John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I don't know exactly. About 10 minutes or so.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am not sure which dog I have in this fight at the moment. I appreciate what the Senator from Minnesota is trying to accomplish. I gather that various people are trying to work on that. I certainly don't want to interrupt the flow. I will speak. If at some moment the Senate needs to move back to business, I will obviously be happy to do so. (The remarks of Mr. KERRY are located in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks about the rather stunning announcement we read this morning on the front page of a number of newspapers about President Bush's reversal of a campaign promise he made with great clarity in the course of the last year. That is the reversal of a very clear promise by the President to support efforts to reduce pollution, particularly carbon dioxide emissions from powerplants in this country. On the campaign trail last year, then-candidate Bush made clear his support for legislation to reduce nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide from powerplants, the so-called four pollutants. There has been a great deal of science, a great deal of research done over these last years with respect to the impact of these pollutants on the quality of our life on this planet. On September 29, 2000, President Bush could not have been more clear. He said: With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all powerplants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time. Only 10 days ago, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman reaffirmed the President's position that he would support and seek legislation to cut global warming pollution from powerplants. This is the second time in 2 weeks that a policy announcement by a Secretary in the Bush administration has been reversed by the White House only a few days after that policy announcement was made. I am referring to the prior policy announcement made by Secretary Powell with respect to the efforts to renew negotiations left off by the Clinton administration with North Korea. Two days after Secretary Powell said, indeed, that is what the administration would do, the President and the White House announced they would not, and the rug was essentially pulled out from under Secretary Powell. Now we see the same thing with Secretary Whitman. She announces that, indeed, she intends to enforce the President's campaign promise, and many groups around the country welcomed having a President of the United States who was prepared to offer leadership and to move us in the right direction. Yesterday it became clear, all of a sudden, that the President was no longer interested in doing what he said, helping Congress and environmental groups and industry and, apparently, even his own EPA Administrator in that effort. It turns out that the President not only does not support it but he opposes it. A lot of Americans will have their own judgments about what happens when people run for office and within a few months of running for office renege on the promises they make to the American people about why it is they ought to be elected. In a letter to Senator Hagel and others, the President said: I do not believe that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The White House has offered explanations for the President's flipflop by saying that the President did not understand that carbon dioxide emissions from powerplants is currently not regulated. Therefore, his pledge was misinformed, and the mistake. With all due respect, I find that statement to be an inadequate explanation, not so much because the President didn't know the current implementation requirements of the Clean Air Act but because, despite that lack of awareness, he proceeded to make such a sweeping promise to the American people and to allow his EPA Administrator to continue that promise for a few weeks while in office. The second reason for the President's reversal, the White House claims, is a ``new'' study by the Department of Energy that concludes that the cost of environmental protections is too great. Let me underscore that: The cost of environmental protections is too great. I don't think that analysis properly balances the many different variables in how you arrive at the true cost because that cost has to be balanced, not just based on the exact cost of putting in the implementing technology, you also have to measure the downside cost to the United States of America, indeed to the globe, for not taking the kinds of steps we need to take. Our country, I regret to say, has been the largest emitter in the world, growing at the fastest rate in the world in terms of energy use, and the least responsive in terms of the steps we should be taking to deal with this. This country has to come to grips at sometime with the realities of the profligate energy policies we are pursuing that wind up using extraordinary amounts of resources relative to our population without the kind of balance necessary to create what is called a sustainable energy policy, a sustainable environmental policy. I find it also troubling that this one study, called ``Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Multiple Emissions from Power Plants,'' is deemed to be somehow a new revelation. The study was a request of the Department of Energy by former Congressman David McIntosh who, it happens, has been one of the harshest critics of environmental protections who has served in the Congress. The study is a classic case of bad information in, bad information out. Some would call it, with respect to the technology world, computers: Garbage in, garbage out. It purposefully restricts market mechanisms, and it assumes highest cost generation. As a result, its conclusions are entirely prefixed, preordained to come out with an expense factor that does not reflect where the technology is, where the state of the art is, or where the realities are economically. I recommend that the President review a series of other economic analyses that embrace market mechanisms, that reflect real costs, and other kinds of environmental protections. This includes a different and more recent study by the Department of Energy that concludes that a multipollutant approach can reduce pollutions from large generators with net savings to the consumer. I am not someone who comes to the floor as an environmentalist and suggests that the environmental movement has not on occasion pressed for a solution that may, in fact, demand too much too quickly, or sometimes, I agree, we have environmental rules that are not even thoughtfully applied. There are times when we require of small businesses the same meeting of standards as we require for large businesses. It obviously does not make sense to the economies of scale or the gains or the capacities of those businesses to perform. I readily accept the notion that there are some places that we can do better, there are some ways in which we can harness the energy of the marketplace and use market forces to find solutions. I believe Republican and Democrat alike in past administrations have been negligent in being creative about reaching out to the private sector and putting the private sector at the table and asking the private sector for ways in which we could do things with least cost, least regulation, least intrusiveness from Washington, and harness the energy of the marketplace in finding some of these solutions. Regrettably, even when that has happened, when companies have stepped forward and shown that there are cheaper ways of doing things, we now see the President embracing a study that reflects none of that creativity and none of that capacity on the part of the private sector. Let me be very specific about that. A number of companies have stepped forward to embrace the four pollutant approach I am talking about. They include Consolidated Edison, PG&E, Northeast Utilities, PECO, and others. These companies have found a way to embrace a four pollutant reduction strategy and do so in a way that benefits their company's bottom line and also benefit the consumers at the same time. I want to put this in a context, if I may. Why is this so important to our country and to the concerns we have about global warming and about pollutants in the air and the quality of life? I don't know a thoughtful Republican or Democrat who doesn't understand the linkage of some of the things we emit into the air and water in various forms of pollution, which have a terrible impact on the lives of our fellow citizens. The country has been treated to a couple of movies recently that showed what happens when you have that kind of pollution taking place-- the impact of it on the lives of our fellow citizens. I had the privilege of attending, as an official observer for the Senate, the discussions in Rio when President Bush's father was President in 1992-- the Earth Summit, when the United States said we would try to hold ourselves to the emissions baseline of 1990 levels. We never took the steps necessary to live up to that voluntarily agreed-upon goal. Since then, I have been to Kyoto, to The Hague, and Buenos Aires, in each place where global negotiations were taking place, where Presidents and prime ministers and environmental ministers and financial ministers were all struggling together to find a way to reduce emissions. In every one of those discussions, all of the less developed countries, and our European partners, looked at the United States of America as a culprit, as the problem, because we weren't willing to embrace some of the steps they were taking, or were prepared to take, in order to enter a global solution that has an impact on all of us. I say to my colleagues, I am not talking about politics, I am talking about facts--scientific facts. Just recently, 2,500-plus scientists at the United Nations, through the IPCC, released increased data regarding