and unleash productive forces. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Olympia Snowe will help bridge the gap in capital financing for emerging growth companies. A companion measures has been introduced in the House by Representatives Jim DeMint and Brian Baird. The BRIDGE Act would allow mid-sized, fast-growing businesses to temporarily defer a portion of their Federal income tax liability if the firm's sales for the year are at least 10 percent higher than the average sales of the prior two years. The two-year deferral would be limited to $250,000 of tax, which would be repayable with interest over a four-year period. The tax-deferred amount would be deposited in a separate trust account at a bank or other approved intermediary, and the firm could borrow against the deferred amount, as collateral, for business purposes. Upon sale or merger of the business, any remaining tax deferral would be payable at that time. To be eligible, a small business would have to have annual gross receipts of $10,000,000 or less. Partnerships and S corporations would also be eligible to make the election to defer taxes. To allow adequate review of this new and innovative concept, the proposal would expire at the end of 2005. The BRIDGE Act will free up new investment capital for fast-growing firms by allowing them to use a portion of their federal tax liability for self-financing. These firms experience heavy demands on their cash flow as they reinvest receipts, hire new employees, create additional marketing channels, and purchase new equipment. Tax liability directly trades off with reinvestment. The BRIDGE Act will help reduce cash flow pressures by allowing a limited tax deferral. As the firm prospers, it will repay its original tax obligation as well as additional taxes on its higher receipts. One of the most interesting aspects of the proposal is that its long- term costs are negligible. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the legislation would generate a revenue loss of $22.9 billion during the first four years. However, as businesses repay deferred amounts, the revenue loss would reverse, and then some. During the following six years, the proposal would raise $24.1 billion. Thus, over the ten year budget window, the proposal would raise $1.1 billion. The entrepreneurial spirit lies at the foundation of our economy's technological advances, creative innovations, and dynamic growth. We should take steps to ensure that rapidly growing companies have the resources needed to continue producing new jobs and opportunities. The BRIDGE Act will free entrepreneurial businesses from the shackles of unmet capital funding needs and empower them to expand into new markets. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, each year, the United States economy generates 600,000 to 800,000 new businesses. While many of these businesses will succeed, some of them will fail. Whether they succeed or not, one fact is without question: the entrepreneurs building these small businesses lay the foundation for our Nation's productivity gains, employment growth, and economic progress. In fact, although specific estimates vary, economists generally agree that small, entrepreneurial companies generate the majority of the Nation's new jobs. The legislation I am introducing today, the Business Retained Income During Growth and Expansion, (BRIDGE), Act, will help ensure that rapidly expanding, entrepreneurial businesses have access to the capital they need to continue creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Most new business start small and stay small. A portion, however, evolve into fast-growth companies with the capacity to propel the economy forward. For these companies, access to financing presents a pivotal challenge. A typical small business may open its doors with a combination of personal savings, credit card borrowing, and family lending. Informal investors, family, friends, and work associates, contribute the vast majority of the $56 billion of estimated initial funding for new businesses. If a business is successful, it moves to the next stage of development. Unfortunately, emerging growth companies will often outstrip the capital financing available based solely on the personal credit or assets of the entrepreneur. Capital funding gaps frequently prevail when a firm seeks financing in the range of $250,000 to $1 million, a period when the business is particularly vulnerable. Funding needs below $250,000 are often fulfilled by family, friends, credit cards, home mortgages, and home equity lines of credit. Beyond $250,000, businesses typically turn to so-called ``angel'' financiers; high-interest borrowing; and in limited cases, Small Business Investment Companies. Venture capital is usually not an option for these companies because initial venture investments generally begin at approximately $3 million, which is far more than most early- stage growth companies need or warrant. When sales reach $10 million, the company is better able to attract external financing at a reasonable cost based on the business's underlying assets. Congress should take steps to ease the credit crunch for small businesses climbing the economic ladder from small to medium-size enterprise. When the lack of available financing prevents a growing, successful firm from expanding into new markets, we miss an opportunity to create new jobs and unleash productive forces. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Olympia Snowe will help bridge the gap in capital financing for emerging growth companies. A companion measures has been introduced in the House by Representatives Jim DeMint and Brian Baird. The BRIDGE Act would allow mid-sized, fast-growing businesses to temporarily defer a portion of their Federal income tax liability if the firm's sales for the year are at least 10 percent higher than the average sales of the prior two years. The two-year deferral would be limited to $250,000 of tax, which would be repayable with interest over a four-year period. The tax-deferred amount would be deposited in a separate trust account at a bank or other approved intermediary, and the firm could borrow against the deferred amount, as collateral, for business purposes. Upon sale or merger of the business, any remaining tax deferral would be payable at that time. To be eligible, a small business would have to have annual gross receipts of $10,000,000 or less. Partnerships and S corporations would also be eligible to make the election to defer taxes. To allow adequate review of this new and innovative concept, the proposal would expire at the end of 2005. The BRIDGE Act will free up new investment capital for fast-growing firms by allowing them to use a portion of their federal tax liability for self-financing. These firms experience heavy demands on their cash flow as they reinvest receipts, hire new employees, create additional marketing channels, and purchase new equipment. Tax liability directly trades off with reinvestment. The BRIDGE Act will help reduce cash flow pressures by allowing a limited tax deferral. As the firm prospers, it will repay its original tax obligation as well as additional taxes on its higher receipts. One of the most interesting aspects of the proposal is that its long- term costs are negligible. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the legislation would generate a revenue loss of $22.9 billion during the first four years. However, as businesses repay deferred amounts, the revenue loss would reverse, and then some. During the following six years, the proposal would raise $24.1 billion. Thus, over the ten year budget window, the proposal would raise $1.1 billion. The entrepreneurial spirit lies at the foundation of our economy's technological advances, creative innovations, and dynamic growth. We should take steps to ensure that rapidly growing companies have the resources needed to continue producing new jobs and opportunities. The BRIDGE Act will free entrepreneurial businesses from the shackles of unmet capital funding needs and empower them to expand into new markets. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the behalf of thousands of small business owners across this country who are still struggling to keep their businesses open in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. They're having a tremendously tough time paying their bills and making payroll, and they need access to affordable loans so that they have sufficient working capital as they adjust to the market or until business returns to normal. Senator Bond and I put forth a comprehensive bill in the last session, shortly after terrorist attacks, that addressed not only disaster assistance and the worsening credit crunch that has compounded the financial problems of small businesses, but also the need for business counseling and protection in recovering lost revenue from frozen federal contracting jobs. I am talking specifically about S. 1499, the American Small Business Emergency Relief and Recovery Act of 2001. For the sake of small business owners and their employees, I wish I could say that I was here to speak about implementation of this legislation. But I cannot. S. 1499, was blocked by the Administration and a few Republican Senators. So here I am, at the beginning of another session, a new year, and four months after the bill was introduced, talking about the Senate acting on emergency legislation as small businesses wait for us to do something to help them. I really do not know how anyone in this body could stand to go home after Congress adjourned and explain to their constituents how we could provide billions in loans and grants to airlines, but we could not provide a modicum of that assistance to small businesses. Republicans holding the bill in the Senate tell me and the press that they blocked the bill and still have holds on the bill because the Administration has problems with it. The Administration says they have problems with the bill because they do not believe there is a credit crunch making it harder and more expensive for small businesses to get loans. They do not believe we need to provide incentives to stimulate borrowing or to encourage banks to make loans to small businesses. How can there be no credit crunch when survey results by the Federal Reserve reveal that as many as 51 percent of banks have reduced lending to small businesses? How can there be no credit crunch when established giants like the airlines could not get loans in the post-September 11th economy? Please tell me how the Administration's priority is an economic stimulus package, but the Administration wants us to drop the stimulus provisions in S. 1499? What better way to stimulate the economy than through business investment and job creation? What is homeland security without economic security? They want us to drop the protection for small businesses doing business with the Federal Government. And they want us to drop incentives making the Small