John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Kennedy. I particularly want to point out Brendan has just enjoyed his first floor privileges and has been able to listen to his own words on the floor of the Senate. I think that is a great accomplishment and great thrill for him. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes today about a very special young man who has been working in my office as an intern over the last months and someone who has shared endless enthusiasm with me personally and with my staff, and who has taught a great many of us in my office in the extended Kerry political family a very important lesson about the ability of individuals to overcome learning disabilities and about the power of the human spirit. Brendan O'Donnell has a terrific story to tell. He comes from a wonderful and loving family that has always encouraged him to set his goals high, to pursue his aspirations to the very best of his ability, and to refuse to allow any label or characterization of his potential to stop him. He is a young man who literally does not give up. Brendan's character, his determination, his terrific attitude and positive energy that drive his efforts are really something to behold, Mr. President. They are, in so many ways, the lasting imprint of his father, my friend and the friend of many of us on this side of the aisle, the late Kirk O'Donnell, and of his mother, Kathy Holland O'Donnell. Kirk O'Donnell, many people may recall, was taken from us far too young, last year. I think all of us would agree that he left a lasting legacy, an imprint on all of our lives. Brendan, of course, will also tell you that one of the people who encourages him and gives him such a huge amount of confidence is his sister, Holly O'Donnell. We have been very lucky to have Brendan on our team these past months, and I look forward to continuing for a long time to get to know this young man even better. Brendan has written a speech for me about a subject that he believes is very important, and I agree with him it is. He thinks it is important that here in the Senate, and all across the country, in our homes, in our schools, that we start talking about the efforts we can make together, in partnership with one another, to help those with learning disabilities make the most of their own lives. Brendan's remarkable achievements are testimony enough to what individuals with learning disabilities can achieve. His words on this subject, though, are really something special. I would like to share with you what Brendan wrote. He said: This is an important topic for kids today, kids like me. We should try to talk about learning disabilities and really get the point across--we can all be teachers about this subject. And we should all try to make a difference. I think that there should be a different name for learning disabilities. My Mom and I have thought a lot about this, and to me it's not a disability--it's just that I have something which causes a storm in my mind. When I look at something--I have to take my time and take it all in. People need to be understanding and make things clear to me. To do that, though, people need to know more about learning disabilities, whether they're kids or adults. People need to know that they should not look down at us. They should try extra hard to be nice to us and not make fun of us. We are the same as everyone else--and if someone takes the time to teach us, to work with us to help us understand, we can do whatever we want. Right now I don't think we do enough to help kids with learning disabilities. You don't see enough people with learning disabilities in the best jobs--even though they are bright enough, even though they are talented enough. This needs to change. It can happen, I think, if we have really good schools. I went to a high school called RiverView School. When you had a problem, when you needed special attention, they were willing to help. Our school did not believe in the kind of tests you put on paper--they thought it was best for us to push and test ourselves, That's what I do every day. I test myself. That's why I love to play sports. At our school anyone could play a sport. We had a cross country team, and a basketball team and swimming team and tennis team. And I learned a lot about swimming and trying my best when I played basketball and football. And now I want to push myself again. I want to go to cooking school, and learn to be a chef so that some day I can have a restaurant of my own in Massachusetts, in Scituate. It'll be hard to do--but I'll do it. I think there needs to be a program where kids with learning disabilities can learn how to do jobs in the real world, like cooking programs and art programs--progams so more kids can be like me. We can all try our best--and we can all do our best--if we help each other and if we care about each other. That's something I think we also need to take about in this country. Those are Brendan's words, but I think he speaks for a lot of Americans, Americans who don't let anyone put limits on their potential, Americans who have dreams and do not give up. I agree with Brendan--each of us, in our own personal way, should do all we can to help those Americans who get up every day and do their best to overcome learning disabilities. And I thank Brendan for making that case better than any scientific study ever could. I have been lucky to know Brendan O'Donnell, to be inspired by his strong will, his good nature, and his work ethic. I am proud of the work he has done in my office. I want to offer him my warmest wishes as he leaves us to pursue his ambitions. I am looking forward to the day when I can go to a restaurant in Scituate and know that Brendan O'Donnell is at once the owner and the chef, cooking up lobster and oyster for everyone. And I know that day will come because Brendan O'Donnell never gives up. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as if in morning business until the time of the vote.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator how long he thinks it might be before we may be voting?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this bill calls upon the United States to take a momentous step--the deployment of a National Missile Defense system--on the basis of one, and only one criterion: technological feasibility. This bill gives no consideration to the ramifications of deploying such a system on U.S. security, political and diplomatic interests. It is true that missile technology is proliferating more rapidly than we could have predicted. And this is of grave concern to us all. Certainly, the proliferation of ballistic missile technology constitutes a serious threat to U.S. national security. The question before us is, Will deciding today to deploy a National Missile Defense system--as yet untested, unproven and un-paid for--advance our national security interests? The answer, in my view, is that it will not. First, I believe this bill will undermine long-term U.S. national security interests, by placing too much emphasis on just one of the many threats we face today. While the United States is enjoying a period of relative safety and security in world affairs, we must prepare to face a multitude of diverse challenges in the international security environment in coming years. These include: transnational threats, such as terrorism and drug trafficking; the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and the chaos of failed states, as we have seen in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia--just to name a few. The threat from ballistic missiles is one of many. Ballistic missiles are a threat, because they are capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction to American soil. The United States has faced this threat for decades, posed by the nuclear arsenals of the Soviet Union and China. Russia and China maintain their ability to strike American soil. But even though both nations are today struggling through a period of great uncertainty, the threat to the United States of a ballistic missile attack from either nation is low. The threat of a missile attack from a rogue state, such as North Korea or Iran, is obviously growing. Last fall, North Korea tested its new Taepo-Dong One missile, with a range of up to 3000 km. We also know the North Koreans are developing a Taepo-Dong Two missile, which could have a range two to three times greater. Pakistan has tested a 1500 km range missile. Iran is expected to have one of similar range in