our status with respect to global warming. The decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in all of human history. The glaciers on five continents are receding at record rates. One thousand square miles of the Larsen ice shelf in Antarctic has collapsed into the ocean. Arctic sea ice has thinned by 40 percent in only 20 years. For the first time, boats are traversing the Canadian Arctic without hitting ice pack. What used to take 2 years as a journey has now taken only 2 months. Permafrost in Alaska and Siberia is defying its name by thawing. Ocean temperatures throughout the world are rising, and a quarter of the world's reefs have been bleached. The scientific evidence that pollution is dangerously altering the atmosphere is becoming more compelling as each year passes. This is peer-reviewed, hard science--reviewed science from the best researchers in the world. I believe it is compelling and it demands action. In January of 2000, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its third assessment report. The IPCC involves thousands of scientists from around the world and many of the very best American scientists. It was organized in the early nineties by President Bush to assist governments in assessing the state of the global climate and what threat pollution may or may not pose to it. This January, the IPCC released its strongest, most conclusive and most alarming assessment of the global climate. It warned that rising temperatures are attributable to human activities; that temperatures may rise at a far faster rate than previously expected--as high as 10.4 degrees over the next 100 years--and that the consequences will be adverse and far reaching. The potential consequences include droughts, floods, rising seas, the displacement of tens of millions of people living in coastal areas, and the massive die of plant and animal species. The chair of IPCC, Dr. Robert Watson, put it his way: We see changes in climate, we believe we humans are involved, and we're projecting future climate changes more significant over the next 100 years than the last 100 years. And the IPCC report is only the latest in a body of science that demands action. October 2000, ``Coral Reefs Dying; Most May Be Dead In 20 Years.'' Addressing the International the Coral Reef Symposium on the island of Bali, researchers warn that more than a quarter of the world's coral reefs have been destroyed and remaining reefs could be dead in 20 years. The most serious threat to the reefs is global warming. Coral reefs are crucial anchors for marine ecosystems, and more than a half billion people depend on reefs for their livelihood, researchers at the conference say. March 2000, ``NOAA Finds Oceans Warming.'' Scientists at the National Oceanographic Data Center find that the world's oceans have soaked up much of the warming of the last four decades, delaying its full effect on air temperatures. Scientists speculate that perhaps half of human-caused climate change is not yet in evidence in the form of higher air temperatures, because of the delay caused by oceans. January 2000, ``NAS Concludes Warming Is `Undoubtedly Real.' '' A study by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences concludes that the warming of the Earth's surface is ``undoubtedly real'' and that surface temperatures in the last two decades have risen at a rate substantially greater than the average for the past 100 years. This study put to rest charges that satellite data contradicted land- based data. December 1999, ``Arctic Melting Almost Certainly The Result of Pollution.'' A computer-based study by the University of Maryland and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center finds less than a 2 percent chance that observed melting of Arctic sea ice is the result of normal climatic variations--and less than a 0.1 percent chance that melting over the last 46 years is the result of normal variations. Arctic sea ice is melting at a rate of 14,000 square miles per year, an area larger than Maryland and Delaware combined. Melting of arctic ice accelerates global warming, since ice reflects 80 percent of solar energy back into space and water absorbs solar energy. Meanwhile, the melting of arctic ice could disrupt ocean currents and salinity levels. June 1999, ``Greenhouse Gases Higher Now Than Any Time In 420,000 Years.'' A two-mile-long ice core drilled out of an Antarctic ice sheet shows that levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are higher now than at any time in the past 420,000 years. Scientists with the National Center for Scientific Research in Grenoble, France, find that carbon dioxide levels rose from about 180 parts per million during ice ages to 280-300 parts per million in warm periods--far below the current CO2 concentration of 360 parts per million. Methane levels, meanwhile, rose from 320-350 parts per billion during ice ages to 650-770 parts per billion during the warm spells. The current methane concentration is about 1,700 parts per billion. April 1998, ``20th Century Was The Warmest In 600 Years.'' Based on annual growth rings in trees and chemical evidence contained in marine fossils, corals and ancient ice, scientists at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst find that the 20th century was the warmest in 600 years, and that 1990, 1995 and 1997 were the warmest years in all of the 600- year period. Scientist conclude that the warming ``appears to be closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors,'' such as solar radiation and volcanic haze. January 1998, ``Changes May Happen Quickly With A Climate Shock.'' A University of Rhode Island study of ice cores from Greenland shows that when the last ice age ended, the change was sudden. In Greenland, a 9 to 18 degree F increase in temperatures probably took place in less than a decade. The finding challenges the widespread assumption that climate changes are in all cases gradual, and suggests that human- induced climate change could occur rapidly rather than slowly. I could go on; the science is compelling. I committed to finding a solution to the problem of global warming. Some of my colleagues--and now the President--have charged that dealing with this problem will bankrupt the American economy. I disagree. I believe that America can have a strong economy and a healthy environment. Fortunately, more and more companies are stepping forward to solve this problem and lead the way where government won't. BP will reduce its emission to 10 percent below its 1990 levels by 2010. Polaroid will cut its emissions to 20 percent below 1994 levels by 2005. Johnson & Johnson will reduce its emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. IBM will cut emissions by 4 percent each year till 2004 based on 1994 emissions. And, Shell International, DuPont, Suncor Energy Inc., Ontario Power Generation have all made similar commitments. All the dire predictions of economic calamity from entrenched polluters just is not credible when leading companies are doing exactly what they say cannot be done. We know the power of technology to transform an industry--just look at the impact of technology on information and medicine--and technology and innovation can transform how we produce and use energy. President Bush's reversal will also weigh heavily on the international talks to fight global warming. As a Senate observer to the talks, I have seen firsthand how America's inaction has prevented progress. In 1992 the U.S. pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000 through the strictly voluntary Framework Convention on Climate Change. We will miss that goal and end the year with emissions 13 percent above 1990 levels. Our failure goes beyond numbers alone. In the past eight years, we have not taken a single meaningful step toward our commitment. We have not seized opportunities to increase efficiency and reduce pollution from automobiles, appliances, electric utilities, housing, commercial buildings, industry or transportation. Nor have we provided sufficient economic incentives for the development and proliferation of solar, wind, hydrogen and other clean energy technologies. A range of sound proposals have been floated in Congress, but almost all have been relegated to the legislative scrap heap. Instead, Congress has enacted budget riders to keep us mired in the unsustainable status quo. An unwise mix of politics and special interests has produced laws prohibiting the government from even studying the efficacy of strengthening efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, laws blocking stronger efficiency standards for appliances, and laws hampering energy and environmental programs because, their sponsors mistakenly argue, these programs represent an unconstitutional implementation of the unratified Kyoto Protocol. This regressive record is fatal to the international effort. It heightens distrust, undermines the credibility essential to success, and gives opening to our sharpest critics to seek advantage. For example, the U.S. has insisted that unrestricted, international emissions trading be part of the global warming pact. Trading is a proven method to achieve greater environmental benefits at lower costs; it has halved the cost and accelerated the environmental gains of Clean Air Act. But European nations--led by Germany and France--charge the trading program must be severely restricted or it will become a loophole by which the U.S. will avoid domestic action. They make that charge as much for reasons of economic and political self-interest as they do for environmental concerns, but, nonetheless, our paltry environmental record at home lends dangerous credibility to their charge, and that makes the work of our negotiators all more difficult. Moreover our inaction has an equally dangerous practical effect. Every year we fail to act, our environmental goals become more difficult to achieve. Mr. President, it is early in this Congress and even earlier in