John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question on the remaining time?

Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished ranking member. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work and the thinking that went into the so-called centrist approach. I would like to associate myself with that thinking and with the reasonableness that I think guides most of their actions. But may I say, respectfully, that something is in the air in Washington that I think is clouding people's thinking a little bit, about where we are on this whole tax bill. I am all for giving a tax cut when you have the money to give as a tax cut. But everybody here understands some plain truths. Notwithstanding those plain truths, the Senate has in front of it a $792 billion tax cut. A moment ago we were talking about a $500 billion tax cut. The fact is that most of the analysis that is reasonable, dispassionate--and certainly not pie-in-the-sky sort of dreaming about the future-- suggests we have nothing near a $1 trillion, let alone $3 trillion, surplus. Everyone here has accepted the fact that $2 trillion is going to go to pay down the debt and protect Social Security, and, indeed, a little bit for Medicare, hopefully. But that set aside, whatever prospect there is for a surplus is outside of that $2 trillion. The problem is that the hard reality already tells us an entirely different story from that which Senators are acting on in voting on the size of the tax cut on which we are voting. We are already breaking the caps. There are appropriations bills that everybody knows are being marked up in a fictitious manner with an understanding that come September or October there is going to be an agreement to change the caps because you cannot meet the appropriations bills without changing the caps. We are already $30 billion-some over the caps. We are doing it with the fiction of emergency spending. We are calling the census an emergency spending. Everybody knows these games are being played right now. Nevertheless, the Senate is poised to act on this fictitious surplus. I do not know one Senator who has gone back to their constituents and said: We're going to cut veterans' benefits. We're going to cut highways. We're going to cut border guards. We're going to cut drug fighting. We're going to cut the Coast Guard. Nobody is saying we are going to cut these things. But the absolute inescapable reality of this budget is that unless you increase the spending of discretionary by something reflecting inflation, you are going to cut. I heard the Senator from Indiana say: What is it that says we're going to go out into the future increasing these budget accounts by inflation? The fact is, we have done it every year. We do it. That is what happens. It gets more expensive. The Government isn't somehow exempt from the inflation figures and factors to which the rest of the economy is subject. Prices go up. Costs of contracts for the Government go up. Fuel costs go up. Insurance--whatever it is. The fact is, we already know what is happening to medical costs in the country. Yet everyone knows we are not sufficiently laying out the amount of money that it is going to cost the Government to do its business. Not withstanding that, we are poised to carve out, to fix in concrete a measure of give-back that predicates that if you go down that road and you freeze Government at the level that the figures are based on, you are going to have a 38- percent cut, or so, in all of the discretionary budget. Tell me the year in which we have not increased defense spending. Tell me the year, particularly, that the majority party has not set out, as a goal, to increase defense spending. But they did not even figure that into the level of spending that we have here. This is the reality. If you keep the current accounts at their current level, plus inflation--and no one here has said to America they are going to reduce those accounts all across the board by X percentage--you are going to spend an additional $595 billion. So you have to subtract that $595 billion from the so-called $1 trillion that has been set aside from the $3 trillion because we are protecting Social Security with $2 trillion. That leaves about $400 billion. But every year we have had an average of $80 billion of emergencies. Are people suggesting there are going to be no emergencies next year, even though every year we have had a budget there has been an emergency expenditure? Just taking the average of $80 billion, you will have an absolute, predictable additional $31 billion in Social Security Administration costs. Those aren't counted into the Republican bill. You will have absolutely $178 billion of additional interest rates because of the money you are not paying down on the debt. You will have to pay that interest. That is not calculated. That is an additional $178 billion. That leaves us conceivably with this little red block, not a trillion dollars, but this little red block, which might amount to $112 billion or so, depending on what we do for prescription drugs, for Medicare, and a lot of other issues facing America. The real choice in front of the Senate is considerably different than the fiction we are being fed. I heard the distinguished ranking member yesterday talk about the reality that we lived through in the 1980s, the creation of fiscal crisis as a means of achieving ideological and political goals. I respectfully suggest that what we are looking at is a form of Stockman 2. That is what is going on. This is Stockman 2. We are going to come in with a tax cut that has no money, that isn't predictable, and we are going to create a new crisis in our Government, where we are going to face a whole set of choices that a lot of people here will love because we know they hate those particular expenditures. But they are expenditures that time and again, year in and year out, our fellow citizens have said they want us to make. And time and again, the Congress, when it has had that great clash with the President, has capitulated and made them. So this is a remarkable new kind of thinking, where if one big mistake is a mistake, we are going to come in and say we will make it a lesser mistake, but it is still somehow better thinking. So instead of $791 billion, some people would argue we ought to do 500 or 300. The fact is, all of those figures are out of sync with the reality of what we have in front of us. We don't even show a real budget surplus until the year 2006. In the year 2006, assuming that you have spending plus some little measure of inflation, the way we have traditionally, you have only $29 billion of surplus by the year 2006. That is the hard reality. I hear my colleagues come to the floor and say: We have the highest measure of taxation against our gross domestic product that we have ever had. What they don't tell you is the reason it is so high is because so many people are cashing in on their capital gains. We lowered the capital gains tax. They don't tell you the capital gains tax isn't even counted in the measure of the gross domestic product. So you have a completely artificial set of numbers, when they come in and tell you the tax rate is up. That is the way it is supposed to work. That is why we have a progressive tax structure. When the economy does brilliantly, you are supposed to get a little more money into the Government so that you have the ability to do the things that are important for the long-term of our country. Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting with a number of high-tech presidents. And to a person, these people, who are fueling the engine of our productivity growth in America and creating the high value-added jobs, will tell you they need an America that has a citizenry that is educated and capable, that depends on investment. You don't measure the debt of this country by the figures that show up on debt. You measure the debt of this country by the people who can't access those high value-added jobs, who don't have child care and the ability to live with clean water and clean air and so forth. Mr. President, I think we are measuring things backwards, wrong. I think we are on a very dangerous track which will have long-term implications for the full measure of the citizens of our country. I express that concern as we come, sometime, to a vote on this issue.