Business Administration's loans more affordable for borrowers and lenders. Senator Bond and I asked them to meet us halfway, and they said no. We asked them to give us alternative language, and they didn't give us any. We spent more than 20 hours negotiating on this bill and it appears as if the Administration never had any intention of finding common ground. It appears as if it was an exercise in delay. Let me describe briefly where I disagree with the Administration about how to help small businesses battling bankruptcy and employee layoffs triggered by the terrorist attacks and economic downturn. The Administration believes that all assistance should be delivered through the SBA's disaster loans, which are administered through only four regional offices. From talking to small businesses and SBA lenders, Senator Bond and I have concluded that small businesses would be better served through a combination of disaster loans and government guaranteed loans. Government guaranteed loans are almost five times cheaper than what the Administration has proposed, have less risk for the taxpayer, and can reach more small business owners because they are delivered through more than 5,000 private sector lenders who know their communities and have experience making SBA guaranteed loans. Our proposal combines public and private sector approaches to ensure small businesses nationwide receive the maximum amount of assistance. The economy was fizzling before September 11th, and small businesses were already feeling the pain. To stay financially healthy, they were doing their part by cutting back on spending, investing and hiring, and the Federal Reserve was cutting interest rates in an attempt to keep inflation in check. After September 11th, small business owners across this country put on black arm bands. The plug was pulled on their business. It didn't matter what state they were in; they weren't immune to the ripple effect of grounded transportation, closed financial markets, a volatile economy, and lay-offs announced by the tens of thousands. Let's start this session off right by passing S. 1499. Let's demonstrate that we understand the significance of small businesses to the American economy and that we will help them like we have helped other industries.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Hutchinson and Mikulski in re-introducing the Nurse Reinvestment Act. This legislation will increase the number of nurses in our country, and also ensure that every nurse in the field has the skills he or she needs to provide the quality care patients deserve. We are in the midst of a serious nursing workforce shortage. Every type of community, urban, suburban and rural, is touched by it. No sector of our health care system is immune to it. Across the country, hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies and hospices are struggling to find nurses to care for their patients. Patients in search of care have been denied admission to facilities and told that there were ``no beds'' for them. Often there are beds, just not the nurses to care for the patients who would occupy them. Our Naiton has suffered from nursing shortages in the past. However, this shortage is particularly severe because we are losing nurses at both ends of the pipeline. Over the past five years, enrollment in entry-level nursing programs has declined by 20 percent. Lured to the lucartive jobs of the new economy, high school graduates are not pursuing careers in nursing in the numbers they once had. Consequently, nurses under the age of 30 represent only 10 percent of the current workforce. By 2010, 40 percent of the nursing workforce will be over the age of 50, and nearing retirement. If these trends are not reversed, we stand to lose vast numbers of nurses at the same time that they will be needed to care for the millions of baby boomers enrolling in Medicare. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will support the recruitment of new students into our Nation's nursing programs. The bill will fund national and local public service announcements to enhance the profile of the nursing profession and encourage students to commit to a career in nursing. Our legislation will also expand school-to-career partnerships between health care facilities, nursing colleges, middle schools and high schools to show our youth the value of a nursing degree. Our legislation will ensure that barriers to higher education do not dissuade Americans who are interested in nursing from pursuing a degree in the field. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will support education for students who need help getting-up to speed on math, science and medical English. Our legislation will also ensure that there is support for single moms and dads with children who need a hand in daycare or a lift in getting to their classroom because they are without transportation. Still, is it not enough to simply encourage more individuals to enter the nursing profession, we must also ensure that our schools of nursing have enough professors to teach them. The Nurse Reinvestment Act provides for a fast-track facility development program, which encourages master's and doctoral students to rapidly complete their studies through loans and scholarships. Individuals receiving financial assistance through the fast-track faculty program must agree to teach at an ascredited school of nursing in exchange for this assistance. In addition to recruiting new nurses, our legislation will