John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, when we talk about reforming product liability law, we are talking about taking away the rights of U.S. citizens. This is serious business--among the most serious things we can do in the Senate, and it is from this perspective that we must approach this debate. Cloture has been invoked and we are about to vote on final passage. But before we haphazardly strip citizens of their rights, we need to take a long, hard look at what this means to people--how it affects families and children and average, hard-working people who have suffered. Let us take a representative case. It is a wrongful death case. A woman drives a Pinto to the super-market. Someone bumps into the rear of the car, and the car explodes--it explodes. She is tragically burned alive--a wife, a mother, a human being burned alive because of what, after years of legal hassling and thousands of dollars in legal fees, lawyers hours, and a legal battle that has become part of tort history, Ford had calculated that it was cheaper to settle than to protect the lives of every Pinto owner with a recall. It made good business sense to take the risk of people dying. Mr. President, that kind of business sense is exactly what I am here to fight against. I am here to fight for the husband of that woman in the Pinto. I ask my colleagues--would you settle for $250,000 in exchange for losing your spouse and destroying your life? Is that fair? Is that just? Mr. President, if this bill were to become law, you would not even get the $250,000 because there is not a lawyer in the country who would take the case. No law firm could afford to go up against the Ford Motor Co., with its host of attorneys and huge legal budget, and an infinite ability to push motions and appeals to the limit and slow down the process to their advantage. It just would not happen. Mr. President, I cannot sanction stripping this legal right from even one American. I cannot do it. And anyone who can, should look into the eyes of thousands and thousands of victims across this country who seek simple justice and fairness and ask only to be given a chance to fight the big guys. It is a matter of fairness. It assures that those who do not have the resources to fight the richest and most prominent American corporations when they are wrong will have a chance for simple justice. I am here to fight for average hard-working Americans and to put a face to this legislation--to talk about how this bill will affect real Americans. Real Americans, like the 5-year-old boy in New Bedford, MA, who died in a house fire after the flammable material on a couch ignited, or the 8-month-old baby who suffered second- and third-degree burns on his arms, legs, and back in a house fire that started when the bedding in his crib was ignited by a portable electric heater. Or, the eight working-class families in Woburn who sued two of our Nation's biggest corporations because they suspected the companies had polluted the East Woburn water supply with highly toxic industrial solvents, causing death and injury to their children. The Woburn case took 9 years, and the attorney that pleaded the case spent $1 million of his own money on it. The jury ultimately found one of the companies negligent, and the scientific research done during the 9-year trial demonstrated the link between the industrial solvents in the water supply and human disease. The company is now helping to clean up the polluted aquifer. The attorney has said that if this bill were law today, he would never have considered the case. If we pass the Dole substitute to H.R. 956, I fear we will be doing great harm. Our votes will have a serious impact on real Americans. Mr. President, our laws play a critical role in fostering a competitive economic environment by establishing groundrules for fair competition and by helping to reduce the costs of doing business. But I believe Congress has a special responsibility to ensure the laws we write are reasonable and fair; we must weigh the impact of laws will have on both consumers and business. In the 10 years I have considered product liability reform at the Federal level, I have heard proponents of reform argue that consumers lose under the present system. They have argued that injured consumers receive inadequate compensation, and that injured consumers wait unreasonable amounts of time in litigation--on the average of 3 years-- before they receive compensation. They have also argued that injured consumers face closed courthouse doors because the statutes of limitation have expired on their cases. Proponents of reform have stressed that companies in the United States also lose under the current system. They have pointed to insurance rates that disable American manufacturers by forcing them to pay 10 to 50 times more for product liability insurance than their foreign competitors. They have claimed there is an explosion in products liability litigation, with uncontrollable punitive damages awards. They have argued that the present system of lottery liability, where liability differs from State to State, does not enhance the safety of U.S. products. Each time the Senate has considered products liability legislation, I have measured the legislation against four tests: Is it fair to injured consumers; will it help lower insurance rates for American business; will it help reduce the number of tort cases and lower the cost of litigation, the transaction costs, for American business; and will it create uniformity in the laws covering products liability or generate more confusion in the legal system? In my examination of whether S. 565, the products Liability Fairness Act, and the Dole substitute satisfy these tests, I have concluded that this legislation fails on each account. It does not address the real concerns of business, nor is it fair to consumers. is the legislation fair to consumers? Consumer products are responsible for an estimated 29,000 deaths and 30 million injuries each year. But, according to the most authoritative study on punitive damages, conducted in 1993 by professors at Boston's Suffolk University Law School and Northeastern University, there were only 355 awards in products suits from 1965 to 1990, and half of these awards were reduced or overturned. In my own State of Massachusetts, there were absolutely no punitive damages awarded in products cases. Contrary to ensuring that injured consumers will receive adequate compensation in relation to their actual damages, this legislation imposes a cap on punitive damages. This is perhaps the most damaging aspect of this legislation to consumer interests. Although the cap has been amended to equal the sum of economic and noneconomic damages, a cap is still a cap. In our civil justice system compensatory damages--economic and noneconomic for pain and suffering--compensate victims; in addition, punitive damages may be awarded by juries to punish the wrongdoer. As such, punitive damages are often the only way individual Americans can force reckless defendants to change their conduct. However, despite the effectiveness of punitive damages as deterrents, they are exceedingly rare. And the new standards imposed for punitives in this bill will make them more rare than the Alabama sturgeon. Under most State laws, the defendant can be found liable for punitive damages if they engaged in reckless or willful and wanton or grossly negligent type of behavior. But under this bill, Mr. President, such behavior is not enough. A plaintiff must show that a company engaged in conduct manifesting a ``conscious, flagrant, indifference to safety''. I have no idea what that means, Mr. President. but it certainly appears to be a tougher standard to meet. Moreover, it is unclear how the cap on punitives in this bill would affect the 39 States that presently either do not permit punitive damage awards or have enacted measures that significantly reduce the size and frequency of such awards. Far from ensuring injured consumers will enjoy expeditious resolution of their case, this legislation could prolong litigation by allowing either party to request a separate hearing in order for punitive damages to be awarded. Far from ensuring courthouse doors remain open to injured consumers, this bill imposes a 2-year statute of limitation and shortens the statute of repose by 5 years from last year's bill. If this bill truly protects consumers interests, why is it opposed by every major consumer group in America? If this legislation had been in effect, many cases would simply not have been possible. Let me give just one more example here: In 1988, Playtex removed from the market its super-absorbent tampons linked to Toxic Shock Syndrome only after a $10 million punitive damages award following the death of a woman who used the tampons. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found ``Playtex deliberately disregarded studies and medical reports linking high-absorbency tampons fibers with increased risk of toxic shock at a time when other manufacturers were responding to this information by modifying or withdrawing their high-absorbency tampons.'' Playtex subsequently strengthened its warnings and began a public awareness campaign about the dangers of toxic shock. It is doubtful whether a cap of $250,000 on punitive damages would have caused Playtex to alter its behavior. If the cap on punitive damages contained in this legislation is enacted, wrongdoers may find it more cost effective to continue their bad behavior and risk paying punitive damages. I do not believe we should pass a bill that reduces the incentive for companies to produce the safest products. will this legislation lower insurance costs for businesses? In testimony before the Commerce Committee several years ago, the American Insurance Association stated: The bill is likely to have little or no beneficial impact on the frequency or severity of product liability claims * * * And it is not likely to reduce claims or improve the insurance market. So, this legislation will not provide businesses with cheaper insurance rates. Insurance premiums for most industries account for less than 1 percent of a business' gross receipts. Such a small percentage hardly threatens the increased costs to consumers. Over the last decade, product liability insurance cost 26 cents per $100 of retail product sales, which would account for $26 on the price of a $10,000 automobile. Since 1987, according to a study by the Consumer Federal of America, product liability insurance premiums have actually dropped by 47 percent, from $4 billion to $2.7 billion, a fact that was confirmed by a 1992 Commerce Department study. Let us take a look at Florida. In Florida's 1986 tort reform law, the State eliminated joint and several liability, limited noneconomic damages to $450,000, limited punitive damages, and required the insurance industry to make rate filings indicating the effect of the changes in its tort laws on product liability insurance rates. Yet, Aetna's subsequent rate filing listed the effect of each change on its rates as zero. If such dramatic changes in Florida's tort reform law resulted in no lowering of liability insurance costs for a major carrier like Aetna, where is the evidence to suggest this bill will produce different results? will the legislation lower the cost of products liability litigation for businesses? Proponents of this legislation speak in terms of an explosion in product liability litigation. However, the evidence belies this characterization. In fact, the number of nonasbestos products liability suits in Federal courts has declined almost 40 percent since 1985. In State courts, where most products liability claims are filed, lawsuits have remained constant since 1990, according to testimony presented to the committee on April 3, by the National Center for State Courts. The 1992 annual report of the National Center for State Courts found that tort cases are approximately 9 percent of the 10 million civil filings in State courts and products cases are 4 percent of these-- 40,000. Only one-third of 1 percent of all tort filings in State courts are product filings. Of all tort filings in 1991, 58 percent were related to automobile liability; 33 percent were miscellaneous; 5 percent were malpractice; and 4 percent were products. Since 1990, the national total of State tort filings has fallen by 2 percent. In 1990, the Rand Corp. found that most injured Americans never file a lawsuit for their injuries: only 10 percent of injury victims ever use the tort system to seek compensation for their injuries. This report also found that only 7 percent of all compensation for accident victims is paid through the tort system. The report observed: Americans' behavior does not accord with the more extreme characterizations of litigiousness that have been put forward by some. If there has been a litigation explosion, it is not in the area of products liability. Once again, this legislation misses the target in addressing the real litigation problems facing business. will this legislation bring uniformity to product liability law? Tort law has traditionally been a State responsibility, and the imposition of Federal products standards upon State tort law would, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, ``create confusion in State courts.'' Testimony by the Conference of Chief Justices was even more emphatic: If the primary goal of this legislation is to provide consistency and uniformity in tort litigation, we are concerned that its effect will be the opposite. Preempting each State's existing tort law in favor of a broad Federal product liability law will create additional complexities and unpredictability for tort litigation in both State and Federal courts, while depriving victims of defective products of carefully reasoned principles and procedures already developed at the State level. This bill will not end the search of the sponsors for a single settled law because it does not create Federal question jurisdiction. The legislation would preempt all related State law and substitute Federal standards, but it would impose the Federal standards in a single overlay upon the 56 existing State court systems as well as the Federal courts. The result will be both State and Federal courts applying a mix of State and Federal law in the same case; State supreme courts will no longer be the final arbiters of their tort law. The U.S. Supreme Court, which many experts argue is already overburdened, will become the final arbiter of this new legal thicket. So, here we have what is indeed an irony: Those who ordinarily preach the virtue of reserving power to the States are instead advancing legislation to usurp the legitimate authority of States. At a time when many in Congress are intent upon returning responsibility for many Federal programs to the States, this legislation would preempt State law. Mr. President, the sponsors of this legislation have worked extremely hard, and I particularly wish to commend my friend from West Virginia for his tireless efforts on behalf of this legislation. I also commend the ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, for his stalwart defense of consumer interests. For all of this effort, I regret that I cannot support this bill. I cannot support it for two very simple reasons. The legislation is patently unfair to consumers, and it will not resolve the products liability problems businesses tell me they face. It will remove from ordinary Americans the power they retain in the jury box to force accountability for dangerous, careless, or reckless behavior. In the jury box, each American can bring about positive change. If we undermine the ability of our citizens to force changes in bad behavior, we will have compromised our Nation's core values. While many Americans increasingly sense an erosion of personal responsibility, our civil justice system remains one institution that holds individuals and organizations accountable for their behavior. Make no mistake, by restricting the civil justice system, this bill will take rights away from Americans. All of the available evidence on this legislation shows it will not make businesses more competitive by reducing insurance rates or the costs of corporate litigation, and it will not create national uniformity in products liability law. A great deal of hype has been generated about this issue, and after 15 years, it appears to have taken on a life of its own. But all the lobbying and advertising cannot convince me that this legislation will accomplish its stated goals. The Dole substitute to H.R. 956 fails to strike a reasonable balance between promoting the competitive interests of business and protecting the rights of consumers. It will create a nightmarish new legal thicket that should be avoided rather than embraced. It is unfortunate that after all the effort we could not have achieved a reasonable balance. After we have argued all the complicated points of law, after we have poured over horror story after horror story, the issues boil down to one simple point: This bill is not fair, and it should be rejected. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my friend from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, in introducing the Atlantic Striped Bass Act of 1995. This legislation reauthorizes the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act and the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act. Atlantic striped bass is an important commercial and game fish that ranges from Maine to North Carolina. Its comeback from overfishing and habitat destruction in the late 1980's is one of the great success stories of fisheries management. One of the most critical contributors to that recovery was the enactment of the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act in 1984. The Striped Bass Act has provided the incentive for implementing coordinated and comprehensive management of a wide-ranging species that migrates throughout Atlantic coastal waters. The affected States came together, made the hard decisions, and enacted the restrictions on fishing that were necessary for the stocks to recover. Although great sacrifices were required during the rebuilding period, now sport anglers and commercial fishermen are seeing the benefits of effective management. In Massachusetts, the commercial quota has been increased substantially, and bag limits for the recreational fisherman have doubled. These harvest increases are even more heartening since the management program for striped bass is still very conservative--only 25 percent of the available adult population may be taken this year. This success proves that conservative fishery management can work and provides a blueprint for other fisheries that face difficult management problems. I complement the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership on this legislation and I encourage my colleagues to join with us in supporting the extension of the Striped Bass Act and the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today to urge confirmation of John Deutch as Director of Central Intelligence. As a permanent resident of Belmont, MA, and having a lifelong involvement in [[Page S6272]] the Massachusetts community, John Deutch is a neighbor and a man who has built a national and international reputation as a leader and as a forceful and effective professional. I described him publicly, not long ago, as ``superb and first rate'', and I reiterate that description today, without hesitation and with renewed respect and continued confidence in his extraordinary ability. Let me add a few words about the task he will face and the talent he will bring to the position of Director of Central Intelligence. The world is undoubtedly changing. It will continue to change more quickly, perhaps, than at any other time in our history. We are seeing old threats and new threats emerge in a shifting political and economic atmosphere that will test our resolve and challenge our leadership. Mr. President, John Deutch is undoubtedly up to the challenge, and he is a leader for his time. There is no question about that. He understands the critical task that he will face, and the importance of facing it with resolve, strength, and a firm hand. He has proven that he knows the need and has the expertise to address what we all acknowledge are operational and administrative problems at the CIA. As Director of Central Intelligence he will face two daunting managerial tasks: First, he must try to restructure the U.S. intelligence community at a time when many believe there is no longer a need--nor the funds--for the level of intelligence activity to which we became accustomed during the cold war. He will have to balance proper and appropriate intelligence activity with increasing congressional and public scrutiny of scarcer and scarcer tax dollars. Second, in the wake of recent events at the CIA, he will have to look critically at internal operations and move quickly to rebuild morale, public trust, and confidence while maintaining the integrity of America's intelligence capability. As far as restructuring the intelligence community, I believe John Deutch has one very important advantage over many who could have been chosen to serve. He is not an architect of either the current intelligence system or the processes that have been put into place. He is a fresh face, a new voice, a real leader with the talent and the foresight to succeed. Now, as far as what Secretary Deutch will face at the CIA, operationally and administratively, there is a need to act expeditiously to turn things around even if it means significant personnel changes, and I am confident that John Deutch has the necessary judgment and will to quickly act in the best interest of the Agency and the Nation. Mr. President, the American intelligence community will be well served by the experience and leadership of John Deutch who rightfully observed in his statement to the Intelligence Committee that ``changing intelligence priorities, as well as intelligence failures, dictate that we carefully re-examine the need for, and specific missions of, intelligence.'' He added that he sees ``four significant dangers to our national security and the social and economic well-being of our citizens.'' He cites major regional conflicts; the spread of weapons of mass destruction; international terrorism, crime, and drug trafficking; and the present nuclear danger that still exists in Russia and the Russian republics as they move toward democracy. I also see the new Director of Central Intelligence moving, as he said he would, to improve the support that the intelligence community gives to law enforcement agencies in areas of narcotics trafficking, international crime, and terrorism. I agree with his assessments and I am confident he will move expeditiously to address the continuing threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and particularly the emerging threat of terrorist attacks with these weapons. I see the new Director re-defining and establishing new standards for the proper role for the intelligence community in the areas of economic intelligence, and addressing the issue of making information, when appropriate, more readily available by lowering classifications or through declassification. And I see the new Director, like every other director of a Federal agency, looking for ways to economize and streamline the operations at CIA to give us more for our tax dollars. From all we've heard about John Deutch, I believe he has the experience, the expertise, the professionalism, the reputation, the perseverance, the qualifications and the integrity to do the job, and I urge my colleagues to confirm his nomination. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. the nomination of john deutch to be director of central intelligence

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this year marks the 100th anniversary of one of the most beautiful buildings in America, the McKim Building of the Boston Public Library. Founded by an act of the Massachusetts Legislature on April 3, 1848, the Boston Public Library was the first free and publicly supported municipal library in the world. By 1880, its original 10,000 volumes had grown to 357,440, and the legislature empowered the city of Boston to take as much land within its limits as it needed to build a new library. The trustees envisioned the new library to be a ``palace for the people, and as such * * * a monumental building, worthy of the city of Boston.'' They hired architect Charles Follen McKim, a senior partner in the New York firm of McKim, Mead & White, to design this new edifice. McKim wanted to create a building which would fit with its architecturally distinguished neighbors--H.H. Richardson's Romanesque Trinity Church and the Italian Gothic of the New Old South Church. He modeled the building on Henri Labrouste's Bibliotheque Ste. Genevieve and recruited such outstanding artists as American sculptors Louis and Augustus Saint-Gaudens, French muralist Puvis de Chavannes, and American painters John Singer Sargent and Edwin Austin Abbey. Since its opening in 1895, the collection has become one of the most outstanding research libraries in the nation, including papers of many Colonia Americans and New England Abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison; the Sacco and Vanzetti papers, and the manuscripts and personal libraries of such figures as the famous conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra Serge Koussevitszky and American composer Walter Piston. It is also a wonderfully user-friendly library, providing many services for the community. It was the first to have a formal system of branch libraries throughout the city. In addition, there are programs for seniors, for children, and for young adults and a structured lecture series which provides college-level humanities courses free to library patrons. The new Johnson addition to the McKim Building is also where I vote. The McKim Building has recently undergone an extensive restoration. I invite by colleagues to visit its marble lions, view the mural depicting Sir Gawain's quest for the Holy Grail, and enjoy the courtyard. The statute of ``The Baccahante,'' originally designed to be the centerpiece of the fountain in the courtyard, was deemed too scantily clad to display in public. She was hidden away in a dark, unlit recess on the third floor, unseen and unadmired. but now she is being installed in her intended home. Joshua Bates, for whom the Great Reading Hall is named, wrote to the mayor of Boston, While I am sure that, in a liberal and wealthy community like that of Boston, there will be no want of funds to carry out the recommendation of the Trustees, it may accelerate its accomplishment and establish the library at once, on a scale to do credit to the City, if I am allowed to pay for the books required,which I am quite willing to do. The only condition that I ask is, that the building shall be such as to be an ornament to the City. Mr. Bates, your wish has been amply fulfilled.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I speak today in support of the Hollings amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. The amendment would restore programs that are important to the people of Massachusetts and the entire country. I would also like to note that offsets for each of these programs is provided so the total amount of the rescission package is not affected. NIST's Manufacturing Extension Program [MEP] is vitally important to small businesses in my State. MEP supports our Bay State Skills and University of Massachusetts technical assistance programs for small- and mid-sized Massachusetts companies. The House bill rescinds $26.5 million from this program and the Senate bill retains this rescission. The Hollings amendment would restore the entire amount rescinded from the MEP Program. The second program addressed in the amendment is the NOAA Coastal Ocean Program [COP], a nationwide science program that is conducting very important interdisciplinary research on oceanographic problems. As part of the COP, a major field study is presently being conducted of Georges Bank as part of the U.S. Global Ocean Ecosystems Research Program [U.S. GLOBEC]. The main objective of the study is to understand the physical and biological processes that control the abundance of populations of commercially important marine animals. The House and Senate Bills rescind $5 million of COP's $11 million in fiscal year 1995 funding--40 percent of the budget. The rescission is harmful not only to U.S. marine science but also to resource management decision- making which depends on the results of this science. The Hollings amendment would restore the $5 million rescission in the NOAA operations, research and facilities account for the Coastal Ocean Program, resulting in retention of $11 million in funding for this year. As an offset, the amendment would increase the rescission in NOAA construction account from $8 million to $13 million. This would decrease the construction account from $97 million to $84 million. NOAA supports this change. The final program that the amendment addresses is the NOAA Global Climate Change Program. This program seeks to develop a clearer picture of the relative roles of various greenhouse gases in causing global warming. The Senate bill rescinds $14 million of the $78 million in fiscal year 1995 funding. The amendment would restore $7 million of the rescission for this critical program. The offset would come from the NIST construction fund and the GOES construction fund. I compliment the distinguished Senator from South Carolina for his leadership in these oceans and technology issues--which he has championed for years. It is my pleasure to serve with him on the Commerce Committee, where he was recently chairman and is now the ranking Democrat. I join with him to prevent short-sighted cuts in these beneficial programs that exemplify the kind of nationally important work government can do so well and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on April 22, 1995, many special guests from the Netherlands and this Nation will gather at the Wang Center in Boston to celebrate the permanent endowment of Young at Arts, the Wang Center's educational outreach program, with special recognition to Dr. Maurice Vanderpol for his enthusiasm and outstanding leadership in this effort. In 1989 Dr. Vanderpol established the Walter Suskind Memorial Fund in memory of Water Suskind, whose courage saved the lives of hundreds of children from Nazi concentration camps during the Second World War. The fund was established as a permanent endowment for Young at Arts. This program teaches a curriculum in the arts to young children around Boston--possibly some of whom are the grandchildren of those Walter Suskind saved 60 years ago. Due to Dr. Vanderpol's tireless effort over the past 6 years, the campaign to raise $1 million for the endowment was successful. This success, along with Dr. Vanderpol's exemplary leadership and extraordinary support in keeping alive the memories and the dreams of a people brutalized by the horrors of war, is why I wish to recognize Dr. Maurice Vanderpol on this day.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, while there are a number of features of the Daschle amendment which significantly improve this legislation, I would like to draw particular attention to two provisions that reinstate funding the original bill intended to rescind--$14.7 million for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA] and $100 million for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program--because it was my intention prior to their inclusion in the Daschle to offset the consequent additional costs by rescinding funds from programs less vital to our Nation and its people. SAMHSA funds both Substance Abuse Block Grants and the Children's Mental Health Program. Substance Abuse Treatment Block Grants are the most important vehicle of support for substance abuse treatment efforts in this country. Funding for these grants cannot be compromised if we are to succeed in our efforts to reform welfare, reduce crime, and contain health care costs. The grants account for over one-third of the funding for public substance abuse treatment nationwide. The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment, July 1994 [CALDATA], found that each day of substance abuse treatment pays for itself on the day it is received, primarily through reductions in crime. The Rand Corporation reports that drug treatment is the most cost-effective form of drug intervention, compared with other potential drug strategy program options, such as interdiction or imprisonment. Mr. President, every $1 invested in drug treatment saves taxpayers $7 dollars. There are several sources for this figure, including CALDATA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The heavy toll drug use exacts on the United States is most easily measured by the criminal and medical costs imposed on and paid for by the Nation's taxpaying citizens. One major study, conducted by Dorothy Rice at the Institute for Health and Aging at the University of California at San Francisco, concluded that drug abuse costs taxpayers $67 billion, alcohol abuse costs $99 billion, for a total cost to the Federal Government of $166 billion per year. ``The impact of substance abuse and addiction on Federal entitlements is equivalent to more than 40 percent of the Federal deficit for 1995,'' states Joe Califano, former HEW Secretary and President of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. Ninety-two percent of the funds spent by health care entitlement programs as a result of substance abuse are used to pay for treatment of the consequences of such abuse; only 8 percent is spent to reduce dependency. The costs to the Federal Government do not begin to account for the higher costs substance abuse wreak