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, after weeks of difficult decisions, decisions which have in too many respects divided us by party, we have today an easy vote--a vote on which we can all agree. We can support reservists and small business by voting for S. 918, the Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act of 1999. When I introduced this bill on April 29th, it had 31 cosponsors. It now has the endorsement of 52 Senators--31 Democrats and 21 Republicans. A majority of the Senate--Senators from Maine to Utah, Michigan to North Carolina--have said that the men and women who serve as reservists need and deserve help maintaining their businesses while they are serving on active duty. That is an important statement about our commitment to the reservists who serve our country. Today, more than 4,700 reservists are serving on active duty around the world. Where are they? In Haiti, Iraq, Bosnia, and Kosovo. And where are their businesses and jobs? Pick any state--Massachusetts, Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan. When these men and women are called to action, they often have little notice, and their families face financial and emotional hardships. With half of America's military forces serving in reserve and National Guard units--a total of 1.4 million Americans--the Pentagon has acknowledged that extensive missions now require quicker call-ups. As a veteran of the Vietnam War and Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, I know how disruptive active service can be for reservists who are suddenly called away from their families and work to serve our country. What does a small business with few financial or personal reserves do without the owner, manager or employee who is essential to the daily operation and success of the small business? If you're in a rural area or small town, it will be hard to find a replacement. And if your family steps in, often they don't have the experience or time to run the business. A Commander from Danvers, Mass, who owns two gas station convenience stores said the tight job market only exacerbates the difficulty of finding a replacement, and that training someone well enough to ``leave the business in [their] hands would be near impossible.'' We need to help these men and women, their families and communities, bridge the gap between when the troops leave and when they return. The Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act of 1999 offers small businessmen and women three types of assistance. First, it authorizes the SBA to defer loan repayments and to reduce interest rates on any of its direct loans, including disaster loans. The deferrals and reductions authorized by this bill are available from the date that the military reservist is called to active duty until 180 days after his or her release from active duty. For microloans and loans guaranteed under the SBA's financial assistance programs, such as the 504 and 7(a) loan programs, the bill directs the Agency to develop policies that encourage and facilitate ways for SBA lenders to defer or reduce loan repayments. For example, a microlenders' ability to repay its debt to the SBA is dependent upon payments from microborrowers. So, with this bill's authority, if a microlender extends or defers loan repayment to a borrower who is a deployed military reservist, in turn the SBA would extend repayment obligations to the microlender. Second, the bill establishes a low-interest economic injury loan program to be administered by the SBA through its disaster loan program. These loans would be available to provide interim operating capital to any small business when the departure of a miliary reservist to active duty causes substantial economic injury. Under the bill, such harm includes three general cases: inability to make loan payments; inability to pay ordinary and necessary operating expenses; or inability to market, produce or provide a service or product that it ordinarily provides. Under this provision, an eligible small business may apply for an economic injury loan from the date that the company's military reservist is ordered to active duty until 90 days after release from active duty. Third, the bill directs the SBA and all of its private sector partners, such as the Small Business Development Centers and the Women's Business Centers, to make every effort to reach out to those businesses affected by call up of military reservists to active duty and offer business counseling and training. Those left behind to run the business, whether it's a spouse, a child, or an employee, while the military reservist is serving, may be inexperienced in running the business and need quick access to management and marketing counseling. We need to do what we can to help them keep their doors open and reduce the impact of military conflicts and national emergencies on the economy. Finally, at the insightful suggestion of my colleague Senator Levin, the bill will be effective for all qualified reservists who are demobilized as of March 24th, 1999. According to the Department of Defense, 1,266 reservists have been demobilized from Bosnia, Iraq and Kosovo since the 24th. The provisions for this bill should already be available for those who need it, and I deeply regret that this bill hasn't been acted on earlier. The nature of the legislation is uncontroversial, it passed the Committee on Small Business June 9th, almost 50 days ago, by unanimous consent and, to repeat, it has the endorsement of 51 Senators. Since then, it has also passed the full House and the Senate Committee on Small Business as part of H.R. 1568, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999. As much as I am frustrated by the delay on this bill, it probably doesn't compare to that of reservists who are on active duty and losing sleep over how they are going to keep their businesses going and avoid ruining their credit records. Ask the truck driver who serves in the Missouri National Air Guard and reported to active duty four months ago. He bought a new rig shortly before being called up and has hefty monthly payments to meet. He lined up a replacement to drive his truck while he was gone to keep money coming in, but the driver backed out of the agreement right before the reservist was to leave. He tried to do the right thing--to implement a contingent plan--and yet something beyond his control interfered. It's hard to keep your customers happy when their merchandise isn't getting delivered. And it's even harder to make your loan payments when you're not bringing in enough money. Or ask the reservist from Oklahoma who has supported his wife and four children for the past five years with a carpet and upholstery business. In 1998, he was called up for eight months, and he's been active this year since May 8th. What made it particularly damaging for his business this year was that he was called up at the beginning of the industry's high season. January to April are slow times, and April to December are the money-making months. He called my office a month ago to find out about this bill and find out how he could get assistance. Though this bill was still waiting for action by the full Senate, we put him in contact with the SBA headquarters in Oklahoma to find some way to help. After reviewing his options and what it would take to resuscitate his business, he called to say that he was closing shop for good: ``I'm just going to close my business down. I'm not going to try to get a small business loan. I want to cut my losses now. . . .'' We have yet to know the full impact on and needs of reservists currently deployed, but, unfortunately, we know the veteran reservists of the Persian Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, suffered substantial set-backs while away from their businesses. They left their businesses or companies in good shape and returned to hardships ranging from bankruptcy to financial ruin, from deserted clients to layoffs. When I introduced this bill, I talked about a small-business owner from New England, a physician and Lieutenant Commander in the Navy Reserve. He was called up for Operation Desert Storm as a flight surgeon in January 1991. For ten years, he had been a solo practitioner. After six months of service, he had to file bankruptcy. That bankruptcy affected not only him and his wife, but also his two employees and their families. After one year on duty, he returned home to face civilian life without a business or a job. He was only one of many. We must never let that happen again. The Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act is timely because it can help those 6,500 reservists who have been serving in Kosovo since as far back as March. Even those who have already come home and are struggling to keep their businesses afloat. However, it is also important for future reservists because it can offer them relief if they serve any future contingency operations such as Kosovo, military conflicts or national emergencies. For example, in 1993, the National Guard in Missouri was deployed for two months to help with the devastating flood of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers that left 14 miles of Missouri river-front land under water. While on active duty, two reservists, one with a successful hair salon in a suburb of St. Louis and another with a painting business in Rolla, lost so many of their clients they eventually had to close their small businesses. One of them resigned from the National Guard after that experience because he felt it had taken too big a toll on his life. At a time when America so badly needs more of our citizens to give of themselves, to sign up as military reservists, to make a sacrifice, we must pass this bill to make sure that service will not mean financial ruin. We must pass this legislation to take a stand for our reservists. In closing, I want to thank and acknowledge Jan Behon of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Dr. Harold V. Nelson of Louisville, Kentucky, who volunteer for SERRR, the Self-Employed Recalled Reservists and Retirees committee, for their support, years of sacrifice and experience that they lent to this bill. I also want to thank the National Guard Association of the United States for backing this legislation and ask that the Association's letter of support be included in the Record. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, particularly the 51 cosponsors of my bill, for their support of this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I yield.