the near future. But ballistic missiles are only one means of delivering weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons can be delivered in trucks, ships, and suitcases; chemical and biological weapons can be delivered through the mail, dispersed in a crowded subway, or inserted into our water supply. These methods of delivery are far simpler, less costly, and far less detectable than ballistic missiles, and they pose a much more immediate threat to U.S. security. A National Missile Defense won't protect us from these threats. The proposed NMD system would only allow us to defend ourselves against an unsophisticated long-range missile threat with a single warhead. We would not be able to defend against a missile that carried decoys along with the warhead. Multiple objects would readily defeat the proposed system. We would have no defense against a warhead containing chemical or biological agents divided into many small ``bomblets'' for better dispersion. This would simply overwhelm the NMD system. The NMD system would be ineffective against cruise missiles or missiles launched from air or sea platforms. An NMD system also has very limited use as a deterrent to the threats we currently face. In the case of a ballistic missile attack, the perpetrator is readily identified, and U.S. retaliation could be swift and devastating. That alone is a serious deterrent, a much greater deterrent than a deployed NMD system. Deploying an NMD system would simply encourage potential adversaries to develop appropriate countermeasures or to pursue other, more effective means of attack. It is exactly this logic--that an NMD system would be more destabilizing than deterrent--that underpins our commitment to the ABM Treaty. Which brings me to my second point. I oppose this bill because it will undermine decades of U.S. leadership in international efforts to reduce the nuclear danger. A unilateral decision by the United States to proceed with a National Missile Defense would sound the death knell for the ABM Treaty, a development that is apparently quite welcome to many of my colleagues across the aisle. This is puzzling to me, because a U.S. signal that we intend to circumvent, violate or withdraw from the ABM Treaty would almost certainly kill prospects for Russian ratification of START II. This would delay any further reductions in the large remaining Russian nuclear force, a goal we have worked for decades to achieve. I would remind my colleagues that, in 1991, the United States--under the leadership of President George Bush--reached agreement with Russia that it would legally succeed to all international treaties of the former Soviet Union. These include the UN Charter, the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, SALT/START, and others, as well as the ABM Treaty. If we refuse to recognize the validity of the ABM Treaty, we not only undermine the credibility of our past commitments to international arms control agreements--such as the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty--we also weaken U.S. leadership in future international efforts to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. If we proceed with this legislation and deal a blow to international arms control efforts, we will have succeeded in fostering precisely the threats we intend to reduce. And furthermore, we can encourage this threat without ever deploying an NMD system, simply by establishing our intention to deploy an NMD system. Finally, I have deep concerns about the technical feasibility, operational effectiveness and costs of the proposed NMD system. I have consistently supported development of effective missile defense technology, and continue to do so. In particular, I have supported the development and deployment of effective theater missile defense systems, to protect our forces and our regional allies. But we have encountered tremendous technological challenges in trying to build defenses against these theater missile systems. We have spent billions of dollars and experienced many failures in our efforts to ``hit a bullet with a bullet.'' The THAAD system has experienced five successive failures. Yet, THAAD is much simpler to develop than NMD. On cost, the Administration's FY 2000 budget request calls for an additional $6.6 billion in new funding for National Missile Defense. This would bring total FY 1999 - 2005 funding for NMD to $10.5 billion. But the Defense Department does not anticipate that we will be able to test key components of the proposed system until 2003. If we encounter problems with this system that are the least bit similar to those we have seen in testing THAAD, we can expect delays well beyond the projected deployment date of 2005--and costs far above the $10.5 billion we are currently contemplating. And, while I have every confidence that American technological know-how will eventually produce a feasible system, I wonder: At what cost, and with how much real benefit to our national security, will this technological marvel be achieved? In addition to the financial costs of deploying a feasible NMD system, we must also acknowledge the opportunity costs that pursuing this project will entail. America's leadership in world affairs relies on ready military forces. And the fact is, if we dedicate tens of billions of dollars to developing a National Missile Defense system, we will not be able to devote the resources and energy we should to ensuring the long-term readiness of America's fighting forces. At a time when the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have publicly and repeatedly expressed their concerns over our ability to attract and keep bright young men and women in the U.S. armed forces, I am not convinced that we should move NMD to the top of our list of defense priorities. With so much at stake, it would be irresponsible for us today to commit to the deployment of a National Missile Defense system, without further consideration of the implications and potential consequences of that commitment. We must not devote these resources to defending against the wrong threat with the wrong system. We must not create a world where weapons of mass destruction proliferate because arms control agreements are no longer credible. And we must not become so focused on this one defense issue that we leave our nation defenseless against other, more imminent threats. Mr. President, this legislation poses tremendous risks to our long- term national security interests.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Aviation Safety Protection Act of 1999 with Senator Grassley to increase overall safety of the airline industry by establishing whistleblower protection for aviation workers. I am honored to work on this important issue with Senator Grassley, who has long been a leader on whistleblower legislation. The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) properly protects both private and federal government employees who report health and safety violations from reprisal by their employers. However, because of a loophole, aviation employees are not covered by these protections. Flight attendants and other airline employees are in the best position to recognize breaches in safety regulations and can be the critical link in ensuring safer air travel. Currently, those employees who work for unscrupulous airlines face the possibility of harassment, negative disciplinary action, and even termination if they report violations. Aviation employees perform an important public service when they choose to report safety concerns. No employee should be put in the position of having to choose between his or her job and reporting violations that threaten the safety of passengers and crew. For that reason, we need a strong whistleblower law to protect aviation employees from retaliation by their employers when reporting incidents to federal authorities. Americans who travel on commercial airlines deserve the safeguards that exist when flight attendants and other airline employees can step forward to help federal authorities enforce safety laws. This bill would provide the necessary protections for aviation employees who provide safety violation information to federal authorities or testify about or assist in disclosure of safety violations. This legislation provides a Department of Labor complaint procedure for employees who experience employer reprisal for reporting such violations, and assures that there are strong enforcement and judicial review provisions for fair implementation of the protections. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Representative Sherwood Boehlert, Republican from New York, and Representative James Clyburn, Democrat from South Carolina, who have introduced the companion bill in the House. I also want to thank the Administration for their support of this legislation. This bill will provide important protections to aviation workers and the general public. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join Senator Grassley and me in supporting it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the test of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Aviation Safety Protection Act of 1999 with Senator Grassley to increase overall safety of the airline industry by establishing whistleblower protection for aviation workers. I am honored to work on this important issue with Senator Grassley, who has long been a leader on whistleblower legislation. The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) properly protects both private and federal government employees who report health and safety violations from reprisal by their employers. However, because of a loophole, aviation employees are not covered by these protections. Flight attendants and other airline employees are in the best position to recognize breaches in safety regulations and can be the critical link in ensuring safer air travel. Currently, those employees who work for unscrupulous airlines face the possibility of harassment, negative disciplinary action, and even termination if they report violations. Aviation employees perform an important public service when they choose to report safety concerns. No employee should be put in the position of having to choose between his or her job and reporting violations that threaten the safety of passengers and crew. For that reason, we need a strong whistleblower law to protect aviation employees from retaliation by their employers when reporting incidents to federal authorities. Americans who travel on commercial airlines deserve the safeguards that exist when flight attendants and other airline employees can step forward to help federal authorities enforce safety laws. This bill would provide the necessary protections for aviation employees who provide safety violation information to federal authorities or testify about or assist in disclosure of safety violations. This legislation provides a Department of Labor complaint procedure for employees who experience employer reprisal for reporting such violations, and assures that there are strong enforcement and judicial review provisions for fair implementation of the protections. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Representative Sherwood Boehlert, Republican from New York, and Representative James Clyburn, Democrat from South Carolina, who have introduced the companion bill in the House. I also want to thank the Administration for their support of this legislation. This bill will provide important protections to aviation workers and the general public. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join Senator Grassley and me in supporting it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the test of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I think, again, that the clarification here is important because, obviously, we come to this through the experience of a very large expenditure and a very different kind of concept than was contemplated. I think it is vital, as we proceed forward, that technological feasibility not be the only judgment which we will use as we proceed forward. I think the amendment which has thus far been accepted, the notion that the Senate now embraces the continued efforts to have negotiated reductions with Russia and that we do not want to upset that, is a very important statement that puts into context the down sides if we don't proceed with the sensitivity which most of us feel is so important here. I thank the President, and I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, again, I appreciate the answer and I appreciate the sensitivity the Senator has shown, as to how we might have gotten here otherwise. I cannot disagree with him with respect to that. But, by the same token, there has been a push here to try to achieve certainty with respect to technology, technological feasibility governing an issue of deployment. There are a lot of questions about what kind of system we might or might not really be building. The early concepts that surrounded this entire debate envisioned a system that did more than simply address the question of a rogue missile or an accidental launch or even a few individual missiles. The best estimate of the threat from North Korea, in 15 or 20 years, is still dealing with minimalist numbers. Always, when we are debating in the context of Russia or in the context of China, we are dealing with multiple numbers, and the system you need to deal, with any reality, with those kinds of potential adversaries--I underscore ``potential''; we view neither of them that way today, as the Senator has said--but the kind of system that would be needed to deal with that is a system that most people make the judgment is technologically so expensive and so complicated--because it requires the SWIR intercept capacity at boost phase, it requires the capacity to go exoatmospheric for a certain phase, you have to hand off for the next phase for LWIR capacity for tracking, the capacity to distinguish between multiple decoys--all of this gets into such a zone of expense and of arms deterrence imbalance that a whole series of other questions have to be put on the table. So what we are talking about, in terms of a system, is really a critical, critical component of what we might be willing to deploy and what might ultimately work and what we might even be able to afford realistically. Mr. President, let me say also, if you developed a system that had all of the capacity I just defined--it could distinguish between decoys, it could actually hit at the level that gave you an assurance that you have the kind of protection you are trying to achieve--you have actually shifted the entire balance of power, because you have created a near first strike capacity, if not a perfect first strike capacity. If you can shoot down anything that comes at you, then clearly you have changed the balance of power. So we are not making ourselves more secure necessarily. Plus, everyone in the business knows that we are talking, in that case, about intercontinental ballistic; they will simply go cruise missile, go underneath or any other alternatives. The notion that we are making ourselves, in the long run, somehow very significantly safer by building this larger system, I think, is a debate we put aside some time ago. I come to the floor supportive of the notion that we are in a new world today. I appreciate what the Senator said about thinking about Madeleine Albright's language of how you perhaps change, together with other countries, to meet that new world. But that new world, to me, is quite delimited. It is a new world that seeks to protect us against a rogue, against accidental or unauthorized. That is a very limited kind of system. It is one that we ought to be able to negotiate, if we can develop it with China, with Russia, with other people, all of whom have a similar kind of threat to think about with respect to unauthorized or accidental or rogue launches. I simply want to make it part of the record of this debate that that is my understanding of the direction we ought to be going in--and I hope and think it is the understanding of the Senator from Virginia-- that we do not rush headlong into the building of a system that simply creates greater unrest, greater instability, greater question marks and, I might add, is measured against a $60 billion expenditure that to date, even in the THAAD program, has not shown success. There isn't anybody who won't tell you that when you are switching from THAAD into the intercontinental ballistic, you are moving into levels of complexity so much higher in terms of intercept and distinguishing capacity. It is my judgment that while we ought to proceed, I hope the Senate is going to contemplate this in the context of really building stability in our relationships and also in trying, as diligently as we can, to negotiate with these other countries the process by which we will move forward.