President Bush's new administration. I remain hopeful, but being hopeful is becoming increasingly difficult, particularly today. President Bush has rejected a policy that can work, that can benefit the environment and the nation. He did it really before the debate even started. And he broke the most important campaign pledge he made regarding the environment. And it took him less than two months to do it. Let me just say that I wanted to review for my colleagues--and I hope some will perhaps take an interest in reviewing these other assessments--a number of major assessments of the negative impact on crops, on quality of health, on sea life, on major areas that should be of enormous concern to all of us, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as thinking U.S. Senators. I don't want to approach this in a doctrinaire way, but I know that we have a responsibility to contribute our part to a major solution and reduction in global greenhouse gases, as well as to contribute to the better quality and health of our citizens. This decision by the President which, once again, gives increased power to the large energy interests of the country is the wrong decision for our Nation and the wrong decision in the long run for creating the sustainable environmental approach. My hope is that my colleagues and the administration itself will review and come up with an approach that will better serve the interests of our Nation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator Cleland, and Senator Wellstone, in introducing legislation, the Small Business Telecommuting Act, to assist our nation's small businesses in establishing successful telecommuting, or telework programs, for their employees. Congressman Udall will be introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Across America, numerous employers are responding to the needs of their employees and establishing telecommuting programs. In 2000, there were an estimated 16.5 million teleworkers. By the end of 2004, there will be an estimated 30 million teleworkers, representing an increase of almost 100 percent. Unfortunately, the majority of growth in new teleworkers comes from organizations employing over 1,500 people, while just a few years ago, most teleworkers worked for small- to medium- sized organizations. By not taking advantage of modern technology and establishing successful telecommuting programs, small businesses are losing out on a host of benefits that will save them money, and make them more competitive. The reported productivity improvement of home-based teleworkers averages 15 percent, translating to an average bottom-line impact of $9,712 per teleworker. Additionally, most experienced teleworkers are determined to continue teleworking, meaning a successful telework program can be an important tool in the recruitment and retention of qualified and skilled employees. By establishing successful telework programs, small business owners would be able to retain these valuable employees by allowing them to work from a remote location, such as their home or a telework center. In addition to the cost savings realized by businesses that employ teleworkers, there are a number of related benefits to society and the employee. For example, telecommuters help reduce traffic and cut down on air pollution by staying off the roads during rush hour. Fully 80 percent of home-only teleworkers commute to work on days they are not teleworking. Their one-way commute distance averages 19.7 miles, versus 13.3 miles for non-teleworkers, meaning employees that take advantage of telecommuting programs are, more often than not, those with the longest commutes. Teleworking also gives employees more time to spend with their families and reduces stress levels by eliminating the pressure of a long commute. Our legislation seeks to extend the benefits of successful telecommuting programs to more of our nation's small businesses. Specifically, it establishes a pilot program in the Small Business Administration, SBA, to raise awareness about telecommuting among small business employers and to encourage those small businesses to establish telecommuting programs for their employees. Additionally, an important provision in our bill directs the SBA Administrator to undertake special efforts for businesses owned by, or employing, persons with disabilities and disabled America veterans. At the end of the day, telecommuting can provide more than just environmental benefits and improved quality of life. It can open the door to people who have been precluded from working in a traditional office setting due to physical disabilities. Our legislation is also limited in cost and scope. It establishes the pilot program in a maximum of five SBA regions and caps the total cost to five million dollars over two years. It also restricts the SBA to activities specifically proscribed in the legislation: developing educational materials; conducting outreach to small business; and acquiring equipment for demonstration purposes. Finally, it requires the SBA to prepare and submit a report to Congress evaluating the pilot program. Several hurdles to establishing successful telecommuting programs could be cleared by enacting our legislation. In fact, the number one reported obstacle to implementing a telecommuting program is a lack of know-how. Our bill will go a long way towards educating small business owners on how they can draft guidelines to make a telework program an affordable, manageable reality. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Small Business Telecommuting Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator Cleland, and Senator Wellstone, in introducing legislation, the Small Business Telecommuting Act, to assist our nation's small businesses in establishing successful telecommuting, or telework programs, for their employees. Congressman Udall will be introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Across America, numerous employers are responding to the needs of their employees and establishing telecommuting programs. In 2000, there were an estimated 16.5 million teleworkers. By the end of 2004, there will be an estimated 30 million teleworkers, representing an increase of almost 100 percent. Unfortunately, the majority of growth in new teleworkers comes from organizations employing over 1,500 people, while just a few years ago, most teleworkers worked for small- to medium- sized organizations. By not taking advantage of modern technology and establishing successful telecommuting programs, small businesses are losing out on a host of benefits that will save them money, and make them more competitive. The reported productivity improvement of home-based teleworkers averages 15 percent, translating to an average bottom-line impact of $9,712 per teleworker. Additionally, most experienced teleworkers are determined to continue teleworking, meaning a successful telework program can be an important tool in the recruitment and retention of qualified and skilled employees. By establishing successful telework programs, small business owners would be able to retain these valuable employees by allowing them to work from a remote location, such as their home or a telework center. In addition to the cost savings realized by businesses that employ teleworkers, there are a number of related benefits to society and the employee. For example, telecommuters help reduce traffic and cut down on air pollution by staying off the roads during rush hour. Fully 80 percent of home-only teleworkers commute to work on days they are not teleworking. Their one-way commute distance averages 19.7 miles, versus 13.3 miles for non-teleworkers, meaning employees that take advantage of telecommuting programs are, more often than not, those with the longest commutes. Teleworking also gives employees more time to spend with their families and reduces stress levels by eliminating the pressure of a long commute. Our legislation seeks to extend the benefits of successful telecommuting programs to more of our nation's small businesses. Specifically, it establishes a pilot program in the Small Business Administration, SBA, to raise awareness about telecommuting among small business employers and to encourage those small businesses to establish telecommuting programs for their employees. Additionally, an important provision in our bill directs the SBA Administrator to undertake special efforts for businesses owned by, or employing, persons with disabilities and disabled America veterans. At the end of the day, telecommuting can provide more than just environmental benefits and improved quality of life. It can open the door to people who have been precluded from working in a traditional office setting due to physical disabilities. Our legislation is also limited in cost and scope. It establishes the pilot program in a maximum of five SBA regions and caps the total cost to five million dollars over two years. It also restricts the SBA to activities specifically proscribed in the legislation: developing educational materials; conducting outreach to small business; and acquiring equipment for demonstration purposes. Finally, it requires the SBA to prepare and submit a report to Congress evaluating the pilot program. Several hurdles to establishing successful telecommuting programs could be cleared by enacting our legislation. In fact, the number one reported obstacle to implementing a telecommuting program is a lack of know-how. Our bill will go a long way towards educating small business owners on how they can draft guidelines to make a telework program an affordable, manageable reality. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Small Business Telecommuting Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Susan Collins for her work in developing this important amendment, which will extend chapter 12 bankruptcy protections to our family fishermen. I believe we should do everything possible to protect and preserve the small family-owned fishing businesses in this country. In 1999, American fishermen harvested 9.3 billion pounds of seafood valued at $3.5 billion dockside. The commercial marine fishing industry contributed more than $27 billion to the Gross National Product in 1999. In 1999, Massachusetts fishermen landed more than 198,000 pounds of seafood worth more than $260 million. The fishing port of New Bedford, Massachusetts ranks second nationally in terms of the value of the fishery landings in 1999 with nearly $130 million in seafood landed. These numbers sound great, but small, family-owned fishing businesses are in serious trouble. In Gloucester, America's oldest fishing port, landings declined by 9 percent in 1999 to just less than $26 million. This once proud fishing community, along with several other New England communities that borders the Gulf of Maine, have been rocked by the dramatic decline in inshore cod stocks. Gulf of Maine fishermen are feeling the pain caused by low trip limits and closed fishing areas. Massachusetts Bay, the prime fishing grounds for much of the inshore fleet, is currently closed six months of the year to allow the cod fish to rebuild. Think of the effect that closing a family farm for six months each year would have on its profitability. Decreasing fish stocks coupled with severe environmental factors such as coastal pollution and warmer oceans with changing currents has resulted in severely depleted fish stocks around the country. We are making progress in rebuilding stocks, however, the cost of this progress has been a steep decline in the amount of fishing allowed in Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine. This in turn has made it much more difficult for fishermen in Massachusetts and Maine to maintain profitable businesses. That is why the Collins amendment is so important. It will ensure that fishermen have the flexibility under chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code to wait out the rebuilding of our commercial fish stocks without back tracking on our conservation gains to date. We are making progress rebuilding our fish stocks, but the social and economic costs have been enormous. I strongly believe we must do everything we can to preserve the rich New England fishing heritage in Massachusetts without wiping out the fiercely independent small-boat fishermen. In their annual report to the Congress released last month on the health of our Nation's fisheries, the National Marine Fisheries Service reported that there was no overfishing in 210 fish stocks in 2000 as compared to 159 stocks in 1999, a significant improvement. This means that we have reduced fishing pressure on many stocks to the point where we can continue harvesting on a sustainable basis. Additionally, the number of stocks that are fully rebuilt has increased to 145 in 2000 from 122 stocks in 1999. Another significant improvement. My point is that we are making real progress, however, the temptation will always exist to forgo what is in the long-term best interest of our fisheries, to relieve some of the short term pains that the fishing industry is going through. The same protections and flexibility afforded the farming community should be made available to family fishermen. By adopting this modest but important change to the bankruptcy laws, we will not only preserve and protect a very important industry but a cherished way of life as well.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, thank you very much. Amendment No. 26

Mr. KERRY. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding there is no further debate, this is accepted, and we can vote now.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me address quickly the elements of my amendment which seek to strike the small business provision within this bankruptcy bill. I emphasize to my colleagues, we don't strike it and not do anything; we strike it and ask for a study by the Small Business Administration for the most efficient and effective way of dealing with small business bankruptcies. The reason for that is as follows: My colleague, Senator Grassley, a little while ago--and I respect enormously the efforts he is making on this bill, and I respect the efforts generally in the Senate to try to reform the bankruptcy code-- but Senator Grassley talked about how the Bankruptcy Review Commission voted out the small business provisions. He talked about an 8-1 vote. Let me emphasize to all my colleagues, the vote of the Bankruptcy Review Commission was 8-1 on the entire report. But indeed on the particular provision with respect to small business, the commission was very divided. It was an extraordinarily close vote, 5-4. That 5-4 vote reflected the tension that existed over this question of how to treat small business. There was not a generalized acceptance of their approach. Second, we in the Senate are just beginning to focus on what the potential impact to small business might be as a consequence of this bill. I emphasize to my colleagues there are two reviews of this bankruptcy effort. One is the commission. But the National Bankruptcy Conference, which is a conference made up of experts, also has weighed in on this bill. The National Bankruptcy Conference has endorsed my approach to this issue of striking the small business sections. In other words, the National Bankruptcy Conference and many of the small business entities of the country believe that what the Senate is about to do is undo some of the things we attempted in the last few years with the small business regulatory reform and all of the efforts we have undertaken to lift from small business in this country undue amounts of paper burden, regulatory burden, government-mandated intrusion. What we will be doing in this bankruptcy bill is putting back on to small businesses the very kind of burden we have tried to lift. I emphasize the National Bankruptcy Conference endorses my approach, which is to strike this section and ask for a Small Business Administration analysis of what will happen. I remind my colleagues, the number of chapter 11 filings with respect to small business has dramatically decreased over the last decade from 24,000 in 1991 to below 10,000 last year. The fact is there is no showing whatever on the record that small businesses represent the kind of problem that invites the kind of onerous, intrusive documentation and recordation that is in this legislation. If small business fails to comply with the new reporting requirements that are in this legislation, then creditors are given entirely new powers, and those powers could force bankruptcy court judges to liquidate small businesses or to completely dismiss their proceedings. This could force many small businesses to expend a huge amount of resources to fend off challenges by any creditor simply for not complying with one of the new burdensome reporting requirements that are put into this legislation. These requirements place a burden on small mom-and-pop operations that are the lifeblood of the growth of this country. Sixty to eighty percent of the jobs in this country are created by small business, maintained by small business, and almost all the growth in the country. There is no showing that small businesses present the kind of problem with respect to the bankruptcy process that merits this kind of approach. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY. I recognize my colleague probably wants to set the time for that vote at some future time. That is fine with me.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the provisions included in the Bankruptcy Reform Act impose new technical and burdensome reporting requirements for small businesses that file for bankruptcy that are far more stringent on small businesses than they are on big businesses. Furthermore, the bill would provide creditors with greatly enhanced powers to force small businesses to liquidate their assets at a time it may not be advisable, and with reporting requirements that may, in fact, force a liquidation that does not have to take place. Specifically, the bill will require small businesses to provide periodic financial and other reports containing information ranging from cash receipts, cash disbursements, and comparisons of actual cash receipts and disbursements with projections in prior reports. Just in case they missed anything, the bill includes a provision that includes reports on such matters as are in the best interests of the debtor and the creditors. This shifts all of the power in such a way as to place an extraordinary burden on mom-and-pop stores and mom-and-pop operations and small businesses that simply do not have the capacity to be able to comply. Any big business would have difficulty complying with these burdensome requirements. But I think we ought to measure what we are doing here against the necessity that we see in the declining number of bankruptcies, the declining level of assets that are at stake, and the great upside of what these entities provide to the country. So for that reason, I hope my colleagues will join me in specifically asking for a study, a short-term study, that will enable us to better judge whether these changes in the current system are needed. I believe we ought to do everything possible to ensure the viability of small businesses and to assist in fostering entrepreneurship in the economy. The Bankruptcy Reform Act, as it is today constructed, does not meet that challenge. I ask my colleagues to join me in removing the small business provisions, undertake the study, and then we can revisit it, if we need to, based on a sound analysis of precisely how we might proceed in a least intrusive, a least burdensome manner. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with this amendment as the ranking member of the Small Business Committee of the Senate, a committee which we all know is designed to try to help empower America's small businesses to do what they do best, which is to create jobs. Everyone in the Senate knows that almost all of the job growth of our country comes from small businesses, and, frankly, I think it is about 80 percent of the jobs in the Nation that come from small businesses. We have tried to do as much as possible in the Senate in recent years to encourage small businesses to be able to act as the incubator of our economy. Together with Senator Bond, chairman of the committee, I think the Small Business Committee has been able to be particularly responsive to the needs of those businesses. We have heard Alan Greenspan talk a lot about the so-called ``virtuous economic cycle'' that we lived through in the course of the last decade, and I think all of us look with special sensitivity to the impact the bankruptcy bill might have on small businesses. It is with that concern I come to the floor today with deep concern about a particular provision within the bankruptcy bill that, in my judgment, runs counter to the policies we have been putting in place in the last years as we tried to have low-documentation loans, lift the regulatory burden on small businesses, lift the paperwork burden on small businesses, and, indeed, expand the capacity for entrepreneurship and for growth. There is no evidence at all that small business bankruptcies are a problem which somehow warrant the rather extraordinary increase in regulatory oversight this bill seeks to impose on those businesses. I am offering an amendment that would strike the small business subtitle of the Bankruptcy Reform Act and include in its place a study of the causes of small business bankruptcy and how Federal law regarding small business bankruptcy can be made more effective and more efficient. Let me preface my comments about the specifics of this particular section that I seek to strike by saying that I share with all my colleagues who support the bankruptcy bill the notion that a decision to file for bankruptcy obviously should not be used as an economic tool to avoid responsibility for unsound business decisions, nor should it be an effort to get out from under a reckless act by either an individual or a business. There has been a decline, as we all know, in the stigma of filing for personal bankruptcy, and certainly we would agree that appropriate changes are necessary in order to ensure that bankruptcy not be considered a lifestyle choice. During the 105th and 106th Congresses, I have supported legislation that would increase personal responsibility in bankruptcy, and I have offered amendments that improve the number of small business provisions in the bill. It has been Congress' long-held belief that regulatory and procedural burdens, however, should be lowered to whatever degree we can for small business--i.e., when it is possible and when it is rational to do so or when it doesn't somehow create another set of problems. The Senate previously passed legislation to reduce that regulatory burden on small business, including most recently the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Both of them have brought about fundamental changes in the way Federal agencies develop regulations. In fiscal year 1999, changes to final regulations throughout the Federal Government reduced the compliance costs for small businesses by almost $5.3 billion. I respectfully submit the provisions of this bankruptcy bill will set back those very efforts of the Senate, and most importantly they do so without an adequate showing and without any adequate demonstration that this is, in fact, necessary. I ask my colleagues, What is the evidence on which we are going to potentially proceed in the Senate to literally punish entrepreneurship? As we can see in this chart, the degree to which small businesses have been carrying the heavy load of creating jobs during our recent economic expansion for every single year over the last decade, small firms have developed more jobs than large firms. In many years, small firm job creation has exceeded the growth of large firms by 2 or 3 to 1. In 1992-1993 it was extraordinary the degree to which small firms eclipsed large firms. But even most recently, from 1994-1995 and 1996- 1997, we have had the same trend during which small businesses have clearly exceeded the extraordinary growth level of all of the economy. It would be insane for us to come in here now without an adequate showing of need and turn around and burden some businesses with proceedings that will cost them extraordinary amounts of administrative time, which in a small business is exceedingly difficult to comply with. I ask those who promote this legislation, are we imposing on small businesses these kinds of requirements because small businesses have somehow been egregious in the bankruptcy process? The answer to that is no. There is no showing. In fact, the showing is to the contrary. Business bankruptcy chapter 11 filings from 1987 to the year 2000 show a decline in the numbers in thousands of small business bankruptcies. In fact, over the past decade, we have gone from 24,000 in the year 1991 to just below 10,000 last year, 23.7 million business tax returns filed in 1997, and a record 885,416 new small firms with employees opened their doors. The numbers show us that of approximately 23.7 million business tax returns, and 885,000 new small businesses, only 10,000 were forced to file for bankruptcy. Are those that filed for bankruptcy somehow doing such an injury to our economy that it measures the kind of response we see in this legislation? A 1999 SBA study found that 79 percent of small businesses that filed for bankruptcy had each incurred less than $500,000 in debt. The study also found that about 45 percent of bankruptcy cases had one or no employees. Less than 5 percent of the bankruptcy cases represented companies with 50 or more employees. The median assets of small businesses that filed for bankruptcy was just $94,000. So, once again, we have to measure the intrusive nature of the reporting requirements placed in this legislation versus the overall positive impact that small businesses have had versus the extraordinarily small impact of those small businesses that have filed for bankruptcy. In November of last year, Wei Fan of the University of Michigan and Michelle White of the University of California at San Diego released a report on personal bankruptcy and its effects on entrepreneurial activity. The study concludes that while the bankruptcy reform bill is intended to reduce abuse in the bankruptcy system, an unintended consequence of adopting those reforms would be a substantial reduction in the level of self-employment by U.S. households. Elizabeth Warren, a professor of Harvard Law School, and a recognized leader on the bankruptcy issue, believes the small business provisions in the bankruptcy bill would be the first piece of Federal legislation that actively discriminates against small businesses and denies them protection available to large businesses. Ms. Warren believes the additional reporting requirements will be extraordinarily difficult and expensive for small businesses to produce on a monthly basis. She concludes: A decision by Congress in 2001 that small businesses should bear greater costs, face shorter deadlines, file more papers and lose any flexibility that a supervising judge might provide is a decision to shut down small businesses simply because they are small. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent her letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. I believe it was ordered.

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent I be recognized after the Senator has completed his amendment for the purposes of submitting an amendment.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask my colleague if he will yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was briefly downstairs in a meeting with President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea. I will take a few moments to share with my colleagues some thoughts about our policy with respect to North Korea, which obviously has profound implications for the region, as well as for the United States. Mr. President, one of the major questions facing the United States and its South Korean and Japanese allies is how to deal with the ballistic missile threat posed by North Korea. Pyongyang has already demonstrated its capacity to launch a 500 kilogram warhead to a range of at least 1000 kilometers. The failed test of the Taepo Dong-2 missile in August 1999 clearly shows North Korea's interest in developing a longer range missile capability. North Korea's proliferation of missiles, missile components, technology and training to states such as Pakistan and Iran further magnifies the need to get Pyongyang to end its missile program. The Clinton administration left a framework on the table which could, if pursued aggressively by the Bush administration, go a long way toward reducing the threat posed by North Korean missiles and missile exports. Our South Korean allies clearly want us to continue the discussions that the Clinton administration began with North Korea on the missile question. Two days ago Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that the Bush administration would ``pick up'' where the Clinton administration left off. Apparently not. Yesterday, President Bush told visiting South Korean President Kim Dae Jung that the administration would not resume missile talks with North Korea any time soon. I believe this is a serious mistake in judgment. I will suggest why. Our South Korean allies are on the front line; they are under no illusions about the regime in North Korea or its leader Kim Jong II. President Kim firmly believes that Washington and Seoul must continue their efforts to open up North Korea, and that the United States should move quickly to resume the missile talks. We should listen to him carefully. I and others raised this issue with Secretary Powell earlier today, when he testified