Mr. KERRY. I will for the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have listened with interest to the debate for some time now, and I listened with great interest to the Senator from Idaho. After listening to the Senator from Idaho, I really believe the fundamental confrontation here was not addressed by the Senator in his comments. He made a lot of references to the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior and to the decision that he alleges was made in the dead of night and that we should not rush forward with a sudden decision by a bureaucrat to change the how we regulate mining on public lands and the relationship between mining companies and the Bureau of Land Management and the Congress. Let's try to deal with facts. Let's try to deal with the reality of the situation rather than obfuscating and avoiding the confrontation that has been going on in the Congress for a long period of time. This is not something that is happening just at the whim of a bureaucrat. This is not something that is happening this year, now, suddenly for the first time. There has been a 10-year effort to try to change how we regulate mining in this country, and every time we get close to accomplishing that, some argument or another is used to try to avoid making the right choice--the choice that is part of the original law itself on which all of this is based. That law is the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 by which the BLM published its current regulations in 1980. Those regulations are required under the law. It is the law of the land that the Secretary of the Interior must take any action necessary, by regulation or otherwise, to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands. That is the law. The Secretary is required to take action to prevent undue or unnecessary degradation of the public lands. We have been debating in the Congress, as long as I have been here, the level of degradation that is taking place, and its impacts, as a result of the hard rock mining. The BLM published regulations in 1980. They became effective in 1981. That was the first attempt of the BLM to try to provide some kind of effective management ever since the mining law of 1872. A review was supposed to take place 3 years later. That review never took place. But in 1989 a task force was created, and a rulemaking was begun in the Bush administration to consider amendments of the 3809 regulations. The fact is, there was a failure to enact that. Why? Specifically, to give Congress the opportunity to develop its own reform and pass it. Contrary to what the Senator from Idaho said about secret, last- minute meetings, the fact is that in the 103rd Congress Senator Bumpers introduced legislation. Representative Nick Rahall of West Virginia introduced legislation, and the House passed his legislation by 316-108. One of the major concerns of those who opposed the measure was that it included an 8-percent royalty on net smelter returns, which would have, according to the arguments of some, and I suspect that includes Western Senators and Representatives, made some mines uneconomic. So we go back to 1993 when legislation was introduced that would have instituted the very royalties that we were just heard the opponents of the Murray amendment tell us they would accept. But they fought the royalties, and they fought the bill, and the bill died. Two less comprehensive and almost identical bills were introduced in April of 1993. In those, patents were to continue to be an option, but patent fees were going to reflect the fair market value of the surface estates. A 2-percent net value mine mouth royalty was going to be imposed. In the Senate that year, there was an industry-backed bill. That was passed by the Senate in May of 1993, but once again it was stopped dead because the House and Senate conferees could not bridge the gap between the industry-backed legislation and the environmentally-backed legislation. It died. In the 104th Congress the Mineral Exploration and Development Act of 1995 was introduced by, again, Representative Rahall and others to overhaul the mining law. That was almost identical to the bill the House passed in the 103rd Congress. Three mining reform bills were introduced in the Senate. One was introduced by Senator Craig. It was supported by the mining industry. Another was introduced by Senator Bumpers. The one introduced by Senator Craig more closely resembled the Rahall bill. The bill Senator Bumpers introduced was supported by most of the environmental and conservation community. And a third bill was introduced by Senators Johnston and Campbell that resembled a later version of what then- Chairman Johnston incorporated into the conference debate. But again no further action was taken. Why? Because once again the industry refused to accept some of the provisions that included to protect the land adequately, including clean up, holding sufficient bonding, do the things necessary which the Senator from Nevada has offered to do on the floor tonight. But there is a long legislative history of the opponents of the amendment refusing to do that. That is why the Bureau of Land Management has finally come to the point of saying we have to do something. And what they are doing is justified. Since 1980, the gold mining industry in the United States has undergone a 10-fold expansion. I know it is now on facing many challenges as the world market for gold has pushed prices down, but nevertheless, it has grown substantially over the past two decades. Many of those gold mines are located on the public lands that we are suppose to be protecting. Much of this increased production comes from the fact that, as a result of new discoveries and technologies, you can mine ore of a much lower grade. Mine operations are able to move millions of tons of material and move it around the landscape to produce just ounces of gold. The new techniques use cyanide and other toxic chemicals for processing. In short, even though I agree that we are more environmentally concern today than in years past, the fact is that today's mines have an even greater capacity to cause environmentally negative impacts. We did not hear the Senator from Idaho talk about how we are going to ensure that these mine clean up. Of course, there is an economic impact in trying to clean up a mine. But, I respectively as my colleagues that they don't come to the floor of the Senate and start complaining that suddenly a bureaucrat is coming in the dead of night to do what we have been fighting to do for 10 years in the Senate, and what I think most people understand is a huge struggle between those who want to protect the lands adequately and those who want to continue the practices that are endangering them. The fact is--and this is a fact--this provision is simply the latest addition in a series of riders that have prevented the Clinton Administration from enforcing the 1872 mining law and reforming the sale of our Nation's mineral assets. Coal does not get the privileges of hard rock mining. Oil and gas do not get the privileges of hard rock mining. It is absolutely extraordinary that at a time when Senators will come to the floor of the Senate and talk about giving money back, in tax cuts, to the citizens of this country, who deserve the money, that they will vote against giving them the money they deserve from the land that they own. This land belongs to the American citizens, and it is nearly being given away, without royalties, to mining companies that leave behind devastation. The are not paying their fair share, not just for cleaning it up, but also on the gold, silver and other minerals that they profit from, and that Americans own. I think it is the wrong way to legislate the priorities of our lands and the protection of them. The Bureau of Land Management tried to update environmental protections in 1997. Respectfully, I ask that my colleagues not come to the floor and tell us that this all of this happened in the dead of night or some secret effort. The Clinton Administration tried to enact some reforms in 1997, and they were blocked by a rider on an appropriations bill. It was stopped again by a rider in the 1998 Interior appropriations bill that prohibited them from issuing proposed rules until the Western Governors were consulted and, then, until after November of 1998. Here we are in July of 1999. The BLM satisfied the requirements of that rider of 1998. They then resumed the rulemaking process. It wasn't in the dead of night. It wasn't a surprise. The Clinton Administration, again, took up the rulemaking after they had been required to consult with the western Governors. The BLM satisfied that. But then they were stopped again by a rider in the fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations bill calling for a study by the National Academy of Sciences and delaying the rules at least until July, which is where we are right now. However, not even that was enough. In February of this year, the BLM issued proposed rules, and it entered a public comment period, not the dead of night, not some surprise effort by the rulemakers. They were proceeding according to how Congress had told them to proceed. And then another rider was inserted into the year 2000 supplemental appropriations bill so that we could further delay the rulemaking process. Now we are considering a fourth rider, the fourth rider for the mining industry since 1997 in the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations. While these riders are slightly different legislatively, they have all protected a flawed system that continues to allow us to sell an acre of land for as little as $2.50; $2.50 for an acre of land to go in and mine thousands of dollars of worth minerals and possibly cause excessive environmental damage, certainly alter the landscape in a dramatic way. I am as strong an admirer of the Senator from Nevada as anybody in the Senate. He is a friend, a good friend. He is representing his State and he has to. He has 13,000 miners there. But one has to wonder about the cost of reclaiming the land and who will pay it. At some point we may find cheaper for the United States of America to pay those miners not to mine than to pay for the kind of environmental damage that has been presented here today by the Senators from Washington and Illinois. Rivers have been ruined, the toxics spilled into the environment. What is it, $32 billion to $72 billion is the estimated cost of cleaning up chemicals that have been released in these operations and other environmental damage to drinking water and water systems. It is cheaper to tell them not to do it than to continue to do this. What are we doing? Well, we have a law, the 1872 Mining Law, that restricts each mine claim of up to 20 acres to a mill site of 5 acres to dump waste and process material. In his decision, the Solicitor did not amend, he did not reinterpret the law. Even the mining industry has agreed that the 5-acre mill site limit is the law, I point to an article from 1970 when a law firm representing the industry openly concede that point. They may argue a different case now, but before this opportunity presented itself, the mining industry agreed. All the Solicitor did was recommend that the BLM start enforcing this provision again. That is all. Enforce the provision.

Mr. KERRY. I thank my colleague.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, may I ask my colleague how long he will be going, just so I can plan accordingly?