on the private economy. Every man, woman, and child in America pays nearly $1,000 annually to cover the costs of unnecessary health care, extra law enforcement, auto accidents, crime, and lost productivity resulting from substance abuse, according to a Brandeis University study. The impact of substance abuse on crime is staggering. Substance abuse is linked to between one-quarter and one-third of all suicides, according to the Public Health Service, and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. Substance abuse is linked to half of all homicides, rapes, spousal abuse, and traffic fatalities. Substance abuse is linked to two-thirds of all cases of manslaughter, drownings, burglaries, robberies, thefts, and assaults. According to a study by the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors [NASADAD], approximately 1 million people--40 percent of those in need--want and pursue substance abuse treatment at this moment but do not get it: instead of helping them to help themselves, the Government leaves them sitting on waiting lists across the country. These individuals--the vast majority of which are mothers, workers, or professionals--are willing and eager to improve their lives and the lives of those around them, but the government fails to extend a helping hand. Not only taxpayers, but society at large, foots the bill for this neglect. SAMHSA also funds the Children's Mental Health Program, which provides services for children with very serious emotional disturbances [SED]. This program is targeted at the 1 million children with SED--out of 7.5 million nationwide--who are in State-administered systems encompassing child welfare, juvenile justice, and special education programs. This amendment restores $1.3 million to this program that the bill would have rescinded. This money goes to 22 service sites that will not survive without the funds. The future of these children is at stake. Even in the face of all these facts, Mr. President, the rescissions bill--prior to the Daschle amendment--would have taken a random, unexplained, unjustifiable slice out of the budget for SAMHSA. At the same time, it would have taken $100 million out of the Safe and Drug Free Schools--Safe Schools--program. Mr. President, on this subject, I would like to take a few moments to talk about a reality that is very separate from the one in which my colleagues and I live. Someone who lives in this reality, Mr. President, wakes up worried that today he could very well be killed. He realistically expects that someone he knows might be shot this week, or stabbed, or beaten. He goes through his day fearing everyone who passes by, constantly alert for trouble and danger, always keeping an eye on the nearest exit or hiding place. He might carry a weapon, purely for protection, and hide it on his person--a crude knife hidden in his sleeve, a length of pipe tucked into his boot, a makeshift handgun in his pocket, a box-cutter taped to his stomach. One hand is probably always on this weapon, this small piece of security. If he makes it back to bed at the end of the day, he will be thankful, relieved, and certainly a little surprised. This reality is not a war, and the people who inhabit this world are not soldiers. This reality is only blocks away from this Chamber, and is mirrored in towns across our country. And the participants in this reality are not adults, they are children, they are as young as 5 and 6 years old, and rarely over the age of 18. I am talking about the reality found in many elementary and secondary schools across the United States, where 150,000 students bring a gun every day; where shootings and stabbings are commonplace; where gangs are in control; and where 3 million violent crimes are committed each year. I am talking about a national disgrace, a monumental embarrassment, a failure on the part of all who care about the future of this country and the quality of life of our children. I am talking about a state of events that we cannot tolerate, that we cannot allow to endure. In the Steven Speilberg film ``Schindler's List,'' a Nazi soldier stands on the balcony of his home overlooking the busy center square of a Jewish concentration camp. Calm and precise, he aims his powerful rifle at random Jews passing through the crowded streets below, and effortlessly pulls the trigger. His aim is never faulty, and he always succeeds in ending a life. The people near the murder recoil in fright only momentarily, then continue on their way, perhaps a little quicker, perhaps a little slower, thankful for the moment that the gun was not trained on them, fearful that the next shot will terminate their existence. The bullet has struck them, too, and changed them permanently, leaving them forever horrified, forever damaged, forever in shock. This sequence is brutally painful for so many reasons. The only relief I expected to feel when I watched this sequence was the lack of any connection between the events on the screen and present day reality in America. But such a connection is exactly what I felt. Violence in portions of our country has become so rampant and so deadly that almost all of us live in a collective state of fear and acceptance. Our cities and schools have become infested with random violence and bloodshed and criminals with no conscience and no check on their destructive impulses. And when this state of affairs has infected our Nation's schools, then we know that our children are going to be conditioned to accept this disease as normal. Not only are some of our children dying in our Nation's schools, but the ones who survive are learning that murder and violence are simply a part of life--in fact, the most important part. Mr. President, we are permitting our Nation's youth to grow up emotionally scarred, terminally frightened, and permanently embittered. Mr. President, the Safe Schools Program is a necessity if this systemic child abuse and neglect is to cease. A study examining the effects of the first 2 years of funding for the Safe Schools Program showed increases in violence prevention programs in every State and territory in the United States. The same study also showed increases in school-community collaboration on drug prevention issues in 50 States and territories; increases in parent involvement in drug education efforts in 49 States and territories; increases in the degree of community involvement in prevention programs for youth in 46 States and territories; and increases in the number of high-risk youth served in drug education programs in 38 States and territories. Prior to the Daschle amendment, the rescission would reduce or eliminate violence and drug prevention programs serving approximately 39 million students attending the schools operated by 94 percent of local educational agencies in the Nation. Also at risk would be every state Governor's drug and violence prevention programs designed for youth not served by local educational agencies. So would be the development and distribution of publications on school violence and drug/alcohol prevention, which have been the cornerstone of nationwide efforts to provide schools with information on models and effective practices. The Parent's Guide on Drug Prevention alone has been requested by over 30 million persons. The original rescission would have eliminated assistance and model development in the area of alternatives to expulsion. With expulsion rates increasing dramatically in several regions, it is essential to provide leadership in this area, or more and more kids will go straight from the schoolhouse to the courthouse. Consequently I commend the Democratic leader for his leadership and his sensitivity to the importance of these issues. I appreciate the opportunity to work with him to gain the inclusion of these important provisions in his amendment. And I am pleased that the ultimate goals of the amendments I intended to offer were realized. Since the House version of the rescissions bill rescinded no funds from SAMHSA, fiscal year 1995 funds for SAMHSA are now secure. I wish I could say the same about Safe Schools funds. The House bill eliminated Safe Schools funds altogether. I urge the conferees to the rescissions bill to protect Safe School funds. We owe the children and the future of this Nation nothing less. amendment no. 448