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I could further continue the colloquy-- and I thank the Senator for his answer--I concur with his judgment about Mr. Primakov. I have had the pleasure of having a discourse or two with him. He is a very thoughtful and articulate person who understands the nature of this. But that is not to say that other politicians, other wings of other various ideologies, do not try to use these kinds of issues to play politics within their countries. Nor is to it say that conceivably--and I am only talking about the possibilities here, because it is important for us to put any deployment issue or any future procurement issue in the context of these realities --China could also make certain determinations with respect to this. Is that not also a fair judgment?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me begin my question to him by saying I, with many others here, am cognizant of the threat that has now been more realistically defined and is more present. I think most people feel a safety measure with the capacity that might save Hawaii or some other sector of the United States from some accidental, rogue, or unauthorized launch, makes sense in theory. And I certainly support that. But many people have expressed concerns. I know the Senator from Virginia has long been a member of the Arms Control Observer Group, long been involved in these issues, and has a great sensitivity to the perceptions of other countries which often drive arms races and the building of weapons. I assume, based on that experience, the Senator from Virginia will acknowledge that if the United States proceeded in some way that altered the perception of another country--be it Russia or China or someone with whom we are currently trying to cooperate--that could, indeed, have an impact on the weapons they might build or, ultimately, on the security of the United States itself. Is that a fair statement of how perceptions operate in arms races?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wonder if my friend from Virginia would join in a colloquy, if possible, to try to flesh out a couple of issues.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Hagel and Edwards, for placing this resolution before us today; and I would like to speak just for a few moments about both the event and the person that it commemorates. This is an important anniversary in the life of one of our colleagues and one of our great friends, my personal friend, the senior Senator from the State of Nebraska. I first came to know Bob Kerrey during the very time that we commemorate today. He and I were in the Navy together. We were in Vietnam together. In fact, though we did not know each other, we knew of each other because it is inevitable that two young lieutenants with the same name, somewhat in the same vicinity, will hear of each other. And irony of ironies, I actually was on a couple of missions in the very area, Nha Trang Bay, just about 2 months or so prior to the event which led to Bob winning the Medal of Honor. Bob and I also knew of each other afterwards when he came back and he was in the hospital and I had shortly thereafter returned. Our mail crossed, and we have had about 30 years of our mail crossing. On one occasion I think my newsletter from Massachusetts went to Nebraska, and people didn't know what that was all about. And on other occasions we have joked about the fact that he probably received a couple of real ``Dear John'' letters while he was in the hospital and quickly discerned they were not meant for him but for me. And I often had these images of what he might have been reading of my mail. But at any rate, that began sort of a strange odyssey for both of us long before our paths crossed in the U.S. Senate. I still get letters about the wheat prices in Omaha and he still gets letters about the cod fishing in Massachusetts, and we somehow manage to work these things out. But, Mr. President, it is no light matter to suggest that I have always had an enormous special respect for Bob Kerrey. I am honored, as I think all of my colleagues are, to serve with him here in the U.S. Senate. It was 30 years ago this past Sunday that a 25-year-old lieutenant junior grade Bob Kerrey was, as we know, severely injured in Vietnam, sustaining those critical injuries that cost him his right leg. And over the years we have heard others describe, with great eloquence and great poignancy, the fighting on that island in Nha Trang Bay and the courageous way in which Bob fought on after a grenade had exploded at his feet, that he kept fighting even though he was nearly unconscious at the time, kept on the radio directing his men, leading--leading--in the way that we have come to know and expect Bob Kerrey to lead, leading those SEALs under his command to suppress the enemy's fire and to try to safely get out of a bad situation. I think, though, that what we really celebrate here today--and I think for those of us who have served in Vietnam, it is not so much the fighting there as the things that people faced when they returned. In that regard, I think Bob Kerrey has also traveled a very special journey. And it is a journey that teaches us a great deal, as it taught him a great deal. It is a journey of personal recovery and of personal discovery. In many ways, he struggled to put things back into perspective. It is not easy to lose people; it is certainly not easy to lose a piece of yourself, and come back to a country that has deep questions itself about why it was that it put you through that kind of turmoil. And Bob managed to sort all of that out, finding a special sense of humor, a kind of impish reverence, I think we might call it at times, that he shares with all of us to help keep a perspective in our lives. He also forged a new patriotism out of that experience. Clearly, he went as a patriot because he chose to go. But he came back and struggled even with the definition of ``patriotism'' and of his concern and love for his country. He had to ``refind'' that, if you will, in those difficult times. I think it is fair to say that he has come back more tested, more capable, and more understanding of what it means to care about the country and to give something to the country and to ask other people to join you in doing that. So he has the ability here to ask all of us in the Senate or our fellow citizens in the country to join with us in acts of giving in ways that others cannot. I also say that it is not just for that that we celebrate his presence here, but he has been a steady friend and ally in the effort of a number of us here in the U.S. Senate to keep faith with the lingering questions over those who may have been left behind in the course of the war, and also to try to really make peace with Vietnam itself, and to help bring the Senate to a point where we were able to lead the country in normalizing relations and, indeed, putting the war behind us. It is a great pleasure for me to say how proud I am to serve with Bob Kerrey, not just because of the qualities that were celebrated in the Nation's highest award for valor, not just for the qualities that people talk about for his military service, but, more importantly, for his humanity and for his sense of purpose, for his idealism and for his understanding of the real priorities in life. I am delighted to be here today to share in this special celebration of who our colleague is and what he brings us.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, who controls time? How much time is remaining?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to take just a few moments today to salute one of the young leaders of the Indo-American community, someone who is providing for all of us an exemplary model of what it means to serve our neighborhoods, our communities, and our fellow Americans. Mr. Sunll ``Sunny'' Aghi is the founder and President of the Indo- American Political Foundation, an organization based in California, dedicated to engaging Indo-Americans in the political process and ensuring that Indo-Americans gain a foothold in our government as elected officials. Sunll Aghi has brought an impressive energy to this mission--actively recruiting Indo-Americans to meet the challenges of participatory democracy as voters, supporters, and candidates, whether the be new citizens or established leaders in California's diverse communities. Sunll has also found substantial ways to contribute to life in California beyond politics. Mr. Aghi is the founder of Thank You America--an organization dedicated to providing food and clothing to the homeless of Orange County each year on Thanksgiving Day, an effort which has benefits over 500 needy individuals each holiday. Sunll hopes to expand Thank You America's operations to eventually include providing college scholarships for talented, young Californians struggling to afford a college education. These efforts demonstrate to all of us the truth that DeTocqueville spoke of 150 years age when he said ``America is great because Americans are good.'' Sunll Aghi is keeping that tradition of civic responsibility alive and well for a new generation of our citizens. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the chance to acknowledge Mr. Aghi for his contributions to our country and to the democratic process. I applaud his efforts and share his hopes that someday soon we will bring all Indo-Americans into the mainstream of American politics as full participants, and that in the coming years we will build an America where Indo-Americans serve in and are fully represented in the House, the Senate, and the Administration. His work is an inspiration to all of us, and I hope more Americans will follow his tremendous example of activism and citizenship raised to a higher level.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to pause for a few moments to acknowledge that those of us in Massachusetts are mourning the loss of one of our state's finest citizens, a graduate and loyal alumnus of Assumption College, a friend of the Massachusetts congressional delegation, and someone I had the privilege over the years to know as a good friend. Mr. President, Bob Morrow's death was a shock to those of us who knew him--this wonderful man taken from his family and friends at the age of forty-five--and to those of us who looked forward to the contributions he would make in the years still ahead of us. Although it seems a gesture wholly insufficient to honor the life of a friend lost too soon--to come to terms with the fact that a friend who was never comfortable behind a desk, who could never sit still, has come to a final rest--we can at least take the time today to remember the kind of person--and the type of friend--Bob Morrow was to those whose lives he touched. We can certainly remember Bob's extraordinary capacity as an advocate for two of Massachusetts' pioneering high technology firms, The Riley Corporation in Worcester and Stone and Webster in Boston. Bob Morrow was a man who lived his life in a way that proved not only that you can be involved in government and brush against the legislative process without losing your soul, but that politics can be a way for the needs of our citizens to be communicated to those who represent them in Washington, D.C. In this age of seemingly endless cynicism, Bob Morrow truly enjoyed the work of advocating on behalf of the companies he represented--and they were well served by both the depth of his knowledge and the levels of his idealism. Many of us forget that although Bob was a terrific representative of these companies in Washington--expertly guiding their federal relations--this was just one component of a job that he truly loved. Bob was also responsible for human resources management, training, public relations, and range of other services for an eight thousand employee firm. Although it is incredible to believe that a single person managed not just to juggle, but to excel, in all these enterprises, we all knew that Bob was one of those rare people capable of packing his days with wall to wall activity, because no task proved too difficult for a man who genuinely loved working with people. Bob drew on these enormous personal talents again and again--in his work in Worcester and Boston, but also in his willingness to bring together citizens from across Massachusetts to share in a political cause or to help one of his friends. I will always be grateful for Bob's efforts to help me in 1996 in my tough battle for the Senate against Bill Weld. Whether the task was large or small, organizing an event for a handful of supporters, or pulling together a dinner with the President of the United States at my home in Boston, Bob was always eager to serve--and he had a tremendous capacity to enlist others in the fights in which he was engaged. The real measure, though, of Bob Morrow, was in his devotion to family. Few conversations with Bob did not come back to Linda and the boys. He was incredibly proud of his family. He was a wonderful son to his mother Mary, a terrific brother to his sisters. I know that, as much as we will all miss him, his wife Linda and his sons Bobby, Sean, and Tim will miss him infinitely more. I hope they know in this time of grief and sadness, we extend to them our most sincere condolences and support. It is impossible to capture in words alone the essence of Bob Morrow. From a humble background, through hard work and an absolutely genuine optimism and enthusiasm, Bob made himself an important contributor to our state, a wonderful and loyal friend, an exemplary husband and father, and the kind of outstanding citizen that is the foundation and strength of this nation. Bob Morrow was loved by so many--and he will be missed by us all.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are currently gridlocked over the most important issue in the country today. I don't think anybody in this Chamber would question that what the U.S. Senate and the Congress chooses to do with respect to education is going to have more to do with determining the long-term transformation that can take place socially and politically in the long run in this country. We hear countless references within almost every political speech today to the impact of globalization, the impact of technology, the changes that have taken place in the marketplace and, indeed, the extraordinary numbers of challenges that people face in the workplace today. It is almost axiomatic to say that if you are going to earn a decent living in the United States, or anywhere in the world today, you have to be able to manage information; you have to be able to develop your thinking skills. We live in an information age. Most of the good service jobs and even good light manufacturing jobs, technology-oriented jobs, and certainly the kinds of jobs to which most people aspire at the upper levels of income are absolutely dependent on the maximization of that skill level. The truth is, however, that in the United States of America today about two-thirds of our high school graduates are handed a diploma although they can read only at a basic reading level. A basic reading level, according to our testing standards, is not a proficient reading level; it is just that--it is basic. One-third of the graduates of our high schools are at below basic reading level. It is extraordinary that 30 percent of all the students in our country who go to college begin college taking remedial courses to fix what they didn't do properly in high school--remedial writing, remedial math, remedial reading. And colleges are literally required to expend--some might argue, waste--a considerable portion of the collegiate experience bringing people up to the level that they should have been when a principal handed them a diploma--or the chairman of the school board, or whatever dignitary is there--handed them a diploma, and said, ``Congratulations. You are ready to go out into the world and earn conceivably a low-level income, or perhaps even minimum wage.'' I don't think most of my colleagues would argue with the notion that the public school system of this country is in distress. That is why we have such a tension on the floor and in our politics between vouchers and some of the priorities of those who approach reform differently. Most of the debate last year on the floor of the U.S. Senate was focused on either the voucher solution--which is in the end not a solution at all to the problem of fixing public schools--or it focused on construction money and technology money but barely enough on the issue of accountability: How do we guarantee that reforms are put into the schools that are really going to make a difference in how students learn and in how we will know that they are in fact learning? So Republicans and Democrats talked past each other, each intent on their own sort of ideological goals, with the end result that the Congress did precious little to fix the schools, and another grade, if you will--the kids who went from the 11th to 12th, the kids who graduated from high school, the kids who went from middle school to high school, or elementary school to middle