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. The BLM is simply seeking to enforce the existing law once again. No reinterpretation, no change. This is not a far reach. This is existing law, which, as I say, very clearly in 1970 and in other times has been acknowledged as the law even by the mining industry itself. It was likely under pressure from the mining industry in the 1960s and 1970s that the Federal Government started to overlook the provision and permitted mining operations to use more than the single 5-acre mill site. What we are saying is that was a mistake of enormous environmental and fiscal consequences. The BLM ought to enforce the law. It is one of the few protections that we have. Let me try to share with colleagues what the consequences of the current law are, why it needs reform and why it should be enforced. According to an editorial in the USA Today newspaper, in 1994, a Canadian company called American Barrick Resources purchased 2,000 acres of public land in Nevada that contained $10 billion in gold. How much do you think they paid for the 2,000 acres and the $10 billion of gold? They paid $10,000. Every time in the last few years that we have tried to have a fair meeting of the minds on the subject of what is an appropriate royalty or what is an appropriate bonding, it hasn't worked. It is public land. There ought to be requirements, more than we have now, for a mining company that wants to mine public land, take out billions of dollars of gold, and pay the taxpayers only $10,000. They don't say to you: We are going to degrade the land, damage rivers and leave the place unusable for other purposes. If they said that, do you think anybody in the Senate would stand up and vote for it up front? No. But you are voting for it. That is the effect of what happens here, unless we turn around and say, no, we are going to enforce the law. I understand the economics of this, but one of the problems we have across the board nationally and globally is that we don't value the environmental impact on the cost of goods. Nobody wants to be responsible for doing that, for incorporating in the cost of a product the cost reducing our national resources. So we keep doing things that actually cost us an awful lot more, but it is never reflected in the cost of the product. But we pay for it; the American taxpayer pays for it. The environmental toll is high. Over 12,000 miles of streams have been destroyed, according to the Mineral Policy Center, which is group expert in the impacts of mining. I don't understand how we can risk, especially in the West where water availability is a problem, polluting our watersheds this way. We have one major, enormous reservoir for water for the United States under most of the mid-central section of the nation. We are increasingly depleting that reservoir of water. And we are currently, mainly through agriculture, using that water at a rate exceeding its resupply. We can't afford to destroy 12,000 miles of streams. What is the economic value of those streams? Has anybody calculated that? Has anybody calculated the economic value in the cost of lost drinking water because of chemical that contaminated it? This is a matter of common sense, and we are not exhibiting that kind of common sense as we approach it. The fact is that there are almost 300,000 acres of land owned by the citizens of the United States of America, public land that has been mined and left unreclaimed. Abandoned mines account for 59 Superfund sites. There are over 2,000 abandoned mines in our national parks. The Mineral Policy Center estimates the cleanup cost for abandoned mines, as we mentioned earlier, is at the high end, $72 billion, and at the low end, $32 billion. Will the Senators from the West come forward with that $32 billion? Where is the offer by those who want to continue these practices and run that bill up even higher to pay the bill? Is there an offer to pay the bill? I think the Senate ought to put an end to this process, to protecting a flawed policy, by supporting the Murray amendment, by opposing rider or provision of Senator Craig and Senator Reid. I will, if for no other reason so I can simply represent the taxpayers in good conscience. The costs of continuing this program are far greater than the costs of enforcing the law and doing what is required. The Senator from Nevada asked, a moment ago, of the Senator from Illinois: What would you like us to do? He said: What do you think the mining companies ought to do? Let me respectfully share with you what the Bureau of Land Management wants them to do, which the mining companies and these constant riders are blocking us from doing. Here it is very simply: Protect water quality from impacts caused by the use of cyanide leaching, thereby safeguarding human environmental health in the arid West. Second, protect wetlands in riparian areas, which provide essential wildlife habitat in arid regions, as well as promoting long-term environmental health, and sharply limit or eliminate any loopholes to the requirement to get advance approval of mining and reclamation plans. Moreover, there are significant things that could be done. Require financial guarantees for all hard rock mining operations; base the financial guarantee amount on the estimated reclamation costs; require the miner to establish a trust fund to pay for long-term water treatment, if necessary. Is that asking too much? If you come in and use the land and you degrade the water, shouldn't you be required to provide water treatment in order to protect the water? Is it asking too much that you should post a bond in order to guarantee that once you strip the mine of all of its economic value and have taken out billions of dollars and walked away with your profits, that you should have some requirement for reclamation, and that there is a sufficient bonding from those profits. Even if you don't pay royalties, shouldn't you pay to guarantee the land is going to be cleaned up? So they ask what should we be able to do. The things they should do are clear as a bell, and they have been blocked. Blocked for the 10 years that I have watched this being fought here. I watched Senator Bumpers from Arkansas pace up and down there with these arguments year in and year out. And year in and year out, unfortunately, the industry works its will against the better common sense of true conservationists, against the better common sense of those whom I believe care deeply about the land. It is incredible to me that we of good conscience can't find adequate language and compromise to protect this land, to be able to do this properly. We require more of coal miners, and we require more of oil and gas than we do of hard rock mining, and it is public land. So I say to my colleagues we have an opportunity to do what we have been trying to do as a matter of common sense, which is enforce the law of the land. That is all we are asking--enforce the current law of the land as it was before, as it should have been, and as it must be now, in order to adequately protect the interest of the citizens. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving my right to reclaim the floor.