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am not going to talk about the amendment that I do want to offer at the appropriate time, providing we continue with this bill. But I would like to talk for a moment about an item that is in the underlying bill. I understand the underlying bill is the House bill which has been amended by the committee amendment, by the Daschle amendment, and by the Dole amendment. So there is a complicated stream here, but I am addressing my comments to the underlying bill and to the Dole amendment itself. One of the things that we have heard the most discussion about in Washington, indeed in the country, is the problem of violence in our streets and the problem of our young people. I do not think there is a Republican or a Democrat who has not run for office talking about values and the importance of trying to transfer values to the young people of this country. The real test of this country, certainly of the U.S. Senate and the House, will be our ability to keep faith with the American people and translate the rhetoric into some kind of substantive approach. Now I do not come to the floor with the notion that the Government has all the answers. I think we have been sobered up and learned a lot in the last years. And I do not come to the floor with the notion that the only way to try to deal with the values issue is to have a Government incentive or a Government program, but we have to be honest. At the same time as we admit that reality, we ought to also admit that there are programs that make a difference; that there are certain things that the private sector will not do for itself; that there are certain kinds of initiatives that only get started by virtue of the leverage provided by the public sector which empowers the private sector or nonprofits to be able to make a difference in the lives of other human beings. One of the cuts that takes place in the underlying Dole amendment, which I must say, I do not know if it is intentional. I do not know if the Senator from Kansas, who I know to be somebody genuinely concerned about these matters, is aware that this slipped in there or is in there. But the effect of the Dole amendment is to cut one of the most significant programs of accomplishment in this country and it runs completely counter to the talk of returning responsibility to the local level, because this amendment takes resources directly out of the communities and out of the private entities, the self-started entities of communities, and strips them of their ability to make a difference in the lives of our kids. Mr. President, the amendment that I am referring to, or a portion of the Dole amendment, takes $38 million from one of the most successful programs of community investment that we have in this country, a program called Youth Build. Last night, I had the privilege of being in Boston attending the only dinner of its kind in the country about Youth Build. Youth Build is a program that began 5 years ago. It began in Boston, but it is now in 40 cities in America. There are 105 units around this country that seek funding from HUD for Youth Build. Mr. President, there are only two staff people at HUD managing this program--two staff people. So this is not a bureaucratic boondoggle. This program provides money directly to local communities. It does not go to the State. It is not chewed up in the administrative process. It goes directly to local communities. There is no bureaucracy here. There is no waste here. There is a tremendous record of success. Last night, I saw a film about graduates of this program. One of these graduates was not too long ago in prison. Another graduate was a member of a gang. Another graduate was a drug addict. Today, they are employed in the private sector. They are leaders in the community; they are in college; they are managers of our Boston Harbor project; they are involved in engineering; they are in carpenters unions; they are apprentices. For the first time in their lives, they are making it, and they are making it because this program reached out into the community to these kids and took kids who had dropped out of school, who have no family connections, and gave them a purpose in life and a skill. What Youth Build does is take these kids and puts them into 1 week of high-school equivalency and 1 week on a site in an old abandoned home donated by the city, labor donated by the architects of the city, the carpenters union donating the skill, and all of those are married in a synergy that brings those kids into the first-time environment they have ever had that gives them a sense of purpose, a sense of responsibility and accountability, not just to society around them but to themselves--each and every one of them. That is values. That is values transfer. Mr. President, it just does not make sense to take the few hundred bucks per person that you are stripping away and leave them with the possibility of our spending $30,000 to $50,000 a year to house them in a prison somewhere down the line. In Boston alone, there are 10 kids applying for this program for every 1 that gets into it. Mr. President, I do not hear people running around the Nation saying this is where the waste is. I do not hear people saying cut those programs that put kids into a useful environment. I do not see some great hue and cry in the country saying, ``We're going to throw you all out of office if you don't cut the money for Youth Build.'' But we are cutting it, and the We all understand we have to cut somewhere, but does it make sense to be cutting this program and then turn around and spend a huge amount of money on the Market Promotion Program, for instance, where we give money to McDonalds and a whole bunch of big companies to sell their goods abroad, companies that can afford to advertise on there own? Mr. President, we have some $85 million, I think it is, in the Market Promotion Program. The Market Promotion Program gives Tyson Foods $937,000; International Foods, $179,000; Gold's Gym, $226,000; Mott's International; Pepperidge Farm; Tropicana; Entenmanns; Tootsie Roll; Beer Nuts; Ocean Spray; Friendly's; Gortons; Perdue; Giant Food; General Mills; Pillsbury; Ralston Purina; M&M Mars; Campbell Soup; Haagen-Dazs; R.W. Frookie; Snapple; Chichita; Borden; Hershey; Brach's Candy; Miller beer--they all get money, but Youth Build is not going to get money. It does not make sense, Mr. President. I think what the American people said last November is, ``We want you to express some common sense on our behalf,'' and, for the life of me, I do not understand why we would want to be cutting a program like Youth Build which has been proven to work. Last night, I listened to a young man by the name of Robert Clark. Robert Clark was in prison. Robert Clark is now a full-time student at a well-known university on the east coast of the United States. He is doing well. He has testified before committees in the Congress. He has done an extraordinary job of explaining to people the connection between a program like Youth Build and his capacity to rejoin society as a productive member. It just seems to me that if you are going to talk about investing in the future of this country, we ought to remember what makes a difference, Mr. President. Robert Kennedy spoke of this in 1968 in a high school in Scottsbluff, NE, and he talked about the sense of community that we ought to be celebrating in a choice like this with respect to Youth Build. He said: At every critical mark in our history, Americans have looked beyond the narrow borders of personal concern, remembering the bonds that tied them to their fellow citizens. These efforts were not acts of charity. They sprang from the recognition of a root fact of American life that we all share in each other's fortunes, that where one of us prospers, all of us prosper, and where one of us falters, so do we all. He said in 1968, and we ought to think about it again as we make these choices in 1995, that: It is this sense, more than any failure of good will or policy, that we have missed in America. Mr. President, in the course of exercising choices in this legislation, it seems we are perhaps about to again miss that in America, and I hope we will not. I hope we will recognize that perhaps this is an oversight, and we should make a different judgment. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the leaders wanted to confer. I do not know if that conference has taken place and a decision made. I did have an amendment I was prepared to offer.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I may then, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as if in morning business for a period of time.