school--all were sort of pushed on in the same state of inadequacy that has characterized the school systems for too long. I know my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle want good schools. I have also become convinced that one of the things which most restrains them from joining in some of the Democrat initiatives is the conviction they have that without accountability, without adequate change in the fundamental structure, without adequate capacity to really push the envelope of reform, they would be spending good money that would be chasing bad. I have to say in all candor I don't disagree with that--that in many school systems, if all we do is throw money at the problem, we are not going to be achieving what we want. There is, however, something that has been happening in the United States for the last 10 years or more which we ought to take note of and respect. That is that the Governors of the States have been engaged in major reform efforts on their own. I think we in Congress ought to take more note of the legitimacy of the connection of the Governors and local governments to the same people who vote for us. They are held accountable in the same way. The races for Governor across this country are, more often than not now, fought out over the issues of whether or not the incumbent or, in an open race, which candidate is going to provide the best educational opportunities to the kids of that particular State. Indeed, they are accountable in the same way that we are accountable for what we do. I believe we in the U.S. Congress ought to be perhaps a little more sensitive to and respectful of that process of political accountability and perhaps be a little bit more willing to try to trust the Governors to embrace a certain broad set of reforms that we could in fact target or articulate through the legislative process without becoming sort of management specific, without becoming so intrusive that we tend to have taken the discretion away from them, or in fact asserted ourselves in ways that begin to become ideologically divisive rather than constructive in how we are trying to find reform. There are many areas where we could do this. I think Senator Smith and I have been trying together to frame a bipartisan approach to how we might in fact unleash a remarkable level of creative energy within the school systems of our country. I thank Senator Smith for his willingness to reach out across the aisle and to also try to be thoughtful about what we could do that would most impact the schools of this country. Mr. President, there are a number of different experiments happening in different schools in America. Private schools have engaged in certain reforms. So, generally speaking, an awful lot of private schools have had an easier road to go down for a lot of reasons that are inherent in the nature of private schools. The nature of their student population, the ways in which they are able to manage, the sort of streamlined accountability that exists within a private school-- there are a whole series of reasons. But there are things we can learn from private schools. There are things we can learn from parochial schools. I often hear people say, ``Gee, go to any parochial school and look at the level of discipline you have,'' or, ``Go to a parochial school and you will find people teaching for less than you see them teaching in public schools, and they teach as effectively or perhaps more effectively in some cases.'' The question is legitimately asked: How is it that in a parochial school you have this broad mix and diversity of student population sometimes found in the inner-city and you are able to do better than you are in a public school? There are some reasons for that, incidentally. There is a certain kind of creaming that takes place, inadvertently perhaps sometimes, even consciously, or just by virtue of economics, by virtue of even the small fee that people are required to pay, or the simple fact that to get to a parochial school, you need a parent involved in your life who is both sensitive enough and caring enough to get you there, to take you there, to make the decision to pull you out of the other school. For too many kids who are stuck in our school system, their parents, regrettably, are not that involved. They don't have those kinds of choices in front of them. They aren't aware of them. They do not know how to effect them. There are a whole lot of reasons you wind up with disparities between the schools. But the truth is that there are practices within a parochial school which could serve as a model for what we might try to adopt or try to implement in public schools. There are obviously charter schools. Charter schools are the reaction to what is happening in the public school system. Charter schools have grown because people are increasingly despairing of whether or not they will be able to achieve the changes they want in their public school. So charter schools come along, and all of a sudden people say, ``Oh, boy, we can escape from the albatross of bureaucracy. We can get out from under the sort of school board politics. We can finally put our kids in a classroom that doesn't have 28 or 33 kids. We are going to get the magic 12 to 18 or something.'' So people say, ``I am going to go for this opportunity,'' and so all of a sudden the charter school increases in popularity. It is a reaction to the failure of the public school system. But here is the most important thing of all. All across this country, in community after community after community, there are great public schools. There are public schools that work brilliantly. They are not failing; they are on the rise. And what they say to us is that if we pay enough attention to this and work hard enough at trying to fix the things that are broken, you can make a public school great. No one in this country should doubt that. Because most of the generation that went ahead of us, and the generation before that-- generations that are being extolled in book after book now: Tom Brokaw's ``The Greatest Generation'' or other books that are out--all of those generations, the vast majority of them, came out of public schools, public schools that faced a different set of problems than the public schools of today, and those public schools were able to respond. The bottom line is, and I will repeat this again and again and again, there are not enough private schools, there will never be enough charter schools fast enough, and there are not enough vouchers to save an entire generation of young people when 90 percent of the kids in America go to school in public schools. So the real challenge to the U.S. Senate is not to get locked up in a debate about vouchers and not to get locked up in a debate about some targeted narrow area of reform. The real challenge to the U.S. Senate is, can we come together around a broad set of reforms that will empower the States and local communities to be able to embrace the best practices of any of the schools that work, a public school that can look to any other school and draw on those practices and put them into place? And the bottom line truth is we are not going to do that without a major increase in resources. I was delighted to see that the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, recently embraced the notion that we should put somewhere in the vicinity of $40 billion into education over the next 5 years, and put it back in the States, liberating the States to be able to embrace real reform. I believe that is a minimum figure, but it is a figure that Senator Smith and I and others have talked about over the last year or so. That is the raw, essential ingredient necessary to guarantee the kind of broad-based massive reform effort that will help to guarantee the kind of education structure that we want. No one should doubt if you want a tax cut in America in the long run, invest in children today. If you want to stop the extraordinary increases in spending in the criminal justice system or for chronic unemployment or for drug abuse or for other problems that come out of our juvenile justice system, or a host of other areas, the best thing we could do is guarantee that kids are not running around the streets in the afternoon or going home to empty homes and apartments after school and getting into trouble, or not doing their homework. I don't know what happened to the fundamental notion of raising children: children need structure, and structure in the earliest stages can be provided in schools