Mr. KERRY. I don't imagine I will go more than 10 minutes or so. I don't know what the Senator from Washington needs.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I can't. I want to speak my mind on this issue. Although I am one of the original cosponsors, I can't speak for the lead sponsor. I don't know if there are other Senators on our side who would like to speak. You have the right to table.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I join my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, in introducing the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Technology Transfer (STTR) Volunteer Mentoring Program. This bill seeks to increase, through company-to- company mentoring, the number of SBIR awards given to small businesses located in areas, known as ``low participation areas,'' where historically few awards have been made in proportion to other areas of the country. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is a great example of how government and business can work together to advance the cause of science and a healthy economy. The results have been dramatic for small, high-technology companies participating in the program. Since 1983 when the program was started, some 16,000 small, high- technology firms have received more than 46,000 SBIR research awards through 1997, totaling $7.5 billion. Complementing the SBIR program, we have the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program, another important R&D opportunity for small businesses. It was established to provide a strong incentive for small businesses and technical experts at research institutions to team up and move ideas from the laboratory to the marketplace. Technological advancement is a key element of economic growth. According to a recent Congressional Research Service Report, Small, High Tech Companies and Their Role in the Economy: Issues in the Reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation (SBIR) Program, ``technical progress is responsible for up to one-half the growth of the U.S. economy and is one of the principle driving forces for increases in our standard of living.'' As Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business Committee, and a Senator representing a state with one of the most active hi-tech industries in the country, I am always interested in new initiatives, or improving existing ones, to develop and nurture technology-based companies throughout the region and the nation. The SBIR program has been good to my home state of Massachusetts. So good that we are the second largest recipient of SBIR awards in the country. In 1997, Massachusetts' small, hi-tech firms won 702 awards, totaling $164 million. But it's not by coincidence--it's because we have the right mix of small high-tech companies, an active venture capital community, and a cluster of universities that understand the benefits of technology transfer, attract academic research funds and graduate a highly qualified workforce. Similarly, a variation of that combination is also what cultivates and supports innovative hi-tech companies in states such as California, Virginia and Ohio that have historically been among the largest recipients of SBIR awards. We on the Senate Small Business Committee have the tough job of crafting a solution that helps small businesses in states that don't have this infrastructure. However, we should not change the program's reliance on competition. Merit is the only way to maintain the integrity of the research. Only one in seven or eight Phase I proposals is awarded. The highly competitive nature of SBIR awards is one of the main reasons the program has been so popular and successful. One of the experiments working around the country is mentoring-- experienced SBIR award winners helping SBIR applicants navigate the process. For example, Innovative Training Systems (ITS) in Newton, Mass., mentored Pro-Change Behavior Systems out of West Kingston, RI, when it applied for its first SBIR award. ITS specializes in health care multi-media programs such as smoking prevention and cessation for high school students and has gotten several SBIR awards from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Pro-Change also specializes in health care multi-media for health behavior change and needed help getting an SBIR award for cancer prevention from NIH. Pro-Change says, among many things, the mentoring helped by explaining the rating system (it learned to target resources to those aspects of the proposal that counted most) and by saving the company time and reducing confusion on the financial and business requirements behind a proposal. As a representative for Pro-Change said, ``SBIR mentoring leads to long- lasting business partnerships, spawning exciting new ventures.'' Mentoring may not be exclusively responsible for Pro-Change's success in getting its first SBIR award, but it played an important role. Just look at the numbers. The process is highly competitive, with only one in seven or eight Phase I proposals getting funded. Furthermore, this company got another award in Rhode Island, a state where only six awards were given in 1997. Since that first award in 1998, Pro-Change has gone on to apply for three more Fast-Track Phase II proposals and one Phase I proposal to NIH. We can and should replicate and facilitate this process. This bill would elevate and reinforce that informal mentoring by authorizing competitive grants, ranging from $50,000 to $200,000, to any entity that represents small businesses that participate in SBIR or STTR programs. The entity would be obligated to match experienced, successful SBIR or STTR award winners with small businesses located in low SBIR-participation areas--advising and guiding them from application to award to project completion. Though it will be up to the SBA Administrator to define what areas receive a disproportionate amount of awards, this bill is intended to help states such as such as Maine and Montana, which received only five awards in 1997, and rural pockets of states such as Michigan and Massachusetts which do well overall in the program but get the concentration of awards in university towns or the largest city. Because founders of hi-tech companies are often more scientific inventors than business experts, the mentor companies could help with management assistance, proposal writing, commercialization or venture capital networking. The mentor companies would be volunteers, but would be eligible for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, authorized travel and reasonable bills for telephone calls and faxes. And like the volunteers in SBA's successful volunteer business counselor program, the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), SBIR mentor volunteers would get automatic liability coverage. I know the Committee on Small Business will have a roundtable on August 4th to discuss with program managers, SBIR companies and SBIR advocates how to increase the low number of awards given in certain states, and I look forward to hearing comments on this bill and on any alternative programs. Mr. President, in closing, I want to thank Senator Levin for his work on this bill and ask that a letter of support from the Small Business Technology Coalition be included for the Record. The letter follows: Small Business Technology Coalition, Washington, DC, July 16, 1999. Senator John Kerry, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kerry: The Small Business Technology Coalition (SBTC) urges you to cosponsor Senator Levin's amendment to the reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. The amendment would provide much needed support to small businesses applying for grants under the SBIR program. Senator Levin's amendment would establish a competitively bid volunteer mentoring grant program for the SBIR. The Small Business Administration would be responsible for administering the program. Organizations representing SBIR awardees could apply for grants ranging from $50,000 to $500,000 to participate in the program. Qualifying organizations would match small businesses new to the SBIR process with CEOs and other of small, high-technology companies that have been successful SBIR award winners. These ``volunteer mentors'' would be reimbursed only for their out- of-pocket expenses incurred while mentoring, not for their time. The program would be authorized at $1 million per year to cover administration of the program and reimbursement of volunteer mentors for their out-of-pocket expenses. As the nation-wide trade association of small high tech business CEOs, SBTC can attest to the value of a mentoring program to help small businesses new to the SBIR process. SBTC members have hands-on experience and know the importance of expert technical assistance in locating venture capital, seeking Phase III partners and commercialization. SBTC speaks for the small high tech business community and knows through experience that mentoring is a key to success in the SBIR process. The anticipated result of Senator Levin's amendment would be an increase in SBIR awards to businesses in states which traditionally have had low numbers of awards. With the passage of this amendment, businesses in certain states that do not have access to research or venture capital for example, could connect with companies with demonstrated expertise in those areas. Successful mentoring in these states would broaden the geographic and demographic distribution of SBIR awards. As the leading industry association representing the interest and needs of small, emerging, research-intensive, technology-based companies, we urge you to cosponsor Senator Levin's amendment and help businesses in rural areas compete in the SBIR program. Sincerely, Jeff Noah, Executive Director.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I join my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, in introducing the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Technology Transfer (STTR) Volunteer Mentoring Program. This bill seeks to increase, through company-to- company mentoring, the number of SBIR awards given to small businesses located in areas, known as ``low participation areas,'' where historically few awards have been made in proportion to other areas of the country. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is a great example of how government and business can work together to advance the cause of science and a healthy economy. The results have been dramatic for small, high-technology companies participating in the program. Since 1983 when the program was started, some 16,000 small, high- technology firms have received more than 46,000 SBIR research awards through 1997, totaling $7.5 billion. Complementing the SBIR program, we have the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program, another important R&D opportunity for small businesses. It was established to provide a strong incentive for small businesses and technical experts at research institutions to team up and move ideas from the laboratory to the marketplace. Technological advancement is a key element of economic growth. According to a recent Congressional Research Service Report, Small, High Tech Companies and Their Role in the Economy: Issues in the Reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation (SBIR) Program, ``technical progress is responsible for up to one-half the growth of the U.S. economy and is one of the principle driving forces for increases in our standard of living.'' As Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business Committee, and a Senator representing a state with one of the most active hi-tech industries in the country, I am always interested in new initiatives, or improving existing ones, to develop and nurture technology-based companies throughout the region and the nation. The SBIR program has been good to my home state of Massachusetts. So good that we are the second largest recipient of SBIR awards in the country. In 1997, Massachusetts' small, hi-tech firms won 702 awards, totaling $164 million. But it's not by coincidence--it's because we have the right mix of small high-tech companies, an active venture capital community, and a cluster of universities that understand the benefits of technology transfer, attract academic research funds and graduate a highly qualified workforce. Similarly, a variation of that combination is also what cultivates and supports innovative hi-tech companies in states such as California, Virginia and Ohio that have historically been among the largest recipients of SBIR awards. We on the Senate Small Business Committee have the tough job of crafting a solution that helps small businesses in states that don't have this infrastructure. However, we should not change the program's reliance on competition. Merit is the only way to maintain the integrity of the research. Only one in seven or eight Phase I proposals is awarded. The highly competitive nature of SBIR awards is one of the main reasons the program has been so popular and successful. One of the experiments working around the country is mentoring-- experienced SBIR award winners helping SBIR applicants navigate the process. For example, Innovative Training Systems (ITS) in Newton, Mass., mentored Pro-Change Behavior Systems out of West Kingston, RI, when it applied for its first SBIR award. ITS specializes in health care multi-media programs such as smoking prevention and cessation for high school students and has gotten several SBIR awards from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Pro-Change also specializes in health care multi-media for health behavior change and needed help getting an SBIR award for cancer prevention from NIH. Pro-Change says, among many things, the mentoring helped by explaining the rating system (it learned to target resources to those aspects of the proposal that counted most) and by saving the company time and reducing confusion on the financial and business requirements behind a proposal. As a representative for Pro-Change said, ``SBIR mentoring leads to long- lasting business partnerships, spawning exciting new ventures.'' Mentoring may not be exclusively responsible for Pro-Change's success in getting its first SBIR award, but it played an important role. Just look at the numbers. The process is highly competitive, with only one in seven or eight Phase I proposals getting funded. Furthermore, this company got another award in Rhode Island, a state where only six awards were given in 1997. Since that first award in 1998, Pro-Change has gone on to apply for three more Fast-Track Phase II proposals and one Phase I proposal to NIH. We can and should replicate and facilitate this process. This bill would elevate and reinforce that informal mentoring by authorizing competitive grants, ranging from $50,000 to $200,000, to any entity that represents small businesses that participate in SBIR or STTR programs. The entity would be obligated to match experienced, successful SBIR or STTR award winners with small businesses located in low SBIR-participation areas--advising and guiding them from application to award to project completion. Though it will be up to the SBA Administrator to define what areas receive a disproportionate amount of awards, this bill is intended to help states such as such as Maine and Montana, which received only five awards in 1997, and rural pockets of states such as Michigan and Massachusetts which do well overall in the program but get the concentration of awards in university towns or the largest city. Because founders of hi-tech companies are often more scientific inventors than business experts, the mentor companies could help with management assistance, proposal writing, commercialization or venture capital networking. The mentor companies would be volunteers, but would be eligible for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, authorized travel and reasonable bills for telephone calls and faxes. And like the volunteers in SBA's successful volunteer business counselor program, the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), SBIR mentor volunteers would get automatic liability coverage. I know the Committee on Small Business will have a roundtable on August 4th to discuss with program managers, SBIR companies and SBIR advocates how to increase the low number of awards given in certain states, and I look forward to hearing comments on this bill and on any alternative programs. Mr. President, in closing, I want to thank Senator Levin for his work on this bill and ask that a letter of support from the Small Business Technology Coalition be included for the Record. The letter follows: Small Business Technology Coalition, Washington, DC, July 16, 1999. Senator John Kerry, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kerry: The Small Business Technology Coalition (SBTC) urges you to cosponsor Senator Levin's amendment to the reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. The amendment would provide much needed support to small businesses applying for grants under the SBIR program. Senator Levin's amendment would establish a competitively bid volunteer mentoring grant program for the SBIR. The Small Business Administration would be responsible for administering the program. Organizations representing SBIR awardees could apply for grants ranging from $50,000 to $500,000 to participate in the program. Qualifying organizations would match small businesses new to the SBIR process with CEOs and other of small, high-technology companies that have been successful SBIR award winners. These ``volunteer mentors'' would be reimbursed only for their out- of-pocket expenses incurred while mentoring, not for their time. The program would be authorized at $1 million per year to cover administration of the program and reimbursement of volunteer mentors for their out-of-pocket expenses. As the nation-wide trade association of small high tech business CEOs, SBTC can attest to the value of a mentoring program to help small businesses new to the SBIR process. SBTC members have hands-on experience and know the importance of expert technical assistance in locating venture capital, seeking Phase III partners and commercialization. SBTC speaks for the small high tech business community and knows through experience that mentoring is a key to success in the SBIR process. The anticipated result of Senator Levin's amendment would be an increase in SBIR awards to businesses in states which traditionally have had low numbers of awards. With the passage of this amendment, businesses in certain states that do not have access to research or venture capital for example, could connect with companies with demonstrated expertise in those areas. Successful mentoring in these states would broaden the geographic and demographic distribution of SBIR awards. As the leading industry association representing the interest and needs of small, emerging, research-intensive, technology-based companies, we urge you to cosponsor Senator Levin's amendment and help businesses in rural areas compete in the SBIR program. Sincerely, Jeff Noah, Executive Director.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware. I am delighted to join with him as an original cosponsor of the amendment. I am pleased to work with him with respect to this question of the funding of the COPS Program nationally. As the Senator from Delaware knows well, back in 1994 I brought the original amendment to the floor for the 100,000 police officers at a time when people said we weren't going to be able to find the money. We managed to reach an agreement through the ingenuity of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, and an agreement with Senator Gramm back then to split some money with respect to prisons, which ultimately became the foundation of a rather remarkable increase in funding for police officers on a national basis. The Senator from Delaware, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had spent many long years working and fighting to recognize the need to have police officers in the streets of America. My own experience as a former prosecutor brought me to the Senate with a long-term understanding of and commitment to the notion that crimes usually aren't committed right in front of a police officer. On too many streets in America, and too many corners of our communities, we were literally, only a few years ago, abandoning those streets to criminals. The ratio of police officer to a felony was diminishing. Felonies were going up; the police officers were going down. And there was a direct correlation to the disorder, even the chaos in some places, that we were inheriting as a result of the lack of capacity for enforcement. Having run one of the largest district attorney offices in America, one of the 10 largest counties in the country, Middlesex County in Massachusetts, I learned firsthand it is not just a police officer on a street at a particular moment of time who is going to intercept a crime or break up a fight or provide order; those police officers who make arrests have to go to court. They have to be able to testify in cases. They have to have time to investigate cases. It takes an enormous amount of street work, of nonvisible work, to be able to adequately staff and supply the police force of the country, the investigative capacity of the country, in order to bring cases. We too often were losing cases because we couldn't bring the officer to court. The officer needed to be out on the streets because of the shifts. Judges would dismiss cases because prosecutors were failing to put them together in time to meet the swift and speedy prosecution standards. Finally, we got people to understand that it makes a difference to have a police officer walking a beat. That is another problem that occurred in America for a long period of time. We put police officers in a car; they drove around; criminals could pretty well predict when the car was going to come through. The car created a barrier between the officer and the street, so to speak. People didn't build relationships. They didn't build relationships with good citizens in the community, and they also didn't build relationships with bad citizens from whom they often learned who may have done one thing or another