reinvest in nurses who are already practicing by providing them with education and training at every step of the career ladder and at every health care facility in which they work. It will ensure that nurses can obtain advanced degrees, from a B.S. in Nursing to a PhD in Nursing. It will enable nurses to access the specialty training they require to learn how to treat a specific disease or utilize a new piece of technology. Our bill will also help colleges and universities develop curriculum in gerontology and long-term care so that nursing students can pursue concentrations, minors and majors in this growing field of health care and be ready to apply their knowledge to the current and future senior population. To assist institutions in providing advanced education and training for nurses across the career ladder, our bill will strengthen the partnerships between colleges of nursing and health care facilities. Grants will be available to support such initiatives as the teaching of a course in gerontology in the conference rooms of a hospital or nurusing home. Grants will also support the use of distance learning technology to extend education and training to rural areas, and specialty education and training to all areas. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will authorize, for the first time in history, a National Nurse Service Corps. Separate from, though modeled after, the National Health Service Corps, the NNSC will administer scholarships to students who commit to working in a health care facility that is experiencing a shortage of nurses. In urban, suburban and rural communities across the country, where facilities turn away patients due to staff shortages, the NNSC will send qualified nurses to serve and provide the care that patients deserve. Our country boasts the best health care system in the world. But, that health care system is being jeopardized by the shortage plaguing our nursing workforce. Indeed, state-of-the-art medical facilities are of no use if their beds go unfilled and their floors remain empty because the nurses needed to staff them are not available. The Nurse Reinvestment Act not only seeks to increase the numbers of new nurses in our country, but also ensures that all nurses have the skills they need to provide the high quality care that makes our health care system the best in the world.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, at a time when so many Americans are out of work, with out Nation at war and with, appropriately, calls for national unity, I regret to say I have to come to the floor to address what I feel is the ultimate breakdown on unity. Rather than delivering a responsible stimulus package that is targeted and temporary, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been working overtime to turn a legitimate policy debate into a personal exercise in demonization. They have worked hard to turn a battle of ideas into a battle of name calling. And their focus has been our leader Tom Daschle. They have called him obstructionist--partisan--divisive--and worse. Now let me make clear for the record, I'm not worried about Tom Daschle. He's tough and resilient like the South Dakota prairie. He won't buckle, he won't shrink from their charges, and Tom Daschle knows that truth wins out in the end. He knows that what a different wartime leader, Abraham Lincoln, said is still true: ``If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.'' By that measure, Tom Daschle will do just fine. But let's be honest. This really isn't about Tom Daschle. It's about a Republican Party that knows their agenda won't stand up to the light of day and so they need to make the debate about something else. Can't pass drilling in an Arctic Refuge on its merits? Then do it because you're patriotic. Can't do that? Attach it to a ban on human cloning. Have that cynical effort rejected almost unanimously, then just blame the Democratic Leader. Can't ram backloaded, retroactive corporate tax giveaways through Congress while ignoring workers? Well, that must be because Tom Daschle is a partisan. Better to demonize the Democratic leader than acknowledge that your stimulus bill is unacceptable because it won't stimulate the economy. Better to attack Tom Daschle than admit that your bill is an insult to the working, everyday Americans who've been honored in words countless times since September 11th but insulted by the first so-called stimulus bill that the Republican House passed by one vote. Then, Senate Republicans prevented a vote on a balanced package put together by the Fiance Committee. Now, the House is set to vote on a supposed ``bipartisan compromise''--``bipartisan'' because it may likely get 51 or 52 votes here in the Senate. But it is not a stimulus bill. It's a tax cut bill that will spend $211 billion over the next five years, with more than half of that cost coming after 2002, when the administration believes that the economy will have already recovered. A ``bipartisan'' bill is not one that barely gets enough votes for passage. A bipartisan bill is one like the education bill we passed yesterday, which received 87 votes. We were statesmen when we passed--almost unanimously--an emergency spending bill, a use-of-force resolution, a counterterrorism bill, an airline industry bailout, and an airport security bill that will make the skies safer for millions of Americans. But in a Senate as closely divided as this one, to call a bill ``bipartisan'' that gets two or three Democrats to