or in community centers when parents are working until late hours of the evening and are less available to take care of their kids than they were in the past. Within that context of reform, there are a number of things that could be done. They range from attracting stronger teachers by loan repayment programs or by incentives to draw the higher tiers of SAT scores into teaching for a period of time. There are a number of ways in which we could provide incentives to college graduates who come out of school with $50,000-plus of loans and who need desperately to earn a decent base income to raise a family and to get ahead. We could help supplement that capacity of school districts, particularly in low-tax- base areas where they do not have the ability to do this on their own; we could help them get the best teachers, which is what we want. We could also help school districts deal with the problem of technology. We could also help provide the capacity for ongoing professional education or mentoring. We could help schools keep their doors open into the evenings. We could help turn schools into real centers of community learning for parent and child--alike, into the evening hours. But one of the most important things we could do--Senator Smith and I were going to offer an amendment to the Ed-Flex bill on this--one of the most important things we could do is help deal with the problem of principals. In every blue-ribbon school that I have ever gone into, I have found that the first ingredient that hits you about why that school earned the blue-ribbon award, or why it is a singularly strong school within the public school system, is you will find a principal with extraordinary capacity. I could cite schools in Massachusetts--the Saltonstall School up in the North Shore, or the Jacob Hiatt School in Worcester, or the Timilty Middle School in Roxbury. In all of the schools where I found great learning going on and great enthusiasm, I found, without exception, it was a direct result of an extraordinary principal who was helping to drive the energy of that school. I think every one of us knows the great impact that a principal makes on a school--principals who are real leaders; principals who can build the vital relationships between teachers, parents, students and the community; principals who are trained and talented enough, when it comes to leadership and when it comes to management, to understand all the nuances of modern education and all the ways they can implement good practices within their school. Without a principal doing that, it is not going to happen. Here is the reality. As we talk about providing more flexibility in public education, which is what Ed-Flex does, and as we talk about turning over more control on the local level, we are really talking about providing greater responsibility to the 65,000 or so principals in our public schools. I would like to just point to this chart. This is how we approach the issue of training principals in America today. The fact is that less than half of the school districts in the United States have formal or on-the-job training or mentoring programs for new principals. That comes at a time when we have a greater need for new principals than we had, just as we have a need for new teachers. In the next 10 years, we need to hire 2 million new teachers. Mr. President, 60 percent of those new teachers have to be hired in the next 5 years. If we don't have an effective principal who is managing a school effectively and searching for those best teachers, we are not going to fulfill this extraordinary opportunity with the hiring that we ought to have, and we are not going to wind up implementing the reforms in the way we ought. Let me just quote the executive director of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. He said: Schools are going without principals, retired principals are being called back to full-time work, and districts have to go to great lengths to recruit qualified candidates. I believe that this is the unheralded crisis of our education system, the quality of our principals and their capacity to be able to lead and effect reform. It is remarkable that we currently provide so little assistance to the people we trust to do the most important job of education reform. I do not believe we can leave it to chance, that every single principal has received the training or the skills needed to be the kind of dynamic leader that education reform requires. As the National Association of Secondary School Principals said in their letter supporting this amendment: As the individuals most responsible for implementing vision, direction, and focus for their schools, these leaders must be fortified with the best sources of knowledge and skills required to effectively manage positive change. If we want flexibility to have the kind of impact that I think everybody in the Senate wants, then we have to guarantee as best we can that we help the local communities be able to provide qualified principals in each school who can apply that freedom we are giving them to the work of raising student achievement. That is why Gordon Smith and I want to introduce a title of our legislation, the Excellent Principals Challenge Act, as an amendment to the Ed-Flex bill, as a way of investing in the school leadership that we need. The amendment that we contemplate would provide grants to the States to provide funds to our local school districts for ongoing education and training for our principals, to empower them to learn all the best management and business skills the private sector has to offer, and to gain a knowledge of the most effective teaching practices in the country. So even if the principals themselves have not been teachers, as many of them have not been within decades, they can work with the teachers on their staff to help kids learn and to really give our principals the knowledge they need about education technology so they can put to use the new modern instruments of teaching that are now coming to the classroom. We also need them to be able to seek out and build the collaboratives and the partnerships with business and with the high-tech community to graduate students who are genuinely ready for the information age. Our amendment would also commission a report on the best practices of the best principals in the country, create a sharing of best practices so that we really start documenting what works best, not in theory, but the reality of what happens in our classrooms, so that Governors and school board leaders and principals in the years to come can bring good ideas to scale in every principal's office in this country. These are really some of the most important investments that we can make, if we are going to trust that the reforms we want so desperately are going to be implemented in our schools. There are many people of talent who we should encourage to become principals of schools; people who have left the public sector, people who have left the military at a young age, but who have great leadership skills and leadership development. There are many other examples across this country--CEOs who have retired at an early age because they have been very successful with their companies. They have great management skills, great leadership skills. We should be reaching out to these people all across this country to ask them to come in and be part of the job of helping to save our schools. At an investment that we offer of simply $100 million a year, including a 25-percent matching grant required from States and local school districts, exempting our poor districts, we believe this investment will leverage the local energies so badly needed in order to invigorate new school leadership and make reform work across the country. I come from an Ed-Flex State. Based on what we have learned in Massachusetts, it is clear that we should increase the flexibility we give to our schools. I have also been willing to recognize, and I have learned that it is not just the flexibility that brings us reform. In fact, if you give flexibility, but do not have strong leadership in place, or you do not have the kind of capacity to put best practices in place from other school systems in the country, then you will not have reform, and flexibility itself will be given a bad name. You cannot bring about these kinds of comprehensive efforts without terrific leadership, and that leadership should come from, must come from principals within each school. It is the first and most important commitment. As the