against the law. Through awareness of that in 1994, we began an effort to put police officers back on the streets of America, to build those relationships, and to provide our departments with the indispensable foundation on which the life and economic development of a community exists. That is called the opposite of chaos. It is peace. That is why they are called peace officers. The fact is, we have been on a wonderful trend line, an extraordinary trend line, where crime has been going down. Most violent crime has been going down, although not all; there are a couple areas that have gone up in the last year. The fact is, the kind of threat the average citizen felt in their community has diminished. In community after community after community, all across this country, police chiefs, police officers, mayors, everybody involved in the effort to provide order, will share stories of the remarkable ways in which the community policing program has made a difference in the lives of our fellow citizens. It is extraordinary to me that plans were laid in the original Republican budget to eliminate funding for this, one of the most successful programs that we have had. If you look at the city of Boston in the 1990s, we had a gang epidemic. There was a surge in youth violence. The Boston Police Department responded by developing a very innovative youth violence task force, an aggressive intervention strategy, and a program to control trafficking of firearms. However, much depended on the $750,000 COPS anti-gang initiative grant. That has become a model program in the country. Countless police chiefs and others have used that program as a way of instituting a similar effort in their own cities. Every year since 1993, the number of juveniles killed by guns has decreased, a 60-percent decrease from 1990 to 1998. From July 1995 to December 1997 not one youth was killed with a firearm. The rate of violent crime involving a firearm has decreased 43 percent since 1995. Property crime has dropped to its lowest levels since the 1960s and has been cut in half since 1990. House break-ins and car thefts have also hit a 35-year low. The federal assistance through the COPS program has given local communities like Boston the tools to fight crime effectively. This makes our streets and schools safer, our homes more secure and improves the quality of life for everyone. In 1997, a Boston Public Safety Survey found that more than three-quarters of the residents feel somewhat to very safe alone in their neighborhoods at night, an increase of close to 20 percent just since 1995. Feeling save to walk the streets is a right, not a privilege for those who can afford it. Every community deserves the type of security that Boston residents currently enjoy. The COPS program has played an important role in fostering that security. Listen to what Paul Evans, Commissioner of the Boston Police Department, has had to say. In a letter to me, which I will now read, Paul reminds us that Over the past five years, the COPS office has been a strong and effective partner in our efforts in Boston, and in cities across the country. COPS funds have supported the hiring of 109 new officers like Jamie Kenneally, who has quickly become a community fixture, walking his beat and serving as a one- man-anti-crime unit on Centre Street in Jamaica Plain. Mr. President, other COPS initiatives have supported Boston's internationally recognized youth violence strategy, which yielded a 75- percent decrease in youth homicides. Also, COPS supported the citywide Strategic Planning and Community Mobilization Project that brought together more than 400 police and community stakeholders to create partnerships for public safety that have been replicated in communities across the country. The effects of the COPS programs in Boston have been replicated across Massachusetts and across the nation. Here is a letter from Edward Davis, Superintendent of Police in Lowell, Massachusetts. In the letter, Superintendent Davis says the Lowell Police Department has seen a dramatic decrease in crime and the fear of crime over the past six years. Violent crimes have decreased more than 60 percent as a result of the hard work of police officers, citizens, and the support of the Federal Government. Paula Meara, Chief of Police of Springfield, Massachusetts believes that COPS funding has unquestionably improved the quality of life for Springfield residents. In 1997 and 1998, Homicides in Springfield have declined by 40 percent and serious crime has dropped by 12 percent. Chief Meara believes that any reduction in funding for the COPS program will have catastrophic results and will be detrimental to the quality of life for every resident in Springfield. The COPS program has been a demonstrated success in Massachusetts and across the nation. It deserves continued federal support. Adopting the Biden amendment is a good first step toward continuing federal assistance for local communities. However, there is much more that we need to do. First, we must find additional funds for the COPS program in conference to insure that communities that are currently plagued with crime and violence can fight back with a cop on the beat. Second, we must continue to work with local police departments to develop innovative community-based approaches to fighting crime. This approach will help allow evey community free itself of the crime and violence that lowers the quality of life and limits economic development. Mr. President, it is time we end the debate of whether to fund the COPS program, and move onto the far more important question of how to enlarge and expand this successsful program for the challenges before us today. I ask unanimous consent a series of letters from police chiefs with respect to that program be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from Delaware for his leadership as well as for his courtesy.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withhold that request.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Kerry pertaining to the introduction of S. 1420 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. KERRY. Ten minutes.

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will shortly be sending to the desk for appropriate referral the Coastal Stewardship Act which I am introducing today, along with Senators Hollings, Breaux, Inouye, Boxer, Feinstein and Kennedy. The goal of the Coastal Stewardship Act is to significantly strengthen our national commitment to and capacity to protect the coastal communities and all of our coastal and ocean environment. Our coasts--I know the Chair knows this because he represents a State that has enormous fishing interests--our coasts and our oceans are increasingly fragile environments, and they are increasingly threatened. Their health depends on a very complex chain of ecosystems that includes rainwater runoff from inland, estuaries, wetlands, flood plains, tidal basins, coral reefs, our fisheries and the whole deal more. Damage to any one of those ecosystems can wind up degrading and damaging the others, and they can cause severe cultural and economic impact for all of our coastal communities. Moreover, as our coastal population grows and as coastal development increases, as it has been almost every year for the last 50 years, we are placing more and more stress on these fragile and increasingly unique and interconnecting ecosystems. Since 1960, the coastal population in the United States has increased by over 50 percent, and that trend is expected to continue. Indeed, it is predicted that over the course of the next 10 years or so, well over 75 percent of the American population will live within 50 miles of coastline of one kind or another. In the next decade alone, an additional 14 million Americans are expected to settle in coastal areas. The impact is very clear. On the Atlantic coast, we have had toxic outbreaks of pfiesteria. In the Gulf of Mexico, we have a dead zone that has formed that harms shrimp stocks and kills off other species. Our Nation has lost more than 89 million acres of coastal wetlands, and our commercial fisheries are depleted from a combination of mismanagement and also ecosystem impacts. Parts of the Great Lakes have suffered from nutrient enrichment which is destructive to those ecosystems. Finally, even urban areas along our coasts face a unique challenge as they work to clean up polluted industrial sites and bring their waterfronts back to life. The Coastal Stewardship Act creates the Ocean and Coast Conservation Fund to receive permanent funding from Federal oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf. The fund would accrue 10 percent, or a minimum of $250 million of OCS revenues each year. The CSA uses funds from the Ocean and Coast Conservation Fund and general revenues to support the restoration and preservation of our coastal and marine resources. The specific investments include the following: First, the CSA provides increased support to the Coastal Zone Management Act. The CZMA is a highly flexible program that allows States to prioritize, design, and implement management plans, meeting broad national objectives for coastal environmental protection and economic development. Second, the CSA establishes a new highly flexible program within the Department of Commerce to fund coastal habitat, restoration, and preservation projects. With these block grants for conservation, States set priorities and decide how and when projects proceed within broad national goals. Third, it enhances the Federal commitment to the National Marine Sanctuary Program, a very successful program that designates unique ocean habitat for protection and research. Our 12 national marine sanctuaries restore and rebuild marine habitats to their natural condition and monitor and maintain already healthy areas. Four, the CSA creates a coral reef restoration and conservation program at the Department of Commerce. The legislation recognizes the importance of maintaining the health and stability of coral reefs for their environmental and economic value, and it builds on the work of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. Five, one of the most difficult challenges to overcome in developing sound policy for U.S. fisheries has been the lack of high-quality information. The CSA establishes a comprehensive program to improve the quality and quantity of fisheries information available to evaluate stock status, design control measures, and monitor effectiveness of those control measures. Six, the CSA increases Federal support of State and local enforcement by expanding existing cooperative enforcement agreements. These joint ventures allow States and local governments to tailor enforcement procedures to fit the local needs and available resources, and also allow for collaboration between State and local enforcement agencies and Federal agencies. I will close my comments, Mr. President, by saying to my colleagues that some have expressed concern that somehow this broader effort might have an impact on reauthorization of coastal zone management and national marine sanctuaries, et cetera. I assure my colleagues