before the Foreign Relations Committee. The Secretary indicated that some of the things put on the table by the Clinton administration are ``promising'' but that monitoring and verification ``are not there.'' He said that the Bush administration intended to do a comprehensive policy review and then would decide when and how to engage North Korea. I don't think any of us in the Senate would second-guess the right or even the good sense of a new administration conducting a thorough review of a particular area of the world or a particular policy. That makes sense. However, I am deeply concerned that by sending the message we will not even engage in a continuation of talks where the Clinton administration left off, that we wind up potentially offering an opportunity to see a window closed or for people to misinterpret the long-term intentions of the United States and perhaps make it more difficult to pick up where the Clinton administration left off when and if the administration resumes. We need to reflect on the fact that North Korea took some remarkable steps, heretofore unimaginable steps, and under the 1994 agreed framework, North Korea set about to freeze its existing nuclear energy program under the IAEA supervision to permit special inspections to determine the past operating history of its reactor program just prior to the delivery of key components of light-water reactors. A few years ago when the United States was concerned that North Korea was violating the agreed framework by possibly building a new reactor in an underground site at Kumchangi-ri, North Korea ultimately allowed a team of Americans to inspect the site, first in May of 1999 and each year thereafter. This showed, clearly, that monitoring and verification agreements can be negotiated with North Korea. By the 11th hour of the Clinton administration, the United States and North Korea were discussing further proposals that would, indeed, prevent North Korea from developing missiles capable of striking the United States and bring a halt to North Korea's lucrative missile exports. In my view, at this moment, now, we should still be encouraging progress in those particular areas. We should be particularly encouraging Pyongyang to continue down that path, not sending them a message that may, in fact, make it months later and far more difficult before we can do so. Delaying missile talks will not enhance the security of the United States or of the region about which we care. In fact, delay, coupled at this morning's hearing with Secretary Powell's somewhat lukewarm endorsement of the agreed framework could send a very negative signal about the nature and direction of United States policy toward North Korea. The Clinton administration, in many people's judgment, may well have moved faster than some believed was prudent. But the reality is that negotiations have begun and proposals are on the table for discussion. Nothing has been agreed upon yet. There is no reason this administration could not pick up where the Clinton administration left off, even as it makes the decision to review and discuss alternative proposals. Nothing will preclude them from ensuring adequate monitoring and verification. The issue of North Korea's missile capability is fundamental not only to security on the Korean peninsula but also to our own long-term security and also to the debate on national missile defense. The North Korean missile threat has been offered by the Bush administration and others as a major reason why the United States needs to move more rapidly with the National Missile Defense System. Given that, I am somewhat confused by the administration's go-slow approach on the missile talks with Pyongyang. If we can reduce or eliminate the threat posed by North Korea's missile program, not only to us but to others, we are going to be on a very different playing field. We will have greater security, on the one hand, and we will be able to look at other national missile defense options that may be less costly and less damaging to the arms control regime established by the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. With all of this in the balance, it seems to me that there is little to lose--and potentially much to gain--by getting back to the table with Pyongyang and seeing where the negotiations go. It is my hope that this administration will rapidly move to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for the force of his arguments which underscore the bankruptcy of the position of those who are in opposition. I listened to my colleague from Wyoming a moment ago, and he suggested we have to do this because of the CRA. If my colleagues are serious about improving the ergonomics rule, they have a number of different options available to them. They could have a review and revision of the regulation if they wanted to. They could call on the administration to grant a stay against the regulation while further work is done to assess their concerns. They could petition the agency to modify or repeal the ergonomics standard and the Department of Labor could initiate a rulemaking procedure to modify the rule. None of those things are being engaged in here. We have all heard of crocodile tears. What we are hearing are crocodile promises about a willingness to come back and revisit this issue when it has been visited for 10 years. At every step along the way the record is absolutely replete with examples of how they have stood in opposition to any kind of rule. So when we hear them talk on the floor of the Senate today that they are prepared to come back with some kind of a rule, it is directly contrary to every part of the record of past years. In March of 1995, the House passed a 1995 rescission bill prohibiting OSHA from developing or promulgating any proposed rule on ergonomics. Industry members of the Coalition on Ergonomics lobbied heavily for that measure. In August of 1995, again, following intense industry lobbying, the House passed an appropriations bill prohibiting OSHA from issuing or developing any standard on ergonomics. They had ample opportunity in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and even now to come up with some notion of what they are willing to accept. As my colleague from Massachusetts pointed out--silence, absolutely no offer whatsoever. There is no need to move in the way they are moving now except, I suppose, that it is entirely in keeping with their approach to labor over the course of the last weeks. President Bush has been in office for 7 weeks. Already he has had a pretty profound impact on the lives of workers in this country. On February 17, he signed four antiworker Executive orders that would, among other things, repeal project labor agreements which are employed at the discretion of States, repealing those so that contractors would not be required under any circumstances in many federally financed projects to be unionized--a blatant, fundamental assault on union labor. He also dissolved the National Partnership Council which sought to get government agencies and unions to resolve their differences. Not a bad way to try to resolve the differences. That was a program we thought was working and offered a capacity to reduce the tensions. But, no, that is eliminated--revoked job protections for employees of contractors at Federal buildings when the project is awarded to another contractor. And now we are on the cusp of overturning yet another critical worker protection that would help alleviate suffering for hundreds of thousands of people. I believe this is an assault on the fundamental rights of workers, and their fundamental right is obviously to have a safe workplace. Twenty-one thousand people in Massachusetts were injured last year as a consequence of repetitious work motions or severe overstress as a consequence of the kind of work and movement they have in their work. It seems to me we are owed at least a good-faith offer of some outline in which our colleagues would feel this might be acceptable. What do we hear? We hear them say this law is too complicated. Too complicated? The rule is about as simple as a rule could be. The employer has enormous leverage in this rule. The employer gets to decide whether or not a complaint by a worker is job related. The employer makes that decision. How complicated is it to empower a worker to come to the employer in a specific amount of time, draw to their attention the signs and symptoms of an ergonomic injury, the responsibility of reporting it, the employer has absolutely no further responsibility under the rule unless the employee reports that ergonomic injury and that injury lasts for 7 days after being reported. If the employer then determined it was work related and they were exposed to a serious hazard, they craft an appropriate remedy. That is precisely what our colleague from Wyoming just said he thought any employer in the United States would do. He just said if somebody sees a worker is hurt or if somebody saw they were going to reduce their own costs and expenses as a result of reducing their employees' exposure to danger, they would do it. That is literally what this very simple law asks them to do. Instead, we are going to go on with a situation where they could continue to delay and leave countless workers in the United States exposed to danger with a cost of injuries at about $17 billion annually and a total cost to the economy of over $50 billion when we measure it by the compensation costs, the workers' medical expenses, lost wages, and lost productivity. We all understand what ergonomics are. We understand it is a fancy name for what happens to people who do certain kinds of jobs in our country that require multiple repetition of movement. We understand you can avoid these risks. On January 18 of this year, the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine released a report talking about these disorders. It talked about the scientific evidence that documents