vote for it is laughable. There are still other ways in which statesmanship can be exercised. Statesmanship can be resisting bad ideas that take advantage of national emotion to do unacceptable special interest favors for a favored political constituency. That, regrettably, is what the Republican stimulus bill is all about, although they will tell you it is for workers. But they do nothing to expand unemployment insurance to the many thousands of laid-off workers who are not currently eligible for benefits, and their ideas for health care simply will not work. And so we find ourselves divided--not because Tom Daschle is an obstructionist, but because a decades-old partisan agenda which was on its last legs before September 11th has been revived under the guise of economic security. Average Americans are being denied unemployment insurance and health care because Republicans want to hold out for more for those who are doing fine as it is. So we have an impasse--we are fighting for everyone to be treated fairly--they're fighting to reward those already rewarded with no guarantee it will be spent or invested in a way that has any immediate stimulative impact on an economy that needs it. No wonder they'd rather just attack Tom Daschle--it is easier than dealing in the truth and moving this economy forward and helping America's workers. It doesn't need to be this way. In early October, three weeks after the terrorist attacks, Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate agreed to a list of bipartisan principles for stimulus. These included the belief that the package should be temporary, help those most vulnerable, impact the economy quickly, be broad-based, and include out-year offsets. The Republican leader of the Ways and Means Committee in the House abandoned those bipartisan negotiations in order to push through his own partisan package by one vote. It is his truculence, and the insistence of the Republicans that we reduce the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax and cut individual tax rates even more than we did in June, that have led directly to the situation we find ourselves in today. Mr. President, 700,000 Americans lost their jobs in October and November alone. The unemployment rate is not at 5.7 percent. The country is at war, we have an economy in negative growth, and we are on the verge of returning to an era of deficits after finally putting our fiscal house in order. We should not be passing large, permanent tax cuts unless we can be certain that the cuts will have a stimulative impact. The tax cuts proposed by most Republicans would not have that effect, since most of the costs occur after 2002. Again, this is not a stimulus bill--it is a $200 billion tax cut disguised as a stimulus bill. I still hope that the Senate can work to develop a bipartisan agreement, and I commend my leader for his continued efforts. We owe it to working Americans everywhere to pass a responsible bill. We know that a real stimulus bill should contain some tax relief for businesses, provided that it will help spur new investment or address temporary cashflow concerns. We know that we should provide some temporary tax relief to those families who are likely to spend the money, thus helping generate some additional demand. We know that we need to help unemployed workers make ends meet, and make sure that they don't lose their health insurance as a result of the ripple effects from the terrorist attacks of September 11th. And we know that we need to temporarily offset some of the impact of the current downturn on the states, by increasing the federal Medicaid matching rate, or FMAP. Let's be clear: Laid-off workers cannot contribute to economic recovery. The answer is not to sit back and wait for economic benefits to trickle down to workers already thrown off the job. Instead we must invest in health care, unemployment insurance, and worker retraining to help put money in their pockets and bring dislocated workers back into the economic mainstream of this country. We need to do that even if we can't agree on how to boost the economy through tax cuts. That's why I introduced the Putting Americans First Act, to take these worker protections out of the stimulus debate and provide a guarantee of immediate relief for those who have been hurt by the economic recession. The legislation would empower the states to expand unemployment compensation and health insurance coverage and provide help to states in which welfare caseloads are sharply increasing. Common sense and common decency tells us now is not the time for a corporate grab-bag of tax cuts, or for revisiting a debate about future marginal tax rates--particularly when these rate cuts would do nothing for more than three-quarters of the population. It is incumbent upon us to act in the best interests of our country as a whole, not in the interests of a select few. All Americans want to see this economy get moving again, and no Americans want to see this country begin a new chapter in our history where we hold back health insurance and unemployment benefits in tough times because Democrats won't agree to further permanent tax cuts. Let's put things straight and meet the objectives of the American people and not the objectives of an ideological minority, and let's stop demonizing those who disagree with us. We owe the American people better than what they have been given at one of the most important times in our Nation's history, and it's time the Congress delivered.