Mr. KERRY. If I could have 10 minutes, Mr. President, I would appreciate it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I just want to take a moment to offer my congratulations to the Boston University men's hockey team who won the NCAA Division I national championship last weekend in Providence. Led by Dorchester's own Chris O'Sullivan, who scored two goals and was named the Most Outstanding Player, the Terriers manhandled the powerful University of Maine Black Bears to win the championship. Goalie Tom Noble made 21 saves, Center Steve Thornton scored a goal and had an assist, and Capt. Jacques Jourbet scored a goal. The Terriers were superb in the clutch this year, winning the Beanpot, the last at the hallowed Boston Garden, the hockey east championship, and now the national championship, Mr. President, you can not do any better than that. Coach Jack Parker brings the NCAA ice hockey championship back to Boston University for the first time since 1978. He has done much to generate pride at B.U., and this year's accomplishment is something else that justly continues that tradition. The B.U. hockey team has made all of us proud with their outstanding play. I offer my congratulations to the team, the head coach and his colleagues, and the university.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I ask him what his intention would be after the morning business. Would we go back to the amendment?

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY. No. Mr. President, I had wanted to address the bill itself.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. If someone were to stay tonight and offer an amendment for a vote in the morning, would that obviate a vote subsequent to that? Or would there still be a vote later in the afternoon?

Mr. KERRY. Would the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Kyl amendment, which would affect funding for the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. When the United States balances $400 billion of corporate tax benefits against a cut taken exclusively from the most disadvantaged, it violates the average American's sense of fairness. I also rise to oppose the other body's Appropriations Committee's vote to rescind $1.4 billion from LIHEAP's fiscal year 1996 budget as part of the Contract with America. That would eliminate complete appropriation for LIHEAP, which gives home heating grants to low-income Americans. The program serves 5.6 million households nationwise, 30 percent of the home eligible to receive LIHEAP support. Mr. President, in Massachusetts and other regional cold-weather States, energy prices continue to rise along with the increase in poverty. Many of the people who rely on LIHEAP have jobs, but simply can't make enough to get by when the temperature drops and the bills come in. In Massachusetts, 143,000 households receive LIHEAP funding. If the program is eliminated, Massachusetts stands to lose $54 million for fiscal year 1995. Eliminating LIHEAP could be a death sentence for some Massachusetts families, for the elderly, and for children who may be forced to choose between heat and food or medicine. No one should have to make that kind of choice. That is why I and 35 senators from both parties have sent a letter to Senator Mark Hatfield, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, urging restoration of LIHEAP funds in the rescission package. LIHEAP is a block grant administered by State and local governments, and is one of the most cost-effective and efficient Federal subsidy programs. Seventy percent of LIHEAP recipients do not receive other government relief, such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children or food stamps, but rely on this aid to supplement their monthly income during the winter months. Mr. President, I would like to close by offering the following graphic illustration of the importance of this issue. The December before last, a fire burned down a small apartment building in the Mount Pleasant region of DC, burning to death two little girls, Amber and Asia Spencer, ages 6 and 5. Neighbors recalled Amber's last words--``Please, please, help us.'' The girls were killed by a fire when one of the candles that was used to heat their apartment fell over. The electricity had been turned off two months earlier when the girl's guardian--their grandmother--could not afford to pay the heating bill. Every winter children across the country are killed or jeopardized by fires caused by desperate attempts to keep warm or to lighten darkened homes. Mr. President, this country cannot abide this sad state of affairs. We can and we must do better--not worse--by the children and families who need the bare necessities to survive.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, in introducing a bill to allow the vessel Sunrise to be employed in coastwise trade of the United States. This boat has a relatively small passenger capacity, carrying up to 12 passengers on a charter business based out of Boston, MA. The purpose of this bill is to waive those sections of the Jones Act which prohibit foreign-made vessels from operating in coastwise trade. The waiver is necessary because, under the law, a vessel is considered foreign made unless all major components of its hull and superstructure are fabricated in the United States and the vessel is assembled entirely in the United States. This vessel was originally built in a foreign shipyard in 1989, but since then has been owned by American citizens, repaired in American shipyards, and maintained with American products. In addition, Sunrise is a catamaran, a type of vessel which was not built in the United States prior to 1992. The owners of Sunrise have invested substantially in the outfitting of the vessel and wish to start a small business, a charter boat operation, seasonally taking people out of Boston. At the present time they will not be in competition with any other similar vessels. After reviewing the facts in the case of the Sunrise, I find that this waiver does not compromise our national readiness in times of national emergency, which is the fundamental purpose of the Jones Act requirement. While I generally support the provisions of the Jones Act, I believe the specific facts in this case warrant a waiver to permit the Sunrise to engage in coastwise trade. I hope and trust the Senate will agree and will speedily approve the bills being introduced today.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, in introducing a bill to allow the vessel Marantha to be employed in coastwise trade of the United States. carrying up to 20 passengers on a charter business based out of Boston. The purpose of this bill is to waive those sections of the Jones Act which prohibit foreign-made vessels from operating in coastwise trade. The waiver is necessary because, under the law, a vessel is considered foreign made unless all major components of its hull and superstructure are fabricated in the United States and the vessel is assembled entirely in the United States. This vessel was originally built in a foreign shipyard in 1977, but since then has been owned and operated by American citizens. The owners of the vessel have invested substantially more than the cost of building the boat in making repairs and maintaining the vessel in American shipyards with American products. The owners wish to start a small business, a charter boat and charter fishing operation, seasonally taking people out of Boston. After reviewing the facts in the case of the Marantha, I find that this waiver does not compromise our national readiness in times of national emergency, which is the fundamental purpose of the Jones Act requirement. While I generally support the provisions of the Jones Act, I believe the specific facts in this case warrant a waiver to permit the Marantha to engage in coastwise trade. I hope and trust the Senate will agree and will speedily approve the bill being introduced today.