what these kinds of injuries do. They also pointed out the extraordinary cost to our economy. One would think most of the businesses in the country would welcome an opportunity for a worker to simply walk up to them, explain that they believe a particular injury they have is related to the work they are doing, that it has lasted for longer than 7 days, make an evaluation about it, and then determine what they are going to do. That is all this law requires. It is not complicated. They have also compiled a report entitled ``Work Related Musculoskeletal Disorders'' which summarized 6,000 scientific studies on ergonomics-related injuries, and it concluded that the current state of science shows that the people who are exposed to ergonomic hazards have a higher level of pain, injury, and disability; that there is a biological basis for these injuries, and that there exist today interventions that can protect against those injuries. There have been 10 years of effort to try to come to the point of conclusion with respect to those kinds of injuries. Yet we are finding the resolution is not a bipartisan effort to try to pull people together and agree. It is not a bona fide effort to try to resolve the differences that may or may not exist. It is an effort to go ahead and literally kill the capacity of the agency to issue this or to revisit it. I would like to share very quickly a couple of stories of real people in my State. At the Cape Cod Hospital, Beth Piknick was a registered nurse with a 21-year career as an intensive care unit nurse. That career was cut short because of a preventable back injury that came from the responsibilities she was carrying out. The injury required major surgery, a spinal fusion, and 2 years of major rehabilitation before and after injury. That injury was devastating to Ms. Piknick, both professionally and personally. Prior to her injury, she had led an extraordinarily active life. She enjoyed competitive racquetball, water skiing, and whitewater rafting, but, most importantly, she wanted to do her work and loved her work as an ICU nurse. That had been her career since 1971. The loss of ability to take care of patients led to clinical depression which lasted 4\1/2\ years. She now administers TB tests to employees at the hospital, and her ability to take care of patients, the very reason she became a nurse, is gone. Her injury could have been prevented. So can the crippling injuries suffered by hundreds of thousands of other workers every year. Another example--this story actually comes from Business Week, December 4, 2000. I quote from Business Week: Sheree Lolos will never forget the night 5 years ago when her arms went numb. She had spent her 8-hour shift as usual, pouring a total of 12,000 pounds of plastic scrap onto a conveyor belt at a windshield factory in Springfield, MA. That night her arms tingled and burned. The next day she and her supervisors shrugged off the injury as temporary and she continued to work in coming months--until she could work no more. This was not somebody looking for an excuse or a way out. She worked until she could work no more. Doctors later told her that lifting and pouring for up to 60 hours a week, week after week, had damaged the nerves in her arms. So, today, at 44, Ms. Lolos says she can't even wash her hair without pain. ``I cry in the shower because I can't keep my hands over my head to wash out the soap.'' That injury also was avoidable. That injury at least ought to properly be reportable to an employer, for the employer to make a judgment about whether or not there is a relationship, a judgment that could very easily be made by a caring employer by simply listening to the employee, contacting the doctors, and making a legitimate attempt to determine whether or not there is a cause and effect between the injury the doctor has determined and that person's work. What you have here is a message being sent that these kinds of injuries and the lives of these workers and their ability to get redress are not as important as the interests that are being served on the Senate floor in trying to defeat this effort. An awful lot of businesses and trade associations have already implemented these kinds of programs, and they have seen productivity rise as fewer hours on the job are lost. When businesses ensure that their workplaces are safe and they protect workers from these types of injuries, the productivity across the board rises. When workers are healthy, employers lose far fewer hours in their jobs. Programs implemented by individual employers reduce the total job-related injuries and illnesses by an average of 45 percent and lost work-time injuries and illnesses by an average of 75 percent. These numbers mean something because they indicate results and they prove that making the workplace safe is crucial not only to increasing worker safety but also to increasing the capacity of a business to flourish. I would like to give another example of that. A company in western Massachusetts that makes most of the paper we use to print the American dollar, Crane and Company, located in Dalton, MA, signed an agreement with OSHA to establish comprehensive ergonomics programs at each of their plants. According to the company's own report, within 3 years of starting this program, the company's musculoskeletal injury rate was almost cut in half. Lund Silversmiths, a flatware manufacturer in Greenfield, MA, was troubled by very high workers compensation costs. One OSHA log revealed that back injuries were the No. 1 problem in three departments. By implementing basic ergonomic controls, lost workdays dropped from more than 300 in 1992 to 72 in 1997, and total workers compensation costs for the company dropped from $192,500 in 1992 to $27,000 in 1997. So all this talk about workers compensation costs or the cost to business going up simply does not stand up against the measured examination of what has happened in those companies that have seen fit to try to raise their standards and respect the injuries that are done to workers through certain kinds of work. The changes envisioned by the law we are voting on actually increase productivity. It saves businesses money and makes more money for our economy overall. This standard is a win-win for workers and for management. The fact is, it is almost common sense, if you examine the experience of most of those companies that have engaged in a reasonable approach to it. I have heard some complaint on the floor by some people who try to suggest this supersedes workers compensation laws. The fact is, the provisions of this standard are not compensation, they are assurances that workers are not going to face financial disincentives to report muscular disorders. Work restriction protection, in stark contrast to workers compensation, is only a preventive health program, and the criteria for restrictions under the ergonomic standard have no relationship to the criteria for compensation, nor do they have any bearing on whether an injury or an illness is compensable. OSHA has been including work restriction protection in its health standards for more than 20 years, and we know, as others have pointed out, the attorneys general of some 17 States-- Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Washington, and Wisconsin--have all filed comments with OSHA stating that worker restriction protection provisions of the ergonomics standard would not affect or supersede the workers compensation laws in their States. To the best of my knowledge, there is no attorney general on record saying that it will. The ergonomics regulation is not a new phenomenon. And it is not somehow the latest fad that represents some effort to try to enlarge rights beyond what they ought to be in the workplace. Ten years ago, as we have heard, under a Republican President, Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole committed the Department of Labor to begin working on this standard. That was in response to a growing body of evidence at that point in time which showed that these repetitive stress disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, were the fastest category of growth in occupational illnesses. Ten years now, and all of the records show countless numbers of efforts to prevent a legitimate initiative to make progress on this issue with any kind of alternative, any acceptable language, anything that suggests legitimacy in an effort to work out a compromise. So many of us are, indeed, extraordinarily skeptical when we hear in the Chamber today that somehow what has not taken place for 10 years, what has been shown to be exactly the opposite of what is promised, which is an outright effort to kill any kind of standard whatsoever, is suddenly now going to be replaced by some act of good faith. I repeat, if there was a legitimate effort to try to avoid the sort of draconian measure of the Congressional Review Act, which is an all- or-nothing, or an up-or-down vote, with this limited amount of debate, we could have done something else. If we were serious about improving the ergonomics rule, we could have simply taken action to review and somehow revise the regulation in a reasonable way. We could see the administration say we are not going to ask for this draconian effort on the floor. Why don't we have a stay? Or, as my colleague from Massachusetts pointed out, we could have, I think, a 60-day period before the implementation by merely putting a protest in place. There are any number of ways in which we could approach this question. We could petition the agency itself to modify or repeal the standard. But, once again, there has been no showing whatsoever about why the simple standard of a worker going to an employer and suggesting that the particular illness or problem they have is work related should not initiate from this benevolent employer that the Senator from Wyoming is referring to, a legitimate effort to find out whether what they asked that employee to do in