National Association of Secondary School Principals wrote in their letter of support, this amendment addresses the critical professional development needs of principals as they seek to improve learning for all students. I hope when the time comes, whether it is on this bill or conceivably in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, colleagues will join together in embracing not just the effort to provide a better avenue for stronger principals to come into the school system, but will embrace a set of reforms that will truly liberate our schools so that good thinking and common sense can take over from bureaucracy. I think we need a major overhaul of the current structure, but I think if the U.S. Congress were willing to hold out to our schools the most significant incentive grant proposal we have ever provided, we would see the most dramatic change at the fastest rate that we could ever contemplate. Whether it is the hiring of new, stronger teachers, whether it is the lowering of classroom size, whether it is providing the capacity for classrooms that do not currently exist, whether it is raising the capacity of our principals, or even implementing the standards we know we need to measure student performance or even teacher performance, these things are the sine qua non of any kind of legitimate education reform. It is time for the U.S. Senate to embrace real reform, not another set of Band-Aids, not a simple little trinket here and a simple little trinket there that satisfies one political party or another or one constituency or another. A broad-based reform ought to be something that we can all understand. I hope we can cross the aisle and build the kind of coalition of bipartisanship that will make this the year of genuine education reform in the country. We have talked about it for too long. We have lost too many kids to the lack of our capacity to build that coalition. Now is the time to make it happen. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield such time as needed to my colleague, Senator Smith of Oregon.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am not sure it is subject to an objection anyway, since I have the floor. I believe I am entitled to speak. But that said, it may be that, depending on how things go with this bill overall, we may decide at an appropriate time that it is worth submitting the amendment, but I think we have to see what the flow is going to be with respect to this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. KERRY. Depending on how things proceed.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am sure Senator Smith and I will be able to finish by that time----

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, just to let the distinguished chairman and manager know, it is my understanding that the sponsor of the pending amendment does not wish at this time for it to be set aside. In lieu of remaining in a quorum call, Senator Smith and I have decided not to, in fact, ask for a vote on our amendment, but we would like to proceed to at least talk about it for a period of time, and then obviously we will not introduce it, and we will not, therefore, have to withdraw it.

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend John McCain to introduce the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, to ensure that our disabled and elderly citizens have the same opportunity to vote as the rest of us--in private and at a polling place. Despite the intention of a voter accessibility law passed in 1984, many individuals with physical challenges are literally left outside the polling place, unable to exercise their fundamental right to vote without embarrassing themselves or relying on others to cast their ballot for them. As abysmally low as voter turnout is for the population as a whole, it is estimated that the rate of voter participation by persons with disabilities is even lower--as much as 15-20 percent according to some surveys. Among the reasons for this gap is that polling places are not accessible to people with physical disabilities. This is the case, despite the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEHA) of 1984, which requires polling places to be physically accessible to both older voters and voters with disabilities. Unfortunately, the VAEHA does not define an ``accessible'' voting place, nor does it place responsibility for making a voting place accessible with any particular agency or official. Since the 1984 act was passed, many polling places have improved their accessibility. Nevertheless, according to the Federal Election Commission, which tracks accessibility under the 1984 act, there were some 19,500 inaccessible polling places in 1992--the last time for which statistics are available. And, since the FEC report relied on self-reporting by voting precincts, the actual number of inaccessible polling places in likely to be even higher. The result is that there are still too many instances where disabled voters must resort to what is known as ``curbside voting.'' According to a survey by the National Voter Independence Project, 47 percent of polling places are inaccessible because they don't have a wide enough path from the street, there are no signs directing disabled people where to go, or stairs or narrow doorways block wheelchair access. Disabled voters who go to inaccessible polling places are told to honk their car horn, or ask a passerby to get the attention of the polling official, who must then bring a ballot out to the disabled voter or carry him or her into the voting place. Rather than face this indignity, many disabled voters choose not to vote. Why shouldn't they just vote by absentee ballot? Because voting is a community event in which those without disabilities can choose to participate. Disabled voters deserve the same voting rights as everyone else. If they vote by absentee ballot, they should do so because they choose to, not because they have to. Visually impaired voters--many of whom are older Americans--also often face certain indignities when they attempt to exercise their fundamental right of a secret vote. If they cannot see the ballot, they are told to bring someone into the voting booth with them, to read the ballot for them and cast their vote. An extraordinary 81 percent of visually impaired individuals had to rely on others to mark their ballots for them, according to the National Voter Independence Project. The secret ballot is so basic to our democratic system that it is shocking that it is denied to so many. The right to vote at a polling place and in private can be provided to the elderly and disabled for a very low price. State election agencies may incur some costs in bringing their polling places into compliance, however, these are expenses already required of the states by the 1984 law. More importantly in most cases, the costs are not likely to be high. The FEC noted that improvements seen in 1992 ``were in many cases achieved merely by relocating polling places to accessible buildings at no cost to the taxpayers.'' Where polling places are not accessible to individuals with physical disabilities, they can be moved to already accessible buildings, such as malls, public libraries and schools. In many instances, access would be improved by putting up signs directing persons with disabilities to accessible entrances. These and other simple solutions have been implemented by some precincts at only minimal cost. Improving access for the visually impaired can also be a low-cost endeavor for states. Many visually impaired individuals would be able to vote independently if the ballots were simply in larger type. Providing a tape recording of the ballot for the visually impaired to listen to is another solution that has been implemented by a few precincts for very low cost. It is a small price to pay to guarantee our fundamental rights to all of our citizens. Those who would benefit from this bill include the men and women who were injured serving our country in the armed forces. Other beneficiaries would be elderly citizens who may have voted regularly throughout their lives, and only their failing vision keeps them from voting now. Still others on whose behalf we offer this bill are victims of accidents, illnesses, or genetic disorders. Is there any one among those individuals who should be denied the right to participate in the voting process? Of course not. It is for them, Mr. President, that we offer this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.