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, in introducing a bill to allow the vessel Quietly to be employed in coastwise trade of the United States. This boat has a small passenger capacity, carrying up to eight passengers on a charter business. The purpose of this bill is to waive those sections of the Jones Act which prohibit foreign-made vessels from operating in coastwise trade. The waiver is necessary because, under the law, a vessel is considered foreign made unless all major components of its hull and superstructure are fabricated in the United States and the vessel is assembled entirely in the United States. This vessel was originally built in a foreign shipyard in 1983, but since then has been owned and operated by American citizens. The owner of the vessel has invested substantially in repairing and maintaining it--in American shipyards with American products. The owner wishes to start a small business, a charter boat operation, seasonally taking people out for cruises. After reviewing the facts in the case of the Quietly, I find that this waiver does not compromise our national readiness in times of national emergency, which is the fundamental purpose of the Jones Act requirement. While I generally support the provisions of the Jones Act, I believe the specific facts in this case warrant a waiver to permit the Quietly to engage in coastwise trade. I hope and trust the Senate will agree and will speedily approve the bill being introduced today.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, in introducing a bill to allow the vessel Aura to be employed in coastwise trade of the United States. This boat has a relatively small passenger capacity, carrying up to 49 passengers on a charter business based out of Hull, MA. The purpose of this bill is to waive those sections of the Jones Act which prohibit foreign-made vessels from operating in coastwise trade. The waiver is necessary because, under the law, a vessel is considered foreign-made unless all major components of its hull and superstructure are fabricated in the United States and the vessel is assembled entirely in the United States. This vessel was originally built in a foreign shipyard in 1957, but since then has been owned and operated by American citizens. The owners of Aura have invested substantially more than the cost of building the boat in making repairs to it and maintaining it--in American shipyards with American products. They wish to start a small business, a charter boat operation, seasonally taking people out of Hull. After reviewing the facts in the case of the Aura, I find that this waiver does not compromise our national readiness in times of national emergency, which is the fundamental purpose of the Jones Act requirement. While I generally support the provisions of the Jones Act, I believe the specific facts in this case warrant a waiver to permit the Aura to engage in coastwise trade. I hope and trust the Senate will agree and will speedily approve the bills being introduced today.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Mikulski amendment. I am concerned that the programs of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee are taking an inordinate cut in the rescission package before us. If we are to pay for disasters, and not declare these as emergencies, then the spending for these should come from a broader base of programs. The Mikulski amendment's 1.72-percent cut is an appropriate way to spread the cost of natural disasters. The amendment would exempt important accounts from the cut. This across-the-board cut would not hit administrative costs for Social Security and Medicare. It would not cut defense readiness. It would not cut veterans medical care. It would not hurt the food and nutrition programs. I am particularly concerned about the rescission package because the brunt of the cuts will fall on the programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This bill before us would cut $4.6 billion from HUD's programs. This cut represents 18 percent of HUD's 1995 appropriation and 35 percent of this entire rescission package. This cut would injure important HUD programs like public housing modernization, an important pension fund demonstration, and section 8 vouchers that help us meet the housing needs of the poorest of the poor. All of these programs are serving to help us with reforming HUD. Modernization is critical for fixing up public housing, the pension fund demonstration is helping us dispose of the HUD-owned inventory, and the vouchers are important tools in helping us solve the problems of mixing the elderly and the young mentally disabled in public housing as well as helping us relocate people when we tear down the older, dilapidated stock. I also urge the Members to look at the situation that these specific cuts will set up for next year. Many are sighing a sigh of relief that the cuts in the Senate bill were not as draconian as the House cuts, but by taking these resources away today, the programs in the VA-HUD subcommittee will be under even greater pressure next year--these include not only HUD and EPA, but also NASA and veterans. I urge my colleagues to support the Mikulski amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Rhode Island for his principled stand on this issue and am pleased to join him as an original cosponsor of Senate Resolution No. 91, which condemns Turkey's invasion of Iraq. On March 20, an estimated 35,000 Turkish troops poured across Iraq's northern border in a massive assault on the Kurdish guerrilla group known as the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK. Although Turkish Prime Minister Tansu Ciller defended the invasion as a legitimate act of self-defense, the nature and extent of Turkey's invasion of northern Iraq belie this assertion. Accordingly, this resolution calls on President Clinton to express strong opposition to Turkey's invasion and to request that the United Nations Security Council condemn the invasion and seek an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Turkey's forces back to Turkey. Turkey's invasion contradicts its obligations under the United Nations Charter and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe which oblige Turkey to respect the territorial integrity of other states, and to support the human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the self-determination of all peoples. I and many of my colleagues sympathize with Turkey's struggle to defeat the Marxist PKK which has been engaged in a struggle for over a decade to establish an independent Kurkish state and has adopted terrorism as the principle means toward that end. However, the nature and brutality of the tactics Prime Minister Ciller and the military have adopted to combat the PKK are unacceptable, counterproductive, and unlikely to succeed. The invasion, besides violating the fundamentals of international law, is likely to exacerbate the conflict rather than calm it. Moreover, Turkey's action seriously detracts from its standing in the international community. For a nation seeking to convince the world-- and the European Union in particular--that it is committed to democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, the invasion of Iraq and the ongoing military campaign to eliminate the PKK undermine Turkey's commitment to these principles and raises legitimate questions about the nature and extent of our relationship with Turkey. Turkey, I fear, has fallen victim to the temptation to combat terrorism with reciprocal and punitive acts of violence more destructive than PKK acts of terrorism. The Turkish military has systematically emptied Kurdish villages and uprooted many Kurdish citizens from their homes. Human rights organizations have documented extensive human rights abuses, including torture and political assassination. The military's actions often wreak havoc and destruction on innocent Kurds and provide an incentive for Kurds to support the PKK. I fear that relations between our two nations will deteriorate unless Turkey takes demonstrable steps to improve its human rights record, abandon the military campaign, and seek alternative solutions to the Kurdish problem. Turkey's recognition, that its Kurdish civilians have civil, cultural, political, and human rights is an essential first step. Failure to recognize these rights would be folly, for it is simply inconceivable for Turkey, if it is to remain committed to the fundamentals of democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, to seek a military solution where one-fifth of the Turkish population--15 million--is Kurdish. Turkey has long been a loyal and trusted allay and a valuable member of NATO. Like all nations, Turkey is struggling with the difficult task of defining its diplomatic, security, and economic roles in the post- cold-war era. This task is compounded by the need to combat PKK terrorism and the expansion of violent Islamic fundamentalism. However, these challenges, difficult though they may be, in no way legitimize Turkey's invasion of northern Iraq, and the United States must make it clear to Turkey that such behavior is damaging to our relationship and inconsistent with the announced goals of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.