this legislation is in addition to and supportive of and supplementary to each of those other efforts which I have personally had the privilege of leading in the past years when I was chairman of the committee. We have reauthorized those in past years, and always we have found that a comprehensive approach has been a far more effective and a, frankly, far more needed approach. But nothing will stand in the way, I am confident, of our efforts to cooperate on each and every one of those efforts. We need to better meet the needs of our coastal communities, and it is absolutely essential that we look in this country at this issue, not as individual pieces that come at us one by one, but as the sum total of the parts they represent. We need a national policy to reflect that sum total. I say to Senator Boxer and Senator Landrieu, who have legislation of their own regarding the Outer Continental Shelf, that I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Senator Boxer's Resources 2000 effort, and I look forward to working with them to try to address all the concerns we share regarding these issues. Finally, I am very pleased my colleagues on the Commerce Committee have joined in this. As the Senate knows, the Commerce Committee has primary jurisdiction over our Nation's major coastal programs, and Senators Hollings, Breaux, Inouye, and others bring very valuable experience to these issues. I am pleased to include their efforts in this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join my colleague and friend from Missouri, Senator Bond, in supporting the additional funding for the Office of Advocacy. This is a substantial increase over FY 1999 funding, which I believe is important for the ability of the Office of Advocacy to carry out its important mission on behalf of small business. Among others, those responsibilities include conducting research on a number of issues that are critical to small minority- owned and women-owned firms, and the cost of Federal regulations. I commend my colleagues, Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings, for their initiative in providing this increase. We are also very concerned about the current staffing needs of the Office of Advocacy, which has declined significantly in recent years. In FY 1990, there were 70 full-time employees assigned to the Office of Advocacy. During the current fiscal year, it is my understanding the SBA Administrator has allocated 49 full-time staff for the Office of Advocacy.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from Montana. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the effort of the Senator from New Hampshire whose efforts on this are long and untiring. I respect his commitment to the opposing point of view, but I disagree with him, as I know a number of my colleagues do. I agree with the procedural arguments that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee has made. On the merits of the issue, I strongly support the President's decision to renew the waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment for Vietnam. There is no question that overturning that waiver would have serious consequences--negative consequences--for our bilateral relations with Vietnam and for our larger interests in the region. The United States has very important interests, as we know. One is for obtaining the fullest possible accounting of American servicemen missing from the war. That still remains the first priority of our relationship. But in addition to that, we have interests in promoting freedom of immigration, promoting human rights and freedoms, and encouraging Vietnam to maintain its course of economic reform and to open its markets to American and to other companies. We also have important political and strategic interests in promoting the stability of the often volatile region of Southeast Asia, as well as in balancing some of the interests of China in the region, and clearly our relationship with Vietnam is important in that effort. These interests, in my judgment, dictate that we should maintain a very active presence and a very effective working relationship with all of the countries in the region, including Vietnam. The real question to be asked is, How do you promote the most effective relationship in the region, and with Vietnam? It is, in my judgment, not by denying Vietnam trade and other benefits of interaction with the United States, nor do we do it by engaging them in an incremental process of building an effective and mutually beneficial policy of engagement. Some of us have been engaged in this issue for a long time in the Senate. I have been involved in it for the 15 years I have been here. As the former chairman of the POW/MIA committee that set up the policy whereby we began to get some answers to the questions regarding our missing servicepeople, let me just say that there is one clear fact that is irrefutable. For 20 years we denied a relationship. For 20 years we didn't engage. For 20 years we refused to build the kind of cooperative effort in which we are currently engaged. For those 20 years after the war, we didn't get any answers at all regarding our missing. The fact is that it was under President Reagan and President Bush that we began a process of engagement. President Bush and General Scowcroft moved us carefully down that road, and President Clinton has continued that policy of eliciting from the Vietnamese the kind of cooperation that has provided the answers to many families in this country about their loved ones who are missing in Vietnam. I have recounted that progress many times in this Chamber. I don't intend to go through it again now, in the interest of time. Let me just emphasis one very important point. Last year, those who opposed the waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment suggested as one of the arguments for opposing it that POW/ MIA accounting was going to stop or it would decrease. In fact, the opposite is true. Their predictions of dire impact last year have proven wrong, just as the predictions that, by being more hard-line and not involving ourselves with them, we would get answers have proven wrong. The Vietnamese have continued to conduct bilateral and unilateral investigations and document searches and to cooperate in the trilateral investigations. Leads that might help resolve outstanding discrepancy cases continue to be investigated by the Vietnamese and the American teams. In fact, the waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment last year served as an incentive for continued progress on immigration. As a result, the processing of our applicants under the orderly departure program and the ROVR program have continued to the point that we are extraordinarily satisfied. Although progress in the area of human rights is not everything we want it to be, even liberalization has continued over the last year, as evidenced by increased participation in religious activities, Vietnamese access to the Internet, 60 strikes by workers, including strikes against state-owned enterprises, as well as the release of 24 prisoners of conscience. If we overturn the Jackson-Vanik waiver, in my judgment and in the judgment of Senator McCain, Senator Bob Kerrey, Senator Chuck Robb, and Senator Hagel, and others who have served, we run the risk of setting back progress on these issues as well as negating the current extraordinary progress on the bilateral trade agreement, which I believe is extraordinarily close to being signed. Our step-by-step approach to normalizing relations is working, and it is in keeping with the many interests of our Government that I have expressed. I believe we should stay the course and therefore oppose the efforts of the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to speak for just few minutes today in support of President Clinton's Executive Order of June 3, 1999, which ordered the Federal Government to undertake a comprehensive program to save energy, save money and cut pollution. The Federal Government is the nation's largest consumer of energy, purchasing energy to light, heat and cool more than 500,000 buildings and power millions of vehicles. Each year the Federal Government purchases more than $200 billion worth of products, including enormous quantities of energy-intensive goods. Current efficiency programs already save more than $1 billion a year according to an estimate in the Wall Street Journal of July 15, 1999. In addition, the government's vast purchases give it significant market influence to impact the development, manufacture and use of clean energy technologies. This Executive Order sets worthwhile--and unfortunately too long overlooked--goals, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency improvements, increased use of renewable energy, reduced use of petroleum, water conservation and changes in how we measure energy use. I believe these goals have tremendous merit and will deliver the ``win-win'' results of sound environmental and energy policy, because each goal stresses reduced pollution and reduced costs. To achieve these goals, the Order sets in place several new administrative policies for organization and accountability. To begin, each agency will designate a single officer to oversee implementation. Agencies will submit a budget request to the Office of Management and Budget for investments that will reduce energy use, pollution and life- cycle costs, and they will track and report progress. The Order applies to all Federal departments and agencies, with an appropriate exception for the Department of Defense when compliance may hinder military operations and training. Federal agencies will be able to employ a range of Federal programs including Energy Star, sustainable building design research from the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency and others. For example, to the extent practicable, agencies will strive to achieve the Energy Star standards for energy performance and indoor environmental quality for all facilities by 2002. Agencies will apply sustainable design principles to the siting, design and construction of new facilities--meaning energy use, costs and reduced pollution will be optimized across a facility's life. And such measures will extend to transportation, including the use of efficient and renewable-fuel vehicles. Finally, the Executive Order endorses the use of ``source energy'' as a measure of efficiency. Measuring energy consumption by ``source''--as opposed to ``site''--means taking into account not only the energy consumed by a light bulb, appliance or other product to perform a certain function, but also the energy consumed in the generation, transmission and distribution of that energy to the product in question. Research in energy use increasingly shows that a ``source'' measurement is a more accurate measure of the total costs that we pay to operate appliances and other equipment. Mr. President, I add my sincere appreciation to President Clinton for executing this Order and endorsing its policies. I believe that if this Executive Order is properly implemented, it will pay dividends for the environment and taxpayers.