that plant is somehow causing them injury. If it is causing them injury, as they ought to be able to determine by a fair analysis from medical reports as well as an analysis of the work itself, they could make the determination to do what they think is appropriate. There is no order to them of what to do. There is no mandate from Washington. There is no requirement of the long arm of government telling them with specificity what their options are. There is just a legitimate, commonsense, decent approach to the problems of a worker in a workplace that, as my colleague from Wyoming said, any decent employer ought to engage in. What is happening here is an effort to deny decency to tens of thousands in Massachusetts, 600,000 on a national basis--maybe a million workers--who suffer annually. We could avoid that if we were to vote properly on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with Senator DeWine, Senator Boxer, and Senator Kohl, that will set minimum standards for gun safety locks. Discussion is swirling around the U.S. Congress, in state legislatures throughout the country, and in our cities and towns about the use of handgun safety locks to prevent children from gaining access to dangerous weapons. To date, eighteen states have Child Access Protection, or CAP laws in place, which permit prosecution of adults if their firearm is left unsecured and a child uses that firearm to harm themselves or others. An important element that is largely missing from the debate over the voluntary or required use of gun safety locks is the quality and performance of these locks. Mr. President, a gun lock will only keep a gun out of a child's hands if the lock works. There are many cheap, flimsy locks on the market that are easily overcome by a child. There are 12 safety standards for every toy, but there is not even a single safety standard for a gun lock. Earlier this month the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, and the National Sport Shooting Foundation announced a voluntary recall of 400,000 gun safety locks that were distributed by Project HomeSafe, a nationwide program whose purpose is to promote safe firearms handling and storage practices through distribution of gun locks and safety education messages. And last July the CPSC and MasterLock joined together in another voluntary recall of 752,000 gun locks. Both of the gun locks recalled could be easily opened with paper clips, tweezers, or by banging it on a table. When testing gun locks to replace the recalled locks, the CPSC found that all but two of the 32 locks tested could be opened without a key. I find this astonishing. Millions of Americans have come to depend on gun locks as a way to prevent their children from gaining access to a handgun, and it is extremely disturbing to learn that so many locks could be overcome. The legislation that we are introducing today requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to set minimum regulations for safety locks and to remove unsafe locks from the market. Our legislation empowers consumers by ensuring that they will only purchase high-quality lock boxes and trigger locks. The legislation does not require the use of gun safety locks. It only requires that gun safety locks meet minimum standards. The legislation does not regulate handguns. It applies only to after-market, external gun locks. Storing firearms safely is an effective and inexpensive way to prevent the needless tragedies associated with unintentional firearm- related death and injury. And I am pleased that several states, including my home state of Massachusetts, have required the use of gun safety locks. During the 106th Congress, the Senate passed an amendment that would require the use of gun safety locks by a vote of 78-20. While I am encouraged by this trend of increasing the use of gun safety locks, I am genuinely concerned that with the hundreds of different types of gun locks on the market today it is difficult, probably impossible, for consumers to be assured that the lock they purchase will be effective. In early February President Bush announced the Administration's support for a five-year, $75 million-a-year federal program to distribute free gun locks to every gun owner. I commend the President's proposal to distribute free gun locks, but believe that it is critically important that the locks function as intended. The latest data released by the Centers for Disease Control in 1999 revealed that accidental shootings accounted for 7 percent of child deaths and that more than 300 children died in gun accidents, almost one child every day. A study in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that 25 percent of 3- to 4- year olds and 70 percent of 5- to 6- year olds had sufficient finger strength to fire 59, or 92 percent, of the 64 commonly available handguns examined in the study. Accidental shootings can be prevented by simple safety measures, one of which is the use of an effective gun safety lock. The Senate has been gridlocked over the issue of gun control. And you can be sure that young lives have been needlessly lost due to our inaction. This legislation, which I truly believe every Senator can support, would make storing a gun in the home safer by ensuring safety devices are effective. It would empower consumers. And most importantly it would protect children and decrease the numbers of accidental shootings in this country.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with Senator DeWine, Senator Boxer, and Senator Kohl, that will set minimum standards for gun safety locks. Discussion is swirling around the U.S. Congress, in state legislatures throughout the country, and in our cities and towns about the use of handgun safety locks to prevent children from gaining access to dangerous weapons. To date, eighteen states have Child Access Protection, or CAP laws in place, which permit prosecution of adults if their firearm is left unsecured and a child uses that firearm to harm themselves or others. An important element that is largely missing from the debate over the voluntary or required use of gun safety locks is the quality and performance of these locks. Mr. President, a gun lock will only keep a gun out of a child's hands if the lock works. There are many cheap, flimsy locks on the market that are easily overcome by a child. There are 12 safety standards for every toy, but there is not even a single safety standard for a gun lock. Earlier this month the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, and the National Sport Shooting Foundation announced a voluntary recall of 400,000 gun safety locks that were distributed by Project HomeSafe, a nationwide program whose purpose is to promote safe firearms handling and storage practices through distribution of gun locks and safety education messages. And last July the CPSC and MasterLock joined together in another voluntary recall of 752,000 gun locks. Both of the gun locks recalled could be easily opened with paper clips, tweezers, or by banging it on a table. When testing gun locks to replace the recalled locks, the CPSC found that all but two of the 32 locks tested could be opened without a key. I find this astonishing. Millions of Americans have come to depend on gun locks as a way to prevent their children from gaining access to a handgun, and it is extremely disturbing to learn that so many locks could be overcome. The legislation that we are introducing today requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to set minimum regulations for safety locks and to remove unsafe locks from the market. Our legislation empowers consumers by ensuring that they will only purchase high-quality lock boxes and trigger locks. The legislation does not require the use of gun safety locks. It only requires that gun safety locks meet minimum standards. The legislation does not regulate handguns. It applies only to after-market, external gun locks. Storing firearms safely is an effective and inexpensive way to prevent the needless tragedies associated with unintentional firearm- related death and injury. And I am pleased that several states, including my home state of Massachusetts, have required the use of gun safety locks. During the 106th Congress, the Senate passed an amendment that would require the use of gun safety locks by a vote of 78-20. While I am encouraged by this trend of increasing the use of gun safety locks, I am genuinely concerned that with the hundreds of different types of gun locks on the market today it is difficult, probably impossible, for consumers to be assured that the lock they purchase will be effective. In early February President Bush announced the Administration's support for a five-year, $75 million-a-year federal program to distribute free gun locks to every gun owner. I commend the President's proposal to distribute free gun locks, but believe that it is critically important that the locks function as intended. The latest data released by the Centers for Disease Control in 1999 revealed that accidental shootings accounted for 7 percent of child deaths and that more than 300 children died in gun accidents, almost one child every day. A study in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that 25 percent of 3- to 4- year olds and 70 percent of 5- to 6- year olds had sufficient finger strength to fire 59, or 92 percent, of the 64 commonly available handguns examined in the study. Accidental shootings can be prevented by simple safety measures, one of which is the use of an effective gun safety lock. The Senate has been gridlocked over the issue of gun control. And you can be sure that young lives have been needlessly lost due to our inaction. This legislation, which I truly believe every Senator can support, would make storing a gun in the home safer by ensuring safety devices are effective. It would empower consumers. And most importantly it would protect children and decrease the numbers of accidental shootings in this country.